Cricket 1895

M a i 30, l 5 J j . CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 163 CRICKET NOTCHES. B y t h e R e v . R. S. H o lm e s . A fortnight since I asked this question—did the four innings in any match ever total up alike? In answer an undergraduate of St. John’s College, Cambridge reminds me of “ a double-tie match recorded in Lillewhite’s Annual for 1885, page 260. The match was played on August 10 and 11, 1884, between the Royal Munster Fusiliers and Tenby, and ended in a tie. Four innings were completed, each of 51 runs. The number of runs—51— is curious as being very near the 53 in the match you record.” On looking this match up I find it occurs in the 1886 edition of the “ Red Lilley,” andthat it was played in 1885. None the less am I grateful for the informa­ tion. Another correspondent—from Sydenham— referring to Ranjitsinhji’s successful first appearance for Sussex v. M.C.C. two or three weeks ago, informs me that “ the same match was the occasion of another notable debut many years since, when James Lillywhite com­ menced his long and successful career by taking 14 wickets for 57 runs in this identical match in 1862.” Lillywhite, whom one is delighted to see still taking an active part on th3 cricket field, had a unique record, in that he did not miss a single Sussex match during twenty years. And he looks as if he might stop with us for another two or three decades. A fortnight ago I received a long and very interesting com'nunication from Pretoria, South Africa, along with a copy of the Weekly Press containing the averages of the Pretoria cricketers during the past season. “ You will see from it that Seccull and Tancred are numbered among us. In J. H. Sinclair we have one of the best slow bowlers in South Africa, He bowls right hand with a high delivery, breaking both ways and managing to disguise his break in a very puzzling manner. He is also a most promising bat, playing very correctly with great punish­ ing powers. He was chosen to represent the Transvaalinthe Currie CupTournament which concludes to day (April 20). In the firstmatch against Natal he scored 10 and 61 not out—a splendid performance, which was directly responsible for winning the match, as, when h&went in seventh wicket down, 110 runs were wanted to win. Another fine performance in the same match was done in the first innings; J. T. Hings, and W. O. Reid were the last men in, with the Transvaal 70 runs behind, but they defied change after change until they had put on 104 runs.” He then refers to the final match against the Western Province, the full score of which was given in the last issue of this journal, and in which George Lohmann cut a prominent figure. He very kindly volunteers to send me a copy of the Weekly Press regularly during the cricfcet season. The same writer, known as “ Nimrod” mthose parts, asks this question A bowler howls a no-ball, which the batsman knocks for four. This 4 counts to the batsman, but how is it accounted for in the analysis P The ball is not reckoned in the over, of course, but there seems to be no other way of acting than ignoring it altogether, as it cannot count both as a 4-hit and a 4-no-ball. I have generally scored it thus: 2 4 nb . w 8 Which means that the first ball was fruitless, the second hit for 2, the third was a no-ball hit for 4, off the third no runs weremade, the fourth took a wicket, the fifth went for 3. I his I extend as follows: 1 over, 0 maiden, 9 runs, 1 wicket, as the four no-balls cannot appear among the extras. Am I right?” I fancy not, but am not quite certain how our official scorers reckon such a no-ball. That it ought to reckon against the bowler is evident, but to to the best of my knowledge it never does. I quite forgot to make enquiries when I was recently in town. Perhaps one of our official scorers will en­ lighten me. As I have said before, I want no-balls to be disregarded altogether; penalize them as severely as you like, but forbid the batsman scoring off them. They should be treated as dead-balls, which have nothing further to do with the game. If a batsman can score off them, then he ought to be given out provided he is caught from such a stroke or otherwise infringes a law. My recent visit to London yielded me a delightful surprise in the shape of a rare cricket treasure ; none other than an exquisite water colour of Felix, the famous left-handed cricketer, done by himself. He made a present of it to the Hon. Fred. Ponsonby— Lord Bessborough who so recently passed away. It is enclosed in the original wrapper, has the Brighton postmark upon it, and at the foot Felix has written the date of its transmission, January 6th, 1866. On the back of the portrait is this inscription : - “ N. Felix, to Frederick G. B. Ponsonby, January, 1886. By himself, and sent with a most kind and well written letter, which I have unfortunately lost. In it he referred in touching and well chosen words to his past life, and present affliction from the attack which deprived him of the use of his right arm and hand, and to our long friendship and happy cricket days. B.” Could there be a more interesting memorial of two great and good men ? It is my intention later on to ask the M.C.C. to accept this picture, and also the large water color by Felix of Barker, the umpire, which old Tom Adams sent me j ust before he died. I am of opinion that valuable curios like these should ultimately find a resting