Cricket 1895

J u ly 11, 1895. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 2 5 9 CRICKET NOTCHES. By t h e Rev. R. S. H o l m e s . A very pretty compliment was paid me ■only last week. I was asked to officiate at the wedding of a young couple living some miles away, and of whose existence I had not •even the remotest suspicion. On venturing to ask, after the ceremony, why they had put themselves to the trouble of such a journey, I learned that they were both enthusiastic •cricketers, and diligent students of this ■column, and that they had long ago agreed that the writer of it should, if possible, tie the knot. Such is fame ! I see that a little girl lately was present at a match in which W.G. "took part. Forcing her way through the •crowd, she at length came into the presence of her hero, and then returned to her father, •exclaiming, “ I ’ ve touched him, I’ve touched him.” My benediction on that little woman. There has been a young Aberdonian staying in these parts with some friends of mine who -are not to sport inclined. He happened recently to mention my name, wondering whereabouts in Yorkshire I pitched tent. On being informed, he stated that he would notgo back home without seeingand speaking to me. Need I say that his vow has been fulfilled. It was an act of Christian courtesy to ask him up and show him all the treasures pertaining to cricket. He innocently re­ marked, •*Won’t mv friends at home be jealous?’ ’ It’s all very funny, and for the life of me I could not resist the temptation of making copy of it on this early summer Mon­ day morning. For I am off to York to see a club match with the well-known Yorkshire Gentlemen, ■and the fare will cost me nothing. And for this reason. When the rain fell last week I felt certain that the century scores would be -at a discount, and said so to a friend. He scouted the idea, thought the weather would make no difference, was willing to make me ■a. handsome present if there were no such scor*, during the past week, and then promised to take me to York free of cost if the week’s record fell below three centuries. As everybody knows there was but one, and that came on the closing day when one of the Dark Blues gave the rest of his side an object lesson in batting, by which none of themseem to have profited. But more of this perhaps later on. I was deeply interested in an M.C.C. report made as long ago as 1815, and bearing on the interests of professional cricketers. How does their status to-day compare with their lot half-a-hundred years since? The premier Club drew up a scale of payment for all matches whether played in London or in the provinces: “ If a player’s journey to the .ground shall exceed 100 miles he shall be paid £5; where it shall exceed 60 and be under 1()0, £4; under 50, £3. Players belonging "to the ground shall receive £1 for a one-day’s match, £2 if the match exceed one day. All players on the winning side to be paid £1 in addition to the foregoing scale, except in a one-day match at Lord’s, where the payment shall never exceed £1. Umpires and scorers at Lord’s shall be paid as usual, viz., £2 and £1 respectively. But for a one-day match only half that sum. In all country matches, except those in the immediate vicinity of London, as Eton, Harrow, &c., where the terms must be a matter of special agreement, the umpires and scorers shall be paida medium price between winners and losers on the fore­ going specified scale for professional players.” The Jast clause is not particularly clear at this distance. As to the state of things to­ day. Up at head-quarters, I believe, the ground bowlers get from 30s. to 50s. a week, but I have been told by men on the spot that tips don’t come along with startling rapidity. I am glad to hear it, for I hate the whole system of tipping ; put a coin on the wicket if you want the very best practice, reckoning a “ c and b ” as equivalent to hitting the sticks. The ground men at Lord’s receive for matches played there £3 10s. if they win, and £3 if they lose. In county matches the scale is £5 on their own ground and elsewhere, unless they travel beyond London, when an extra sovereign is allowed. Of course a win brings £1 more. We are thus in a position to learn how far the profession of cricket has changed in the last 50 years. I should say at a guess that, considering the revenue of our county clubs from gates, the improvement in the lot of players has not been very marked. Of course expenses in other directions have increased enormously, but I have always maintained that the men who keep the game alive should be their county’s first consideration. Still, taking all things—especially the benefit—into account, professional cricketers have nothing to grumble at. I had a letter sent me the other day which appeared in a London daily and commented somewhat unfavourably on the method adopted down south with respect to club bowlers generally. The writer, who is probably the old Kent player and fast bowler — “ S. Christopherson” — put in a very earnest plea for such bowlers, that for the sake of their promotion, say to county ranks, they ought to take part in their club’smatches, and not be simply hacks to bowl hour after hour at the nets. Now no one, I hope, will charge me with a lack of sympathetic interest in the paid players. ,I know many only too well ever to think or feel indifferently towards them as a class. But it seems to me that a club, when it engages a bowler, has a perfect right to lay down certain conditions, to which either assent or dissent may then be expressed. But there must be no after grumbling. What do you want such a bowler for? To give your members a chance of improving as bats­ men ? or, to win matches for you ? Just fifty years ago this question was discussed, and I have lighted upon a remark or two which may not be irrelevant to day. A writer of that time argued against the employment of paid bowlers or batsmen in matches on the ground:—“ 1. Of unfairness; a club which won matches by such means seizes laurels it had not gathered itself, and so had no right to claim. 