Cricket 1895

J u ly 4, lt>95. CRICKET A WEEKLY RECOiiD OF THE GAME. 243 CRICKET NOTCHES. B y t h e R e v . R . S. H o l m e s . What can be pleasanterthan a good-natured rap of the knuckles from the “ Old Buffer,” who is as wide awake on all points of the game as ever? “ I say, mate, aren’t you out of your reckoning about two survivors only of the I Zingari ? If you read from the same book as I do, the originial 25 members of 1845, who witnessed the Jubilee, iuclude R. C. Broughton, the Hon. C. Lyon (now Lord Strathmore), W. P. Pickering, and the Rev. 0. Randolph. They are all alive, I think. I know that Lord Strathmore, who was my old schoolfellow and came into the Winchester Eleven a year after me, is alive : ditto, the Rev. 0. Randolph, whom I heard preach a few months ago, and saw a month ago, and who was in the Eton Eleven v. Winchester in 1841 when I was in the latter Eleven: ditto, Bull Pickering, now in Vancouver, and to whom I sent a score from Lord’s of the I. Zingari—he, I believe, is alive, as I know he was not long ago, i.e., within the last 12 months, and 1 believe (but do not know) that E. M. Dewing, who played for Harrow against me in 1841, is alive also. You had better look round and ask, to make sure.” No necessity, dear old friend, I can take your word, with heartiest thanks for the timely correction. That you are alive is a matter of profound thankfulness to us all. Somebody has sent me a recent copy of a Society Journal, and urgently requested me to anathematize, castigate, pulverize, and I know not what else, a writer in the same for daring to call this W. G. Testimonial en­ thusiasm “ much humbug,” adding that “ if people have shillings to spare, they can find those who have more need of themthan a man in the prime of life who has practised his favorite game since he was a boy and has made a very good thing of it.” But 'is it ever worth while toturn onyourbiggestwheelsfor thesake of crushing a fly i I think not. Silence is some­ times the most effectual snub. Surely I can do what I like with my own shillings ? So can everybody else. If you don’t approve of this Testimonial, send nothing. Only be sure to find out the really deserving and relieve them. This boom may be a “ news­ paper puff ” only ; all right! I don’t suppose simple-minded folks like myself would raise any conscientious objection were another paper to fill our pockets by advertising itself through us. Perhaps the world is still com­ posed of “ mostly fools,” but at any rate it is a harmless kind of folly that prompts men of all ranks to do practical homage to a great sportsman. We are simply saying “ thank y ou ’ to a man who has for more than thirty years added to the innocent pleasures of our daily life. Personally I don’t think aguinea an excessive charge foi so much delightful amusement. But ehacun a son gout. Another correspondent has kindly gone to the trouble of sending me three curiosities that are worthy of reproduction if only because they occurred in club matches, and because they will form a refreshing contrast to the present run of long scores of which I am getting heaitily tired. For one thing I have ransacked the dictionary in vain for a »w new superlatives. “ Nb. 1. in 1866 i laying for Twenty-two of Redcar v. A E E George Freeman, then at liis best, bowled six wickets wiih successive balls, mine being the hrst of the six. Wisden, who was umpiring “amthat he had never seen any man bowl as reeman did on that day, being helped by a very strong cross wind; he got 18 of the twenty-one wickets in the first innings No. 2 occurred this year at the Duke of Westminster’8 place, when Eaton Park played Pulford and Doddleston. For Eaton, Butler with lobs took four wickets in four balls all caught at wicket—then bowled an unpro­ ductive ball, and then did the hat-trick, or, seven wickets in eight successive balls. My son was umpiring. No. 3 occurred at Darlington, Septemper 12, 1892, when Oakley, who has since played for Lancahire, got seven wickets in eight consecutive balls. Again, only yester­ day, for Constable Burton v. Thirsk, Russell finished the innings by taking five wickets in six balls. As I am writing, I may add that I can vouch for the story told in the Athletic News about a fortnight ago by my brother, E. Roper, the secretary of the Liverpool club, of five weasels running between the wickets at Darlington. I was batting at the time and got one all to myself, but found it much harder to hit than a cricket ball, and was eventually beaten by it getting to ground in a hole on the banks of the river Skerne which skirts the ground. Before closing I want your opinion of the following case which I witnessed at Aigburth the other day in the Yorkshire v. Liverpool match. Kemble appealed for a stump against Frank ; Louis Hall gave ‘ not-out.’ Frank then stooped to pick up a bail, when Kemble appealed again without success, drawing a stump this time. I asked Hall about it afterwards, he said that Frank was not out either time, but if he had been out of his ground on the second occasion he would have decided in Frank’s favour, as in his opinion the ball was dead after the first decision. Was Hall right or wrong?” Right, in my j udgment, as I have said before, even though there may have been practically no pause between the two acts of stumping. I know the laws are none too clear as to when a ball is dead, but I have repeatedly stated that an appeal, no matterhow answered, doesset the batsmen free from all further liability for that ball, else what is to prevent a fielder, who has got out one batsmen, immediately throwing down the wicket of the other batsman who is at the time off his ground ? But this is one of the matters I want the laws to be more explicit upon. I am obliged to Mr. Roper for bringing it under my notice again. I know all about Law 33whilst writing as I have just done. A _letter from Perth, West Australia, requires immediate answer. A test match was being played in April between Perth and Fremantle. “ The batsman played a ball on to his pads, which rebounded and went very close to his wicket, in fact his wicket was in danger; upon his attempting to guard the ball off his wicket, he finds himself unable on account of the stumper having placed himself between batsman and stumps, thus preventing him from guarding his wicket. Was bats­ man out ? ” No, certainly not, for the stroke was not finished, nor had the ball passed the wicket; he had incommoded the striker. “ If a batsman skied ball directly over the wicket, would he be justified in striking the ball again, even though he prevents wicket keeper making a catch ? ’ ’ Most emphatically no. No one could be absolutely certain that the ball would fall on the wicket, but by striking- it the batsman w'ould unquestionably ‘ wilfully obstruct” a fieldsman, and for so doing he should be ruled out. The Rev. H. A. Tate has been good enough to send me a copy of his book, “ Scores and Mode of Dismissal of W.G. in first-class cricket, with Summary of Results, 1665 to •1895.” And one is truly glad to have all the master’s innings set out year by year. I give a sample line. Gentlem en v. Players, a t L o rd ’s, J u ly 1. 2, 3, first innings, e Scm therton, b I. C. Shaw , 77 ; 2nd innings c Jup p, b A . Shaw, 112. It is a very conscientious production. But why not have excluded all matches not first- class ? For instance, three South Wales Club matches in 1865 ; M.C.C. v. Colts in 1872 and 1877 ; Hertfordshire and Staffordshire matches should not appear ; whilst Somersetshire were not reckoned first-class until 1891, certainly they were not included in 1879, 1881, 1883, and 1885. At any rate, if South Wales figures in 1865, why cut out the samematches in 1864 ? In that year W. G.’s name is missing from the summary at the end. I hope the author will not imagine that I do not most thoroughly appreciate what he has done; he has done so much, and done it so well, that I regret he has not given us more. Nothing could be better than the tables of summaries, as far as they go. I am particularly interested in the second table, in which there is set forth year by year the number of times in which W. G. was dismissed for a duck, for less than double figures, and then for each ten up to a hundred. I think we might have had all the centuries brought together. His separate scores for Gloucestershire make another good item ; but why not have grouped in the same way his scores for the M.C.C., the repre­ sentative matches, such as Gentlemen v. Players, South v. North, and matches against Australians, &c. ? The last table of the most successful bowlers requires extension, so as to give us the name of every bowler that has got his wicket from Alfred Shaw down to the men who have dismissed him only once. His averages on the different grounds would be more than useful. We might have had the names of all cricketers, arranged und r the heading of their counties, &c., that have played with and against him. And surely W. G.’s bowling results should have been tabulated. And the catches he has made. 1 know what a terrible labor all these additions would have entailed, but 1 wanted such a book to be complete in every respect. W. G. should be done thoroughly, once and for all, just as Mr. de Lugo has polished off W. W. Read. We could not have got it all in a sixpenny form, of course, but just now, during the present craze, nobody who cares a toss for cricket literature would have grudged a shilling for a fuller record. I beg to thank Mr. Tate for his book ; it will make the book I desire to see a comparatively easy task. My good friend, Mr. Gaston, has given me an advance copy of the daintiest of booklets, called “ Bibliography of Cricket ” —an alphabetical list of every known book ever written on the game. There will be 25 copies only printed for private circulation. It is so well done that it is to be regretted that only a few cricket enthusiasts will possess it. Mr. Gaston has made this interesting department of the game his own exclusive preserve, and as he has submitted proofs of his booklet to eight of the most diligent and successful col­ lectors of cricket lore, we may conclude that his list is, up to date, final. It will be a revelation to most readers of modern cricket. My own cricket library now numbersjust over 850 different volumes of all shapes, sizes and values. Included in this are seventeen bound volumes of the Field, 1857-73. w'hich cost mo tenpence a volume bound, and also a doze.i MSS. books filled with old scores and news­ paper cuttings. And my collection is not nearly complete. To men like myself thi-s latest work will be a prized treasure. And what about current cricket? Wei, patience, worthy readers. I must tell a ta e in my own way. Skip what has no interet-t for you. This welcome track in the weather inclines me to hope we shall have seen tho last of the mammoth scores for the present. Do you know my sympathies always are on