Cricket 1892

“Together joined in cricket’s m an ly toil.*’— Byron. EegisSred^ot^TranBmfBs^nAbroad. THURSDAY, AUGUSl 4 , 1 8 9 2 P B IO E 2d. CRICKET_NOTCHES. B y t h e R ev . R . S . H olm es. “ H ow to bowl shooters ? ” is one more question addressed to m e by an unknown. It has a suspicious look about it, especially as the handwriting seems to indicate that my correspondent may not yet be out of his teens. Is he having me on ? Still it must have often occurred to many of us to ask owr- selves , if nobody else, what is the cause of shooting balls. I have m any a tim e pondered over it. If I had solved the problem , I would at once patent it, and then sell it to the highest bidder. It is nearly as difficult as a problem in Qua­ dratics many persons have spent years over—how to live on nothing a year, and save: or another like unto it—how to keep wicket to your own bow ling: shooters depend, of course, very largely on the con­ dition o f the ground ; we all know that. But hasn’t the mode of delivery a lot to do with them ? O nly last week I was watching some young lads at play. The pitch was sound enough, and two of the lads, within a quarter of an hour,- bowled from the same end, and sent down balls of m uch about the same length. The bowlers in question were some 6ft. each in height, and each raised the hand well above the shoulder. To my sur­ prise, the ball in the one case rose time after time above the stumps, in the other case it as invariably shot. This difference in results set me thinking. I then got them later on to bowl twelve balls a-piece, without disclosing m y purpose. I then noticed that the kicking bowler sent down a perfectly plain ball; whilst the shooting bowler had a wristy delivery, which, though not sufficient to put any noticeable off- break on, seemed to m e to account for the deadly shooters he put in every three out of four balls. But I m ay be wrong. I have noted that a low, slinging delivery appears to result in a goodly number of shooters; so also does a very high action not seldom. A nd in the old Lord’s days, when the wickets were none of the best, and when the arm of the bowler could not be raised above the shoulder — i.e. prior to 1864—it was no unusual thing for the ball bowled from this height to bound over the head of batsman and stumper, and stumper, and, without touching ground again, lit right into longstop’s hands. Another notch—and re the laws again. Two professional bowlers, differing as to the m eaning of Law 28, have been looking me u p ; m y word was to be final. I transcribed the law under dispute; “ either batsman is out if in running, or at any other tim e while the ball is in play, he be out of his ground, and his wicket be struck down by the ball after touohing any fieldsman, or by the hand or arm, with ball in hancl% of any fieldsman.” The italicised words form the crux. A nd well they m ay. Does it mean M R . G. J. V. W E IG A L L .— (Seep. 335), that the hand which strikes down the wicket m ust at the time be holding the ball ? Or is it enough that, with ball in one hand, the other hand knocks the stumps ? I go for the latter interpretation, and for this reason. In the m ajority of sharp returns to a very smart stumper, it is quite impossible for any umpire to see whether it was the ball or the keeper’s fingers that struck the bails off. In that case the law is superfluous, because unneces­ sary. Ought it not to be sufficient to put the wicket down any way you like, provided you hold the ball at the time ? I would not lim it the choice of the fielder, but would almost go to the length of allowing him to use his foot as well as his em pty hand for the purpose. Again I feel that I may be in error. So once more I would respectfnlly urge a fresh revision of the laws of the M.C.C. in order that several vexed points may be settled once and for all. T he past week has been a quiet one and devoid of thrilling incident. There has been an ominous lull before the storm. The men of Notts had an off week, and their runners-up from Surrey have had three days in hiding in which to fight in ‘imagination the big battle of this Bank Holiday. H ow have they been faring ? There are no evening papers in the pro­ vinces to day, and I quite forgot to ask a man on the spot to send me a wire. Patience then till morning. There was a drawn match at Bradford last Monday whan Glou­ cestershire m et Yorkshire. I pre­ dicted it at the outset when I in­ spected the wicket and recalled some famous matches on the best run-getting ground in the Northern Shire. It is a batsman]s paradise, and gives many a “ failure ” else­ where a chance of increasing their average. Yorkshire’s largest ag­ gregate was made there in 1887, against Lancashire; 690 was their first total, but as Cottonopolis re­ sponded to the tune of 303 and 317 for eight wickets, no decision could be arrived at. In their last match the run-getting throughout was slow on such a wicket, two days being required to complete innings of 276 and 295. Four of the Westerners averaged about 60 runs a-piece; their best man in the two hands being W .G . with 53 and 32. I was delighted to see him looking so well, though he went very slow between the wickets, and his grip of the hand was, as usual, something to be remembered by a man whose only tool in constant use is a pen. F or Yorkshire, Wardall carried off leading honours, with a splendid 105, made in the most confident and commanding style. The more I see of his play, the more I like it. He shapes every inch a cricketer, and his sound defence and m ighty thumps rem ind one of U lyett at his best. It is passing strange that he could have been shunted during the present season. W ith his 112 v. Liverpool, 57 v. Surrey, this century v. Glos’tershire, and with a splendid double—60 and 107—though only against the Durham attack on Saturday last, he must be regarded as the com ing man,