2. The absurdity of gentlemen pretending to like cricket them­ selves, and fancying they showed a liking for it by paying others to play for them. 3. There are plenty of gentlemen bowlers, if only they are allowed to bowl; at present they are deprived of the practice necessary to keep up their skill.” These objections are well worth weighing. After many years’ experi­ ence, first of all in London and then in the north, I have come to the conclusion that it is desirable in the best interests of tl^e game as a sport not to employ professional talent in matches. It has been slowly forced upon me that northern club cricket is fast degenerating into a business, and in consequence is ceasing to be a aport. This 4 ‘ league 1 ’ element is doing no end of harm to the game. Let me give one illustration : I was watching a game on Saturday last between the leading clubs of two large towns in the West Riding—a league match. Let it be said for this class of match that a certain rigorous regard to time has to be observed. Every match begins sharp at two o’clock and is continued until seven ; and the umpires may order an extension of time if there is a chance of playing a game to a. finish. All right enough. But what do you say to this ? In the match I have mentioned the weather was perfect and there was a big crowd. The first side made 65 or there­ abouts ; now would you believe that, as soon as the home side passed that total, their oppo­ nents were for finishing the match although they had been playing only three hours, and were prevailed, only after much pressure, to prolong play an extra half-hour ? Now I want to know why these matches are played ? One would have thought that, seeing that clubs for the most part play only one match a week, the players would have grudged curtailing the Saturday afternoon match by only a few minutes. It is this sort of thing that puts me out of conceit with so much of the present-day cricket. This championship competition (call it what you like) element is fast killing it as a sport for sport’s sake. Why, though neutral umpires are employed in these matches, yet it is a fact that, owing to the keenness of the spectators—the gambling element may explain this—impartial decisions are scarcely free from risk to the umpires, and so for the most part the team playing at home gets the benefit of nearly every doubt. But to business. I forgot to notice an incident which happened in the Notts and Yorkshire match at Sheffield the other day. Brown played a ball and it stopped two or three yards in front of him. Just as Gunn was about to pick it up, Brown coolly left his ground and patted it back to the bowler, althoughthebalIw,tsnotjdead. What his reason was I know not. But Gunn should have appealed, and should have got a favourable response. A distinct law was infringed, and the batsman should have paid the pmalty. I have just remembered another incident worth mentioning. It took place in a school match where I was umpiring. I gave a bats­ man out lbw; he did not look satisfied, but no batsman ever did under similar circum­ stances. Later on he assured me that ho played the ball; then he gave himself away by confessing that it hit his bat after it struck his leg. Consequently he was out according to Law 24. I mention this because, I suspect, a large number of cricketers may be guilty of the same mistake. A curious week’s cricket; some splendid up-hill fighting, and not a few surprises, the prophets all at sea again. There have been no greater matches this season than those played at the Oval and Catford Bridge, whilst at Lord’8 previous form was knocked into a cocked hat. You can form but a very inadequate idea of the excitement in these parts whilst Surrey and Middlesex were crossing swords. Every­ body greeted me with “ Good old Middlesex, Surrey whopped at last.’ ’ If I condescended to reply it was very quietly indeed—“ I shall wait until Wednesday evening before express­ ing an opinion. ’ ’ The loss of the tossagain,and Lockwood’s leave of absence did not augur too favourably at the start. But one could not get awayfromthematchat Lord’sbetweenthe same antagonists during the previous week. Mac­ gregor played this time. Strangely enough Hayward gave a chance at the wicket in both matches when his total was eight; at Lord’s he was allowed to put on a hundred more runs or so; at the Oval he hid no further opportunity of distinguishing himself. And wasn’t the stumper in form with the bat—30 and 82 ? A good second to Stoddart (75 and 67), who, though blessed by a couplo ot* fortune’s favors, one in either innings, sue i as can have fallen to no previous cricketer’s lot in one and the same match, nevertheless played in great style, and so gladdened all our hearts. Totals of 246 and 290 (9 wickets)