Cricket 1894

Together joined in cricket’s manly toil.”— Byron* No. 3 7 0 VOL. X III. Beistered for Transmission Abroad THURSDAY, AUG. 9, 1894. PRICE 2d. CRICKET NOTCHES. By t h e B e v . B . S . H o l m e s . A carious incident happened at Keighley recently when Leeds was playing the local dub, Batsmen were running ; ball, thrown in quickly, bit wicket at the moment bats­ man grounded his bat within the crease; he, being young and very active, started (perhaps only as a ru-:e) (or another run : the instant he was out of his ground the bail fell off stumps. The point was tbis: there was a perceptible interval between ball hitting wicket and bail being removed, perceptible enough for batsman to be both inside and outside the crease. It was not disputed that he was out when wicket was hit, but that ho was out of his ground when boil was dis turbed. Then Law No. 20 rules himout, for the wicket is down only when either bail is struck off. I mention this case as it has been reported to me by one of our Yorkshire county players, because no similar incident has come under my notice in which the time that elapsed betwten hitting and breaking the wicket was sufficient to bring about the dismissal of a batsman. I do not know how cricketers generally interpret this same Law No. 20, but scarcely a week passes in which somebody in York­ shire does not solicit my interpretation of it. And it is always the same point —one bail is fetill on the stumps, mustnot stump be struck out of ground before batsman can be given out ? Decidedly not by this law; you have simply to knock that one bail off, as it is only “ when both bails are off ” that a stump must be uprooted. I have heard that the M.C.C. secretary is occasionally asked to give an official decision on this matter. Perhaps a slight alteration in punctuation would make the law more easy of interpretation; say we put a semi-colon or full stop after the words “ is struck off ” instead of a comma. A fort­ night since I saw a bail disturbed, but instead of being “ struck off” one end of it just touched the top of stump, the other end getting fixed between two stumps, both of which were out of perpendicular. I could not give batsman out, though I should have done so had the entire bail been thus wedged in and not on the ground, for the law enacts only that bail be struck off, that is, off top of stump, without telling us where it must light. A correspondent has been good enough to sendme an oldcard containing a longdescrip­ tive account, with full score, of an extremely interesting, if not unique, match played exactly 60 years since. “jScores and Bio­ graphies ” (vol. ii. p. 294) give it, but without some of thedetails noted on this card. The match was “ Two against Eleven,” the two being E. G. Wenman and R. Mills, noted Kent players of that day. Wenman is one of the batsmen at the wicket in Mason’s famous picture; as stumper, too, he was scarcely inferior to Box. But let me quote a portion of this card; “ On Thursday and Friday last, September 4th and 5th, 1834, an extremely interesting matchwas played at Wittersham, in the Isle of Oxney (wherever is this ? R.S.H.). Mr. E. G. Wenman and Mr. R. Mills, of Benenden, played against eleven chosen players of the Isle of Oxney at double wicket for £‘20. So great was the inter* st existing, that though the scene of action was in a very marshy and thinly-populated district, upwards of 4000 spectators were assembled to witness this singular contest, which has no parallel in the annals of cricket. . . . The chances against the two enterprising players were great, the match being made as follows:—The Two against the Eleven, in every point of the game, they having none to field, and their opponents being all in the field; and what was more particular about them was, that when one was out both were. Thus, in reality each had but one innings. They commenced the game on Thursday by taking the bat, and by a brilliant display of fine hitting succeeded in scoring 150 before they were parted; tbe scores of their opponents in both innings amounted to 132, out of which they numbered 48 byes, leaving them only 84 from hits.” And then follows some tall writing, the like of which would make any cricket scribe’s fortune nowadays—“ Know­ ing the value of their individual wickets,they no doubtguardedthemwithassorupulouscare as a sacred relic would have been by the monks of old. Taking into consideration the great disadvantage under which they entered the field, we must say that these two scientific players have achieved a triumph that will never be forgotten by those who beheld it, aud secured to them an honour that will not be easily surpassed in tbis manly exercise.” j Let me transcribe the scores of the two:— P irst In n in gs. S econd Innings. E . G . W enm an, b D . D ere 65 n o t out ..............16 B . M ills, not o u t....................84 cau gh t.......................29 B ...................................... 1 B ..................... 3 T otal ...................150 T o ta l ... 48 The totals of the eleven were 55 and 77. One has a delightful satisfaction in recovering from oblivion some of these old-world matches, this one in particular, as it is the only match of the kind I can recall, inwhioh two played eleven at double wicket. Single wicket matches were common enough down to our time, the last I saw of any note being that wherein T. Humphrey, Jupp, and Pooley met Eleven of Putney. Date and particulars of any other double-wicket matches would be received with thanks. The mention of Tom Humphrey's name tempts me to quote in full from another letter in which reference is made to some more “ wonderful catches,” but I must be contented with a bald reference to it. It happened in the Gents, v. Players’ match at the Oval in 1868 ; Humphreys hit a ball with terrific force that seemed certain to light in the stand, some of the sitters there actually clearing out of its way. I. D. Walker was fielding long-off, “ but not so deep as one would have expected to a hitter like Hum­ phrey; however, he tore after theball, caught it running at top speed high up with his left hand, just as it was passing over the dwarf railing in front of the stand seats.” I shall never forget another catch off a hit by Humphrey, made by Grundy in the first match I saw at the Oval (Surrey v. England in 1862)—a one-hand catch at square leg.v erj high up, a minute or so before John Lilly, white no-balled Willsher six times in succession. It was that episode which caused the alteration in Law No. 10 at the beginning of 1S64. I saw Tom Emmett in flannels on Satur­ day last, as frisky as ever, by many years the youngest and liveliest man in the field ; he was doing a turn for an old club bowler in these parts who was taking a benefit. Tom was naturally in high spirits over the success of his “ boys ” at Lord’s, but, as 1 said to him, he is never satisfied. Last year he was down in the mouth because the crack Rug- beian scored 30 only in the time he ought to have got almost 300; this year he is full of regrets that Stanning did not pass the second hundred. I inquired about the com­ ing book of cricket reminiscences. Well, be has done some of it, but is not satisfied with it; “ Too much detail! ” However, he has promised to send it along for inspection. If he can only write cricket as he talks it, the modern generation has a treat in store. By- the-bye, Rugby's great victory over Marlborough recalls tbe names of Pauncefote, Yardley, andFrancis,threeof thegreatest boy cricketers of all time, the latter being a wonderful bowler ; witness 17 wickets fo