Cricket 1893

“ T o g e th e r jo in ed in c r ick e t ’s m a n ly to il.5’— Byron . No. 33 3- V O L . X II. Registered for Transm ission A broad. THURSDAY, JUNE 2 2 ,‘ 1893 PR IO E 2d. CRICKET NOTCHES. B y t h e R ev . R . S. H olm es. History is ever repeating itself. So I said to myself, when reading the account of the stun­ ning of the sparrow down at the Oval a fort­ night since. Said sparrow was accidentally struck by ball hit hard to cover point, not killed; perhaps he is now pluming himself on being more of a hero than before, ever since his famous cricket adventure. The only sparrow known to have thus immortalized himself. Swallows have often figured in cricket, and pigeons too. Thus early this year at Melbourne one of the Trotts—not H. of that ilk—hit and killed a swallow that passed across the wicket at the very moment after he had delivered the ball. Which is exactly what hap­ pened as long ago as 1847, when Fred Cresar also caught a swallow napping. But that story of Tom Hearne is unlike all these; friend Thoms has given it us somewhere. It runs thus, unless I am much mis­ taken : Middlesex were playing Notts on the old Islington Cattle Market Ground. Hearne was about to bowl to George Parr, when he espied a pigeon flying across the wicket some 20 or more yards high. In a trice Tom forgot all about the game, and boy-like let go the ball, not at the stumps but at the bird, and brought him down. Said pigeon was stuffed, not eaten, and is one of the Hearne heirlooms. It was in the “ Red Lilly ” for 1893 that I found the “ Trott ” in­ cident just mentioned, and among “ A Few Loose Strings;” to me that part of the Annual is alone worth more than double the cost of the whole book, though these ‘‘ Strings” don’t as a rule extend over more than some ten pages. They are invaluable to persons who, like myself, are blessed with a hole- and-corner memory. Reading down the same page 263, there is an in ­ cident recorded of which I made a note months ago, and to which a passing reference may here be ma^e. It happened last year at Leatherhead and took this form ; batsman, standing outside crease, had grounded bat within crease, when the ball (thrown in) struck bat, lifted it up, knocked down wicket, and the bat not being on the ground, batsman was given out. Another unjust decision, based on an appeal which no genuine sportsman could ever have made. For why shouldn’t fielders deliberately make a cock-sky of the bat whenever thus grounded, in the hope of repeating this lucky hit ? Why not make a mark of the batsman or batsmen when running a hit, and thus, by stunning or crippling them, prevent them getting home ? And what’s to hinder stumper or anybody else butting batsman out of crease and then popping wicket down ? Why, there is hardly any limit to the evils and abuses that might be perpetrated, and about which the Laws are silent. I am certain all honest cricketers will here endorse my opinion that, in the instance above mentioned, the umpire should have taken the law into his hands and said “ Not out.” “ The Old Buffer” is of the same mind. No gentleman would dream of appealing under similar circumstances, and these Notches are written to and for gentlemen, and none else. Can you discover a batsman’s vulnerable points from the way in which he is dismissed ? I sometimes do this, and see whether batsmen are got rid of in the same manner both innings; and it is astonishing how often this happens. I mention it in order that our study of current cricket may have a fresh feature of interest. The list I have drawn up from the cricket of the last month is too long for reproduction here, but just take a few items. In one match one reads thus: Stoddart, b Hirst 2, b Hirst 83. Webbe, c Sellers, b Sm ith 16, c Sellerr, b Smith 2. Scott, b Peel 59, b Peel 62. In another match the same week: Ferris was twice bowled by Lock­ wood ; so Roberts; whilst Atfield lost his wicket twice to Richardson. Last week Trumble and Jarvis were each twice out in the same way, b Kortright. I remember Jupp tell­ ing me years ago that he found Wootton (the well-known Notts and M.C.C. left-hander) more fatal to himself than any other bowler. How often “ Bummy” Shaw used to bowl W.G. Whilst many batsmen are generally snapped at the wicket, or have a characteristic stroke that invariably gets them into trouble. Cricketers, like men, ought to aim at concentrating all their forces at these weak spots. But to the week’s cricket. All the honors go to Yorkshire, and I should say nobody grudges them their first place among the Counties. Prime favourites with the “ B .P.” have Yorkshiremen ever been. Al­ ready they have notched as many victories (five) as the whole of last season gave them; and with some of their rivals manifestly not quite themselves, it seems more than likely that Yorkshire won’t be very far off the top when the end of the season is reached. I was at Sheffield, of course, to see the Surrey match, and wish to put on paper sundry honest mus- ings. And I am more concerned with what was not done in that match than with what was done. There on a wicket so hard that the Surrey skipper deemed it quite use­ less to put the groundman to the trouble of rolling it between the innings, two first-class batting elevens were unable to score 100 runs in either of their four ventures. Everywhere else runs have been as plentiful as straw­ berries, as one would expect in such a season as the present. Why not at Bramall Lane ? I don’t exaggerate when I say that during last week I have had this question put to me some scores of time—“ what was the ground like? ” As I anticipated that question. I had carefully prepared an answer which will W A L T E R H E A RN E—.(See page 219.)