Cricket 1894

Together joined in cricket’s man ly toil.”— Byron • B g sterecl for rra n ^ teeion A broad THURSDAY, SEPT. 13, 1894. P E I 0 3 2 CRICKET NOTCHES. B y t h e R e v . R . S. H o l m e s . It is a fact that Captain Wynyard’s three successive centuries—against Sussex, Leicestershire, and Essex—have no parallel in Inter-County cricket, thoagli it is quite on the cards that, supposing there had been as many County matches twenty years ago as there are to-day, W 6 . would have been credited with a similar feat. Reference has already been made to his scoring in August, 187G. when in eight days he piled up inniogs of 344, 177, and 318 (not out). But it may not be known by all cricketers that in 1871, 1872, and 1873 he thrice notched the century in three consecutive innings. The details may be worthy of reproduction at this distance 18 1 May 25 —Genfcp. c f South v. (If lit?. of North, c Beevor, b Appleby......................................118 May 29-South v. North c Plumb, b W ootton 178 3unel—Gents, ofEng land v.CambritJge Univer­ sity, c Stedman, b bray .................... 162 187-2 Juty 3—Gentlemen v. Plajers, c Jupp, b Alfred Shaw ............... ............ 112 July 4—Gentlemen v. Players, h J.C. Shaw ... 117 July 8—England v. Notts and Y oikshiie, not out .........................................................170 1873 June 26—3enls. of South v. Players of gouth, c HowiIt, b Southerton .................134 June 30—Gentlemen v. piajets, c and b A. Shaw ... ... ................................. If3 July 3—Gent’emen v. llH y e r s , 1) A.Shaw ... 153 Most of these innings I witnessed. The 344 at Canterbury in 1870 I scored on an official score-card, which I still possess. Oudly enough, my figures came to 350; I have just cast up the lines again. He was not out 133 on tbe Friday evening ; on the Saturday I sat close to the entrance, as I was due at Margate the day before; the moment he was out— which did not happen until somewhere about four o'clock— I disappeared. Attention has been drawn to Holland’s successful first appearance in first-class cricket, when quite recently he scored 76 for Surrey v. Essex. A list of all success­ ful “ firsts ” would be very interesting. In the earliest “ Wisden ” there was given the names of all batsmen who had figured at Lord’s, with their first scores appended. It is a curious study in the light of sulsequent facts. H ollatd's scoring has, however, been beaten on several occasions. Thus Ricketts, whose death was announced during the past summer, scored 195 (not out) for Lanca­ shire v. Surrey in 1807 ; A. G. Steel scored 87 for Lancashire v. Sussex in 1877 ; and the present Lancashire captain scored 107 for Lancashire v. Sussex in 1890. To the best of my knowledge these latsmen made their debut in first-class cricket in the above-mentioned matches. Ricketts never did anything to fulfil the hopes excited by his wondeiful first appeararce at tbe O val: indeed, he never could be ranked among our leading bats­ men. Most great batsmen have gradually worked their way up to the top, hence the modest scores that came from their bats in their inaugural ventures. A correspondent in the South of London seeks my opinion on the following p oin t: “ In a match I was playing in lately, the bowler, seeing the batsman to whom he was going to bowl move out of his crease, instead of bowling the ball, threw it at that wicket and knocked it down when batsman was out of his ground : umpire gave him out. Was he out ? ” Well, I really cannot say positively whether he was or not. Law 35 refers only to bats­ man at bowler's wicket: h e may be put out before ball is bowled if be be out of his ground. Why not his partner as well ? The ball is in play if bowler has started his run, and he may deliver the ball from any point behind the bowling crease : in that case he might borvl down the opposite wicket whenever ho liked after he had started to deliver the ball. Does it make any difference if he should tliroio at that wicket? That might be penalised as a no-ball. If so, then batsman cannot be out, except ho be run out from the hit off such a b a ll; he can’t be stumped from a no-ball, hence he runs no risk in going out of his crease to hit such a ball. Or, if the ball is in play, is he not lawfully run out ? But if the throw is a no-ball, does the no-ball reckon before the run out ? It is a some­ what involved case. Had I been umpire, I should have wanted to make certain why the batsman adopted such tactics ? Suppose only two runs were wanted by the in side ; then batsman would be trying to gain an unfair advantage; in that case I should have ruled him out. I f he were playing his natural game, then I might have let him escape, and have called “ N o­ ball.” But this is a point in the game about which I do not feel very confident in my own judgment for once ; conse­ quently, 1 should be glad of the opinions of others. I remember at Canterbury many years ago seeing Thornton do this trick ; ball after ball he left his crease before Alfred Shaw had started to run ; at last Shaw, seeing an opening, bowled the ball over Thornton’s head; unfor­ tunately, he had miscalculated the dis­ tance, and the ball went over stumper’s head as well, and “ wide” was called. I said to myself at the time— “ but suppos­ ing the stumper had taken it, would is not have been a wide to the batsman ? ” No law states that batsman must stand within the crease to receive the b a ll; if it is out of his reach, it is a wide. lie umpiring .— I happen to possess a book filled with Press repor s of old matches which are brimful of interest. On June 10, 1839, the M.C.C. played Sussex, and beat them by seven wickets. Pilch and Wenman were “ given m e n ” for the M.C.C. Sussex played full strength, including C. G. Taylor, Jemmy Dean, Hawkins, Box, old Lillywhite, and a new bowler named Hodson, who had not previously appeared at Lord’s. In tho first inniugs Ilodson took eight wickets : “ It is no disparagement to Lillywhite to say that Hodson is at present tho most effective bowler in Sussex, and we are sure that the Nonpareil will him­ self ngree with us in the opinion ; for although his (Lillywhite's) balls aro pitched with greater precision than Hod- son's, they are not so destructive to the wickets. Hodson, it is true, occasionally low ls a rambling ball, but his bailcis fire the most puzzling balls we ever witnibse d.” And much moi e in this strain. Now f o r the grievance. The umpires were Caldecourt (“ Honest Will ” ) and Bart Good. M.C.C. had begun their second innings, wanting 81 to win. As the runs came, though slowly, the bowlers — Hodson and Lillywhite — changed ends. “ Hodson had previously