Cricket 1892

Reel92Soa?M7TtaT0njiB8iottAbto»a. THURSDAY, JULY 21, 1892 PBIOE 2d. CRICKET NOTCHES. B y t h e B e y . R. S. H o lm e s . Som bbody writes me : “ I hit a ball to the boundary which the umpire had previously called wide. Could I claim a four hit ? ” No, not without the umpire’s consent. Suppose he turned obstinate and insisted on the wide for no other reason than that he had called wide, there is nothing for you buc to grin and bear. True, you might appeal to the other umpire, but the chances are he would refuse to give any de­ cision at all that might reflect either on the capability or conscience of his chum. When the first English band of cricketers visited America in 1859, old Bob Carpenter, whom one is pleased to see still on the cricket field, was caught out from a wide. Was he out? Was the ball dead or not ? This matter wants sifting. Of course the simplest course would be for the umpires to know the Laws thoroughly, or, if they don’t know them, to have their special attention called to them the very moment they betray their ignorance. Onelawenacts—I quote from memory, having no cricket book at hand in London—that the umpire shall call wide as soon asthe ball shall pass the striker, but not a moment earlier. Had that law been observed in the two cases cited above, much heart-burning had been avoided. The laws are all right: they simply want faithful interpretation. Let none conclude from this or previous “ Notches ” that I have a mean opinion of umpires as a class. Far from it. I often “ stand ” my­ self in boys’ matches, the most en­ joyable perhaps of all matches, and know something of the peculiar difficulties attaching to that respon­ sible post. It is impossible to see everything. On the whole the work is done with splendid efficiency. Where it isn’t, captains are largely to blame. How often in club cricket this is heard—“ will somebody be good enough to umpire ? ,f Now somebody means anybody, and the anybody who is always ready to oblige is mostly an elderly, respectable old fossil who did once upon a time play a sort of cricket, but who is as ignorant of the points of the game as the historic man in the moon. Should he make mistakes, who can marvel? My constant wonder is that he trips so seldom. Every captain, playing away from home, should see to it that he provides his team with the ser- Players won easily with ten wickets to spare. It was Shrewsbury’ s opportunity, and as nearly half the runs scored—151 not out, out of 325—came from his bat, the value of his services cannot be well overpraised. Anyhow, Henderson was the runner-up with a modest 36. I was very glad the little Surreyite got his place, even though hewas notin the original list. He is one of our most scientific bats, and so modest withal that he is liable to be passed over by the authorities. A man needs to advertise himself in cricket as in every branch of work. Of Shrews­ bury’s innings enough has been said already: some were at hand with the depreciatory “ but:” one always expects this. Why W. G. in his prime “ had no style,you know.” Shrewsbury has the style, but “ he never forces the game.” He gets runs, however. And so can you and I, when playing cricket from the Pavilion seats, nowhere else. If the great Notts bat shooses to take five hours to score 150, by all means let him. If I could run up such an innings, I shouldn’t apolo­ gize, even though it occupied twice as much time. The only adverse criticism I can throw out respecting Shrewsbury’s play applies to nearly all our present-day crack bats; they let pass too many off-balls. Oh! it does put my back up to watch them refusing to cut many cut-able balls. W.G. never did that. When I saw Shrewsbury at Trent Bridge last week get 116, against Yorkshire, and was saddened by this negative play of his, my heart was refreshed by the following remark in the shrillest of voices from the pavilion threshold—“ If poor old Parr had been playing to day, he would slam every one of those balls to the boundary.” Daft told me last Thursday, when I uttered my jeremiad in his hearing, that I should have been happy for once could I have seen W. G.’s 63 in Shaw’s Benefit Match in May last; he let off nothing he could possible cover, and the result was one of the most dashing efforts seen for many a year on the Nottingham County Ground. Shrewsbury last year at Lord’s carried his batthrough the Players’ only innings. A. P. Lucas did the same in the “ Tie ” Match—the only one of the whole series of 124—of 1893. I can think of no other similar feats in this historic match. Just a line must be found for two brilliant innings on the side of the Amateurs—Walter Read’s first of 70, and Stanley Scott’s second of 80—both A 1. It should be mentioned that Shrewsbury’s 151 is the record profes- viccs of a true and worthy umpiro, if he is not to be opposed by a side that should be called at least thirteen or fourteen men, provided lie has to raise ” an umpire on his opponents’ ground, and therefore from their ranks. All the enthusiasm we can spare i« now centreing in the County Championship Com­ petition,which will monopolizethe programme for the next five or six weeks. In consequence, the second Gents v. Players match must be contented with a back seat. And indeed that is its proper place on its own showing. A dull match throughout—teams unrepresent­ ative, weather very dirty after the Monday, and the gates unsatisfactory. Some of the cricketers approached either could not or would not come. The former—among whom most reluctantly figured Gunn, Attewell, and W.G.—we forgive; accidents will happen ; the latter—among whom appear many names we have no intention to reproduce—well, we will try and overlook it this once. The