Cricket 1895

A u g . 15, 1895. CRICKET A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 33'9 CRICKET NOTCHES. By the Rev. R. S. Holmes. A correspondent in Junee, New South Wales, referring t o a “ Notch ” some months old, directs my attention to a match played in 1885 between the Royal Munster Fusiliers and Tenby, in which each of the four innings realized 51 runs. “ I also wish to remind you that the 920 made by the Orleans Club v. Rickling Green in 1882 is quoted as the highest score ever made in any match. Now this is incorrect, as in the season of 1874-75 at Moor Park, Sydney, the Ulster C.C., playing against the Macquarie Club, put together the score of 1*238 for nine wickets. All old players can verify this, but for some reason it has been kept out of all records. The Australasian says that the match was of such inferior rank that it is not reckoned ; all the same it was a match, and no matter how inferior the players who took part in it, it cannot be justly excluded from records. I enclose the full score of it which may per­ haps be of interest to you.” May I add that this innings has long been known to me, that it was given in full in the Red Lillywhite some years since, but has generally been regarded as apocryphal over here. I wish the month and days of the month were forth­ coming in which it took place The last item in the score—“ Sundries, 100’’ —has always worn a doubtful look to me. If this innings was played, then it ought to stand; the quality of the match is of no account whatever in this connection. Another correspondent from Balmain, near Sydney, has sent me the following incident: —“ A batsman, having partially played a fast ball, as it rolled on to the wicket seized the bails, and held them fast until the ball became stationary. On appeal, the umpire gave the batsman out. I wrote to the Field newspaper, which replied, ‘ out, obstructing field.’ The incident having occurred prior to 1884 when the laws were slightly altered, this reply meant that the batsman had wilfully pre­ vented a ball from being caught. This seemed unsatisfactory, so I wrote to thirty- five of the leading cricketers in England— fifteen amateurs and twenty professionals — the latter including several of the acting umpires. Of the amateurs seven only had the courtesy to answer; from the pros. I received nineteen replies. Of the amateurs five said ‘ out, obstructing field,’ and two said ‘ out, under the law which made umpires the sole judges of fair and unfair play.’ Whether a batsman was out or not was, prior to 1884, decided by Laws 15 to 25 inclusive, under which alone could a batsman be ruled out. The law as to obstructing field applied only to ‘ wilfully preventing a ball from being caught ’ ; this then does not seem applicable. The law as to fair and unfair play—then No. 36—would appear equally unapplicable. Surely it means that in administering the existing laws, and not in making others, the umpires are sole j udges, &c. What can be more unfair than defending the wicket with the legs? But an umpire cannot on that account give a batsman out. Would it not be unfair for a batsman to be out through ball being stopped by a tree and then falling into a fieldsman’s hands? Yet the umpire is bound to give him out, and administer the law. Again, an umpire might say that a bat was unfairly long or wide, and could quote a law in his justification. But in the absence of a law he could not condemn a bat for being unfairly thick or heavy. The nineteen answers from the professionals were as fo llo w s fiv e said not out; eight, out, obstructing field; six, out under law as to umpires being sole judges of fair and unfair play. If my contention be correct, then only five out of nineteen sterling and experienced cricketers gave a proper decision. Under any circumstances it is plain that the majority gave a decision on a wrong basis, which practically amounted to a wrong decision. The -above incident may be trivial, and the action of the batsman idiotic, but the principle involved is important. Can umpires claim the power to expand the law of obstructing field, so as to include in it cases that would be otherwise unprovided for, or to decide against a batsman when there is no law to guide them ? If they may expand, then obviously they have the power to contract. Does the present Law No. 30 cover almost anything? If so, it needs re-casting ” As umpire I could not have given a j udgment adverse to batsman in the above case, though I might have quietly begged of him not to make a fool of himself a second time. At the same time I have always felt that, as you cannot have a code of laws of sufficient fulness to cover every possible instance, a certain power must be entrusted to the umpires. I fancy that if an umpire had ruled me out in this incident, out I should have gone, feeling convinced that I thoroughly deserved such a decision. The captain of the Deanery C. C., South­ ampton, asks for my opinion in the follow­ ing case :—“ Playing against Bournemouth on July 30 one of our men got cutover whilst batting; the Bournemouth captain veiy kindly allowed him to retire and resume his innings later on, when he had a substitute to run for him When Bournemouth batted this player fielded point, but as a stand was made I asked him to go on bowling. To this the other captain objected on the score that he had hai a man to run for him, and therefore had no