Cricket 1895

J u ly 18, 1895. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME 275 CRICKET NOTCHES. B y t h e R e v . R . S. H o l m e s . More interesting correspondence. But will my good friends kindly bear in mind that, being a very busy man in other directions, I cannot really undertake to answer questions privately, no, not even when a stamped envelope is enclosed. It goes against the grain to pocket a stamp, but one has no alternative. Some weeks since I suggested that the school boys of England should have a hand in the National Testimonial. A letter from Berkhamstead states : —“ I put up a list on our school nolice board, and have collected 13s. 6d. from 240 boys, many of whom are below the age of twelve. This is not at all bad, I think, considering that the ‘ tuck shop ’ is in our own grounds, and the weather has been so hot and exacting. Might I suggest that through the medium of Cricket , you should become treasurer of the pence collected from schoolboys, and that these sums should be devoted to a testimonial given only by schools.” As you like it. But I fear this capital hint comes too late, as many school boys have already contributed, and the holidays are near. I have forwarded the above to Bristol whence it has called forth “ a special letter of thanks on behalf of W. G. and myself” (Mr. Brownlee). May we not call such a contribution a “ triumph of grace?” The old l.b.w. question again, and from Slough. “ Can a man be be given out l.b.w. to a ball delivered from round the wicket?” Of course he can, in that he often is. As to whether he ought with Law No. 24 before us is another matter, if “ wicket ” in said Laws always means the three stumps, yet I have no doubt that the framers of this law had no intention of restricting the penalty to over-the-wicket bowlers. Consequently I wish they had worded it differently. As a matter of fact very few bowlers to day, with this high over-hand delivery, bowl the ball from the wicket, even when they deliver it over the wicket. They used to in the old round-arm—or as my boy calls it, “ square- arm” —days. It must be pretty well known by most readers of this column that I urgently want an extension of the l.b.w. law, so as to include all cases in which a batsman, standing in front of wicket, stops with his person any ball, pitched straight or otherwise, plain or twisting, which, in the umpire’s judgement would have hit the wicket. That would effectually stop the modern-fashion legging. Here’s an odd case from Bayswater. It happened in a large public school in the West of England. ‘ *A boy was batting, whose habit was to stand outside his crease and run in and try and hit every ball full pitch. His partner played a ball, and they ran one for it. B awaited the next delivery in his usual attitude, standing about a foot out of his ground. He hit that ball and we ran two ; but as he ran out to hit it the boy umpire at batsman’s end called ‘ one short.’ Why? For the previous hit, inasmuch as B had not put his bat inside the crease, being in such a hurry to receive the next ball. We con­ tended that one-short should have been called before the next ball was bowled. Umpire demurred on the ground that, had he done so, it would have been unfair to the fielding side, as B would have walked into his ground, and then walked out to receive the next ball, and that it wasnot his (umpire’s) business to warn him to do so. How about the two runs for B’s own hit P Was not that one short, as he did not stand within his ground?” I shall begin to look on cricket as an ingenious puzzle, purposely devised to provide snares and pitfalls for the unwary. Do let us bring common sense into play, and a sense of honor too. The above case has no difficulties for me. The first run was completed; and B’s hit should count two no matter where he was standing when ball was delivered. As I cannot too frequently urge on all, cricket is a game for sportsmen, and a sportsman, remember, is, must be, can’t help being, a gentleman. Fancy such a case as this, which has been referred to my decision. I believe the M.C.C. will also be asked to pronounce on it. We have a huge league in my neighbourhood, numbering so many clubs that they have to play in half a dozen different groups. Well, a week or two ago, in one of these matches, the last man in got hurt whilst at wicket and could not continue batting. Some fifteen minutes remained to “ time.” Now, would it be believed that his captain came out and ordered the cripple to stay at the wicket till time was called so that the match might count as a draw. And the umpires did not demur ! The other side claim a win. And they should have it, too. What are we coming to ? It is this beastly competition that is debasing the noble game. I hear of all sorts of disputes arising from this league mania. Here’s another case just brought under my notice :— One man had left the ground thinking his services would not be required. When the ninth wicket fell there wanted but one minute of time. Now the out-side wanted to claim the match on the ground that there was no batsman left to take an innings. Stuff and nonsense. But really, after the rebuff recently given to a decision of Mr. Perkins, modest men like myself are afraid to spoak out; we know next to nothing of the game. If this sort of thing develops, the laws will have to be