Cricket 1894

450 CEBICKETs k WEEKLY EEGORD OP THE GAME0 DEC. 28, 1894 wonderful fielding, have taught us a much-needed lesson.” It is not always that cricketers take a licking in such good part. Defeat should ever be welcomed when it leads to reformation. b. Millbrook, Ontario, October 29. Have just finished reading the whole of your Notches from June 17 to September 23; I assure you, etc.” I am thankful the task did not devolve on myself. The writer—who is a well-known contributor to the American CricTcetei — goes on to say : “ Canadian cricket has improved 100 per cent, in the past three years. Our performance at Toronto, when meet­ ing Lord Hawke’s eleven, compares very favourably with that of the Philadel­ phians ; on paper it is, in fact, better. You will be glad to learn that Mr. Hall’s book—1Sixty Years of Canadian Cricket ’ will soon be ready ; it will be brimful of interesting matter, and is the only work of the kind that has been attempted on this side.” Collectors at home—and their number is legion to-day—will be glad to receive a substantial addition of this sort to their cricket library. The author has kindly promised to send me a copy, which shall be duly received. c. San Francisco, October 18. “ I send a cutting from our local ‘ Chronicle ’ of October 14, to let you know how cricket is going on by the shores of the Pacific. You will note that we have arrived at the dignity of county cricket. The interest in the game is increasing, I have got my team down betimes, that we may have a solid day’s practice on the concrete wickets, the fastness of which is beyond belief after grass, or even matting on hard ground. Eeports of the contests for the Harrison Cap shall be sent to C ricket in due course. We much regret that it is no longer a weekly paper.” No. 3. South Pacific, Fiji, October 6. A delightful letter—three whole sheets— from a well-known cricketer, J. S. Udal. I wish I could transcribe it bodily. “ You may be pleased to hear that we are pro­ posing to take up a mixed team of Whites and Fijians to New Zealand in January, having received very kind offers of wel­ come from the various cricket associations of that colony. Of course we shall get a most dreadful thrashing, but the novelty of seeing Fijians playing in the costume they wear here will, 1 hope, atone for some of our shortcomings in this respect." “ But what I am principally writing to you upon is this. Y ou say at page 322 of C r ic k e t with reference to scoring off no­ balls—‘ a no-ball, when runs are made off it, no longer counts as a no-ball, but the batsman is credited with the runs. (Law 16).’ Quite bo. But you add, ‘ at the same time Law 13 instructs that such a ball, though scored from, is not to be reckoned as one of the over.’ With great deference I do not agree with this last paragraph. To my reading Law 13 does not say that no-bails, when scored off, are not to count in the over ; it says 1neither a no-ball nor a wide ball shall be reckoned as one of the over.” Then Mr. Udal pro­ ceeds to speak of a match he umpired in, when the last ball o f an over—a no-ball— being hit for three, he at once called over. “ My decision was afterwards disputed; opinions were divided, and, as usual in the sporting Antipodes, bets were wagered on the result. The matter was referred to the Australasian . . . to Mr. Perkins at Lord’s, and Mr. Alcock at the Oval, who all agreed that I was wrong. However, I am not convinced..................... and appeal to you for your own considera- able opinion on the matter, and so make it public.” Well, the common interpre­ tation of the Law in question is doubtless adverse to the decision of my esteemed correspondent. In my previously quoted remarks I was simply echoing the preva­ lent opinion. Mr. Udal’s contention is (1) “ that an over can consist of (say) only five balls; (2) that the runs obtained by the batsmen should exactly corres­ pond with the total shown by the bowler’s analyses. Therefore all runs credited to any batsman must be debited to the bowler ofi whom he has made them. If so, then five balls—one of which was a no-ball, but scored off—complete the over.” As he further adds, “ if not, and the bowler continues bowling no-balls, off' which the batsman makes drives, then 50 runs might be made off one over, which, as they say in Euclid, is absurd.” I agree with his interpretation. A hit from a no-ball, for which runs are scored, does change the character of the no-ball: that no-ball should count in the over. Not, of course, when it yield no run or runs from a stroke of the bat. “ How are such runs scored in the