Cricket 1896

J une 11, 1896. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 207 Section showing top of handle, p a te n t a p p lie d f o r “ LANCASHIRE W I T C H , ” 1 7 s. Gd. e a c h . Carefully Selected Canos, Superior Straight- Grained Blades. FRANK SUGG, 32, Lord St., Liverpool. Cricket: A WEEKLY EECORD OF TEE GAME, 168, UPPER THAMES STREET, LONDON, E.C. THURSDAY , JUNE 11 th , 1896. $a\stiton (gocstp. The abstract and brief chronicle of the time.— Hamlet. T he catch b y which Brockwell disposed of Sugg in the Derbyshire match was uncommonly good. The ball seemed at first to be goin g easily to the fieldsman’s bands, but at the last it must have swerved slightly, for Brockwell had to make a jump to the right, and made the catch high up with one hand. The effort caused him to spin round, and for a moment there seemed a prospect that he would hurt himself by falling over a boundary post, but he came hard againstanewspaper boy, standing with open mouth, and was then received into the protecting arms of a stalwart policeman. Sugg appealed against the catch, and was perfectly right in doing so, but the umpire could only use his judgment. T h e r e was another catch in the same innings which was almost as good, but as it appeared to be taken easily, it was not as loudly applauded. Chatterton, after playiDg very steadily indeed, was induced by Lohmann to make a drive, and the ball went very fast and not high in the direction of Hayward, who had to run in a long way to get to it. But he steadied himself in his rush exactly at the right time, and judged the catch so accurately that cne was not surprised to hear people in the crowd sajin g “ I thought it was going to be a difficult catch when he started,but all he had to do was to hold it.” P. S. W a d d y , who has been showing such promising all round cricket for Oxford University this season, is an Australian. He is in his twenty-second year, having been b om on January 8 th, 1875, in New South Wales. His father and uncle are both well known cricketers, and one of them I take to be Percy Waddy, who was in England during the visit of one of the earlier Australian teams, and played several matches for the Surrey Club. The young Oxonian was educated at the K ing’s School, Parramatta. While there he played for Eighteen of Parra­ matta District against Lord Sheffield’s Eleven, and with great success, making, in fact, the top score of the match (34). He came to Oxford in 1893. M r. W a d d y played in London club cricket last season, and assisted Ealing in several matches, generally bow ling and batting well. In a match against Surbi­ ton, he took 8 wickets for 24 and made 46 runs. It may be interesting to relate that Mr. H . H . Massie, the famous Aus­ tralian cricketer, who was in England last summer, spoke very highly of Mr. Waddy, saying that if he did not make his name as a cricketer sooner or later, he should be very much surprised. I t was curious that in the Notts first innings against Middlesex, Shrewsbury, while Mr. Jones was in with him, scored very fast; in fact, quite as fast as his partner. But the moment that Gunn came in, the rate of scoring slowed down very rapidly. There was method in this, however, for Shrewsbury, having sampled the bowling, was content to merely keep up his wicket until the next morning. If the rain had not come, the Middlesex bowlers would possibly not have had such good analyses. I t was a clever piece of stumping by which Mr. MacGregor dismissed Mr. C. W . Wright in the Notts second innings. Mr. MacGregor was on the point of re­ turning the ball to Rawlin, but suddenly changed his mind and whipped Mr. W right’s bails off justastheNotts amateur was raising his heel a little way over the crease. No one could have been more surprised than Mr. W right when he found what bad happened. T h a t Mr. Spofforth is not the bowler he was about fifteen years ago, he would himself be the first to acknowledge. But so finely did he bow l at Wembley Park, that those of the spectators who never had the opportunity of seeing him in his prime, must have thoroughly understood the enthusiasm with which old stagers speak of him. No wonder that so many men describe him as the greatest bowler they ever played against. A very interesting little comedy took place during the Notts second innings. After Dr. Thornton had been in for some time, Attewell hit him bard on the leg in different places with three successive balls, all of which the batsman made a deter­ mined attempt to hit. The very next time that Attewell had a chance, he gave the Doctor another leg ball, which, this time, went for four, nearly square. Put­ ting a man out, Attewell repeated the ball, which resulted in a single. The bowler tried the same sort of ball two or three times more without being hit, and at last got his man to hit at one which curled in a little with fatal results. M r . J. G. M a o t a g g a r t writes as follows from Singapore :— ‘ ‘ A batsman played a ball, and as it was likely to fall on to his wicket, he struck it a second time, with the result that he hit it into the hands of the wicket-keeper. On appeal he was given out, caught at the wieket. Was the batsman out ? ” T h is is one of the instances for which the laws cannot be said to provide. It is to be presumed that the wicket-keeper was standing back, but if there was the remotest possible chance that any one of the field could have caught the ball before it was hit a second time the bats­ man must clearly have been out for “ obstructing the field.” It would be unreasonable to expect an umpire to make nice distinctions as to whether the catch would just have been made or just missed. I f there was not a shadow of of a chance that anyone of the field could have caught the ball before it was hit a second time, the laws would not assist the umpire except in so far that law 22 directs that the batsman is out if the ball be held before it touches the ground. In a somewhat similar case, Thoms once gave a batsman out, and on being after­ wards asked for an explanation of his decision, replied that he gave him out by rule 43, which was decidedly a neat way out of a difficulty, for the rule provides that the umpires are the sole judges of fair and unfair play. AMONGotherpoints about which the laws are either vague or quite silent, is the ques­ tion of what constitutes a boundary hit. If there had not been so many decisions directly opposed to each other one would be inclined to say that if the catcher, either in the act of making a catch or trying to preserve his balance after mak­ ing it, touches the boundary, the batsman ought not to be out. In the same way if a fieldsman touches or oversteps the boundary in attempting to save a four, it would seem only reasonable that the ball should be considered to have reached the boundary. A t the present time, an umpire must either judge as he thinks best, or take his choice of innumerable conflicting decisions given by other um­ pires. T h e return of George Lohmann to the Oval has delighted the Surrey crowd, who dearly love to watch and comment on the consummate skill which he shows in varying his pace and pitch. And the Surrey crowd are b y no means bad j udges of the game, although they sometimes allow their enthusiasm to get the better of their conscience. They are still a little too outspoken in their criticism of poor play, but offenders are generally promptly called to order. T H E E V E N T O F 1896. The Latest Patent Cricket Bat. After many ex­ periments and pro­ tracted trials, F ran k Suaa has at last succeeded in pro­ ducing a Handle, which, from his prac­ tical knowledge, he has no hesitation in asserting is abso­ lutely superior to any other Patent Handle in use at the present time.