Cricket 1897

A ug . 2 6 , 1897. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OP THE GAME. 381 when stumps were drawn, had made 144 not out. Mr. Jessop made 90 for Gloucestershire against Somerset in 55 minutes. I t may be placed on record that, to see Lancashire v. Surrey, the last first-class match at the Oval in which the old pavilion will be on view, about 55,000 spectators were present, including mem­ bers. Ip ever a side deserved sympathy for misfortunes, it was Lancashire in the Oval match. To have to take the field without Mold in the most important match of the season, and to lose the services of Sugg owing to a broken finger just at the time when he had brought his county out of danger, and might have helped it to victory, was nothing short of a calamity. Last week it was pointed out in “ Gossip ” that Hayward and Mr. Jessop had been batting badly of late, and in order that all might see what had been their misdoings, a list of their scores was given. Needless to say, both batsmen scored largely in the next match, Mr. Jessop making 90, and Hayward 62 and not out 26. E n g lis h umpires of a diffident nature might take a hint from the following description, in an American paper, of a baseball game, in which J. L. Sullivan was umpire. “ The first hatter flied out, and while the second man was up a foul tipped his bat as he struck at the hall. ‘ One strike,’ yelled John L. ‘ Wasn’t that a foul, Mr. Sullivan ? ’ asked the batsman, politely. 11 said strike, didn’t I ? ’ asked the big fellow in return. ‘ Excuse me,’ said the batsman. Soon after another player hit a ball into the crowd. The ground rule entitled him to one base, but he greedily took three. When he landed on third he looked at Sullivan, who very forcibly ordered the runner hack to first by merely jerking his thumb in the direction of that base. There was no kick either. In the last half of the first inning, with two men on bases, Kid Carsey, theWest New York’s manager, hit to the second baseman, and was clearly doubled up at first. ‘ You’re out,’ exclaimed the ex-champion. Carsey, however, who pretended not to hear, stood on the bag. Suddenly the big fellow looked at him, jerked his thumb vigorously, and said in a guttural tone. ‘ Get out! ’ And Carsey apologized.” In the St. James’s Gazette of Monday, a good story is told which, whether it is true or not, is well worth repeating. “ In 1844, a grand fillip was given to the national pastime by the celebrated charge of Baron Alderson to the grand jury at the Huntingdon Summer Assizes. Lard Sandwich, lord-lieutenant of the county, was in the habit of getting up matches between his tenantry, iu which he played himself; and this led to a eulogistic speech on the part of the Judge, who pointed out that, by this association of the peer and the peasant, the landlord and the tenant, the relations between all classes should reach the ideal state. Then having little business to transact, the Bench, the Bar, grand jurymen, and officials all adjourned to the cricket-field, where a ‘ pick-up ’ took place, the Judge umpiring and giving his clerk ‘ out ’ at the first ball.” T he old story—shall I say, lie ?— about Prince Ruijitsinhji telegraphing to India after he had made his first fifty: “ Rejoice with me, etc., etc.,” has at last, after many wanderings, reached Tasmania, with slight additions. It cannot be long now before it makes its reappearance in England as the “ very latest story about Ranji.” C o m m e n tin g upon a paragraph which appeared some weeks ago in “ Gossip,” to the effect that it was doubtful whether any cricketer could give such an exhibi­ tion of hard and clean hitting as Mr. F. G. J. Ford, the Adelaide Observer says :— “ What about J. J. Lyons, who at Lord’s against better bowling knocked together 149 in ninety-five minutes ? And he can hit just as hard now, as Trumble, Boche, and the rest of the Yictorians can testify.” I t is announced from Australia, that all the subscriptions for the “ C. T. B. Turner Testimonial” are now in, and that the amount realised is only £173. It is significant that no less than eighty lists were sent to well-known cricketers in England without meeting with a single response. Altogether the result of the appeal is regarded as very unsatis­ factory, but this was foretold from the first. Turner is said to have gone into business in Gympie (Queensland) as a “ sharebroker,” whatever that may be. T h e shield which was subscribed for in Bombay to commemorate the governor­ ship of Lord Harris, has been handed over to the committee of the High Schools Association, to be competed for annually by the boys of the various schools. It has also been decided that the balance of the fund shall be handed over to the hon. secretary, with a request to get three full-size photographs of Lord Harris painted, and to hand over the same to the three local native gymkhanas. D e s c r ib in g a dance which was given after a cricket match the Madras Times says:— A jolly little dance took place at the Club in the evening, and though the wicket—I mean the floor,—-was a bit slow, the dancing was none the less kept going with much zest until close on midnight. Though the floor was a bit sticky, there were no leg-breaks, and owing to the heat the fieldsm— - I mean the dancers, had frequent rests on the boundary. About second wicket down, two of the visiting team made an exhibition of themselves in the Lancers. I I a r r t T r o t t has given to a represen­ tative of the Australasian his opinions of the players who, at the time of the inter­ view, were supposed to be certain to visit Australia with Mr. Stoddart. He con­ sidersthat, although Lilley and Storer may be considered the two best wicket-keepers in England, MacGregor shapedbetterthan either of them in the one game he played against the Australians. He would have expected to see either Hayward or Mead chosen, in preference to Attewell, as the second medium-pace righthander of the team. The Australians regarded Hayward not only as a good bowler, but one of the best batsmen in England, though he did little against them. Of Mead, Trott has a high opinion, and considers him one of the best medium- pace bowlers in England. The wickets at Leyton, he remarks, are usually very good, and a man who can bowl there would be successful in Australia. Or Hirst, Trott says that, like Spof­ forth, he has been successful lately in bowling an occasional slow, without in any way changing his delivery, but he doubts whether he would be a great success with the ball on Australian wickets. “ CaptainWynyard, if hecomes,” says Trott, ‘ ‘ is bound to do well out here. He plays all round the wicket, and is a batsman who keeps going all the time. For that reason he would be a great favourite with Australian crowds. He is one of the great batsmen of England, and a splendid field as well. You can’t put him wrong in the field, but at mid- on he’s brilliant, and we saw him bring off some wonderful catches close in. When playing for England against us at the Oval, he seemed for the first time to feel the responsibility, and never let himself go.” T r o t t adds that Mason is a fine young amateur batsman. He greatly took the fancy of the Australians, who were all of opinion that he is just the man for Aus­ tralian wickets. He is not a bad bowler either. Other men to whom Trott has taken a fancy are, Sugg, Tunnicliffe, W. G. Quaife and Killick. Ranjitsinhji, he says, bats like no one else, and when he is going well, it looks like a hopeless thing to get him. It is curious that Mr. Stoddart himself is not even men­ tioned in the interview. Two queries come from Mr. C. Good- day :— “ (1.) A batsmanhit the ball inamatch near Witham and the howler in getting to it ob­ structed the other batsman. The bowler threw in the ball and the wicket-keeper knocked off the hails. The umpire gave the batsman “ not out ” because the bowler ob­ structed him, but would not allow the run to be counted. Was this right ?” [This was an instance in which the umpire could only act on his judgment. If the men crossed and neither batsman was given out, a run ought to be counted.] “ (2) A batsman was given not out, but mistaking the decision he walked to the pavilion. The fielders all saw that a mistake had been made but did not call him back. Was this right ? The pavilion was behind his wicket; so he was still in his ground.” [The fieldsmen were not obliged to in­ terfere, but most cricketers would have told the batsman of his mistake.]