Cricket 1894

5 @ 0 — > — 8 ©5— f - -j M c t .* - H © 5— f .td J * i f Sc: — H r— . a— f U Together 'joined in cricket’s man ly toil.”— Byron, N o. 3 7 3 VO L . X III. B* g stored for Transmission Abroad THURSDAY, AUG. 30, 1894. P R IC E 2d. CRICKET NOTCHES. B y the R ev . R . S. H olmes . A correspondent from Pontefract wishes to know whether both batsmen can be run out at tbe sam e tim e ; and he encloses a news­ paper cutting which narrates two occasions when this feat was brought off. T he first was in 1853, when Caffyn threw in a ball from the out-field which passed through both the wickets when the batsmen were out of their crease. T he second was when Ulyett was playing for England against twenty-two ofBallarat in A ustralia; ball was returned to U lyett, who put down the w ick et; the other batsman seeing this, turned back to get into his ground again ; U lyett went after him , overtook him , and put his wicket down as well. The umpires not being able to decide in a case of that kind, Ulyett clenched it by declaring both batsmen out, remarking, “ It m ik es all the difference when the same fielder puts both wickets dow n.” Exeunt the tw o batsmen, perfectly satisfied. Bat nobody can surely fail to discover in this decision on the part of U lyett, a fine sample of his well-known waggish propensities. Of course, only one batsman can he thus run out. T h e ball is dead as soon as either batsman is out. Yet there is nothing ex­ pressly stated in the Law s, which makes it impossible for both batsmen to be out at one and the same tim e ; quite the opposite ; for according to Laws 26 and 30, both the striker and non-striker are out supposing the non-striker obstructs a fielder. I have m en­ tioned this before, as I feel quite certain it was never intended b y the original framers of our present code. H owever, there it is. Probably most cricketers have read Gunn’s letter to the Sporting Life, protesting against the treatm ent received by him self and O. W . W right at the hands of the spectators and of a portion of the Press. It has m y m ost cordial sym pathy. It is preposterous tbat able cricketers should be insulted in this way. W right met w ith sim ilar treatment at L ord’s early on in the season. Gunn assures us that they both lost their wickets through the unseem ly shouting by the crowd. In the leading club in m y town, we have a capital batsman who last year on account of a run of ill luck was systematically hooted every ball he received in a match. T he con ­ sequence was he com pletely lost his skill with the bat. I h is year the nuisance has been stopped, and his batting has been as oaspicuous as ever. T he “ ring '1 for the m ost part seem to me to be able to appreciate big hitting only, and not skilful batting. In Peel’s benefit, W ard and MacLaren played as perfect cricket as one would like to see, slow, I admit, but then Pe el and the other bowlers were keeping so accurate a length that it was impossible to score without taking great risks. The crow d jeered every fruitless stroke. As I said to a man close by, “ if you don’t like it, go o ff; there’s no reason why you should stop, but if you do you should try to behave like a gentlem en.” T ne N ottingham cricket is not rapid, but people need not go and watch it. For m y pait I can honestly affirm that during all the long innings I have watched from the bats of Shrewsbury and Gunn, I have never once longed to see either of them adopt different tactics. Bowlers are m ore to blame than batsm ej for slow scoring in the m ajority of cases. L et every batsman play his o * n gam e; m ost cricketers would lhankfully adopt the Notts style could they make certain it would result in similar success. The fact rem ains that professional cricket has never had such exponents as the famous N otts pair. W hat else could Gunn and W right have done in the M iddlesex m atch ? a w in was almost im possible; to play for a draw was their p la n duty. My chief com plaint against cricket as it is played is this bowling for maiden overs ; I wish they had never been recognised, as they are a blot on the game. For them , however, Notts are largely res­ ponsible in the persons of A lfred Shaw and Attewell. W hat I admire so m uch in the bowling of such m en as Lohm ann and Briggs not to m ention Lockw ood, is that they keep on feeding the batsmen, and never seem to m ind being knocked about, in the hope of, by hook or crook, getting them out. The pur- p o:e of bowling is to defeat the b a t; and he is the gieatest bowler who will risk his analysis in order to secure this end in the shortest time. If the crowd at cricket cannot behave itself, then I can think of no other rem edy than the drastic one known in football, v iz .: suspend the i,round for a given period. It i3 to be hoped that Gunn will have no cause t:> carry out his threat of retirem ent; can it be that this is the reason why we have seen nothing of Shrewsbury this year? I should n ot have referred to his absence but for the disguised hint iu Gunn’s letter. I have been told that his health is not the real cause of his non- appearance. At the sam e time the Notts batsmen, especially the younger m en, ought to try aud recover their popularity with the spectators. Caution m ay be carried to pain­ ful lengths. The brilliant victory achieved over N otts by Lancashire on Saturday last should not be altogether without salutary effect on them . One m ay be absolutely cer­ tain that Notts would not have scored a point under similar conditions. B ut every batsman must play his own game I G unn is not Sugg, nor is Sugg Gunn. Kespecting umpires and the rem oval of any um pire thought to be incompetent in County matches, I shall like to say a w ord. There can be no doubt that umpires’ decisions have this year given rise to a deal of dis­ satisfaction ; but was it ever different? A ll men are liable to make m istakes, but in the present day County com petition an absolutely infallible umpire would receive m ore abuse than applause, Since I have occasionally “ stood ” in club m atches, I have watched umpires with the narrowest scrutiny, and I am bound to put on record m y wonder­ ment at the com plete and able m anner in which they discharge tbeir m ost arduous duties. I know of no post that requires m ore conscientious w ork. At the same time I have long been of opinion *hat all C ounty umpires (at least) should pass two exam ina­ tions, tbe first in eyesight, the second in laws. I have never seen the first of these tests advocated elsewhere, though I fancy it has found a place in a previous “ N otch." To m e it is of supreme importance in a game where so m uch depends on the possession of sound sight. It is anomalous that m en, deemed tco old to see how to bat, are forth ­ with prom oted to the responsible post of umpire. Occasional interviewing has also convinced me that an oral or written exam in­ ation ia the laws of cricket m ight n ot be unproductive of good. I have a notion that I could set a capital test paper, which may b9 given in these columns during the off­ season. I had a funny experience when um piring in a m atch this year. Batsman now and then coveied the stumps, and the bowler, who had a big leg-break, asked me to watch him very carefully, as he felt certain he should have him out leg-before-wicket. At last he appealed w ith amazing confidence. ‘ ■Not ou t," was my answer. The next over he asked me if I had any ob jec'ion to state the reason for m y decision. As a rule it is not wise to do so, but I knew m y m an lo be a downright, good fellow. Said I— “ the break was so big that the ball would not have hit the wicket, therefore he waa not out. M any umpires don’t know that this is tbe Law concerning lbw. M oreover, the ball touched his bat afier striking his leg.” Now the odd thing war, that the bowler had not