Cricket 1893

“ Together joined in cricket’s manly toil.”— Byron, N o. 3 3 6 VO L . X II. Registered lor TransmissionAbroad. CRICKET NOTCHES. B y the R e v . R . S. H olmes . “ The Talk of the Town to borrow the title of James Payn’s capital novel—has been the no-ball incident in the ’ Varsity match at Lord’s last week ; everybody has the final word to say about it. Let us try and not lose our heads. Put in a nutshell, all the recent wise and unwise talk comes to this—is Law No. 53 to be retained or rescinded ? The part played on the memorable occasion by C. M. Wells m aybe passed over; that is a mere accident. So also were the occasion and the place. If Oxford, as has been surmised, wanted to follow-on, why didn’t they ? Their last batsmen might have hit their wickets, and with good reason. W ith equally good reason the Cambridge bowler sent down a wide and a no-ball. I see nothing unsports­ manlike in either mode of action. But did Oxford want to go in again ? I am doubtful, and for this reason, their first innings (10G) was a very poor show ; now couple this with their recent indifferent batting, and the chances are they would have been beaten by an innings had they adopted this expedient. But this is scarcely to the point. The present law has stood since 1854, before that 100 runs was tbe required deficit. If some of our older legislators will inform us why the limit was in 1854 changed to 80 runs, they might help us in the present crisis. I saw the Austra­ lians play England at Scarborough in 1886, when England, going in first, kept in a day and a half for an innings of 558. The Aus­ tralians had come straight from Gravesend, where on the previous Monday against the South of England they had scored 290 runs. The South being 120 behind followed on, and the second time piled up just 450. In other words the Colonials were in the field for more than three whole days, whilst 1178 runs were scored off their bowling. I remember saying at the time, “ Ought it to have been possible ? ” No, certainly not, else what advantage is there in showing superior cricket at all, especially against a strong team which is not likely to make a second mistake with the bat. Yet at that time my protest was ignored. Here’s a case that is possible at any time ; first side scores 400: their opponents 310—or, 90 behind. Ought the latter to follow-on ? With the first side fairly fagged, what’ s to prevent their opponents surpassing their initial effort, especially if there be no rain ? Then a draw is inevitable. On the other hand, shall the captain of the leading eleven have absolute powers of decision ? Say, his side scores 350, their opponents only 50 : what a temptation for him to elect to have another “ knock”—all cricketers’ prime delight; and so prolong the agony unnecessarily. I can't make up my mind on the matter; either way I see serious difficulties : and so I would let the present law stand. THURSDAY, JULY 13, There is a matter of far greater importance needing settlement, to which I feel bound to refer. It does down to the roots of honor, and honor is the essence of morality, and morality the keystone of all genuine sport. I refer to the veiled professionalism whioh has foi many years been an ugly blot on the English game of cricket, I mention no names, for it’ s the system I wish to denounce, not individual cricketers. It is well known to be the curse of Rugby football to-day. Let it be granted at the outset that there must be professionalism in sport, at any rate in cricket, which for five months in the year monopolises the energies of a certain number of m en; how to dis- ; tinguish professionalism ? In only one way, by sport proving a source of income, never mind how large or small the income. Any­ body who in any sport makes a livelihood by that sport is a professional pure and simple. How comes it then that one man ranks as an amateur, who directly or indirectly is paid far larger sums than another man who is classed a professional ? For some years I have been in close touch with sundry professional cricketers ; I wish I could mention names— honored names—and repeat the strong words spoken again and again in my hearing. It is no disgrace to make a living openly out of cricket or any other sport; it is a standing disgrace to do so sub rosa. Our paid cricketers are mostly worthy and gentlemanly fellows, and certain amateurs—to their honour be it recorded— have not hesitated to throw in their lot with them when they could no longer afford to play as gentlemen; I respect them all the \ more for their courage. The MC.O. years i since took this matter into consideration, but J no one was satisfied with the result. All they ; did was to bar from the Gentlemen v. Players j match at Lord’s any amateur who had been known to take more than his expenses; and in consequence one well-known amateur henceforth dropped out of that match. I am in a position to state that when a certain player was not long ago approached by a cer­ tain county, bis new status was to be that of j an amateur, some sinecure office being either found or made for him with a handsome i salary attached. Is this fair, honourable, j aud conducive to the best interests of the I game? It is dishonest—nothing else—to screen certain amateurs by offering them “ Ex’s far in excess of their customary fees. Wha I would do is this; seeing that amateurs and professionals travel together for the most part and in the same “ class,” and seeing that in many cases our leading players put up either at the same hotel, or at hotels equally as expensive, as those frequented by amateurs, I would have one fixed scale of * ex’s ” in all cases ; and then I would allow each professional an additional fixed fee for his services. For the latter is paid indiffer­ ently enough at present. A man goes from the provinces to London to play, and gets either £ 5 or £6 according to the result of the match ; where does the margin come in ? If, P R IC E 2d. after railway, cab, hotel, and other necessary expenses he netts £1, he may think himself lucky. Just think of it, on certain county grounds he has actually to pay for his lun­ cheon ! Whoever heard of an amateur paying for his ? If I had my way, they should all sit down at a common table as guests, for on the cricket field there should be no distinction of rank. In a word, pay professionals more generously, but under uo consideration give an amateur more than his actual expenses, and nothing else either by way of a bonus or a stipend for doing nothing in a bogus official position. And no “ Compli­ mentary” match, b^ your leave: call it a “ Benefit ” always, and give it only to the bona fide professional. If any time in the last twenty-five or thirty years the professionals had “ struck’’ in a body, cricket would have gained and not lost by so forcible a protest. Here’s a oapital question put to me last week by my friend, the Kev. F. Marshall, the autho or editor of the best book ever written on Rugby Football, and the best known figure perhaps on Yorkshire football enclosures. There were four of us together at Bradford, when he asked, “ when the eighth man goes in, how many wickets are there to fall ” ? One of the group was playing for Notts; his answer was wrong; so was a second; a third was right. As the parson said, if you want to have a safe cigar on, ask this simple question of anybody sitting next to you at a match. Later on I will put sundry more catch questions re­ lating to cricket; this must suffice now. Overheard at Bradford last week. H. B. Daft going in ; said one critio to another just behind me; “ Is Daft’s father alive’ ’ ? Answer : No, I read an account of his death some four years ago; he was close on seventy years old. He was a fine crioketer, a tremend­ ous slogger, didn’t play the correct game, but made lots of runs.” I discreetly said nothing; if I had offered to set such parties right they would not have listened to me. Oh ! how they did chatter, and in consequence showed themselves up. That’s a fair sample of the kind of cricket talk one hears every­ where. One day I was at Old Trafford, when Peate was bow ling: my next-door neighbour was very communicative, all the more so when I lapsed into silence. My patience was exhausted when he said—“ Do you know who Peate reminds me of, both |in build and style of bowling? Why, poor old Tarrant who used to play for one of the Midland Counties, I think it was Notts. Whenever I see Peate I keep on say­ ing to myself, it might be Tarrant here once more.” I could bear no more, and so moved off. Only to come across another cricket- field nuisance - the man who is always asking ! “ Kindly to oblige me with a light.” Now I happened on that occasion to be getting very low, had only some three or four left, told him so, and then asked very innocently what I was to do when the stock was used up. I “ Oh,” said he, “ go and borrow of some one; i it’s what I would do.” I suggested that he