Cricket 1892

“ Together joined in cricket’s manly toil. 5 ’— Bijron* Regi^e°ea?o7Tran°miksionAbroad. T H U R S D A Y , O O I O B E R 27, 1892. PRICE2d. CRICKET_NOTCHES. B y t h e E ev . E. S. H o lm e s . The captain having ordered me to con­ tinue these “ Notches ” (early word for “ Runs ”), there is nothing for me but to take down my own bat again, for it is oft this bat that most of the notches must come during the coming months. Should that bat get broken, there will be no more notches, and readers of this journal will have to wait before the real Cricket Season of 18513 opens. In other words, when the present writer has nothing more of his own to say about cricket, he will for ever after hold his peace. I was sadly at fault about that “ folio sheet mounted, containing the averages and analyses of 1849.” And just because I trusted to my memory as usual. Had I looked again at it, I should have found that the year was 1847 ; that the cost of printing (not “ compiling ”) was £10 ; and that Box was not the compiler of it but “ a member of the SurreyClub ” was, “ but for whose invaluable aid the present voucher could not have seen the light.” In this table appear the names of 174batsmen, 61 bowlers, and 9 stumpers ; and as five batters played in more than fifty innings apiece, whilst three bowlers took 459 wickets between them, Box might well say of it in the preface, “ there is more in it than at first meets the eye.” Indeed the real compiler—none other than Mr. John Burrup—has been kind enough to inform me that “ it took six months to prepare.” It was a genuine labor of love, and was generously offered to Box, who had just before started a new paper on cricket called the London Mercury. The heading of the sheet confirms this interest­ ing reminiscence. Such a thoughtful kindness was worthy of a gentleman, who, with his brother, served Surrey cricket loyally and well during its earlier years. Messrs. John and William Burrup shall ever be held in affectionate honour by all cricketers, in that for twenty-four years (1848 to 1872) they filled the arduous post ofHonorary Secretary of the Surrey County Club. They have their reward to-day. They largely helped to make Surrey cricket. To me it redounds to the unfading glory of cricket that it has always been able to command the whole-hearted devotion of men of all ranks, who have been proud to serve the game for the strong love they bore to it. No other branch of sport can boast of such unselfish loyalty. Time, brains, money have been freely laid on the altar of cricket. Such are the real patrons of sport, who follow it for its own sake. None the loss ardent is their enthusiasm whose circumstances have made it im­ possible for them to do so much. Nor shall they be passed over in this connec­ tion, to whom cricket has been more or less of a profession • they would have been no less loyal, had cricket not provided them with the ways [and means of subsistence. Some very suggestive letters have come to hand during chepast month, all asking questions, and requesting final judgment on certain disputed points. Two come from America, one all the way from India, others from home. The editor of the American Cricketer pays me a wholly un-merited compliment: “ We often say, when a knotty point crops up, we must ask R.S.H.” Please don’t. “ R.S.H.” doesn’t set up as an authority, but is simply one of the camp-followers that tries to do his level best for our grand old game. It is worth noting that practically the same question comes both from this editor and from India. By-the- bye, the curious may like to know that cricket is played at Yizagapatam—a name more easily written than spoken ; I have had six shots at it already, but must give it up. It’s a seaboard town, I find, midway between Calcutta and Madras, and has a population of some 30,000 souls. What interested me in these letters- was the reminder that cricket seems to-day to be belting the whole world round as with a girdle of fraternity. India doesn’t seem so far away now that one realises that stumps and bats are in constant request there. But to the point. It is simply this—Can a batsman be given out after being declared not out ? An illustration will make all clear. Stumper appeals for a catch— “ not out,” says the umpire ; batsman, however, had over-reached himself in playing at this ball, and got out of ground ; stumper appeals a second time ; what should the umpire now answer ? I find that I am in a minority of one, as has often happened to me. I should say “ not out.” And for this reason: an umpire’s decision makes the ball dead, even though, but for that first decision of his, he would have pronounced against the batsman for the stump-out. What do you say, friend Thoms ? The laws don’t define when a ball is dead, though No. 35 does enact that -“ after the ball shall have been - finally settled in the wicket-keeper’s or bowler’s hand, it shall be dead.” All very fine, but what does “ finally ” mean ? We used to say that whilst an over was in progress the ball wasn’t dead until the stumper had re­ turned it to the bowler; but were we right ? Another point, and from Philadelphia. Some time ago I urged that wides and no-balls should count against the bowler. I am delighted to find they do in Amer­ ica. The Yankees whop us, as usual. In the “ Inter-National Canada Match” a no-ball was hit lor runs. How should they be scored ? To the credit of the batsman, certainly. And against the bowler? Yes, I think so. A no­ ball ought to be penalized. .Suppose a fair ball, of precisely similar pitch, had been hit for runs: that of course would count against the bowler. Surely an inferior ball should also. You would not add the runs to the no-ball, any more then you do in the case of wides. A wide counts one run unless the batsmen can make two or more runs off it : in that case only the runs actually run are scored. But once more, I may be wrong. Another question from India, bearing on the meaning of words “ with ball in hand ” in Laws 23 and 28, must be left unanswered here, for want of space So must a very interesting and able letter on “ Dangerously Short Bowling.” The writer of it—,! How’s That ”—has very