Cricket 1894

« Together 'joined in cricket’s manly toil.”— Byron . B e is ^ e a ^ r ^ r ^ o ^ THURSDAY, MAY H4, 1894. PRICE 2d. CRICKET _N0TCHES B y th e E e v . K . S. H olmes . I recently made a discovery of some inter’ est to myself, though it may be a familiar fact to the world of cricketers. It was in this wise. Some years ago W . G. generously gave me an old bat of his, off which he had evid­ ently scored heavily. One day I was curious enough to guage its w id th ; but one must never tell tales out of school. It never occurred to me lo measure its length, until quite by accident I noticed later on that it was shorter than my own bat, against which it was standing in a corner of my library. The tape showed it to be 34J inches long, i. e. 3£ inches short of the maximum length allowed by Law No. 5. It seemed strange that a man 6 inches my superior in height should require a bat even shorter than one I had never found too long. One would have thought that W. G. would certainly help him ­ self to the full limit. So I wrote or spoke to sundry bat makers, my good friend Wisden among t> e number, and I asked for informa­ tion frrnn certain tall cricketers And here is the result of the enquiries. Bats, 38 inches long, are made to order; of tbe thousands of bats sold scarcely any—say only 3 or 4 in 1,000—exceed 35 inches, though men like Abel and Alec Hearne have half an inch knocked o f f ; and in their case the difference is in the length of the handle. Gunn tells me that be “ has never used a larger size than the ordinary one in use.” W . G. once had a 38 inch bat, but it was not a success ; so did Lord Harris, who was surprised that bats were made so long, and probably kept it as a curio. The brothers Ford have used full-length bats oftener than perhaps any other cricketers. Some batsmen have occasionally had the blade, not the handle, curtailed, but such bats are “ no good against first-class bowling, as the bats- n an runs the risk of getting bailed.” A No. 6 bat quite lately scored more than 1,500 runs in a season, but not in first-class matches. Taking 35 inches as the standard. I shoul 1 like to know what would be the result of adding one inch to the blade, and two inches to the handle. If that would spoil the balance, might not the insertion of a small piece of 1-ad in Ihe flat disc of the handle remedy any such defect ? I must get a 38 incher, if only for the oddness of the creature. Lord Hawke's objection to the covered wicket at Old TralTord on Whit-Monday, though approved by all the critics, is not­ withstanding open to question. I believe the M.C.C. have always discountenanced this practice. Yet Law No. 9 simply enacts that “ the ground shall not be rolled, watered, covered ,, mown, or beaten during a match, etc.” Before a match begins, you may do what you like with the wicket, prepare it, or not prepare it, and by every available process, just as is deemed best. A capricious ground- man has fine scope for his genius. After all said, it is a matter for the umpires, not the captains, to decide. The former are ex­ pressly enjoined to “ pitch fair wickets” (Law No. 44). But they never do anything of the kind now-a-days : the wickets being all ready, creases marked, and holes for stumps bored, if not stumps set in position, long before, they arrive on tbe ground. If that section of Law No. 44 is null and void, why retain it? Does a captain share with an umpire the responsibility of pronouncing on the wickets ? I direct these remarks against no one indi­ vidual, still less the Yorkshire captain. Had I been in his capacity, I should doubtless have lodged a similar protest : but ought I? It was unfortunate this should have happened in Briggs’ match, though an indi­ vidual must ever be sacrificed for a principle. But where was the principle in this case ? A protected wicket is as fair for one side as the othf r, most certainly before the captains toss. I suppose the Four Counties have been promoted to the front rank, at least so far as the averages and analyses of tbeir respective players areconcermd. But their matches, I see,will not count in the County Competition. Warwickshire may sweep the board, but the “ Select N in e’’ will not suffer, or only in reputation—a very insignificant item in modern, popular spoit The Times of to-day had the list of First-class County returns up to date ; only “ the nine” figure there. In a footnote we learn that two Mid'and Counties have bee-n achieving fome sort of distinction which, in the case, say, of Lancashire or Sussex, would have placed them in the list, and at the top of it. I am none too sweet on this Championship business ; but there it is, and one cannot get rid of it. So long as it prevails, surely it should depend on merit alone. I should be very thankful if the M.C.C would officially announce their deci­ sion on the entire question. Are these four counties first class ? If so, aren't they in the County Competition ? It will be easy enough afterwards to devise a scheme for giving each of the thirteen counties its rightful rank, by averaging the wins and tbe total number of matches played by each. By the by, judging by the crowds at Birm­ ingham last week, when Kent were slaugh­ tered, it is certain that the older counties will find these matches yield a handsome profit. Warwickshire and Leicestershire ou>.'ht to “ draw” as well as any other Counties. Twelve firat-class matches in one week ! I dare not tackle them as they doubtless deserve. Somewhere in an early “ Fred Lilljwhite’ s Guide” one ccmes across an announcement that ‘ for as many as six d fferent counties to be engaged in three matches on one and the same day is enough to start up the spirits of many past cricket­ ers.” If one may include Derbyshire and Hampshire, then Whit Monday's programme is prodigious. Let us summarize only. Soddened grounds everywhere when the week opened, mid-winter before it closed. On Monday, wickets fell as follows : 27 at Lord’s, 23 at Birmingl am. 22 at Leyton, 20 at Old Trafford, 14 at Nottingham, 13 each at Brighton and Southampton. Charity for­ bids mention of the “ duck-eggs.” In Lancashire’ s first inLings there were eight of them 1 So there were in M.C.C.'s innings of 16 against Surrey in 1872; in that match seven wickets— including W .G.’s— fell before a run was scored— Southerton and Marten the bowlers. In purely county ciicket, I can recall no more than seven 0's in any one innings— to wit, Surrey’s, when facing Notts in 1880: their tot il was also 16. Lancashire last week did begin to trouble ihe scorers after the fourth man was dismissed, and totalled 50 at tbe finish. When will their skipper learn wisdom ? Short runs are always dangerous, and they are worth nothing at all at the outset of a match. Ward is nut Barlow. Accidents will bapp< n the first ball, as W .G. can testify after his experience at the Oval on Friday, but a run-out well, it isn’t cricket. Yorkshire played like winners aftt-r tbat wretched start, and never once looked back. Mounsey (f 6) got his place at the last moment, just as Pallett did in the Warwickshire team thit beat Kent. Some one nearly blundered. It was the same Mounsey who had a big band in the Surrey discomfiture at Sheffield last year. Without Pallett’s help — 13 wickets at a cost of exactly 6 runs apiece — Warwickshire might not have served Kent as they had just previously served Notts and Surrey. Though the wickets seem to have been made for b iwlers like Peel, his vis a-vis, Hirst, carried off chief honours— 10 wickets for 56 runs. Lancashire canrot grumble at