analysis ? " I answer: bowlers are not debited with either wides or no-balls, but they are with no-balls which a batsman scores off. A manifest absurdity! In our revision of the Laws, it may be remembered that Mr. Burnside and myself proposed to disregard No-balls altogether. Treat them as dead, in the same way as you do a “ fault” at tennis, to which they exactly correspond. Penalize them to the extent of one or even more runs, as may be deemed advisable, but don’t reckon them in the over. Nor should a batsman be out from any stroke from a no-ball, nor should he be able to score from such a ball. And further, insert both wides and no-balls in the bowler’s analysis. Mr. Udal thus winds up:— “ I was very pleased to read your sug­ gested alterations and emendations in the M.C.C, rules of cricket, and quite agree with you as to this necessity in many instances. When I was on the M.C.C. Committee in 1888-89, I had an intention of doing something in that way myself, but my appointment to a far away place like Fiji in the latter year brought all such pleasurable ideas to an end.” B atch N o . 4 — A u stralia , a. Nelson, New Zealand, October 18. A letter, criticising my proposed alteration of the l.b.w. rule, must be left unnoticed. It came to hand only this morning, and I am afraid the writer has somewhat mis­ understood my alteration. If he has not, I will refer to his contention later on. b. Sydney, October 14. There was, as we have heard with regret, an ugly quarrel in the recent Victoria v. N. S. Wales match. “ On the fourth day the match should have been resumed; the time announced was, as usual, mid-day. At that hour the umpires inspected wicket. N.S.W. Umpire pronounced it unfit owing to heavy rains during night: the Victorian umpire said it was fit. They disagreed. What should have been done under the circumstances ? ” Law 43 says distinctly that “ if they (the umpires) dis­ agree, the actual state of things shall continue.” Then the game should have been resumed at 12 o’clock. It was over this bother that the Victorian Captain lost his temper, and made sundry remarks which he won’t withdraw, and which may possibly result in these time-honoured matches being knocked on the head.” Let us hope that J. McC. B. has by this time made the amende honorable. c. Adelaide, November 12. The writer, C. P. Moody, was over here with the Australian eleven in 1890. He informs me that he has forwarded me a little book on cricket which he hopes I shall find “ interesting, and—may I add—useful.” Certainly you may, my dear Sir. All that interests ought to be of use. “ I am writing after a grand day at cricket. You will appreciate my enthusiasm as a South Australian when I remind you that our men scored 383—a grand score surely against your best bowlers. Darling, who made 117 as artistically as ever runs were made, is 24 years of age, and is going to be a great batsman. Years ago, when he had just turned 15, he made 252 in the Annual College match which corresponds to your Eton v. Harrow; but unfortunately he was relegated to the back blocks until last season, when he returned to Adelaide, and straightway made 63 (not out) v. Victoria, and 89 in a later match. Moses is dropping out of first-class cricket, but Darling will take his place as a left­ hander ; and if a team visits you in 1896 (it is talked about), you may calculate on seeing him, Brown batted beautifully from beginning to end, giving but one chance. I tvas surprised to see him miss Darling after he had passed his century, because I remember Brown in 1890 at Bradford make a wonderful running catch at square-leg. It is strange how the best men miss catches. We have a man—Beedman—who was never known to miss a catch before, and yet he dropped one from Richardson in this match. . . . I daresay you would not mind having an astral body which could translate you to Melbourne on New Year’s Day. I hope to be there, spite of a train journey of 500 miles.” In extenuation of Brown’s mistake, it should be mentioned that last year he fielded at point, not away from the wicket. P ostscripts . 1. Mr. V. E. Walker writes:—“ You will be glad to know that after much trouble in finding cut and getting ihe authority from the representatives of old Lillywhite, his grave has now been put in proper order and repair. . . . , . The M.C.C. have done the work on my proposal. I thought you would like to know about the matter; it would have been done long since, but the authorities at Highgate Cemetery would not allow it until a written authority from the repre­ sentatives of 1Old Lilly ’ was obtained, NEXT ISSUE JANUARY 31