Cricket 1893

u T oge ther joined in cricket’ s m an ly to il."— Byron. gistered lor Transm ission Abroad. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1893. PR ICE 2d. CRICKET^NOTCHES. B y the R e v . R . S. H olmes . D u r in g last week a bitch of seven letters on cricket came to band from corresponden ,s in different parts of the world, and "as most of them possess more than a personal interest, I am tempted for once to do little beyond playing the role of editor. I happened to be standing in the press tent at Scarborough when Lyons returned from the wicket beaten a second time by Peel in the closing match of the Festival. Somebody said, quite loud enough for him to hear,“ Peel again."’ A good-natured smile endorsed the correctness of this remark. Is it not written in the chronicles of cricket that on every occasion save one during the present tour the burly South-Australian has succumbed to the wiles of the Yorkshire left-hander ? Later on in the week, and at Hasting?, Giffen was twice bowled out by Richardson, who can claim to have dismissed him on 10 out of the 12 occasions on which they have met this year. A prop 08 oi these facts, read this letter that comes all the way from Adelaide from C. P. Moody,who was over here in 1890 as the official reporter, and who will be easily recalled as the author of ‘ The Seventh Australian Team in England.” He writes thus :— “ In your delightful Notches of June 22, you refer to the vulnerable points of certain bats­ men. Now, while touring with the 1S90 Australian Eleven, a remarkable example of this came under my notice, which caps any­ thing in the same line I have ever heard of. Dr. Barrett, the stonewaller and second average batsman of the team, played against Martin,of Kent, 12 times. Martin settled him nine times, getting his wicket twice in four separate matches, and in those four matches Barrett did not once reach double figures Three of these matches were played on first- class wickets; and it is the more remarkable that Barrett should have found such a master in Martin, because being a left-hander himself one would have thought he would not be particularly bothered by a left-handed bowler.” Thus history is ever repeating itself, and no records are safe for long in this wonder-work­ ing age. Early last week, and long before my talk with Tom Emmett had become public pro­ perty, I was curiously enough informed by a well-known writer on the game, who has the most astounding memory for scores and all other crick nitems of any man I have ever come acru I,that. the Secretary of the M.C.C., himself a prominent member of the once famous Cambridgeshire f*l°.ven, has been known to remark that W .G.’s innings^ of 66 against Yorkshire at Lord’s in 1870 is the finest inniDgs he has seen. When two such authorities agree there is nothing more to be said. As an instance of the popularity of cric ket, and of the demand there is for cricket literature, I may here say tha*; my last “ Cricket Notches ” have called forth a letter from an enterprising publishing firm asking for Emmett’s present address. But I know not whether Master Tom can be temp*ei to write his reminiscences, though they would be certain to be delightfully entertaining. Last week I had certain things to say about Walter Humphreys and his lobs. I should have added that his appearance in the second match at Scarborough was specially advertised at the head of the sccrinz cards of the first match, in a line a 1 by itself. And here’s a letter from Switzer­ land, under date September 6. from the old Harrovian, Mr. W. N. Kington: — “ I venture to write you about the success of Humphreys’ lob bowling this year. I believe there are very few batsmen who can play lobs really well. In our early days with I Zingari we nearly always began with a lob bowler at one end ; why is it that to day cap­ tains seem ashamed to make a start with the lobs ? I have sat in the Pavilion at Brighton, and seen match after match thrown away be­ cause the loba were never put on till 40 or 50 runs had been scored, and then after getting the wicket they were kept on a creat deal too long. Sussex now has a captain who knows how to manage his bowling, and the consp- quence is that Humphreys’ slows come off, and not that he has improved in his bo vling. I remember on one occasion when the Austra­ lians were playing Sussex I went to the cap­ tain and implored him to lead off with Hum­ phreys. He wisely did so, the result being six wickets for eleven runs. The way to manage lobs is to put them on to every fresh batsman when he first comes in; and when they are hit take them off, and come back to them again later on. I see even F. S. Jackson, who certainly plajed Wood’ s lobs better than anyone the last two years in the ’Varsity match, was a victim to Humphreys the other day in the Sussex match. (Yes, and twice in the Yorkshire v. South of England match at Scarborough). If you can notice these few remarks in one of your articles I think they may be useful to captains of elevens.” Readers may recall a problem set by me a fortnight since to this effect—could the hat- trick be done and yet the three victims have each scored 19 runs? I have a lot of similar puzzles which may be trotted out from time to time, though most cricketers are doubtless familiar with them; but ‘ ‘ there’s nothing new under the sun,” the wise man of old truly said. “ Two Surrey ladies,’’ who have appended their full name and address, alone have sent a solution, which I beg I'.ave to transcribe as a model piece of workmanship, and as a convincing proof of the sound, intelligent knowledge possessed by the ladies of all points of the game. I took the liberty of showing the letter sent by “ Two Lancashire Ladies ” on the Jackson episode at Old Tnfford, and the members of the press were unanimous in their praises thereof. But here is the Hat-Trick letter; if any male reader thinks he could write better, let him try ;— “ The batsmen, A and B, have each scored 19 runs. X and Z are the bowlers. X bowls the fourth ball of his over to A, who hits h and both batsmen run; A is caught, has to retire, and C comes in. B, having crossed in the attempted run, now faces X, and is clean bowled by the fifth ball of the over. D taken hia placa. It is now Z ’s turn to bowl; C hits the first four balls to the boundary, and the fifth for three, thus bringing his score to 19, and obliging him to change ends and face the bowling of X. who bowls him with the first ball Thus X has performed the hat trick, with the last two balls of one over and the first of his next, and A, B, C, his three victims, have each scored t9iuus.” Brother-cricketers,Ithink jou and I had better now modestly take a seat behind ; we are being beaten hollow af. our own favourite game, and very soon shan’t have a (cricket) leg to stand upon. It’s a case of “ Ladies first ” in everything. Somebody has referred an unusual case to me for decision. The ball hit batsman’s leg (he was not lbw), but was not wholly stopped by it. As it was running into his wicket he kicked it away. Wa< he out? No, certainly not, for Law 27 enacts that a batsman may thus guard his wicket after the ball has been struck or “ stopped by any part of his person.” Let me again beg old crioketers to learn the laws by heart. I am here reminded of a story recently told me in good faith, so I have no compunction in giving nam bs. Peate, ia a minor match, was bowling to E. T. Hirst, a well-known Yorkshire amateur. He kept sending in off ball?, w'hich Hirst did not attempt to play with the bat. At last, getting impatient, ha deliberately stepped aside and kicked one away, and they ran two run t . Was it fair play ? Most decidedly. I have often seen batsmen give a sharp jerk of the leg whilst not moving out of position, and leg byes have resulted to which no S'>rt of objection was raised. Neither could be classed among cases of obstructing the field. u Anglo- Australiau ” brings an exceptional instance under my notice: “ A t atsman played bick to a bumping ball which went up off the shoulder of his bat and was clearly falling on his wicket; the stumper caught the ball. Now what could the batsman do ? If he defended his wicket by playing the ball a second time he would surely be out for obstruction ; if he did not, he would be out ‘ p’ ayedon.’ As in h ippened he let it alone, and of course it hit the wicket.” Well, if I had been umpire, and the batsman had struck it a second time, though the ball was in the air, and, as accord­ ing to the written laws, he was both out and not out, I should have probably given him the benefit of the doubt, and let him continue bis innings.