Cricket 1892

462 CRICKET A WEEKLY RECORD OE THE GAME. OCT. 27, 1892 courteously forwarded it to me “ for comment,” anl lias sent it to the Sportsman and Field for publication. To cut a long (five foolscap folios) matter short, I would just say with all courtesy, is not this making “ too much ado of nothing ? ” Personally I have never seen such bowling in first-class cricket, though one heard of it down South this summer. And certain amateurs vowed awful things on the head of one bowler, which nobody took any notice of, because they were uttered in the heat of conflict, when few, if any, are absolute masters either of their judgment or their speech. Lockwood was the offender. I was anxious to see his bowling, and when he came North, watched him about as critically as ever a “ Bow Street runner” did a suspect. He certainly dropped a few short; but they were about the only poor balls he bowled. In successive overs at Leeds. Hayley pulled him for four and five. The bowler’s analysis suffered more than the batsman’s person. Aren’t all short balls easy to hit, at any rate easier than a good length ball ? The writer would introduce another “ crease,” short of which a ball should be a no-ball. Where shall it be drawn ? And is it worth while to legislate for very exceptional bowling ? What would become of the dear old “ grubs” of our boyhood ? 0. I. Thornton ought to be up in arms, see­ ing that he re-introduced genuine daisy- cutters into first-class cricket. I remem­ ber Cambridge meeting Surrey in 1870. Jupp and Dick Humphrey had notched a century in the second hands, and seemed likely to stop. C.I. was calledup, andsent down some underhand twenty-bounders, which didn’t pitch anything like half-way. With them he took three wickets before a run was scored off him. Everybody was amused, and the Surrey batsmen not a trifle disgusted at being dismissed by “ such balls.” Was it not H. H. Stephen­ son who tried to retaliate when Cambridge went in ? But somehow he hadn’t mastered the knack ; he had better have stuck to his own well-known “ break­ backs.” But I may refer again to this matter before the winter is past. I read somewhere the other day some­ thing to this effect: that if a batsman runs one short run, he must run two, for does he not start for the second run some distance short of the entire pitch ? Quite right, ingenious critic. “ Then why doesn’t the umpire call two short ” ? Well, he does as far as that batsman is concerned : that is, he has run two short. But his “two” only make one run. And for this reason. Both batsmen togethermake but one run; so that if one of them runs a short run, the other batsman gets credited only with his run, which counts one-half a run. In a hit for two then, the latter's runs (i.e., 2 half runs) alone count, and they make one whole run. So that in a 2-run, the side gets credit for bnt a single run. At least, that is my interpretation of the matter. Beading recently “ The Laws of the Noble Game of Cricket, established at the ‘ Star and Garter,’ Pall Mall, by a Com­ mittee of Noblemen and Gentlemen ” in 1755— i.e., 137 years ago, I was glad to see how simply the “ l.b.w.” question was dealt with. Here’s the Law : “ If the striker put his legs before the wicket with a design to stop the ball, and actually prevents the ball from hitting the wicket by it ” (he is out). I wish the Law had never been altered from that. Why not go back to this old setting? It would be simply “ a reversion to a former type.” And this may please some who are dissatisfied with the present “ call ” for innings, and who feel that too much depends on the spin of the coin. “ The party who goes from home shall have the choice of the innings, and the pitching of the wickets.” That, too, may be worth considering. And here’s one more notch. Why not abolish Law No. 46 altogether? “ The umpires shall not order the batsmen out unless appealed to by the other side.” The umpire question is not too satisfac­ tory. I have never yet been able to discover why they should call “ wides ” without being appealed to by the bats­ man. “ No-balls ” may be somewhat different, but cannot the non-striker be trusted to look after these ? In every other branch of sport the umpire gives his decisions without appeal. Why not in cricket? My own judgment is that we might try this change for one season at least. They would not abuse their powers. If they did, they could be quickly pulled up. There was a match at Lord’s, ever so many years ago. A wrong decision was given (quite unintentionally) against a batsman. Old Clarke (I believe it was) immediately repaired to the committee room, stated his case, which was en­ dorsed by the authorities, and the umpire had to eat his own words. I am right glad to learn that two of our greatest modern bowlers would welcome this experiment. If it did nothing else, it would require that the umpires kept all their wits about them throughout a match, else complaints would be lodged against them. But over and above this, it would put a stop to a practice all too commonwith a certain class of cricketers, of trying to “ rush” an umpire, either by a mock-confident appeal, or by an offensive tone of dictation ; this latter contemptible exhibition of authority