Cricket 1895

210 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD UE THE UAJl K. J u n e 20, 1895. CRICKET NOTCHES. B y t h e R ev . R. S. H o lm e s . A friend, who is a politician, but no sports­ man, said with warmth in my hearing lately, “ the very idea of knighting a cricketer ! Why, you will be wanting to make a knight of a prize fighter next.” I simply made reply to the effect that such an honor was paid to a boxer who died as long since as 1820 ; and in confirmation of my remark I got down the second volume of Pugilistica , recently be­ queathed to me,.in which is given a full sketch of the career of Sir Daniel Donnelly, Ireland’ s Champion, who is said to have been the last knight made by George III. “ And well he wore it, by my word,” so runs his epitaph. At the early age of 32 “ he died at last from forty-seven tumblers of punch,” After this no one need be either surprised or shocked should the my&tic words be uttered, “ Rise, Sir W. G.” If a batsman’s innings be brought to an abrupt conclusion by an injury of some sort, how should that innings be reckoned to his credit ? Mr. Perkins find my own editor would treat it as a finished innings, ‘ ‘ on the principle that there cannot be two not-outs in a completed innings.” Why can’t there be ? At the risk of making a bull, I would answer that an innings is completed only just as far as it is completed. Thus, it is finished when the closure is applied; it is finished when a match is won, even though no wickets may be down. What again if a batsman be absent altogether, no matter from what cause ? The innings is no more completed in his absence than it is supposing he has retired. Strictly speaking, the innings comes to an end only at the fall of the tenth wicket. Further, is there not a measure of injustice in reckoning an interrupted innings as a completed innings? I will select an example. Flowers, in the Whitsuntide match at Trent Bridge, had to retire after scoring five or six runs. It was hard enough luck for Notts. Up to that match his average was 36 ; count that innings as completed, and at once his average comes running down several points. Better knock off the runs altogether, or else say that one of the not-outs in a declared innings must get no credit for the runs he may have just scored. This matter being of considerable importance, should be settled by our cricket senate. Somebody has been ventilating a grievance against the Surrey authorities ir making half-past six the hour for drawing stumps, whereas as long as their late captain was in power, seven was the hour. I can remember when for a month at least, the game was pro­ longed until half-past seven at the Oval. The earlier hour may be disappointing to business men, but what about cricketers ?. Out of London 6.30 is the hour; the Australians would never play later even at Lord’s. And it is late enough in all conscience, especially when the grounds are as hard as nails. There ought to be a uniform hour for beginning and closing the day’s play all over the country. Most players—not Londoners - object to the extra half-hour, except where such an exten­ sion of time will permit of a match being finished. I was once at Lord’s when they played until five minutes to eight! It was in 1872; the match was England v. Notts and Yorkshire, easily remembered from the fact that W. G. played an innings of 170 not out. Here are three questions left over from last week, from gentlemen unknown to myself, and dating from Ealing, Northallerton, and Aberdeen respectively. I will not reproduce complimentary references to this column. 1. “ Could you manage to give a list of the champion counties since the championship was first recognised?” I suppose that means who was top each year. For full answer see “ Cricket Notches ” of October 25, 1894. 2. “ A fieldsman catches a ball so close to to the boundary, that although the ball is in his hands before he is over theboundary line, his next step takes him out of bounds. Is the batsman out? Must the ball be held an appreciable time before a catch is completed ? ’ ’ Out, most decidedly, inasmuch as the catch was made within the enclosure. Suppose the boundary were a wall or an iron paling, and fielder, after catching ball, immediately bumped up against it, still holding ball; the batsman would have to retire. In many county grounds a wide running or cycling track surrounds the green, and in stopping a ball the fielder often gets off the turf on to the path ; but so long as the ball is stopped on the green the hit does not count as a boundary, although at Sheffield and elsewhere I have known it reckoned both ways. The same if after stopping ball by his hand the fielder carries it over the boundary line. I have thought several times that a boundary should always be either the “ ring ” or an obstruction like a wall or a fence, but not a track. I once saw Gunn catch W.G. at Hastings. At the time of making the catch the ball was certainly beyond the boundary, and Gunn in making it lost his balance and fell among the spectators. W.G. was not satisfied with the umpire’s decision, but he was fairly out. Would that we could abolish all boundaries. At Brammall Lane the other day owing to the selection of the pitch one boundary was so short that hits not worth more than two counted four ; whereas on the other side hits honestly deserving four were in many cases run out ; and more than once five were run. 3. “ A batsman was given out caught off