Cricket 1895

130 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. M a y 16, 1895. the scores, and in the event of a palpable mistake in the adding up, could demand that such an error be rectified. Law 43 distinctly states that “ all disputes shall be determined by them ” —the umpires, which certainly includes any difference of opinion that may arise in the scoring box. Umpires decide on short runs, boundary hits, wides, no-balls, and the like, and so to that extent the scoring comes under their jurisdiction. In the event of the scorers disagreeing, and the umpires as well, I don’t know what would happen ; “ the actual state of things shall continue,” but what is the “ actual state” in this dilemma? Can you compel scorers to alter their figures if clearly proved wrong ? What if they are of one mind in the mistake ? I imagine that, although not distinctly specified in the Laws, either or both umpires could be replaced whilst a match was in progress for manifest incompetence, or for flagrant violation of principle. Another matter mentioned by the same writer refers to l.b.w. to a bowler delivering the ball round the wicket. I am aware that on this point I am in a small minority, and that such authorities as the Australasian (quoted in this letter) are against me. But I have said before that if “ a straight line from wicket to wicket” means a straight line from stumps to stumps, and if the ball must have pitched in that line, then a round-the-wicket ball does not answer to this requirement—no, not even though it should (from a right-hand bowler) pitch on the off-stump and breakback to the middle or leg stumps. A correspondent from Natal encloses a curiosity which may be reproduced in extenso ; he assures me that it actually happened. Can any reader furnish a parallel case ? Did the four innings in any match ever total up alike ? SEA VIEW v. R.B &H. These teams met at South Coast Junction on Saturday, when the match resulted in a tie. The most singular thing is that the three innings completed totalled 53. Sink for R. B. & H., and Roper for Sea Yiew, were the most successful trundlers. Scores:— B. B. & H First Innings. C. Storm, b Roper ........... 1 D. L. Jones, b W illiams ...11 F. Gillingham, b Roper ... 0 C. Sink, b R o p er...................13 H. Appleton, c Fletcher, b Williams ........................... 3 W . Swales, b Roper ........... 7 F. Binney, b Williams ... 1 W . J. Austin, c and b Roper 3 A. W ills, lbw, b D owning... 4 C. F. Smith, not o u t ............ 1 G. H. Wayne, run out ... 3 Extras ............................ 6 Second Innings. b Boper ........... 0 run out ........... 6 b Boper .......... 11 c and b Roper ... 0 c and b Parsons... 3 b W illiam s...........10 not out................... 0 b Roper ........... 4 b Roper ...........11 run out ........... 0 lbw, b Downing... 4 Extras........... 4 Total.. D. E. Spence, b Swales J. Downing, b Sink ... F. C. Blarney, c Gil­ lingham, b Sink ... T. Fletcher,b Swales.. J. Boper, c W ills, b S in k ......................... . W . D. Morris, c W ills, b Sink ................... Total ... 53 J. Williams, c Austin, b Sink ................... E. S. Parsons, b Swales F. Dawson, b Sink ... E. Dougherty, c Sink, b Swales .................. A.McLaughlin,not out E x tra s................... Total ........... The same writer asks for information on a matter that recently caused heated discussion. I have mislaid a portion of his letter, and so must rely on my memory. A batsman was given out by umpire, who gave his decision sotto voce , which was inaudible to batsman and to bowler as well. Another ball was actually bowled ; and then the outside insisted that he was given out the previous ball, and must in consequence retire. Could batsman have refused to leave ? Could he claim to continue his innings seeing that a second ball had been s«it down P Again I should say the umpires’ decision is final, and that all disputes must be determined by them. At the same time one feels that the out-side deserved to be punished for not at the proper time demanding their rights. I don’t suppose the intelligent students of this journal are ever in doubts as to when a wicket is “ down.” But up in the Club cricket of the North there is much ignorance on this important point. Many cricketers imagine that if only one bail be off, a stump must be uprooted or knockeddown. Nothing of the kind. If the wind, or batsman in running, or stumper has displaced or even floored one stump and with it one bail, then supposing the other bail kept its position on the remaining stumps, the removal of that bail would be sufficient to cause a batsman to be run out supposing he were out of his crease. The Law is certainly very explicit here, and it is No 20 in the Revised Code. Once again I entreat all cricketers to learn their Catechism by heart. Now that the prodigals have beenwelcomed back with much feasting and shouting, the cricket season proper may pursue its pleasant course. It does one good to listen to the genuinely modest utterances of men who do not lose their heads amid all this somewhat immoderate junketting. Both Peel and Brown at the welcome home suppers in their honour last week give Richardson the principal part of the credit attaching to the winning of the rubber. One recalls by con­ trast the swagger of the fifth-rate cricketer. Your greatest exponents in every branch of work carry themselves with unaffected simplicity; that is ever the mark of the master in any craft. There’s a recent letter from Tom Emmett to myself, in which he regrets