place in the pavilion at Lord’s. Last week’s cricket, which began quietly enough, finished up in a perfect blaze of glory. The batting averages published this morning are a wonderful study, fifteen of them coming out with figures above 40. Can anybody remember such a merry month of May? Per contra , note Attewell’s bowling. True he has not met W. G., who is at his old game of spoiling the best bowling figures; nevertheless the Notts man has performed so consistently well that I am surprised he has not been chosen to represent England in Walter Read’s match. On his present form he cannot be left out of any eleven, and, mind vou, cricketers are, or ought to be, selectea on the virtue of their most recent doings with bat and ball. But we are an awfully conservative people in sport as in everything else ; we don’t like dropping an old hand when he is distinctly off-colour, nor do we care to take him up again when his earlier powers once more reassert themselves. I want to see how young Holland, wTho was born in February, 1876, hails from Battersea Park, is an out-and-out supporter of the Radical labour member for that District, and is, moreover, a rabid teetotaller; I want to see what he will make of better bowling than he has yet had to face. To-day’s match will proVe a severe test; should he come well out of it, then his place in the Players’ eleven ought to be certain, unusual though it is to confer such an honor upon a first year’s cricketer. But Harrison, the fast Yorkshire bowler, had this compliment paid him at Lord’s in 1883. So there is a precedent, if one is wanted. The Wilkinson episode at Trent Bridge calls for an emphatic protest against any and every interference with the duties and decisions of umpires. He was run out, and there was an end of it. I do wish captains would mind there own business, andnotmeddle with the umpires’ business. It had nothing to do with either of the captains taking part in the match. Only last year I was compelled to express my indignation with the unwarrant­ able interference on the part of a captain who objected to play on a wicket that had been prepared, on the ground that it had been covered up before the match. I feel that umpires are to be censured for not insisting on their rights. Even whenthey make palpible mistakes, there is no redress against their decisions. When, two years ago, Henty gave Foley out in the Middlesex v. Sussex match for replacing a bail whilst the ball was in play, he ought to have gone out, though it might in that case have been entered in the score sheet “ wrongly given out.” But in the case of last week there is no room for doubt or contradiction : the ball didnot reach the boundary; it matters not that Jackson may have led Wilkinson to think it did ; he ought to have used his own eyes. Anyhow, my point is this ; ‘ ‘ out ’ ’was the umpires’ verdict, and that should have been final. When they make me umpire I promise that my word shall be law, fixed, unchangeable. What is the good of having umpires if they are pliant tools in the hands of others ? I do trust we shall have no further violation of the very first principles of all sport. A protest from the M,C.C. would be most reasonable. As against Surrey, so against Notts, Leicestershire proved irresistible. It served Notts right for dropping Bagguley, after his splendid innings against Sussex he ought to have played. It is conduct like this on the part of the executive which has created so much indifference, not to say disloyalty, on the part of Notts’ cricketers towards their county’s interests for so many years past. No wonder many of them have sought “ pastures new.” The feeling of good fellowship never can indwell any community that is uncertain of its leaders. Pougher and Woodcock once more proved their worth, taking 19 wickets between them, whilst the former by scoring 9d in one completed innings confirmed an old j udgment of mine that he is one of our very best all-rounders, and should be tried in the representative matches. I was delighted to see that Surrey have picked him for the great match of to-day, and I shall be more than pleased if he takes his revenge for past omis­ sions. This was a small scoring match, Notts’ innings of 91 and 126 forming the prettiest possible contrast to their batting triumph two days before. But Gunn failed, and all his mates followed suit. . There are exceptions perhaps to every broad generalization, but is it not a fact that of late years every batting success on the part of Notts has largely resolved itself into a great effort by two or three batsmen? Let them do well, and the others often back them; but the latter rarely can stand unsupported. It is here that the genius of Surrey, and in a lesser degree of Lancashire and Yorkshire, is so clearly mani­ fested. Attewell’s bowling—9 for 65—(20 runs only being scored off 37 overs in the second hands} could not stave off defeat by 75 runs, and Leicestershire shared with Glouces­ tershire the honour of chief seat among the counties. How long will they retain it? Yorkshire’s match with Warwickshire, fol­ lowing hard upon Surrey’s engagement with the same county, furnishes us with fairly sound tests of the relative merits of the respective champions of the north and south. As £ have already written, on a hard wicket I go for Surrey; their batting is more prolific and their bowling is more deadly. In their match with Warwickshire, their single inn