Cricket 1895

A u g . 29, 1895. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OP THE GAME. 371 CRICKET NOTCHES. B y the R ev . R. S. H olmes . My genial friend, the able editor of Wisden , sends “ just a line to put you right on a little point in ‘ Cricket Notches ’ this week. Key’ s partner, when he helped to beat Lancashire years ago at the Oval, was W . E. Roller, not Henderson. Moreover, Key had only just left Clifton and did not go up to Oxford until two months later. The match was played in August, 1883.” Their partner­ ship, I may add, realized 112 runs for the seventh wicket. I had no idea that twelve years had elapsed since that memorable victory. A correspondent writes from E aling:—“ I have myself calculated Dr. W . G-. Grace’s figures in Gentlemen v. Players matches up to the present time, and find Mr. Pentelow’ s figures perfectly correct, viz. : 4,991 runs.” I daresay most cricketers have seen Mr. P ’s admirable little book— “ England v. Australia: the Story of the Test Matches.” It is right up to-date, is faultlessly accurate, and written in the most attractive style. A better shilling- worth it would be difficult to find. Another correspondent who hails from West Hartlepool wants sundry questions answered which involve more research than I can very well spare time for, but I must not give him a curt refusal. Here they are :— 1. What bowlers took over 100 wickets in 1890 P Briggs, 158; Attewell, 151 ; Sharpe, 139; Peel, 172; Martin, 190; Lohmann, 220 ; Mold, 118. 2. The occasions when Shrews­ bury and Gunn have each scored a century in the same innings. 1884 — v. Sussex, Shrewsbury209 ... Gunn 122 1887 —V. Sussex >» 135 .. >» 205* 1890 — v. Sussex >» 267 ., i) 196 1891— V. Kent tt 178 .. • tt 109 1891—v. Sussex ft 165 . tt 161 1893—V. Sussex tt 164 .. tt 156 3. W . G. Grace’s batting figures from 1890 to 1894, both inclusive. Completed Inns. Rims. Average. 1890 52 1476 28 1891 39 771 19 1892 34 1055 31 1893 45 1609 35 1894 44 1293 29 It has often been a source of keen delight to learn that something in this weekly story of mine has yielded pleasure to unknown readers, and it has been no less painful occasionally to learn that quite unconsciously on my part some remark, made solely in the interests of the game, have given offence or annoyance. I don’ t know that I was ever more pleased than by a letter just to hand trom the grandson of the famous cricketer, Felix, to whose picture of himself I made reference some weeks ago. “ I happened to show this reference to my grandmother. Would you be good enough to send me your address as she thinks she has one or two little paintings that would interest you.” It astonishes me to discover that the story of Wainwright’ s specially-gloved right hand has been taken seriously. I gave it as a sample of much idiotic twaddle circulated about many a prominent cricketer. I regret that up to the present I have failed to get hold of the paper which gave it currency. It was a Birmingham journal, named Saturday Night , and the issue was the Saturday (last day) of the ’ Varsity match. My friend, Rev. F. Marshall, showed it me, and we both were of opinion that it was quite too funny not to be brought under the notice of the cricket world. The incident in the Surrey and Lancashire match at the Oval a fortnight since is im­ portant enough to call for special notice whenever the Laws of Cricket are again under revision. It will be remembered that Lock­ wood was run out through the ball colliding with the umpire. Really I cannot think he should thus have forfeited his innings. The umpires, not constituting a part of the fielding side, ought in such a case to be regarded as any other obstructions on the field of play, and such a hit should have been reckoned a boundary. It has sometimes happened that the ball, after being hit, has lodged in umpire’s coat pocket, and that a fielder has removed it from its temporary retreat. Would anybody give batsman caught out in that case ? Certainly n o t! Then why have given Lockwood run out ? I know more than one ground where there stands one or more trees within the boundaries, and the obstinate landlord will not allow these trees to be removed. In my own club this is so. What to do ? W hy, treat such trees as the walls outside the boundaries ; no batsman can be caught off them, and should they intercept the course of the ball a boun­ dary is always allowed. Either do that when umpire stops ball, or else reckon that a no­ ball, that is, get the bowler to bowl another ball, the no-ball of course not counting against the fielding side. A paragraph in the Laws under the head of “ Boundaries ” would do all that requires to be done. There is a matter that has long been in my mind to write a few words about. I can only just refer to it here. It is the condition of the practice wickets on the majority of club |grounds. The match wickets are often so different that regular net cricket unfits a batsman for more serious play. No doubt limits of space render it difficult to prepare a perfect practice wicket when the season is a few weeks old, and then too, in most clubs, the nets are used night after night by a host