Cricket 1895

S k p t . 19, 1895. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 419 CRICKET NOTCHES. B y the R ev . R. S. H olmes . I have this week received a couple of letters to which I cannot return satisfactory answer. One asks this question:— “ Have Kent ever been last on the list for the County Champion­ ship ? ” Well, I have no note anywhere that will serve me, and I really have not time at present to hunt up the returns for the past ‘23 years. I should be obliged if certain of my correspondents would bear in mind that I cannot undertake to do for them wrhat they can just as easily do for themselves. The other question must come from a scho >lboy, in that he states it will be “ awfully good” of me if I would inform him “ why so few right-handed bowlers in first-class cricket bowl round the wicket.” I have often thought of the same point, for I always bowled from that side of the wicket myself. Yes, and do our left-handed bowlers ever bowl over the wicket ? Is it that there is a some­ thing about the angle of their body when delivering the ball which makes it more natural or easy for them to bowl round the wicket ? There must be a reason beyond the force of custom. I have sometimes wondered whether our right-hand bowlers did not interpret the l.b. w. law as the plain and honest meaning of words requires—“ in a straight line from wicket to wicket,” “ wicket,” in the laws, always meaning the three stumps, and not all the space between the return creases. If they do, then one can see why they bowl over the wicket. Or is it because the off-break, which is the common break with the majority of right-hand bowlers, can be brought off more successfully from the side of the wicket? or is it that, since bowlers — especially right-hand bowlers—bowl with an almost vertical delivery, it is far easier to bowl straight from over the wicket? It is not often you see the hand of a left-arm bowler raised so high over his head. I can recall the days before 1864, when Law 10 was altered to its present form, and unless my memory be all at sea, more right hand bowlers then bowled round the wicket than over it. But one would like to hear what bowlers themselves have to say on this very interesting point. I have received the most delightful surprise in the shape of an all-too-generous letter from the aged widow of the once famous cricketer, Felix, who, “ as a slight token of the pleasure given me by your kind and most true notice of my dear husband,” has sent me the last likeness of himself he ever painted, and also a few little colored drawings, &c., from his brush which may help to fill your scrap book.” I dare not trust myself to refer more par­ ticularly to the likeness, which is about three- quarter size. I wish every reader of these lines could see and jud^e of it for himself. A friend, who hangs at all the best picture exhi­ bitors, including the Royal Academy,pronounce it “ a most exquisite work of art.” There are three delightful sketches in waters of the shore at Brighton, containing some dozens of figures. But after the likeness I set most store, per­ haps, by a couple of the original drawings for the well known book, “ Felix on the Bat,” which were afterwards transferred to stone. That a perfect stranger should have been honored with such a mark of confidence and esteem is as beautiful as it is surprising, and I can only regard Mrs. Wanostrocht’s precious gift as her tribute, in extreme old age, to the glorious game of cricket, of which “ Felix” was so brilliant an expouent, and of which I may claim to be a humble, though earnest, historian. And the season has come to an end, though the summer is lingering on still. The second Hastings match fitly rounded off the first- class programme, and makes on£ regret that it was not possible to put in a second match, bearing the same title, earlier in the season. The Rest of England would have benefitted by the inclusion of three amateurs, Jackson, Sir Timothy, and the Prince, in whose absence the batting force 4 ssuffered. Palairet, too would have been a welcome addition. Not that the result would have been different. The stronger side won, though chiefly by dint of the eye-opener which Ford and Lockwood gave us. Early on in the season I saw the Surrey man score an innings of 158 against Warwickshire, but his 60 not out at Hastings was out-and-away his best since then. And 111 not out from Ford’ s left-handed bat one scarcely expected. Stod­ dart’s double— 55 and 59 —were worthy of a captain on a great occasion. Doesn’t he always prove equal to the biggest matches ? He is one of the very few prominent cricketers in my recollection for whom no match is too big. What I said a week ago of Mold and Townsend was confirmed to the letter by this match. So, too, my opinion of Richardson, who rattled down the best wickets one after the other. It must have been almost the first match in which Abel found himself opposed by Richardson ; he will possibly be able now to sympathise with many of Surrey’s oppo­ nents. I used to think what a shame it was that W . G. never got a whack at his own bowling when it used to be so much in evidence. There would have been several more centuries had he figured among Glouces­ tershire’ s opponents, unless of course he required—as it would seem he did—the very best bowling to show to greatest advantage. Had he not scored that century against the Players at Lord’s