Cricket 1892

430 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. SEW '. 15, 1892 I think I know how the law is generally interpreted, and have never been pre­ sent at a match where any dispute arose. One foot must be behind: the other canbe either before or behind. If that be correct, then the ball may be delivered from any point behind the crease, a yard if you like, or even more. Now would not the insertion of two words into the Law make it quite plain—“ With one foot at least." Anyhow, what is for everybody’s use, ought to be made simple enough to bother nobody. Here’s a curious example of ignorance I came across lately. I waswatching the leading club in the Yorkshire town where I live; it is a club that plays only the strongest clubs in the West Biding. Mid-on made a catch very close to the ground, but didn’t appeal; no more did any of the out-players. So the batsman continued his innings. When the interval came I asked the fielder about it. It was no bump-ball, and he made the catch; “ but my hand was touching the ground at the time, and so it was not a bona-fide catch.” I askedhim to find the Law con­ firming hisopinion, at the same time pro­ ducing a copy of the laws which I always haveaboutmeonacricket field. Ofcourse, no such law was found. But he assured me that his opinion was common to nearly all his club members. Well, young lads have some laws of their own manufacture, as e.g., you are out if you play the ball with the wrong side of the bat, and not out if the ball is a sneak, and the like; and we condone such excesses of zeal in them. Bat there is no excuse for any others. The written laws must suffice in their case. Only do read them, and re-read them, till you know them by heart. There are only fifty-four of them, and half an hour a day for a week will make us all masters of them. (A telegram from Hastings just to hand : At 2 p.m. W.G. and W.W. are both not out, each having scored over 50. So that lifts the “ old man ” up into the “ 1000” scorers. Bravo !) And Hastings' reminds me of some­ thing. I was there some two or three years ago. W.G. lilt a ball—an on- drive—which Gunn caught. As a matter of fact, when he made tho catch the ball was over tho boundary. W.G. hesitated before leaving tho wicket, though given -‘ out.” But Gunn was standing inside the boundary, though his hand was outside. Was the ball dead or not ? And suppose there were no boundaries—and the ball rebounded from a wall, etc., and was then caught, what then ? Law 22 simply says that the ball must “ be held before it touch the ground." Then the batsman shall be “ out; ” yet would any reliable umpire feel justified in giving such a decision ? I may touch upon the season’s averages next week, if I can find space. Looking at the bowling analysis, as published this morning, I was surprised to find how much more work some bowlers do than others, and for prac­ tically the same, or similar, results. I don’t refer to maiden overs, because I never look at that column; they are all moonshine in my judgment, and might with advantage be omitted. But glance down the list, and you’ll find that several bowlers have this year taken more than 100 wickets apiece; never mind their names, there are ten in all, and their averages range somewhere between 13 and 16 runs per wicket. Then look at the first column—“ overs bowled,” howstartlingthe contrast shown there; two of these ten bowlers have delivered more than 1300 overs, whilst one has sent down only 656. Another curious item is that one bowler has taken thirteen more wickets than another, and yet has bowled 490 overs less ! Now then, thought I, if the one object of a bowler is to get his opponents out—that and that alone—then isn’t he the great­ est bowler who accomplishes this most speedily ? Certainly, he is the most deadly, and therefore the most service­ able to his side. It was this one feature that gavo Spofforth his pre-eminence over all his contemporaries, Australian or English. What if, for the future, we were to gauge bowling, not by the runs per wicket, but by the number of overs delivered for every wicket. It may be worth thinking over. Andwhilst on this branch of the game, another suggestion may be thrown out. Why isn’t bowling rated as high as bat­ ting ? Every experienced captain knows that a great bowler is to be preferred to a great batsman, and he, if wise, would choose his bowlers before his batsmen. With the bowling all right, he need have no misgivings. Yet batting, if up to a certain standard, is always rewarded: bowling, no matter how exceptional, rarely is. I like the “ talent sovereign,” so-called; I believe it obtains on all grounds, county and club alike. That was not the case once upon a time. When I was a lad, down South it used to be given publicly; and what a pleasant break in the game this presentation (after a neat little complimentary