the limited progress made in his Cricket Reminiscences. “ The fact is, lam not much of a hand in writing about myself, and as I should have to give a description of the difficulties I had to contend with when I was a boy, I am bound to say something about myself. Then again I have not much confidence in myself as a writer; in fact, I have never shown anybody what I have already dotted down. But when I do get any more written, if I show it to anyone, you shall be singled out for the infliction.” But when a man can write in such clear, nervous English as that just quoted verbatim, apologies are quite unnecessary. I wish Peel’s speech at Morley last Wednesday week could be given in full; it was admirable every way. A practised orator would not disown it. What with our modern professional cricketer’s genius for writing and public speaking, our amateurs must look to their laurels. I have some letters from old George Anderson that are models of penmanship. And if cricketers want to read a singularly able magazine article from the pen of a pro., I would recommend them to get the Australian Review of Reviews for February last, in which Brock­ well discourses on “ Australian Cricket through English Spectacles.” I have heard of amateurs professing to write on sport, who simply affixed their signature to somebody else’s production. The pro. always scores off his own bat. My lad tells me that a couple of seasons back he saw a similar trick played to that recorded last week of a prominent comedian; only that the bat then was partly covered with paper, which hid from view a receptacle for the ball. I hope the days of clowns’ cricket are past and over. There are, however, lots of men still who play at cricket instead of playing cricket. And what shall we say of last week’s cricket, the first week proper of the seasonP Given a continuance of this remarkable weather, and I feel certain of commanding the sympathy of all bowlers in my proposed reforms. If thus early two first-class matches have resulted in more than a thousand runs apiece, what may we not expect as the season advances P And six individual scores passed into three figures ! The honours all go to the younger counties, who have lost no time in justifying their recent promotion. Of course the season is much too young to jump to any rash conclusions, but it does look as if the struggle for first honours will not be confined to the older hands. Personally I rejoice, not so much at the overthrow of my earliest love, Surrey, as that Leicestershire were chosen to give them the coup de grace. Let Surrey beat all their old rivals if they like, so long as the youngsters get a cut in. And there was no fluke about it. True, Lockwood was resting, and Richardson—four for 144—looks as if one day is not enough for a man to recover his shore legs. And Lohmann is not back yet. But on the other hand, Surrey won the toss, and half way through held the whip hand. Then came Leicestershire’s chance, and Woodcock and Tomlin were not slow in turning it to account. The fast bowler—six for 44—seemed fairly unplayable. It may be this startling change in the weather has come too rapidly for our batsmen just at first to follow the fastest balls. Last week at the nets I found the ball past me before one could see it. Tomlin, however, was not so troubled, and a chanceless innings of 106 found him still in possession when victory was pro­ claimed. Nobody expected it after Leicester­ shire’s earlier show up at Lord’s, and against a moderate M.C.C. team only. Woodcock’s 33 was the Leger there, whilst their latest recruit, Stocks, had nine wickets at a cost of 10 runs each. But they fell short by 159 runs, the old Middlesex batsman, Vernon—now almost a veteran at thirty-nine years of age— bagging a brace of fifties in the old crisp, dashing style, Chatterton also scoring 50 in the second innings. I need not remind the cricket public that Surrey have occasionally found Leicestershire a hard nut, but not at the Oval, unless my memory tricks me. I am writing this close to Shakespeare’s birth­ place, and long before the newspapers arrive, but I seem to have a dim recollection of Surrey once getting 26 and 100 only, whilst last year they made the awfullest show, when you might have backed them for a kingdom to a hayseed. No match of the week was to me more enjoyable than that played at Leyton. A great match from start to finish, and one that should give a fillip to the fortunes of the Southern County. It must have been good to be there. Essex have been overshadowedby their metropolitan rivals. But where is there a pleasanter ground, just at the right distance for toilers in the great city? And did any county show a pluckier spirit in the face of heavy odds? As the largest county innings last year was Surrey’s 401 v. Yorkshire, Essex are to be congratulated on their innings of 410 v. Warwickshire. And so are Higgins (118) and Burns (114) and their sturdy part­ nership of 205 runs. The former I saw face the Yorkshire bowling last year at Halifax, I believe, and said at the time ho was worth looking after. Warwickshire were notto be out paced, although a deficiency of 151 on the first hand looked ominous ; their second ven­ ture set that all right, indeed, at the close they had a start of 193, and with only five dead men. At a guess I shall fancy the Sussex renegade never did so well since his great year—1888 (?), 91 and 83 (not out) form a splendid double, whilst old-time sportsmen will rejoice at his Captain’ s success*—111. In such a batsman’s match, Kortright’s first