being very noticeable often in club matches, when the umpire happens to be the club bowler, or some other person dependent on the nod of a bully or two. But I shall come back to this matter ; not for some months however, for I purpose quite other lines in the next three or four “ notches.” No more criticism of the Laws. “ A day with an old cricketer” will be a pleasanter topic next month. CRICKET IN JOHANNESBURG. A' RECORD FOR SOUTH AFRICA. HOME BOEN v. COLONIAL BOBN. The match between Home and Colonial Born at Johannesburg on Sept. 22 produced some very remarkable run-getting,constituting a record for South Africa. The Colonials went in first and were so satisfied with their score that they closed their innings with the total at 349 for eight wickets. A. B. Tancred, the best all-round cricketer in Africa, set his men an excellent example with a fine innings of 105. Good as their performance was, how­ ever, it was eclipsed by that of the other side. T. Boutledge, the late crack batsman of the Cape Town C.C., and E. A. Halliwell, one of the South African Eleven against W. W. Bead’s English Eleven at Cape Town last season, who did not then show in his proper form, were the heroes of a [remarkable per­ formance. Shortly before half-past three the Home Born opened their innings with the two batsmen named. From the first runs came at a great pace. In twenty-three minutes 72 were got, and bowling changes were made without the slightest im­ pression on the run-getting. With the score at 193, Halliwell reached his hundred, and at five minutes to five the second century went up. At 5.30 stamps were drawn, with the total at 289, and both batsmen still in. The score had been made at the rate of nearly 150 runs per hour. In Boutledge’s score, which was an almost faultless display, there were twenty 4’s, one 5, three 3’s and nine 2’s. In Halliwell’s 139, which was marred by a couple of chances, both of which were given after the batsman had scored 60, there were sixteen 4’s, six 3’s, and twelve 2's. This performance creates a record in South African cricket. C olonials . J. A. Noble, c Bout­ ledge, b Butler ... 11 G. 8. Kempis,notout 63 W. Frank, st Halli­ well, b Routledge 1 E. H. Mortimer, not out........................... 6 E xtra s.................15 A. B. Tancred, Allsop, b Douglas 105 F. Smith, st Halli­ well, b Douglas .. 20 Solomon, st Halli­ well, b Allsop............................................................26 C. Wimble, bDouglas fc2 Gordon, st Halliwell, b Brown ...................................................................19 P. H. de Villiers, b Total ..........849 Butler ................................................................... 21 J. H. Sinclair did not bat. Innings declared closed. H ome -B okn . A. E. Halliwell, not |T.Boutledge,notoutl47 out ................................................ 139 E xtra s.................... 3 Total ...289 HONGKONG CLOB . Matches played 14 —W on 8, lost G. BATTING AVEBAGES. In ten innings and over. Times Most in Inns, not out. Buns, an Inns. Aver. E. W . Maitland 10 ... 4 ... 293 ... 59* ... 48.83 Capt. Dunn......... 19 ... 2 ... 750 ... 200 ... 48.12 Dr. Lowson......... 22 ... 2 ... 648 ... 120* ... 32.40 E. J. Coxon.......... 11 ... 1 ... 257 ... 47 ... 25.70 Capt. Dumbleton, 14E..................... 11 ... 1 ... 235 ... 101* ... 23.50 G. G. Boyle, B.A. 13 ... 1 ... 271 ... 63 ... 22.S8 S. L. Darby.......... 12 ... 1 ... 237 ... 65 ... 21.55 J. M. de ltolieck, R.N....................10 ... 0 ... 191 ... 52 ... 19.10 E. A. Bam ..........12 ... 3 ... 171 ... 31 ... 19 E. O. Ellis .......... 13 ... 3 ... 179 ... 86 ... 17.90 G. S. Purvis......... 11 ... 1 ... 168 ... 55 ... 16.80 G. S. Coxon......... 11 ... 1 ... 157 ... 42 ... 15.70 C. G. Taylor, B.N. 13 ... 0 ...1 94 ... 51 ...14.92 F. Maitland ... 11 ... 1 ... 122 ... 43 ... 12.20 E.M.Loring.R.E. 12 ... 2 ...126... 19* ... 12.60 li. F. C. Eames, B.N 14 ... 0 ... 158 ... 43 ... 11.59 G.E. Taverner... 14 ... 1 ... 130 ... 28 ... 10 E.G . Young,B.E.'15 ... 0 ... 133 ... 40 ... 8.87 E. S. Ezekiel .,‘ 1 4... 1 ... 80... 14*... 6.15 BOWLING AVEBAGES. For ten innings and over. Balls. Mdns. Runs. Wkts. Aver Dr. Lowson.........2905 ... 165 ...1184 ... 135 ... 8.77 E. J. Coxon.........1421 ... 64 ... 791 ... 66 ... 10.98 G. G. Boyle......... 649 ... 33 ... 302 ... 25 ... 12.08 E. C. Ellis ......... 6 9 ... 16 ... 387 ... 31 ... 12.48 C. O. Taylor, B.N. 739 ... 58 ... 314 ... S4 ... 13.08 S. L. Darby.......... 457 ... 21 ... 226 ... 17 ... 13.29 Capt. Dunn.......... 956 ... 42 ... 454 ... 28 ... 16.21 E. W. Maitland... 508 ... 19 ... 287 ... 9 ... 31.69 G. E. Taverner ... 420 ... 19 ... 237 ... 5 ... 47.40 S. L. Darby 1 no-ball and 2 wides, Dr. Lowson 2, and E. J. Coxon 2 wides. Scores of over a hundred were made by Capt. Dunn (200, 107, 103), Dr. J. A. Lowson (120 not out), and Capt. H . N. Dumbleton, B .E . (101 not out). In response to an invita­ tion from Shanghai a team was sent under the captaincy of Capt. .1. Dunn to play the Shanghai Cricket Club. The m atch after three full days’ cricket resulted in a draw. In the early part of this year the Shanghai Cricket Club paid a return visit, the match resulting in favour of H ong K ong by an innings and 132 runs.