Cricket 1894

180 (QRXCKEfrs A WEEKLY RECORD OE THE GAME, MAY 17, 1894 Key (GO) hit three 5’s, Brockwell (49, not out) one 5, and William Quaife (92) two 5’s. l)oes that mean that there are no boundaries in certain parts ofthe Oval? or that ia each of these instances the ball fell just short of the boundary? A 5 hit is so rarely seen to-day that I am anxious to have my curiosity gratified. I go heartily with “ F.G,” in his dislike of “ boundaries,” though with the present- day crowds it is not easy to abolish them. But nobody who did not witness them can realise the intense excitement caused by a big hit run out, as in the olden times. Not for a trifle would I have missed certain hits, viz., George Anderson’s drive for 8 in the Surrey and North match at the Oval in 1862; a square-leg hit for 7 by Moxtloek at Lord’s in 1865—the match, A.E.E. v. U.A.E.E.—ball was hit down the ground— carriage gate had just teen opened—ball passed through into the St. John’s Wood Boad. Then W .G .’s cut for 7 (made into 8 by an overthrow) past “ the Tree ” at the Oval in the Gents and Players match of 1870 ; and lastly those wonderful drives of his for 6 and 7 off Emmett’s bowling in the same match at Lord’s in 1876. Any of these hits (and I recall another this moment— a square- leg hit for 7 by Dick Humphrey in Stephenson s benefit at the Oval in 1871) was worih going miles to see. And one could see cricket then so enjoyably, before the crowds flocked to the ground, and when a thousand people were con­ sidered an exceptionally strong gate at such enclosures as Old Trafford. It is all changed now, to the gain of batsmen, but not of bowlers, and to the loss of pleasurable excitement on the part of spectators. I heard a very interesting story last week from a Yorkshire doctor, just about as mad a ciicket enthusiast as myself, though he could give me a start of 20 years in age. It was our first meeting ; how we did yarn whilst watching a match in which the Yorkshire Gentlemen were figuring. He had played with every great cricketer of Mynn and Pilch’s time, and had no end of delightful stories about all of them. Said he, “ You remember—--------?” mentioning by name one of a famous cricket brotherhood, still happily with vis and renowned for his lobs. “ Well, I was once playing against him, and took the first over from him ; the first ball I cut for 2, the second I served ditto. Then the bowler turned to the umpire, and said ‘ these wickets are not pitched 22 yards apart; they are a little short of that distance. I must trouble you to get out the chain and measure them.’ This was done. Now would you believe it that the distance was just 4 inches only short ? I must not forget to mention that he bowled me the very next ball, though I was not going to be done out of the four runs I had made on the o.her pitch. I have ever since that day pronounced him the most perfect judge of cricket we have. Fancy a man missing4 inches out of 22 yards 1” As the amateur in question reads these Notches, he will, I am sure, forgive this insertion of a capital story. There being little current cricket to detain us, I may wander on at my own sweet will. My friend’s entertaining reminiscence of “ Some Stout Cricketers ” in last week’s C r ic k e t suggested another title for a good paper, “ Some Small Cricketers.” Small physically, of course, not cricketally. Much-in-little men. Of the men I remember take the following:— George Wells, failed “ Tiny,” and John Wisden, the “ Little Wonder,” both of Sussex, and less than 5 feet four inches ; Wells could not have been much over 5 feet. Then there was little Gunn (Thomas of Surrey, not William of Notts), smaller sti’l, a pupil of Lockyer’s, and who appeared about the same time (1862) as Jupp and Tom Humphrey. The latter would have to go in this class; he was dubbed the “ Pocket Hercules” not inaptly. Tom was the only batsman I ever saw who could cut the fastest balls right off the bails. Joe Bowbotham was scarcely a giant, though hemay have be9n taller than he looked owing to his immense girth. Andrew Greenwood and Walter Humphreys, Briggs and Peel, the two stumpers, Harry Phillips (Sussex) and Wood (Surrey), are all small men. The younger Quaife may be brought in as having been discarded by his County on account of his diminutiveness, and yet he is big enough to make Lockwood and Bichardson sing small only last week. From this distinguished circle little Baguley must not be omitted. Can it be that the first-class County Captains acted without orders from their Committees in their advocacy of the claims of Warwickshire, Derbyshire, Leicester­ shire, and