this y**ar, I should be tempted to say that Richardson was his master. Walter Read’s aggregate of 94 — easily the highest on his side—was another instance of a wise man’s keeping the best wine to the last. W ith Thoms and Carpenter in the surplices Hastings lacked nothing. I hope to see both of them in a similar capacity for many years yet, until indeed I have a grandson old enough to hear the story Thoms has often told of my getting him four of the biggest stones I could find to count the balls of the over with. That must be more than thirty years ago. And what of the past season ? The various statistical tables have duly appeared, and I daresay most of us have studied them with the conscientious care they certainly deserve. Personally I can never tire of expressing my obligations to the unknown workers in this important department of the game. It is not so many years since you never saw such a table until at least a month after bats and balls and stumps were put away for the winter. Nowadays we are informed week by week of the relative positions of our chief batsmen and bowlers. If 189 1 was a bowler’s year, 1895 has done an equally good turn to batsmen, and as batting has always been regarded as the most important branch of the game by all, save a few eccentrics like myself—who find keener enjoyment in a well-balanced game, in which, owing to fine bowling and correspondingly close fielding, every run wants making —the present year has been one of the most popular on record. In point of weather it deserves to be classed with 189}, for with the exception of a wet month somewhere about the middle, batsmen have had matters all their own way. The battle of the counties ended once more in favour of Surrey. Let it pass. Whilst ungrudgingly acknowledging their all-round superiority to all rivals, it is to be regretted that the first place is not filled by some other county, by a county, indeed, to which such a position would be a novel experience. In the la*t nine years Surrey have been first no less than eight times. And why have they been? Before 1887 they had not aspired so high for more than 20 seasons ; the exact interval was, I believe, 22 years. It may be said—and with a certain show of reason—that the popularity of the Australian matches played at the Oval enabled Surrey to make tempting offers to men born in other counties; or, at any rate, to engage a number of ground bowlers from other counties who had never had a trial in public. However much truth this statement may hold of the policy adopted immediately before and after their change of fortune, we must look elsewhere for Surrey’s sustained supremacy in the field. To-day they are training youngsters bom within the borders of the couuty. A t con­ siderable outlay they have engaged the services of an able, practical cricketer, whose s >le duties are to find, and then educate, the likely younsj Surrey cricketers. Holland is the outcome of W . T. Grayburn’s coaching. And the latter has assured me that in his opinion Holland is only a sample of more to follow. Now why should not other counties go and do likewise ? It may be urged that in some cases financial difficulties block the way. Then why not make a similar attempt on a more modest scale ? Surely there is enough public spirit in the counties to raise a guarantee fund, to be devoted to this special purpose, should it be required. Yorkshire subsidize every local club which engages promising men as professionals to the club. But Yorkshire and Lancashire are rich enough to take in hand the training of the most likely colts. There are plenty of them to be found ; I have certain youngsters in my mind of whose future I have no manner of doubt. Patience is required, of course. You can’t raise a capable eleven in one season or two. Many, who seemed likeiy, may turn out disappoint­ ing. But, striking an average, I am persuaded that with able coaching of the younger cricketers at present playing only in club matches, no County need despair of the ultimate results. If Surrey had never done more than one sensible thing, they have certainly set all the Counties a splendid example in their manner of plodding with such a cricketer as Abel. Trained on a London park, his cricket was of the rawest when first he came under the notice of the authorities at the Oval, and yet, to day, he ranks among the greatest living ba smen; indeed, with the exception of Walter Read, Surrey have never produced his peer through­ out their lengthened history. And history, remember, is much given to repeat itself if it be allowed a chance. But this and other matters may more fitly come under our notice during the winter. The season has been marred by none of the untoward incidents which gave an unenviable prominence to sundry seasons in the past. The amended rule bearing on the “ follow- on ” has worked adm irably; and I gladly make this confession because a year ago I augured no happy results from the alteration. I have still to learn that it would not be a substantial gain to the game were the ‘ ‘ follow- o n ” abolished altogether. But for the present we will keep our hands off the present plan. One has heard fewer complaints of theumpiring in first-class matches, although virtually the samemen haddisc larged thearduous,but thank- lessj duties of this office. Speaking for myself, I can say that I have not seen one thoroughly bad decision in County Cricket,