Cricket 1896

378 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. A u g . 27, 1896. He said that when Trum'ble is bowling to him he feels that he is battiDg against the best bowler in England. W. G. thinks a great deal of him, too, and says that he uses his head so well. On a sticky wicket your bowlers have the pull, for they come back just enough and no more. ‘ 1How do you account for the extra­ ordinary success of Hearne and Pougher at Lord’s ia the first M.C.C. match ? ” “ Well, it was our first sticky wicket— except that at Wernbly Park—and it was at its very worst when we went in. It was what I should call a ‘ funny paced wicket.’ Hearne was coming back a lo t ; he does five or six inches on a stick) wicket, and with his pace this is trying; moreover, he hides his hand very well indeed. On the other hand, Pougher hardly turned the ball, but kept very low—it seemed that he must get some work on, but he came along nearly straight. Sjmetimrs the ball came off the pitch at a great pace; at others it went along f-lowly—you will remember that three or four of us played on. I should think that it would be almost impossible for any man to do such a great performance again. We have been chaffed enough about that 18, in the Australian papers, you may be sure.” “ What do you think of modern fast bowling ? ” “ There is something very curious indeed about it. You go in to bat against a fast bowler; for a little while —say for 20 balls—he comes straight on and the ball does nothing. Then sud­ denly one whips back in a startling way, and a man has no possible show of playing it, although, of course, he often makes a snick by accident. I don’t believe that the bowlers themselves know what that particular ball is going to do. But they all bowl it. Jones does; so does Richardson ; so does Mold. “ What do you think was the cause of the small total made by the Australians in the first England match at Lord’s ? ” “ The wicket was very fast, and it so happened that we had been batting on good but slower wickets, so that most of us mistimed the ball. I, rnj self, was bowled with a half volley, and don’t in the least know how I missed it. It some­ times happens after a long drought that a fast wicket, for some reason or other, plays in a peculiar manner, perhaps for a few oveis or perhaps for half an hour or so. After this the corners seem to have been smoothed down, and then the ball comes along in a natural way. I think that sometliing like this occurred in the match at Lord’s. It is very trying for anyone to bat at Lord’s.” “ Why do you think so ? ” “ Because there is no screen behind the bowler’s arm at the pavilion end. It is the same at the Oval and one or two other English grounds, but the want of a screen at Lord’s is particularly inconvenient to a batsman, because of the windows. I am not saying this to excuse one or two of our innings at Lord’s, for Engliih bats­ men say that they feel the want of a screen as badly as we do. If it were necessary to have a very wide screen one could understand the reason for wi.-hing to do without it, bat it need only take up very little room. Iu Australiathemanwho sits at the gate moves a small screen to the required position, and the spectators move a little and the thing is done. It does not require a wholesale shifting of seats, but 20 or 30 people move a yard or two to the right or left as occasion re­ quires. At one time I did not mind a bit whether there was a screen or not, but after one has got out two or three times, and fancies that it was because somebody took out a handkerchief or walked away j ust as the ball was bowled, one is never comfortable. Iredale says that he can never see a ball at Lord’s when he is facing the pavilion, and English cricketers have told me the same thing. It would be a great boon to batsmen if a screen were put up in the pavilion on all grounds where it is required. At Manchester, Brighton,Southampton, and perhaps one or two other grounds the wickets are pitched parallel to the pavilion, but that could not be done at Lord’s because of the slope.” “ Are there any other improvements you coirId suggest for English grounds ? ” “ I think it would be a good plan to have a railing all round on the boundary to keep the crowd back—a white railing is the best, because when you are fielding you can see the ball so plainly against it. The mention of fielding reminds me of the overthrows at the Oval when we were playing Surrey the second time. A ball was hit to cover. Graham fielded it and threw the wicket down, but the batsman was in his ground. Pour times was the ball thrown at the wicket, and each time a run resulted. The ball did not go at any time more than twelve yards from the wicket, and the stumps were hit twice —once at each end— 30 we didn’ t run anyone out after all our efforts. It is curious how often a run out will turn the game in favour of the other side. Take, as one out of many instances this year, our own first innings against England at Lord’s and also at the Oval, when Donnan and Iredale were run out. It was un­ fortunate for us, too, when Hill was run out at the Oval, for we were trusting to him to get Peel taken off. The remark which appeared one of the papers that Hill was trembling all over when he went in was rubbish; he is one of the pluckiest little fillows I have ever seen.” It will be remembered that in the first England match Mr. Trott appealed against a catch, and was given not out. “ I didn’ t think that the ball carried to Hayward,” he said, “ but I asked him afterwards, and he said that it was a fair catch, and I have no doubt whatever that he was right. I have caught too many catches myself which have been given ‘ not out,’ not to know that a batsman as well as an umpire may be deceived. You remember that in the second England match Itanjitsinhji appealed when I caught him, and was given out. He told me afterwards that he felt sure I had made the catch, but as I was 1) ing flat on my chest, with my hands on the ground, I couldn’t throw the ball up, and so he appealed, to make certain. And quite light too. But I could tell you ot lots ol similar instances.” “ Will you tell me about one or two ? ” “ Well, in the Sussex match they told me that Etheridge had had very little experience, but he was experienced enough to appeal against a catch which I made at point, when he was batting. I caught the ball with my hands on the ground, and it rolled up to my shoulder. I had to be very careful in wriggling about to get it back into my hands, but at last I did so. Hall couldn’t see, because Trumble was in front of him, but Phillips thought the ball touched the ground first. We have been very pleased with our umpires this trip. Of course, mistakes have been made, but it could not possibly be otherwise. It is conceivable that even the man who makes a catch may not know it. When we were playing Hampshire I bowled a ball to Captaiu Wynyard, who thought it was a yorker and jabbed his bat down on it, with the result that it jumped up into Trumble’s hands at slip. Trumble hadn’t the slightest idea that he had made a catch, and threw the ball down, but we, at the other end, could see that the ball was not quite a yorker, and that it had pitched j ust in front of the bat, which had turned it off to Trumble. Ward, the other batsman, could see it, but Wynyard, natu­ rally enough, did not like going out when he saw Trumble throw down the ball.” ‘ ' Have there been many mistakes which greatly influenced the game ? ” “ Not many. Leveson-Gower, who got a lot of runs against us at Oxford and the Oral (in the first Surrey match), was caught at the wicket both times early in his innings and given not ou t; once he placed the ball to leg, and Johns caught him with the left hand stretched out, but the umpire didn’t see it. On the other hand Brockwell was twice given out by mistake in the first Surrey match; once he was caught at the wicket but did not touch the ball, and in the second innings •he was l.b.w. but played the ball. Brock­ well did not know that he hit the ball, so that it isn’ t wonderful that umpires make mistakes sometimes. I had a curious experience at Birmingham against the Midland Counties—this has nothing to do with umpiring. Hulme bowled me a ball which hit the leg stump and knocked the bail out of the groove; but it stuck fast between the two stumps, and I continued my innings with much enjoyment. How­ ever, Ididn’tinake many runs afterwards.” “ Do the Australian newspapers report matches as fully as is done in England ? ” “ The evening editions have every detail; almost every stroke is described, and as there is a telephone from the ground direct to the office, the account is brought right up to the time that the paper comes out. At Melbourne, by the time you have dressed, after the match, and got into the city, you get the last edition, with a detailed report of the game up to the last ball bowled. Tommy Horan writes a very chatty and interest­ ing article in the A ustralasian every week ; Hedley, who is an old cricketer, writes for the Leader and the Age , and Donald McDonald—a Scotchman—writes for the Argus. W. A. Bl-TTEaWORI It.