Cricket 1895

116 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAMF. M a y i), 1S95. CRICKET NOTCHES. B y t h e R e v . R. S. H o l m e s . I must solicit patient forbearance in harking back to the “ throwing-bowling ” question. A long and characteristic letter from my es­ teemed friend, the “ Old Buffer,” compels me once again to refer to it. In that letter F.G. says :—“ I don’t think you will do much good in trying to define a throw, and I think the M.C.C. are wise in refusing to define in words what everybody knows in fact. A throw is a throw, and I don’t see how an anatomical definition of the movement of the muscles can be written down so as to put brains into stupid or timid umpires. I think a batsman might have a right to say to the opposing captain: ‘ Will you tell that bowler to tuck up his sleeve well above the elbow.’ That would cure it. The great mistake was made in allowing the wrist movement. Felix said the arm—round arm—should travel round like the spokes of a horizontal wheel without the flip of the wrist. The throw, of course, is from the double crunk, wrist and elbow.” “ A throw is a throw ! ” "What about the opinions of R. Daft and L. C. H. Palairet which I quoted ? One is reminded of an umpire mentioned approvingly by Mr. Pycroft who did not require to see the bowler’s arm touch his side in order to decide about a jerk. His decision was thus given : “ I say it is a jerk because it is a jerk.” To those who are familiar with the history of this controversy which has been raging more or less for a hundred years, it may seem needless to state that the word “ throw ” has been used of every alteration in the mode of delivery. Every now and again another word—“ shy ’ ’—has been introduced. Even to day I have heard those infallible authorities —the spectators—exclaim in chorus, “ Well shied.” I wonder whether the Surrey Secre­ tary recalls a very apt retort of his to the excited, clamorous Oval ring when Crossland was playing skittles with the Surrey batsmen. So great was the disturbance that the Secre­ tary requested the crowd to keep quiet. The spokesman of a certain gang said: ‘ ‘ That isn’t bowling, it’s throwing.” The gentle retort was given: “ Do you know what throwing is?” Might we not ask the same question to day ? In my humble judgment, all through this controversy we have begun at the wrong end. From time to time the same process has been followed, viz.—“ This is fair bowling, and only this; any other sort of bowling is throwing. ’ ’ Far better have reversed matters and said—“ This is throwing, all the other styles of delivery are fair bowling.” And for this reason, what is called bowling is as different in successive generations as any two things very well can be. Thus at one time underhand bowling alone was fair ; the hand was to be below the elbow at the time of delivering the ball; “ if the arm is extended straight from the body, or the back part of the hand extended uppermost when the ball is delivered, or the hand extended horizontally, the umpire should call ‘ no ball.’ ” Probably that is the earliest reference to delivery in the laws of cricket, and this code was drafted in 1816. It may be mentioned that years before this date, Tom Walker — “ Old Everlasting ” — who was born in 1762, and was a prominent member of the old Hambledon Club, after he had joined that club for two years, say in 1785, “ began the system of throwing instead of bowling, now so much in fashion. At that time it was esteemed foul play, and so it was decided by a council of the Hambledon Club, which was called for that purpose.” It would seem as if the increased speed of his bowling constituted the ground of this protest. But he never once raised his hand up to the level of his shoulder. Such an innovation was not at that time so much as dreamed of. In 1828 a newspaper battle was stoutly fought on both sides, G. J. Knight, of Kent, warmly advocating the high delivery which Lillywhite and Broadbridge of Sussex were quietly, but surely introducing. Denison led the orthodox party, that is, the under­ hand bowling, as against the round-arm, and he did not scruple to write of the raising of the hand—“ if Mr. Knight finds a man hits his ball away, he will without hesitation throw his hand and his arm, as it were, over his head, in other words, shy at the wickets.” Denison’s protest against a high delivery— though the hand was not above the shoulder— was not because it was illegal, so much as because it was shying. In 1831 the law ran thus:—“ The ball shall be bowled; if it be thrown or jerked, or if any part of the hand or arm be above the elbow at the time of delivery, the umpire shall call 1no-ball.’ ” As matters could’ not rest [here, a further addition to this law was made in 1845:— “ whenever the bowler shall so closely infringe on this rule in either of the above particulars (throwing, jerking, or height of arm) as to make it difficult for the umpire at the bowler’s wicket to judge whether the ball has been delivered within the true interest and mean­ ing of this rule or not, the umpire shall call ‘ no-ball.’ ” Then, in 1862, we had the famous no-ball episode, in which John Lillywhite and Willsher were the prominent actors. Then, in 1863, a list of printed instructions was issued by the M.C.C. to their umpires, informing them to exercise the most watchful care and firmness. And then, in 1864, the sweeping alteration of law 10 into the form in which it has remained ever since. Now I would particularly direct attention to two or three facts of importance. The first is this:—None of the authorised codes make any reference whatever to the bowler’s delivery prior to 1816. Why was this? Take the earliest known code—that of 1755— this is its only reference to bowling:—“ The bowler shall deliver the ball with one foot behind the bowling crease, and shall bowl four balls before he changes wickets, which he shall do but once in the same innings. He may order the player at his wicket to stand on which side of it he pleases.” Not a word more. I would remark next, that the 'greatest authorities have always differed in their pro­ nouncements on fair and unfair bowling. Take the days of the old under-hand bowling, when it was mostly all along the ground, no length at all—see the famous poem by James Love on cricket; I quote from my own copy which bears the date of 1770, book 3, line 7 : “ Four times fromHodswell’sarmitskimsthegrass.” Genuine daisy-cutters of our boyhood. Even then some bowling was deemed unfair. Writing of Richard Francis of Surrey in “ Cricketers of my Time,” Nyren thus pro­ tests:—“ Francis was a fast jerker ; but though his delivery was allowed to be fair bowling, still it was a jerk.” None the less enthusiastically did Nyren welcome him into the Hambledon Club, ‘ ‘ for we all knew what he could do; his coming was the luckiest thing that could have happened for us.” Why even the immortal David Harris was accused of jerking, but the charge was never substantiated, and Nyren discreetly says nothing in depreciation of his ideal bowler. Was Clarke’s bowling perfectly fair ? I never saw it, but Mr. Pycroft thus describes it—‘ ‘ Clarke’s bowling was delivered from the hip, with a little chuck or fling from the hand.” Yet, chuck or no chuck, it was. allowed in Clark. This is my contention. Throwing has always been illegal; but what is throwing ? There is not a first-class bowler of to-day that would not have been stopped fifty years ago for throwing. Yet we call it perfectly fair bowling. But “ a throw is a throw,” says my old friend F. G. Quite so, in other words, if any style or delivery was throwing then, it is throwing now. But what is a throw? I ask yet again, and shall not be satisfied until we have an authoritative definition by the M.C.C. Without comment I reproduce a defini­ tion sent to me by a cricketer who modestly subscribes himself “ Enthusiast.” “ Throw­ ing in cricket seems to me analogous to pulling with the arms in rowing. To row properly no force ought to be used after the oar has passed, or is abreast of, the rigger. So in bowling, the bowler should not propel the ball after his arm has been brought up to the shoulder, but should let the action (as in rowing) finish itself. Permit me then to suggest a definition of a throw:—‘ The bowler throws the ball, when, in the opinion of the umpire, he gives the ball its propelling force when his arm has passed his shoulder.’ ’ ” Why should not the columns of this journal be thrown open to a cricket symposium during next winter, when we shall have no Australian cricket to absorb attention ? In giving my evening with Freeman, omission was made of Richard Daft’s innings of 111 not out against Freeman’s bowling. It was made in the “ Two Elevens ” match in 1867 at Manchester, and is, I believe, the only century ever scored in the entire series. That used to be the Whit Monday match at Lord’s for many years. There never was a better. No amateur ever took part in it. And writing of Freeman, I am reminded of W. G.’s description of a ball that took his wicket in the first match he played against the famous Yorkshireman. The ball hit the root of the stump, and remained there, spinning round for several seconds. Or some­ thing to that effect. There’s nothing new under the sun. In a somewhat scarce pamphlet by Mr. Pycroft, entitled Reminis­ cences of the Old Players , he has a reference to Cobbett’s bowling, of which Carpenter once expressed the highest opinion:—“ Such was the spin of a ball from Cobbett, that when you blocked a shooter, you would sometimes find the ball curling and spinning between the creases. We once had a ball from him, which we had blocked a foot away from our bat, come back, as by the drawback twist at billiards, in a straight line into tho wicket.” I wonder how often a similar phenomenon has been observed. The annual meetings of our leading cricket clubs present the usual caprices of fortune. Every lover of sport—and who is not ?—must rejoice at the ever-increasing prosperity of both the Metropolitan clubs. The fortunes of the game are so completely bound up in the M.C.C. that its present position is a matter for heartiest rejoicing all round. Just looking into the first edition of Nyren, which appeared in 1833, I noticed for the first time that a list is given of the members of the M.C.C. in that year. Venture a guess as to the numerical strength of the Club then— 203 only. W.G. has told us that when he joined it in 1869, the membership was 1,200. In 1894 it had increased to 4,034. And I suppose, if they willed it, the Club could boast of 10,000 members before the present season was over. It speaks eloquently for