Essex ? If so, said Committees may have a grievance; the initiative should have come from them. A Captain is simply the representative of his County, and cannot, so long as he is a Captain, act on his private responsibility. This apart — and it is a matter with which a third parson has perhaps no bunness-to interfere, and which I should not have presumed to notice, but for the editorial comments in this journal—this 8part, I am thankful beyond measure that the whole question was referred to the M.C.C. They alone ought to pronounce finally on every topic connected with cricket. Have another County Council, if you like, for consulta­ tive purposes: let it deliberate on any question of greater or smaller moment, take the feeling of its members by show of hands or by ballot. But let its powers end there. Send every decision up to the M.C.C. for confirmation or rejection. It is for this reason, viz.— that there be only one governing authority in each branch of sport, that I venture to offer a sugges­ tion which may be productive of good in the best interests of cricket. It is this. Compel every cricketer, who wishes to qualify for a fresh County, to lay his application before the M .C.C.; then at the expiry of the two years, let him again present himself, either in person or writing, before the same tribunal, tnd receive at their hands the official sanction (in writing) to play for another county than that of his birth. Nothing, in my judgment, will keep cricket as a sport in a thoroughly healthy condition but some such regulation as this. Onl> let it once get abroad that the M.C.C. will require every applicant to justify his appeal; that under no circumstances will said appeal be entertained unless it is backed by the committee of the county he is leaving ; and counties will be compelled to depend on their own native cricketers. I would not entrust this power to the caunties, for it is easy to foresee that a county might not be able to provide a place for every good cricketer in its borders, and yet might refuse to let them throw in their lot with a rival county or counties. A county committee, too, might have a grievance against a man which would keep him out of first-class cricket altogether. So I would lodge the entire responsibility in the hands of the M.C.C. They would have no bias for or against a man or a county; and, moreover, they have always in the past erred on the side of caution, and have faithfully abided by old ways, even when they have appeared anachron- ous, until a new and a better way was found. If it should be said that they made haste in advancing the four counties mentioned above to the front county rank, it should be remembered that they were only giving practical effect to an opinion that was universally entertained, and was ripe for immediate legislation. I shrink from the possibility of cricket ever falling to the level of modern foot­ ball, as it certainly will do, if supremacy on the cricket field should ever come to be neither more nor less than a ques­ tion of financial resources. And I deliber­ ately and strongly voice my opinion without in the least condemning any county for having taken the utmost advantage of the present laws regulating county cricket. I have only a line left to notice sundry books. “ Wisden” and “ James Lilly- white ” need no recommendation; the former, in its thirtieth edition, is a wonder­ ful shillings-worth. W h en 'it appeared in 1864, it contained 112 pages, in lar^e type ; now it has 376 pages, mostly in type somewhat too small (unless it is “ double-leaded ”) for quickly failing eyes like mine. Yet the price has never been altered. When Fred Lillywhite enlarged his “ Guide ” 20 pages, an additional 3d. was put on the charge; when 30 pages, 6d. For perfect editing, commend me to “ Wisden.” I can find not one singla mistake anywhere. I have thought that the descriptive reports of the matches might be curtailed a little, but probably in this opinion I shall once more be in a minority of one. It is not to be wondered at that the entire edition was sold off in a few days, and that the proprietors felt justified in issuing a second at doulle the cost. The Bed Lilly— 23 years old—is a great favourite of mine, especially the tables toward the end, quite indispensable to those who occasionally dabble in statistics. The results of matches given under each county, etc., are most conveniently arranged. But occasional omissions and mistakes crop up, which have, ia the past, bothered me. Here are some this year : p. 102. Yorkshire’s totals are wrong. Why aren’t all Surrey’s matches in one column as usual ? and