his hand, but the hand struck was not holding or touching bat at the time ; was he out ? If that hand, being before the wicket to a straight-pitched ball, had been struck by the ball, could he have been given out lbw ? ’ ’ This is just one of those cases where, as “ the Old Buffer ” would say, the laws should be interpretedhonorably and sensibly. Evidently Law No 22, which gives a batsman out if caught off his hand, refers to the hand or hands while clasping the bat. They are a part of the bat for the time being. If a bats­ man dare not use a hand for wielding bat, that hand is excluded from the penalty in the above law. But then it becomes “ part of his person” referred to in Law No. 24. One or the other. As umpire I shall have no hesita­ tion in giving batsman a favourable verdict on appeal for a catch, but an adverse verdict on appeal for lbw. Another wonderful week for batsmen, a record score both for a county and more than one batsman. Middlesex’ total against Sussex—666—was 29 runs in advance of their previous best (reckoning, of course, no farther back than 1873), which stood at 537 in their fight against against Gloucestershire in 1883. Tunnicliffe had never scored a century b» fore yesterday week—101 v. Middlesex. Whilst Sir Timothy, who is going every bit as strongly as in his great season at Oxford— 1884—when he was chosen to represent England in one (at least) of the three matches against Australia, has covered himself with glory by his wonderful chanceless innings down at Brighton. Both to him, as to Sam Woods and Abel, the present season will ever remain a pleasant memory if only because each of them has played an innings that ran into the third hundred. Our worthy baronet’s three last ventures—106 not out, 76 and 48, 202—are worthy to rank alongside of W. G.’s best, and he must be well up among the leaders in the averages. The honours of the week must be divided between Surrey and Yorkshire, and in con­ sequence their match at Bradford to-day is being keenly anticipated in these parts, although but few Yorkshiremen are expecting a favourable issue. The fact is Surrey are enough to strike terror into all comers. Whether the spin of the coin tells in their favour or not, the result is the same. And j ustnow, when the wicketsbegin to * ‘ powder ’ so quickly through this prolonged drought, the choice of innings is a decided advantage. It is quite refreshing to hear little or nothing about “ Surrey’s luck.” As I have noticed at billiards, the better player always seems to get all the luck. True, there was a streak of good fortune in both Surrey’s matches last week ; Somersetshire were without the elder Palairet’s help, and the accident to Mold deprived Lancashire of the services of their chief bowler, but not until Abel had proved his master. Against the western county, for whom Sam Woods stopped a rot (five wickets having crumpled up for 16 runs) with an innings of similar dimensions—85—to that yielded by his bat in the corresponding match of 1894 - against Somersetshire, the best feature in the Surrey cricket was not Richard­ son’s bowling, although he took eleven wickets at a cost of 13J runs apiece, nor Holland’s “ duck,” his first so far, but the splendid stand of 146 runs by Brockwell (80) and Wood (77 not out). It came just in the nick of time, for matters were looking none too rosy when seven wickets fell for 111 after Somersetshire had put together 186. This was out-and-away Brockwell’s best effort since he topped the averages last year, and ought to do him no end of good, whilst it is many a long day since Surrey’s stumper, who at 40 years of age must be classed among the veterans, reeled off such an innings. R. C. N. Palairet will, one trusts, have taken away from this match a useful hint never to let any off-ball pass him without attempting to play it. I have seen Gunn get out in the same way to Lockwood. Such an accident not only provokes merriment, but with me at least it is a well-deserved punishment. All very fine to show your good sense in not playing, or trying to play, sundry off-balls ; you run no risk, of course, except the bowler has bottled up in the ball more twist than you suspect, but at any rate you tacitly confess by your attitude to such balls that you don’t knowhow to play them, they are your master. Did any bowler try that little game on with W. G. more than once ? If he did, he will never forget the consequences to his analysis. The defeat of Lancashire was a veritable triumph for the men from the south—sn innings and 39 runs separated the combatants. It was vexing to see a man of Ward’s experience throw away a couple of wickets— his own included—by want of judgment. And yet I am getting to believe that running out hits is as integral a part of the game as making those hits. There may be—there are —occasions when a run out is sheer bad luck. As an instance take the accident to MacLaren at Brammall Lane on Whit Tuesday: lie made a superb late cut of tremendous power, Wainwright, by a superhuman effort, stopped it, and returned it with lightning rapidity, and the batsman only j ust failed to recover ground. But in the majority of cases a run out is bad cricket just as a non-straight bat is, or a tame uppish hit. Mold and Hallam put in a very good hour’swork at the close of Lancashire’s innings, their 50 just sending their county past 150 ; but we all felt that it was all up with the Red Rose. Up to lunch nothing could have been smarter or more