Cricket 1895

S ept . 5, 1895. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 3.87 CRICKET NOTCHES. B y the R ev . R. S. H olmes . A correspondent from Cricklewood has been good enough to send me a detailed list of W . G’s scores in the Gentlemen v. Players matches, 1865 to 1895. I will here content myself with giving the summary only of his work on the several grounds where this match has been played :— Ground. Innings. Not out. Runs. Highest score. Lord’s ... ... 55 .... 3 ... 2107 ... 169 Oval........ .. 48 ... 3 ... 1978 ... 215 Brighton... ... 2 .... 0 ... 217 ,... 217 Prince’s ... ... 8 ... 0 ... 981 ... 110 Scarborough ... 1 ... 0 .. 174 ... 174 Hastings .. ... 7 ... . 0 .. 234 ... 131 121 ... 6 ... 4991 ... 217 Which figures tally with J. N. Peatelow’s. It may be added here that W . G. has scored seven centuries at Lord’s in these matches, four at the Oval, and one each at Brighton, Prince’s, Scarborough, and Hastings. He has not missed a single match at Lord’s in 31 years. From the Oval match he was absent in 1867 (through illness), 1883—the tie match— 1892 and 1895. My correspondent wishes for a list of these matches played elsewhere than at Lord’s and the Oval. Here it is : Brighton 1871 and 1881 ; Prince’s, 1873, 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877 ; Scarborough, 1885 and 1892 ; Hastings, 1889, 1891, 1892, 1894. From Fife comes the following interesting coincidence or parallel:— “ In connection with W . G ’s score of 119 against Notts on Monday, August 19, at Cheltenham; in 1875, at Clifton, in the same match, he also scored 119. and on August 17- . Richard Daft played in the first match, his son, H. B., in the second. William Oscroft played in the first, and P. W . Oscroft, his nephew, I believe, in the second. In e-»ch match it was with a Townsend that W . G. had his most valuable partnership. I am constantly coming across instances of ignorance of the Laws of Cricket where one would have expected otherwise. The worst feature about it often is that cricketers imagine certain laws exist which are not to be found on our statute book. Here’ s a case in a Yorkshire League match : the wicket got broken, then the batsman, in running, failed to make good his ground. Meanwhile the stumper had set the bails on again, whipped a bail off before the batsman got home, and received a favourable verdict on appeal. Now would it be believed that the whole of the in-side demurred to this decision on the ground that the umpire ought to have set the wicket right not the stumper; that the latter should have uprooted a stump ; but failing to do so the batsman should have been allowed to continue his innings. But where does it state that the wickets are intact only when the umpire has personally set them right ? Is it unlawful then for any fielder to replac) a fallen bail ? But here’s another more important matter. I am continually being asked, “ What is a wide? ” W ell, I thought every cricketer knew, but it seems that some do not. From a news­ paper sent me from South India last week, called the Ni/giri News, the same uncertainty on this point prevails over there. Many cricketers are under the delusion that a wide is decided by the pitch of the ball, and so are some umpire 3 I have played with. Haven’ t you often heard this remark, “ Not wide in that the ball pitched fairly straight, but broke away out of batsman’s reach ? ” But suppose ball was pitched wide, and then broke in enough to be playable, or enough to hit the wicket, then that would be a wide ball on this theory. 1 The fact is the pitch of the ball has nothing to do with it. Hear what Law 12 says : “ If the bowler shall bowl the ball so high over or so wide of the wicket that in the opinion of the umpire it is not within reach of the striker, the umpire shall call ‘ wide ball.’ ” What could be more simple of explanation ? Suppose then you bowl a short ball dead in a line between the wickets, and which, owing to the break you put on or the vagaries of the ground, twists out of the batsman’s reach, that ball is wide. Or, suppose you send down a long hop on a bumpy wicket, such as Lord’s used to boast in my younger days, and the ball roars up some feet over the batman’ s head, then that too should be adjudged a wide ball, though I never remember such a decision being given in those far-away days. It may not have been the bowler’s fault, nevertheless, it was a wide and should have been penalised accordingly. The Nilgiri News has this instruction which, I hope, is not needed by cricketers at hom o: ‘ ‘ One of the most common mistakes about wide b ills is that a ball is not wide unless it goes outside the end of the popping crease. That, of course, has nothing whatever to do with a wide, as it merely defines the limit of the batsman’s ground—four fee; from the wicket. Law 8 tells us most distinctly that the pop­ ping crease shall be deemed unlimited in length, so that it is merely a question of con­ venience for the groundsman who marks out the crease, that it is generally only drawn a few inches longer than the bowling crease. If it were not for the sake of convenience, there is no earthly reason why it should not extend to the boundary on either side of the wicket, which, if it had anything to do with wides, would make them an impossibility.” And here’ s another clipping from the same, which may be read with profit by certain groundkeepers I have known : ‘ ‘ The