Cricket 1892

81 8 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. JULY 28, 1892 An umpire (amateur) has appealed to me for counsel. I will quote his letter: “ The bowler delivered a ball before the batsman was ready; he struck at the ball, however, holding the bat in his right hand only. The ball struck him on the left hand, passed off the stumper’s into the long- stop’s hand. I gave him not out; was I right ? ” I should say, N o : he was out, in that he took the ball, though in this half-hearted fashion. True, the hand struck was not on the bat at the time, bat Law No. 22 does not state that he must be so. It simply enacts that “ if tho ball from a stroke of tho bat, or hand,” without explicitly tolling us where the hand must be: no doubt it takes for granted that the hand clasps the bat. The batsman should have refused to take the ball, by step­ ping on one side of the wicket, and then no Bother would have arisen. By-tke-bye, isn’t it somewhat remarkqljle that no mention is made in the Laws of the privilege of a bats­ man to refuse to take a ball before he is quite ready to receive it ? Yet, as we know, many a batsman asserts this privilege, and his action is never called into question. The same correspondent tells me that in the same match there was a “ man playing with one arm, and that the left one.” He adds that he had never seen, nor even heard of, a similar case. But many years ago, “ One Arm v. One Leg ” was a regular fixture on the Surrey programme. I remember once seeing this match at the Oval. It was rare fun, if not high-class cricket. The “ One Legs ” in­ variably won, as might be expected. There was at least one batting hero on their side, Ben Neal, if my memory serve me faithfully. I fancy the match was nearly always played in the interests of some charity connected with the Licensed Victuallers, and was always a big “ draw.” But it was no more cricket than the Clowns’ matches of later date. Talk­ ing of one-handed batsmen, I distinctly recall that glorious past-master, R. A. H. Mitchell. The year was 1865, just on the eve of the Gents v. Players match at Lord’s. The famous ground was covered with the extem­ porised grand stands that used then to be erected for the ’Varsity match. Well, Mr. Mitchell went out for some practice; Grundy and Wootton, that glorious Notts pair, ac­ companied him. They bowled their best, he batted one hand only for a part of the time just for fun. I can hear at this distance the repeated thud of the ball against the stands ; he literally knocked the bowlers all over the place, and certainly impressed me as being the most powerful hitter I had ever seen. I have never seen this feat again from that day to this. But to current cricket, though I am sorely tempted to give some other Notches this week. They will suffer nothing by keeping. The week has proved a glorious triumph for Somersetshire and Surrey, and of inglorious defeat for Yorkshire and Sussex. There are points both of similarity and of contrast in the double victories which may be recalled. Thus, Surrey won the toss twice, Somersetshire lost it. Surrey scarcely at any one stage of either match had any doubt about the final issue; Somersetshire must have had an uneasy hour in both their contests, when they had to face an ugly total in the fourth innings. On the other hand, the double victory of each county was largely the work ;of two batsmen respectively, who on each occasion stood forth conspicuously by their remarkable ability. Only there was this difference in their prowess—thus, the Surrey heroes, Walter Read and Abel, won their spurs both against Sussex and Yorkshire in their first innings, which was also the first innings in each match; whilst the Western giants, H. T. Hewett and L. 0. H. Palairet, came to the’ fore in their second innings against both Lancashire and Sussex, which proved to be the penultimate innings in both these matches. Whore there was so much glory, I have no desire to settle the vexed question of precedence. We can give a laurel wreath to each, and do none of them the smallest injustice. Abel and W.W. can claim to have twice in a week put on over a hundred—the exact numbers were 156 and 109—for the first wicket. They may well bo proud of their achievement. It is not a record, however. Why, as recently as 1890, W.G. and B.M. scored in one week for their county, and each time for the first wicket, 117 against Sussex—poor Sussex the victim again—and 139 against Lancashire. And if tho Somersetshire amateurs did not quite equal their Surrey chums in the matter of runs scored, they can at any rate boast that they scored 96 and 125 in their double partnership, and that in the former case—v. Lancashire—they were equal to a task that perhaps neither they nor any other two batsmen out of one county could be backed to accomplish again under similar difficult conditions. With two such batting gluttons, nobody can now dispute the right of tho Western county to rank as first-class. When they beat the hitherto invincible Surrey last year just on the stroke of “ time,” we all said liravo. Now we may add, Bravissime. This must suffice now. All particulars of these matches can be culled elsewhere. Yorkshire must now take a back seat. “ Bang goes our saxpence.” Twice thrashed in one week. “ Tis true, ’tis pity : and pity tis, ’tis true.” Tho Leeds matches this year will be ever memorable if only because there was one blank day in each : when Surrey were there, it rained all Monday : when Middlesex, all Tuesday. But that second effort of forty- six on the part of the Tykes cannot be alto­ gether placed to the credit of the weather or the wickets, but of something else generally called—well, we will not utter the word for fear of hurting sensitive feelings. I never hit aman when he is down, nor a County either. I know for a fact that my County friends have already abused themselves quite enough: they, one and all, admit that 46 should have had a one in front of it. It enabled Middlesex to wia, hands down, by nine wickets, and helped both Rawlin (twelve wickets for 65) and John Hearne (8 for 73) to enjoy them­ selves thoroughly for once. The Surrey