speech) used to make. That long avenue of small boys, stretching from the wicket to the pavilion stops, and through which the hero of the bat had to pass, will never fade out of memory. To save time, the sovereign is now given privately. Quite right. But why shouldn’t there be a similar standard for bowling, and a similar substantial reward ? It would not bo difficult to fix the standard. Tho state of the wicket need not be considered anymore than it is in batting. Eor a single innings fix the minimum; let it be, say, six wickets at a cost of five runs apiece. That, in these days of high-class batting and of perfect pitches, is a very severe test. Give a sovereign for bowling of that quality. And i!2 for eight wickets at a cost of four runs. And what for all the wickets in an innings? Nothing less than a note. And surely a “ catch in a thousand” should not be overlooked. I have heard of one County Captain, beloved by his team above all other Captains, who, out of his own pocket, testifies to his appreciation of a wonderful bit either ofbowling or fielding. I feel at liberty to mention these things because, to the best of my knowledge, not a single living professional cricketer knows me by name, though I often have a chat with many of them. And they are such downright good fellows that I shall be delighted to hear that their fees were raised. What a patient, all-enduring class they are. Whoever heard of a “ strike ” among them ? Their present fees would be large enough, perhaps, if our English cricket season lasted eight months, and not barely five. Association football pays much better ; many of its exponents get asmuch as £175 (and more), and they have no expenses to deduct, no, not even their uniforms. Surely, when some county grounds attract asmany thousands of spectators as they once drew hundreds, it is high time that the men who have been the chief agents in increased balance-sheets, should dip a little deeper into the lucky bags. L il l y w h it e ’ s M onum ent in H ighgate C e m e te r y . “ The cost of thoroughly renovating it, re-blacking 446 letters on sides of monu­ ment, and leading in imperishable letters the inscription of 642 letters on front of same to Lillywhite’s memory, will be ^£166s.” I have communicated indirectly with Miss Lillywhite, the eldest daughter of the famous cricketer, and have her per­ mission to go forward with this work. Mr, Lawrence, of Cheltenham, who is marriedto a granddaughter of old “ Lilly,” has sent me a donation of 10s. for this purpose. I beg to enclose a similar sum along with this to the Editor of C r ic k e t , who will be happy to acknowledge any contributions. May I urge upon tho present generation of cricketers to dis­ charge their debt to the memory of one of our grandest cricketers. Let the necessary funds be forthcoming imme­ diately. _________________ WHITGIST WANDERS SS (2) v. SOUTH CROYDON.—Played at South Croydon on September 10. W h it g if t W a n d e r e r s . G.B. Thwaitea, c Ard- E. R. B. Jensen, b R. ley, b A. Farwig ... 3 Farwig ................. 0 J. C. G. Harrison, c P. S. Youle, c Wool- Straker, b Jupp ... 2 coct, b Horseford 4 F. Perrin c Wooicott, A. G. Green, bHorse- b R. f’arsvig......... 13 ford ........................ 0 R. S. McJu loch, c R. D. McKenzie, b K. andbJupp .......... 0 Farwig ................. n A. W. coopar, b A. H. O. Green, not out 9 Farwig ................. 0 B 0, to 2 ................ 8 H. V Green, c W'oo'- —. cott, b Horseford... 13 Total .......... G j S o u t h C r o y d o n . R. Horseford, b 8. Wilkinson, b Harrison................. 2 Perrin ................. 0 P. Farwig, b Harrison 3 R. Farwig, c Perrin, C. Jupp, c Cooper, b b Harrison .......... 1 Harrison................ 9 A. Ardley, retired C. Wooicott, b hurt........................ 0 Harrison................. 2 C.T.Shephard-3mith, A. Farwig, lbw, b not out ................. 1 I’erria ................. 1 B 5, l b l................. 6 W. Hards, b Perrin... 2 — T. W. Strakcr, c Total .......... 27 McCullocli.bPerrin 0 DULWICH v. MITCHAM.-Played at Burbage Road, Dulwich, on September 7. M it c h a m . N. A. Harvey, c E. J. J. Caffarey, b Bull ... 4 Heasman, b Darby 19 W. Jones, not out ... 10 H. Pillinger, c Mayo, Lyddon, b Darby ... 3 b Pearse.................. 7 Keene, b Bull .......... 4 A. F. Clarke, b E. H. Harris, not out ... 1 Heasman................45 B 18, lb 5 ..........23 T. P. Harvey, c B — Heasman. b Bull... 1 T o ta l............126 Boxall, b Bull ........... 9 Norman did not bat. Innings declared closed. D u l w ic h . E. J. Heasman, b Boxall ................. 0 H. Thompson, run out ........................19 A. H. Knott, run out 30 E. H. Heasman, not out ........................35 T. R. Pearse, not out 40 B 2, lb 1 .......... 3 T o ta l..........127 H. Darby, R. Bull B. Heasman, C. Dock, R. E. Mayo, and O. Jones did not bat.