Cricket 1897

100 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. A p r il 29, 1897. BUSSEY’S < Q d B « BATS. H IGHEST GRADE. BUSSEY’S BALLS. H IGHEST GRADE . BUSSEY’S GUARDS. H IGHEST GRADE . BUSSEY’S < CCEK< GLOVES. H IGHEST GRADE . BUSSEY’S BAGS. H IGHEST GRADE . CITY DEPOT— 36 & 38, QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, IiONDON. AGENTS ALL OVER THE WORLD. MANUFACTORY— PECKHAIVI, LONDON . TIMBER M ILLS— ELMSWELL , SUFFOLK. BETWEEN THE INNINGS. For almost the whole of this article I must confess my obligation to two of my correspondents—Mr. George Lacy and Mr. T. L. Adamson, to wit. The statistics with which they have furnished me have interested me so much that I feel sure many of my readers will also be glad to see them. Mr. Adamson writes :—“ I was looking through Wisden for 1897, e^-d, noticing that five Surrey men were run out in the match with Sussex, I thought I would calculate the percentage of wickets lost this way. “ The following table shows the result:— No. Total run wickets Per­ County. out. lost. centage. Somerset ........... ... 14 ... 275 .,.. 5-0 Leicestershire ... 13 ... 25S ... 50 Surrey ................... ... 16 ... 339 ... 4-7 Hants .................. ... 12 ... 254 . 47 Lancashire ........... ... 11 ... 301 ... 36 Kent .................. ... 11 ... 312 .... 35 Notts .................. ... 9 ... 255 ... 35 Derbyshire ........... 7 ... 229 ... 3-0 Warwickshire ... 8 ... 274 .,.. 29 Sussex ................... ... . 8 ... 308 ,... 2'7 Middlesex ........... ... 7 ... 262 ... 2-6 Essex .................. ... 5 ... 203 ,... 2*4 Gloucestershire ... ... 7 ... 312 ... 22 Yorkshire ........... 5 ... 361 ... 1-3 Total ........... ... 133 3943 33 “ It seems to me,” writes Mr. Adam­ son, “ that 133 wickets thrown away is rather a large order, although a per­ centage of is not so formidable. It speaks well for Yorkshire, with their heavy programme, that only five should have been run out as against Surrey’s 16, and it certainly has something, if only a very little, to do with their position in the list. There are four batsmen (two of i them Surrey men) who have been run out three times each—F. C. Holland, |Nichols, P. Perrin, and Richardson.” To my mind 3-3 is all too big a per­ centage of run-outs. It means that just ; one wicket in every thirty fell in this way. And I think we may fairly take it ; that in at least fifty per cent, of the cases a run-out is due rather to the bad judg- |ment of the batsman than to his bsd luck. Some few men there are who have more than once wrought exceeding great j damage to their sides by their bad judg­ ment in running. Mr. Hornby was, of course, the very prince of run-stealers, Iand his enjoyment of a stolen run often 1resulted in his partner’s getting ou t; but he was not half so dangerous in that way |as is the man who cannot make up his |mind and then risk everything—the man who calls his partner, and then sends him back, gets half-way down the pitch and |then hesitates until it is too late either to go back or forward—that is to say, the vacillating man; or as the ass to whom : all fieldsmen are as one, who makes no I distinction between the slowness of the veteran who has grown somewhat stiff in back and knees and the limberness and activity of a Lohmann or a Gregory. A j ball hit straight to one man may be a certain run, whereas hit straight to another man it would be a certain run-out if a run were attempted. Some time back, while at work on statistics of matches between English and Australian elevens, I made out a table of the way in which the leading Australian batsmen were out. I have just turned this up, and see that Blackham heads the list of run-outs with 16 in 380 completed innings, or about one in 24. This is not the biggest proportion however. Harry Boyle was run out 12 times in 180 innings—just one in 15. Trott has had 15 run-outs in 275 innings—about one in 18. I don’t think it fair to assume, how­ ever, that any one of these three was necessarily a bad judge of a run. For one thing I can answer: All three of them were great-hearted, unselfish players who were willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of their side, and I can recall Boyle’s letting himself be run out to save Murdoch’s wicket, and genial Trott giving up his own innings in order that George Giffen’s might not be ended. Now Graham and Gregory are well- known exemplars of the art of bustling the field. Yet Graham has never yet been run out in a match against English players, though he has had 88 innings; and Gregory has only three times been out in this manner in the course of close upon two hundred innings, which is, I think, some proof of my contention that running d la Hornby is not so dangerous as it looks ; but that the chief danger lies in vacillation. Both Graham and Gregory are very quick between wickets; they understand each other w ell; and four years ago they more than once quite demoralised the field by their sharp running. It was in 1892 that the running-out epidemic asserted itself so conspicuously in the Cambridge team. Of the 165 wickets which the Cantabs lost in that season 10 were from run-outs, and three of these were in the first innings of the side in the big game at Lord’s. Wisden for 1893 said:—“ Their (Cambridge’s) first innings, apart from the batting of Weigall and Jackson, was a record of nothing but blunders and disasters. . . . Three wickets—those of Jackson, Wells, and [Hill—were literally thrown away. Jackson, we believe, was sent back by Weigall, after being called for a run, and could not help himself, but Wells and Hill seemed to the ordinary onlooker to have quite lost their heads.” A.nd now for Mr. Lacy’s figures, which, I may say, have interested me extremely. He says :—“ The averages enclosed are those of the batsmen who have played against Australian elevens in England. I do not remember seeing any tables of the kind, and yet I think they are interesting. It is surprising what a poor show the Yorkshire professionals make; Hall and Lee have averages of 19, but those of Ulyett, Lockwood, Bates, Brown,