of players who never represent the club in the matches. I have come to the conclusion that certain practice wickets should be prepared which should be at the exclusive disposal of the match elevens; that these wickets should be pitched where the light is good, the sight board being, as in a match, placed behind the bowlers ; that they should be rolled and watered with scrupulous care, and that the same wickot should not be utilized on two successive afternoons or evenings. A bad wicket does as much harm to bowlers as to batsmen, in that any length ball with the fashionable leg-break will occasionally take wickets. Improve the practice pitch and bowlers will have to put brain and heart into every ball bowled. I can think of no better plan for improving amateur bowling. And why not make it a rule in every good club that a coin be put on the stumps at the practice nets, not only when the professionals are bowling, but any of the regular team. No member need pocket such coins unless he likes. I often bowl at my captain, with a shilling o n ; if I am fortunate enough to hit the sticks, or c and b him, the “ bob ” is the professional’s tip always. And I would perfect match wickets for the same reason, for the bowlers’ sakes quite as much as the batsmen’s. I shall never forget George Freeman saying to me, “ My favorite wicket was the Oval, and just because it was the most perfect wicket in England in my day. I knew for certain that there the ball would do exactly what I wanted it to do, and to I could bowl with confidence. There was no fun in bowling on a wicket when your best balls would either break the wrong way or fly over the batsman’ s head.” The week’s cricket was peculiar, to say the least of it. It would take a wiser head than mine to explain the in-and-out running of the three leaders. One of them must finish first, but only by a stretch of courtesy can the first in the race be hailed as Champion County of 1895. They may well be thankful that the season is closing, not opening, for an outsider has recently been going so strong that, but for its unfortunate start, it would have been able to show all rivals a clean pair of heels at this stage. Room —abundance of room —for Gloucester­ shire. There is no getting away from the fact that at the present moments they are chief favorites. And they richly deserve the distinction. A friend of mine many weeks since told me in confidence that they will win the return match with Surrey. At the time of writing they are crossing swords with them ; the result must be waited for. What we have to do with is their great victories over Notts and Yorkshire. The first was no very big achievement, with Notts all to pieces when at their strongest, and hardly like to make a serious fight with a strong Yorkshire or Lancashire League Club in the absence of Gunn, Shrewsbury and Flowers. But the margin of an innings and 93 runs was decisive. Scores of 65 and 99 on the part of the Lace County reveal the poverty of their resources, and one looks round in vain for a promise of better things. It must not be forgotten, however, that the ups and downs of cricket counties generally come as surprises. Has not the introduction of one really great bowler often sufficed to turn the scales completely ? Can Notts unearth that treasure ? Qnee upon a time they could not help growing great bowlers—an unbroken succes­ sion of them—more, indeed, than the county team could find room for. The strain cannot be exhausted surely. W . G. once more showed his partiality for Notts’ bowling. A tedious affair his last century, worthy of Barlow, but for one fact, that the wicket was very difficult, and Attewell, as usual, kept reefing off his favourite maiden overs, 38 of them out of a total number of 62. I did not hear that any loose balls were let off, or that Attewell or any one else practised the “ off- theory ’ ’ to W . G. It is wonderful that he can adapt his batting to every condition of wicket, and that the same old self-control was never more in evidence. It is a big drop to Townsend’s 33. But he might get the spectacles in every match—he doesn’t in any match, but in their place a good substantial score—and nobody would carp. We want him to bowl, and bowl he does without a break, and as no youngster of eighteen summers has ever bowled in my memory or within my knowledge either. A. G. Steel had the start of him by a year, remember, when he electrified the cricket world in 1878. But I question whether even he bowled in such fatal consistency every time he was called upon. Townsend has taken part in 10 matches, yet he has taken 100 wickets. One ought hardly to make mention of the odd match—against Somersetshire in May. He did not appear again for a couple of months—July 22. Since then he has been the “ talk of the town,” and would be entitled to represent England were a test match with Australia about to be decided. He looks big enough to last, though a pronounced leg- break does take more out of a man than the corresponding break from the off. The action —the delivery— seems more forced, less natural. But he has length, and only wants to put on a little more flesh—make more wood,