v. Yorkshire contest was of a very different order. Yet that was lost before the first day was over. Not that Surrey’s score (245) was overwhelming. It was not big enough, considering the start of W.W. and Abel. But the ‘‘White Rose ” champions actually lost their first six wickets for 49 runs, and Lohmann was only a looker-on. If it had not been for Wainwright (73) and Peel (37), the chances are we should have been licked in one innings. Our second turn was full of promise, thanks to A. Sellars (55), Wardall (57), and the Light Blue Captain (48). What a crying shame it is the fates won’t be as kindly to F. S. Jackson when he dons flannels for his county, as they are for his rival—the Dark Blue skipper—whenever he turns up for his county. Palairet plays even better for Somersetshire than for Oxford. Neither Ernest Smith nor tF. S. Jackson has done himself complete justice when helping Yorkshire. Last year their only conspicuous failures were for the County of Broad Acres. The finish of this match was most remarkable. Only two Yorkshire wickets had fallen, and 129 was their total out of a gross 268 necessary to win. And Lohmann was damaged—a sprain—and would not bowl unless absolutely required. At last he was called up—and sprain notwithstanding, rattled down wicket after wicket—six in all at a cost of only 26 runs. One is tempted to ask how he would have bowled had he been all sound ? It was a comfort to know there was nothing seriously wrong. It is worth while repeating that, during the past seven or eight seasons, Surrey has never brought off a great victory in which he has not played the lion’s share. My honoured friend, Daft, like most “ old-uns ” a bit of a conservative, will have it that Caffyn is the grandest cricketer Surrey ever had. But he agrees with me, and so does a veteran in another Northern County, whose experience both of oricket and cricketers is as far-reaching as Daft’s, that Lohm'inn is our greatest English bowler. He is the greatest in any department who does most when it’s needed. I was glad that in this innings he made a mark of the stumps, hitting them six times. Of course, I like a bowler to remember he has men in the out-field. Some don’t. I could name more than one who rarely give the men on the boundary any­ thing to do. But I havo sometimes thought Lohmann is too generous to his fielders. With his genius, and double-break, and endless variety of resource, he ought to go for the wickets direct, and knook them out of shape. Glo’stershire let Notts do what they liked, and they liked to win by an innings and 100 runs. Not that the Lacemen did any mighty deeds with the bat. Out of 253, Gunn (98 not out) and Flowers (72 in just 80 minutes) did a trifle more than their share. And was not the latter missed when only 3 ? So that W.G.’s policy of putting his opponents in first was not so foolish, perhaps, as some would make out. Notts ought to be good enough for such a score in any innings—the first or tho last— against the Westerners’ by no means deadly attack. Yet isn’t it nearly always better to have first knock in a match, no matter what tho condition of the ground ? Especially in such a climate as ours. But, perhaps, W.G. knows best. Anyhow I hope to talk this over with him at Bradford this week. Bother that old sprain of his. Flowers also did well with the ball—6 for 67; Attewell did better, 9 for 52. What about the county championship now ? This time last year Surrey alone were in the running. Indeed, it was not until the middle of August that they were beaten by another first-class county, and that county, as we all remember, was none other than Somersetshire, the youngest of the “ nine.” If Surrey should thrash Sussex to-day—and there certainly is a remote probability of such a contingency—then the great fight of next Monday will perhaps prove one of the very keenest on record. Surrey and Notts will show equal points prior to that engagement. Which will win ? I prefer to be silent until after the event. Let’s hope for a continuance of this royal weather, and then the issue will be decided more by merit than by luck. My sympathies are with Surrey, the earliest love of my boyhood in the good old Surrey days; but my honest wish is that the better side may win on the Surrey enclosure. EAGLE HOUSE (SANDHURST) v. C. ARM­ STRONG’S XL (WELLINGTON COLLEGE).— Played on the Eagle House Ground on July 23. E agle H ouse . First Innings. Rev. H. Wood, not out ... 70 H. F. Reed, b G. Weigall 5 E. 8. Gooch, b E. Weigall 7 H. L. Brackenbury, b E. Weigall ........................ 1 Rev. A. N. Malan, b E. Weigall ........................ 19 T. Croft, b Labouchere ... 5 Dr. Armstrong, c Arm­ strong, b Labouchere ... 7 not out J. Var der Byl, b Labou­ chere ............................... 3 Second Innings, not out .......... 7 b E. Weigall ...1 0 b Armstrong ... 25 c Russell, b E. W eigall.......... 1 H. H. M. Harris, b Labou­ chere ............................... 2 H. C. Webster, c Stanley, b Armstrong ................. 3 J. Costeker, b Labouchere 0 Extras........................18 Total ...140 c Skipwith, b Armstrong ... 0 b E. Weigall ... 0 csub,bE.Wcigall 2 Extras ... 14 Total... 60 C. A r m s tr o n g ’s XI. E. E. Forbes, b Wood 19 G. Weigall, c and b Wood ................. 8 O. Harrington.b Croft 21 C. H. Armstrong, c Croft, b Wood A. M. Labouchere, b Wood ................. E. H. Weigall, b Reed Hon, V. A. Russell, c Croft, b Reed.......... 10 Hon. A. V. Russell, c Armstrong, b Reed 0 T.W.Skipwith.c Arm­ strong, b Wood ... 2 Hon. A. F. Stanley, run out .................20 L. Portman, not out 0 Extras.................18 Total .. 112 D artm ou th Park (2) v. B ees (2).— Played at Tufnell Park on July 23, the Dartmouth Park winning easily bv 45 runs. Scores:—Dartmouth Park, 74 ; Bees, 29. Revised “ Law s op C r ic k e t ” for 1892, together with Hints to Young Players, an instructive treatise illustrated by seven special engravings, five diagrams showing how to place a team in the field to different bowling, and copy of rules for guidance of those forming clubs, &c. Post free 4 stamps, of Wright and Co., 41 8t, Andrew’s Hill Doctors’ Commons, E.Q