Cricket 1893

810 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. AUG. 3, 1898 He raves about my library walls being literally covered with old cricket pictures wherever they can be squeezed in, but he has sometimes confessed that if it were not for the subject- matter, Mason’s picture would be a very fine work of art indeed. Many years ago—it must have been about 1866 or 1867—there was a splendid picture done of Lord’ s ;my late friend Charles Box had a copy of it which I hoped would pass into my hands at liis death. I have a!so seen one on the staircase of the Hostelry at Lord’s. I don’t think it was ever engraved ; if not, it deserved to be. It is full of noted cricketers of that period, among whom I can remember E.M. and W.G., poor Fitzgerald, C. F, B uler in com­ pany with a magnificent St. Bernard, Y . E. Walker, along with Tom Hearne, Grundy, Wootton, and Alfred Shaw. Of course, a picture to-day, to be fully representative, would have to contain more than seventy-two cricketers, and the original cost would be heavy. Mason expended,. it is said, 1,600 guineas over his, and doubtless lost money by the venture. I beg to commend this suggestion to the careful notice of Messrs. Hawkins, of Brighton, who have laid us all under obliga­ tions by their most admirable photos of individuals and groups. And another thing I want to see done. A fortnight ago I was lucky enough to procure “ A List of the Matches to be published inF. Lilly white’s large work of Cricket Scores, from 1746 to 1856 inclusive,” which I need hardly remark is none other than the well-known “ Scores and Biographies.’’ It is a dainty little 8vo volume of 38pp, published in 1857, and is almost identical with the indexes which preface the earlier volumes of this work. As everybody knows, there have been issued 13 vols. in all, and we have been informed that that indefatig­ able compiler, Arthur Haygarth, is hurrying forward the balance of his MS sheets, and will publish them in due course. Now, every­ body who, like myself, has frequently to con­ sult these bulky books will agree with me that an immense boon would be conferred were someone to re-issue the indexes and page them, so that one could turn up any match recorded at once without having to wade through page after page. Not long since the office of this journal send forth an index to the 13 volumes, confining itself to the bio­ graphical portion of the work. It was a capital idea, and was worked out with admir­ able fulness and accuracy. What we now want is that the indexes should be taken just as they stand, only against every line, or say every five or ten lines, let the number of the page be affixed where any match can be found. F or my own use I have been compelled to do something of the sort. A correspondent has just directed my attention to a point of some interest—it con­ cerns Law No. 16—“ All runs made from a no­ ball, otherwise than from the bat, shall be called no-balls, and if no run be made one run shall be added to that score- From a wide ball as many runs as are run shall be added to the score as wide balls, and if no ran be otherwise obtained one run shall be so added.” That is to say, a no-ball and a wide, irrespective altogether of the batsmen, each count one run to the opposite side. Then should not any runs tha*; may be made count in addition to this one run ? F cr instance, suppose a bye is run off a no-ball, should not that reckon 2 runs in all, no matter whether they be called no-balls or a no-ball and a bye ? And the same of wides. The custom hitheito has been not to run for a wide unless two runs can be made, and then only two are recorded, that is to say, the wide-ball is not penalised. The point wants clearing up in the laws. Strictly speaking, the batsmen should change ends after a wide and no ball, law No. 2 enacting that “ A run is scored so often as the batsmen shall have crossed, etc.” As I have mentioned before, I also want no balls and wides to count against the bowler, and spite of law No. 13, to be reckoned as balls of the “ Over; ” whilst all overthrows should be called extras and not go to the credit of a batsman. And h<r j I would ask another question : When a batsman is caught out, and bis partner and he have not crossed, the partner has to return to his original end. There is nothing in the law to compel this, though by implication from No. 31, the wicket abatsman has left is regarded as his until lie and his partner have crossed. My correspondent suggests that “ a guide to the meaning of the Rules ought to be printed with all copies of the Laws of Cricket.” I agree with him, so long as the Laws are not perfectly clear and explicit. As soon as the season is over I purpose in these Notches a thorough revision of the Laws, pointing out all omissions, inaccuracies and obscurities that have come under my notice, in the earnest hope that the M.O.C. will before long revise them once more. As friend Thoms wrote me one day, “ there is not very much wrong.” A few sim­ ple alterations alone are needed, unless the game is to be spoiled; better make too few than too many. On Saturday last my club played a match against 22 mutes got together from various parts of the West Riding. It was a very pathetic spectacle to watch the intense enthu- siasmof the poorfellows in the various branches of the game. They were mostly young men. Our Captain,a well-known Yorkshire cricketer, and a perfect gentleman both in the grain and in the polish—had arranged that if possible everyone of ihe 22 should score a run or two, but none of the eleven were to make more than 20. One of the mutes made 53 by dashing cricket, his only regret was that he failed to land the ball right out of the ground. I remembered enough of the deaf- and-dumb alphabet to converse with some of them ; they were working men, living very isolated lives, and this match (an annual) was one of the few opportunities they had of meet­ ing and of freely exchanging thoughts. It seemed so odd for scarcely a sound to be heard from the player—cricket played in silence—and yet they were never, for two moments together, self-absorbed; from first to last they kept up the the liveliest conversa­ tion by signs. How humanizing cricket is by introducing all of us into a new world. I should be delighted to