increased ten-fold, and even then somebody will discover a loop-hole. “ What do you say to the following case,” writes another correspondent. “ Batsman strikes ball twice to guard wicket, ball rolls to mid-on. Fieldsman notices that non­ striker has followed up and has not got back. He throws at his wicket and misses, batsmen run. Out side claim striker out. Is he? Supposing ball had been thrown up to wicket keeper where the batsman who has crossed to that end is a good bat, the original striker being no good, stumper puts down wicket and claims that man at his end is out for being outof hiscrease, i.e., atwrong end. How’sthat, umpire ? ’ ’ An answeris by nomeans easy. My own interpretation of Law 27 would rule bats­ man, i.e., strikeroutforattemptingtoscorefrom a ball he had struck twice. Not the non­ striker. “ Either batsman ” is not included until Law 28. But I have always felt that when a fielder has a shot at wicket with ball that has been struck twice, and misses it, a new condition of things has been introduced. Batsman ought then to be allowed to score from the overthrow. Yet I fancy he would be given out by most umpires. Anyhow, the non-striker cannot be ruled out for being out of his ground by crossing ends. I recently came across a capital story. It happened thirty or more years ago. Surrey were playing Cambridgeshire. Tom Hayward was batting, and the last ball sent down in the day ought to have been fatal to him, but the bowler did not appeal for l.b.w. In the course of the evening Hayward twitted him for the oversight, and the matter dropped. Next morning, and before a ball was bowled, bowler said, “ How’s that,” referring to the previous evening’s incident. Umpire, who had overheard Hayward’s cynical remark, ruled him out, and out he had to go, much to his chagrin. Of course, such a decision could; not be given now-a-days, for an appeal may not be made after any cessation of play. In those days the exception was after the delivery of the next ball. A well-known county captain was telling me some time since that a certain sporting paper had for many weeks, if not months, made a mark of him, especially rating him for his fielding. He could do nothing right. He wrote to the editor, thanking him for the criticisms, adding that, as he had found them so valuable, he begged to enclose a subscrip­ tion for six months’ delivery of said paper h j post. Needless to remark that ever after his name was always mentioned with marked respect. Never play the part of mediator in quarrels, not even when solicited. I once knocked a fellow down on a race-course—there were no races on at the time—for maltreating a woman, and the wonder is that I am here to-day. I had nothing to fear from the man, but the woman subsequently—well, well—. So I ’m not going to put my nose into this row in Surrey Club. But, Christian brethren, don’t lose your heads at the next meeting. As to whether football should be played or not is a matter for quiet and thoughtful discussion. So no more bear-garden exhibitions. The “ Old Buffer ” is far too good a sportsman to be bowled down. Personally, I do go with , the authorities. The Oval is a cricket ' ground, and if football in any way is , prejudicial to cricket, then football must b<? got rid of. Persons have no business to join a cricket club for the sake of football. If any complain, let them clear out. The Surrey membership will not suffer. If any think that the cricket is not worth a guinea, one must respect their sincerity whilst deploring their ignorance. But no more rows, by your leave. My trip to York resulted in a delightful surprise, viz., a framed scoring card of the famous match—Gents v. Players of the South, on July 15, 1869—wherein W. G. and B. B. Cooper scored 283 for the first wicket. I shall be only too thankful to buy any other score cards. By the by, at Dewsbury last week, Whittam, the well-known match card printer up north, reduced the price of the card to one halfpenny ; but only for the first day. I shall keep that card, it may come to be a curiosity with its head-line : “ Whittam’s Official Cricket Card, One Halfpenny each.” Yet some persons are not satisfied. They would grumble if they got it for nothing. But the menu of the Grace banquet at Bristol is a far greater treasure. A charming souvenir of a unique and historic occasion. Mr. Christian’s ode of four verses is in perfect taste, and the work of a master hand. I am officially told that the Testimonial is going splendidly, and will reach five figures. Be sure and get “ The History of a Hundred Centuries,” written by W. G. Grace, edited by W. Yardley. I could point out simdry schoolmaster’s corrections, and the century against Somersetshire in 1879 should not have been included, as that was not at that time a* first-class county ; hut it is a delightful little work, so naturally done that W.G. might be talking it ; he certainly doesn’t freeze when, he takes the pen in hand. I have often asked, myself this question: How many more cen­ turies should we have had if W.G. had for thd1 past thirty years played against the Geiitlemeii and against Gloucestershire ? We must beat’ this in mind in comparing Shrewsbury’s best years with his. But he comes splendidly out;; of any, or all, Comparisons. Take the match of the season plajed last| week. .Of course he got a century this year?