return crease must be at right angles to the bowling crease; not at an angle of 135 degrees, as is too commonly seen, but an angle of 90 degrees. Groundmen, in the ordinary way, seem to look upon this crease as a mere orna­ mental finish to be drawn any way their fancy pleases, and I have even seen one drawn in a wavy line with a kind of flourish. In ninety - nine cases, too, out of a hundred, the return creases are made far too short. They should be made, in my humble opinion, a good foot long, as otherwise there is always a chance of a bowler getting an advantage he is not entitled to, and bowling to a batsman from a point he has no right to bowl from - a very considerable advantage, be he bowling round or over the wicket.” I have quoted thus freely that we may get some idea of the keenness with which cricket is played all over the world. But what do you think of a “ Barbados Cricketer’ s Annuai ” ? I confess I indulged a sceptical smile when I heard of i t ; but now that I possess it and have read it through, I marvel that a West Indian Island could have justified such a production. And it is capitally done too, 156 crown 8 vo. pages, every one of which refers to local cricket. Not a manufactured book, but a peal live book, readable from the first page to the la 3 t. The first issued, doubtless owing to the impetus given by the visit of the English team under R. S. Lucas last summer. They have a Challenge Cup Competition, which seems to monopolize the best cri ket of the island, in which seven clubs took part, foremost among them being the Pickwick Club—a good name that for a cricket club, after Mr. Jingle’s famous match in the Indies— 3 aid club having won every match — 12 —in the competition. The editor tells us that bitting is the best feature of Barbados cricket, a statement readily believed when we remember their innings of 5 17 against Lucas’ eleven. The bowling has gone off since the partial retirement of a famous brotherhood, the Goodman’s, two of whom are bowlers, and the third “ a squirrel behind the wickets.” The fielding is capable of improvement. Here’s a consoling remark:— “ It is not frequent that a good bat or bowler is a good field.” Make a note of this, those who can score twenty runs and then give aw ty twice that number. Wicket-keeping is thair chief want since Goodman’s departure, no one being plucky enough to stand close up to the wicket, oven to slow or medium bowling. Certain batsmen must have a high old time of it, though slow bowlers must be placed at a disadvantage. I shall eagerly look for the second issue of this very entertaining annual. The closing stage of the county struggle was full of interest. I am heartily sorry we have reached the end, for the weather is just now of the most summerlike. I daresay the majority of our cricketers do not share my regret. It will be pleasant to assist at the last match of the season on Monday next, to which I have received a conrceous official invitation. Somersetshire have wound up the season in glorious style, adding victory to victory. It speaks volumes for their pluck and ability that, after the disastrous experi­ ences of June and July, they have gone through August with an untarnished record, five successive wins and not a single defeit. Tyler seems to have recovered from the slatmg his slows received from Essex and Lancashire, who in one week scored 1,493 runs from him and m 3 chums. Yorkshire and Gloucester­ shire are their latest victims, though each match produced a Stubborn fight towards the finish. Somersetshire had the advantage of first knock in both matches, and lo >ked like being beaten by Yorkshire when the match was half over, the score reading 186 and-245. Nothing worthy of note beyond the fact that Nichols, for whose benefit the match was arranged, was top scorer for his side (42). A . pity the public did not give him the support which a long and faithful service deserved. What a big slice of luck there is in benefits! So much depends upon the size of the con­ stituency. The Westerners’ second innings was of a very different order from their first— 353, of which the elder Palairet (16 >) got nearly half,- Sam Woods (65) lending a help­ ing hand Almost an absolutely perfect innings was this cmtury, and we know what that means when Palairet is the performer. Yorkshire made a bold bid for victory, whilst Tunnicliffe and Wainwright were piling on 140 for the s?cond wicket. But nobody backed them. I don’t know how it is but that is a common incident of Yorkshire batting all through the season. The ex­ planation is a want of steadiness on the part of most of their batsmen during the first few overs. Tunniclitfe has cured him­ self of this bad habit, so may Denton with more experience; the others for the most part seem to me to fail to realize that a*, batsman’ s chief duty after taking up his stand at the crease is to keep his wicket up. until ho gets his eye in. Never, mind the; runs, they will come in course of time. Yorkshire fell short of the required number by only 29. The aggregate of the match was 1049, so the wicket must have been in capital order. Tyier maintained his August form with seven wickets in either innings, the hat- trick coming in the second ; his wickets cost 17 runs apiece. And Gloucestershire failed much in the same way. True, there were not so many instances of butter finger* in this match. Decency forbids that one should drag to the