Cricket 1897

J uly 29, 1897. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 317 A l t h o u g h the P iladelphians have not experienced the good luck in tossing which for go long followed Trott during the Australian tour last year they have not been badly treated by fortune, having won the toss in six matches out of 14. The last four tosses have all beea lost— against Gloucestershire, Somerset, M.C.C. and Kent. In the majority of instanc s when Trott lost the toss it did not greatly matter to his side, but in this respect our present visitors have not been so fo r­ tunate. ------- The result of the matches at Hudders­ field and Trent Bridge were altogether remarkable. At Trent Bridge Glouces tershirewith 214 to make, lost 6 wickets for 101. There then remained two hours in which to score the 113 runs still required, so that the question of time began to come in as well as that of wickets. An hour before time 63 runs had to be mad«, and the question of wickets was still not disposed of. With half an hour left 35 runs were wanted, but the question of wickets began to drop into the back­ ground. Then when 20 minutes was left with 27 runs still to be made the long partnership between Mr. Richardson and Mr. Townsend was broken. Once more wickets as well as time had to be taken into consideration. But Mr. Townsend took a leaf out of Mr. Jessop’s book and with only a minute between a victory and a drawn game the runs were hit off. A t Huddersfield, Yorkshire, with 299 runs to make on a somewhat fiery wicket, had lost four of their best men for 23. Moorhouse and Wainwright brought the total to 138, when Wainwright went. Moorhouse was out at 169, and thus with only four wickets still in hand Yorkshire required 130 runs. Then Mr. Milligan and Hirst made such a stand that they actually looked like knocking off the runs. Bat when the total was 254 (45 still required) Hirst was run out. Mr. Milligan was bowled at 283—two wickets to fall and 16 runs required. It was now anybody’s game, possibly slightly in favour of Yorkshire, for whom Lord Hawke was playing safe cricket. Haigh went at 288— .en to tie. The last two men gradually brought the game to such a position that Yorkshire only required a single run to tie. And then the game ended with l.b.w . — about the most unprofitable ending imaginable, although there seems to be no doubt that the decision was correct. T h e upshot of this match will be that Essex will have to fight every inch of the way if they are to hold their position, for in cricket, as in everything else in the world, there is a natural tendency for the older hands to make things as warm as possible for newcomers. But the odds are that Essex will come out of the trial with great credit. I t would be interesting to know whether many bowlers have had more runs hit off them in a single innings than Mr. Shine for Kent v. Surrey last week. He took six wickets for 226 runs. George Giffen may have exceeded this total. Some queries come from Mr. E. H. Coles upon a point which, although it is always cropping up, is often misunder­ stood by local umpires :— A batsman has been running out of his ground to meet the bowling and, on one occa­ sion, the bowler runs up to the wicket in his usual manner before delivering the ball, but instead of bowling, he throws it at the wicket, the batsman being out of his ground. 1. Was the bowler justified in throwing at the wicket ? 2. The umpire did not call “ no-ball ” until the ball had passedthe batsman’s wicket. If the ball had hit the wicket would the bats­ man have been out f or 3. Should it have been treated simply as a “ no-ball,” governed by Laws 10 aud 48b ? 4. Has Law 35 any bearing on the case ? The bowler could throw at the bats­ man’s wicket if he liked, but it would then be the duty of the umpire to call “ n o -b ill.” He ought, of course, to call “ n o-ball” instantly on delivery, but. that is not always possible, and, in this case, he was probably taken by surprise. If he called “ n o -b a ll” the batsman would not be out, I should say, even though the ball had actually hit the wicket before he had time to call it. Laws 10 and 48a would apply, but hardly Law 35, which refers to the bowler’s end only. One of the most curious matches of the season was that between Durham v. Northamptonshire. The former county made 70 in the first innings ; Northamp­ tonshire, satisfied with a total of 282, declared when six of their wickets were down. Thereupon, Durham put up no less than 365 for seven wickets, and made an exceedingly satisfactory draw. A team of Canadian cricketers, cap­ tained by A. H. Collins, whose brother played for Cambridge a good many years ago, has recently been touring in Chicago with great success, winning all its four matches. The fielding of the visitors was so fine, that Chicago baseball players described it as being as good as anything they had ever seen. The team, which only included three of the men who have obtained international honours, had a very promising member in A. Mackenzie, a schoolboy at Ridley College; he is a good bat and bowler, and a first-class field. Among the Chicago players was Ogden, svho captained the Canadian team of 1887. He played under the nom de guerre of Wilmott, and batted and bowled well. During the tour the heat was intense. Last year Canada beat the Philadelphian team which is now in England, and Canadian cricket seems to have greatly improved during recent years. To those who know the complete success which has attended the Dutch tours organized by Mr. J. Brander Hatt, it will be no surprise to hear that he will be personally conducting another team to Holland this autumn. In response to an invitation to organise another team of Yorkshire Gentlemen for Holland, he is making preparations in view of this trip. It is to commence early in Sep­ tember after the Scarborough Festival. The following letter from the captain of the Philadelphian team will more than compensate for the remarks of the re­ porter of the Philadelphia Public Ledger which were reproduced in the Field uf Saturday. Of course no one ever dreamed that the comments of the Americ ut crilio on the umpiring iu their matches was in any way inspired or even approved by the Puiladelphi’Uis, or any one of them. Still, Mr. Patterson’s emphatic repudii- tion is well timed, and it is pleasant, to find that the Aim1!ican cricketers appreciate the reception they have met with everywhere’ Maidstone, July 26th. D ear . S ir ,— My attention has been directed to a letter signed “ W.S. ” in the Field of July 24th, enclosing a clipping from the Philadelphia Public Ledger , severely criticising the umpiring in the Philadelphian matches during our tour through England. I wish to state on behalf of the Philadelphia ttam that the sentiments expressed in the clipping are not those of the team, and that we emphati­ cally repudiate any insinuation of unfair treatment. On the contrary we have been received with the most unvarying courtesy and fairness, both off and on the field. I wish to take this opportunity of making a public acknowledgment of our indebtedness to Mr. Perkins, of the M.C.C., for the umpires assigned .to us, and to testify, unnecessary though it be, to their ability and integrity. I am, truly yours, GEORGE STUART PATTERSON, Captain of the Philadelphia Team. A tie was the result of the match between the Fleming Comedy Company and a Masonic X I . at Maritzburg, Natal, at the end of June. The Masonic X I. (one of whom, Mr. C. W . P. de Fenzie, made 41 and then, as the Natal Witness amusingly puts it, retired “ fa tigu ed ” ) put up 122, while the Comedy Company equalled this for the loss of six wickets. At this period of the game one of the batsmen was a little too anxious to make the winning hit, and was caught on the boundary. The last three men were promply bowled without scoring. Befobe a run had been scored b y Kent in their match at Maidstone against the Philadelphians, Mr. Tonge had a bone in his left hand broken by a fast ball from Mr. Cregar. The Philadelphia captain suggested that, as no runs had been made, another man should be substituted in Mr. Tonge’s place, and the offer was accepted by Mr. Marchant. This was not perhaps strictly “ according to Cocker,” but the action of the Phila­ delphia captain will be appreciated and understood by cricketers. A GOOD many things, however, happen in cricket which are not exactly provided for in the rules. For instance, in the Yorkshire v. Notts match at Trent Bridge in 1895, Wilkinson was given run out by the umpire because, hearing a cry of “ boundary ” from some of the field, he stopped running, to find that it was not a boundary and that his wicket was put down. Lord Hawke allowed him to resume iiis innings. In the same match Mr. A. O. Jones, thinking that he was