hear that similar matches were played all over the country. One-arm and one-leg matches are among my earliest cricket recollections, and if they would yield any sort of satisfaction to cripples, I should like to see them revived. The only cricket I could not respect was the so-called Clowns’ Matches. I saw but one of the lady cricketers’ contests, and found that quite sufficient. Being in Leeds last Tuesday I put in a short time at the Harrow Wanderers’ match at Headingley. It was a genuine pleasure to see the old Middlesex captain in flannels again, for be is about the only first-class cricketer of my time whose photo I have never be«n able to get in cricketing dress. Barring the “ silver threads ” he bears the burden of (almost) 50 years wonderfully well, and the “ lobs” are still in evidence, taking later in the week eleven wicke's for 72 runs against the Hull Town Club. I was scarcely prepared to see the present captains of Middlesex and Somersetshire ab Leeds, naturally expecting, as they were not assisting their counties, that they were not cricketing elsewhere. But that is no business of mine. I like to believe that they are both such genuine sportsmen that they could do nothing unworthy of their high office. Neither against Middlesex nor Surrey did the Australians have to face representative teams last week, and two more victories were confidently anticipated. But the improbable is continually happening at cricket. The match at Lord’s yielded no surprise, though the loss of the first three batsmen with the fatal cipher against each name made matters look healthy for the metropolitans; so they d il until the last man—Blackham—joined Trumble, when only 56 was on the boird ; out of a final total of 147 they, aided by a fair slice of luck, added no lesj than 91, Trumble (61) remaining un­ conquered. Middlesex collapsed at 76. And th ei followed one of the finest batting dis­ plays of the season. True, Bannerman for one3 was a spectacle-maker, but Lyons (51), T ro L,t (145), Gregory (112), and Turner (65 not out) played in magnificent form, with scarcely a cli'inoe, and their second venture reached 457, only just a little behind their scores of 494 and 470 against Derbyshire and Yorkshire (the latter at Bradford.) Trott had once before, in the present tour, topped the century, but it was Gregory’ s first hundred in Eng­ land. A victory with 391 runs in hand was a fitting climax to the unbroken series of successes since Shrewsbury’s match on June 26. Lord’s seems to be the happy hunting ground for our visitors, at least as far as their batting is concerned. Perhaps because the wickets there have all the year been true and firm. It is worth noting that this is one of the very few first-class matches played there this season which has not run into the third day. The gates at head-quarters must have been larger than ever before. The Oval match constituted a pleasing variety to the monotonous f run of success though up to the last moment it was any body’s match. At the outset the odds were certainly two to one in favour of Australia, three to one when it was found they had won the toss. What has become of the Surrey captain’ s lucky coin ? Last year, some folks were never tired of dilating on Surrey’ s luck, though even then, it was not so marked as that of Middlesex. I should like to call the attention of these worthies to the fact that Surrey of late have not once had choice of innings, whilst the stars in their courses have been fighting against then. Take their match against Sussex as an example: up to the Tuesday evening the weather was delightful, and the wicket almost perfect for scoring. Sussex left off with 241 for the loss of only three men. Then came the flood, and Sussex got no further than 297, so it was no wonder that Surrey, who in the firsthands had run up a splendid score (325), caved in at 111 on the last day. On Tuesday, eleven wickets realized 505 runs; on Wednesday seventeen realized only 167. I don’t mention t his to minimise the merit of Sussex’ s memorable defeat of their old rivals. I am only too delighted that the County of Lillywhite is doing so bravely. But surely before we con­ clude that Surrey are going to the dogs, all the facts should be honestly faced. Had Surrey been beaten by Australia on Saturday, they might at any rate have blamed the weather again. But they were not beaten, thanks to their handsome start of 194 runs when one innings apiece had been completed ; the scores ran thus—162 to 356 in Surrey’s favour. W ith Lockwood on the shelf, the Australians were certain in one innings or the other to play up to their reputation, and a second effort of 308 furnished the requisite proof. Bruce (60 and 31) and George Giffen (8 and 82) were most conspicuous, whilst Turner’s ten wickets for 133 form a capital second to his six for 30 against Middlesex. The merit of Surrey’s great viotory lies with the youngsters; the two Reads and Richardson were the only single- figure scorers in the first innings, but there were five of them who well-earned the coveted sovereign—Hayward (53 and 20), Street (51), Baldwin (54 and 21), Brockwell (67 and 20), whilst “ Fram jee” proved conclusively that he must not be shelved, by keeping his wicket intact both times—60 and 14. I am very glad of Hayward’s success, for I have twice seen him this year. At Trent Bridge, Daft and myself were watching him, not knowing who he was. Said my friend—“ that youngster plays the game thoroughly ; he has the making of a great batsman; his style is admirable, and every stroke is skilful.” He was delighted to learn he was the nephew of his old chum Tom Hayward. Street must soon get his place. One likes to see familiar names reappear. For nearly 30 years the name Street is associated with Surrey: James Street as a good honest bowler from 1863 to 1878, and his brother George as head ground-man at the Oval. The colt is son and nephew to the same. And is Brockwell any relation to George Brockwell of Surrey fame ? That name figures in the first county match played on the Oval in 1884, and indeed from that year to the year 1854 it is rarely missing frcm the ranks of Surrey. Cricket is so seldom tiansmitted that one lik- s to linger over all instances of what Mr. Galton would call “ hereditary genius ” in sport.