right to bowl. He, however, eventually withdrew his objection. Now I should very much like your opinion as to whether under the circumstances, there was the slightest real ground for his objection.” No, none what­ ever. The opposite captain could have refused to let inj ured batsman retire from his wicket and afterwards return to it to complete his innings. Law 36 gives him this power, but nothing further. His consent is not required for a substitute to field or run for a player injured or taken ill whilst a match is in progress. A captain might with just as fair a show of reason, insist that only the bowlers he selected Should go on to bowl against his team. I have pleasure in announcing that a match has been arranged for old Tom Sherman’s farewell benefit, on Mitcham Common, September 15, between Mitcham Rovers and a team of left-handed Surrey Colts. Sherman has completed his Jubilee year of cricket, was for years a member of the Surrey County and All England Elevens, and coached Eton, Winchester and several other schools. Whilst doing honour to contemporaneous, cricketers, amateur and professional, don’t let us forget the men who once were in the forefront of the battle, and whoso opportunities for providing against old age were far less ample than have fallen to the lot of their successors. I have no doubt that the Surrey folks will gladly show their appreciation of the splendid ability of their little champion to day (may Abel’s match prove a bumper !), but I daresay they will still have something to spare for a cricketer who represented Surrey long before Abel saw the light. All cricketers will rejoice that the M. C. C. are inviting the next Australian team. This is as it should be. Every such visit on both sides ought to receive the official recognition. I wish for one that our premier club could have seen their waj^ to guarantee the neces­ sary payments for this next tour. There would have been little or no financial risk, and doubtless most of the counties would have willingly borne a share of this. One wants these visits to be lifted above mere gate money speculations. There might be a difficulty in arranging terms, unless of course all the mem­ bers of the visiting team stood on precisely the same footing. Are there amateurs and professionals among the Australian cricketers, and do the former demand twice and even thrice as much as the latter are contented with ? Have you seen this? Enthusiastic cricketer, entering a stationer’s shop : “ I want a por­ trait of Grace; have you any?” Innocent shopkeeper : “ I daresay we can oblige you if you will be kind enough to tell me her other name ? ” Exit cricketer wrathful and sad. A very genial letter comes from Mr. J. N. Pentelow, who also encloses a copy of his capital little book, “ England v. Australia.” He assures me that his statistics in the Gen­ tlemen v. Players matches “ are not compiled in a haphazard fashion, but, as I feel sure yours are, with the conscientiousness which the true enthusiast throws into his work. I remember checking off each separate score and casting up more than once to ensure accuracy. Your correspondent may have done either of two things—included Gentle, men and Players of the South or matches of a like class, or relied upon VV. G.’s figures in his own book, which, in most cases, are none too accurate.” I may say that having had occasion to test now and again my good figures, I shall accept his Gentlemen v. Pla) ers’ statistical tables until such time as I can work them out for myself. For the present I feel that I have done my share in this department of cricket literature. But let me beg of every compiler of statistics to start de novo. I have never yet found my old friend Wisden untrustworthy. And here let me beg my readers to overlook any mistakes—in spelling, not in figures or facts—that may slip into this column from time to time. They arise from the writer’s wretched penmanship very largely. Last week the jockey’s name was Custance. I am not learned in turf lore, so cannot say whether the name Constance figures in racing annals. The past week’s cricket fairly staggers me as I am penning these lines in the midst of the grandest mountain scenery in England. Let me see. Every county save Notts and Lancashire played right through the week, that is when weather permitted. Five matches out of the thirteen were drawn through rain. We have had enough of i t ; bowlers are grumbling no less than batsmen. The levelling process should stop now. Nobody can assert that the bat is vastly superior to the ball, spite of the formidable list of bats­ men’s aggregates and averages. On this Monday morning fourteen names figure with 1,000 runs against them, and nine with over 900 runs. There may be perhaps thirty such scorers before the present month has run its course. And there will be sundry bowling figures worthy to rank with the very best in previous years, although it will be admitted that certain bowlers have been lucky in hot having played much during the spell of un­ broken sunshine which May and June favoured us with. What cricket may ultimately come to one cannot foresee. Can the programme of matches be enlarged without limiting matches to two days apiece ? I used to like the old plan at Canterbury during the week, of arranging three matches, allowing only such an interval between them as w.is required for the preparation of a fre^h wicket. Some