Cricket 1900

M a y 1 0 , 1 9 0 0 . CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 1 1 5 Square, in Nottingham. “ Our main idea in taking up this business,” said Alfred, “ was that it would be very use­ ful to us when we both gave up erieket. We did not expect that we should make much out of it at first, and to tell the truth, we didn’t make our fortunes. For as we were both engaged so much, we were unable to give that attention which such a business requires, and the conse­ quence was that materials were often sent out which did us a lot of harm. But we did not want to give up cricket, for we both felt that the game did us good even if we didn’t do any good to the game by playing. But now that we have both been able to really work at the business, and to see that what we send out is the best of its kind, we are, I am happy to say, getting a good name.” In conclusion, I may say that Alfred Shaw is writing his biography, in colla­ boration with Mr. A. W . Pullin, whose “ Talks with Old Yorkshire Cricketers” are already well known. The book is to appear before long—probably next sea­ son—and it can hardly help being the book of the year. W . A. B e t t e s w o r t h . Some of Alfred Shaw’s best perform­ ances were as follows :— M.C.C. v. Thorndean Hall, 1870,18 wickets (nine each innings) out of 20—13 howled. Notts v. M.C.C., at Lord’s, June 14 and 15, 1875, 41’2 overs, 36 maidens, 7runs, 7wickets. Scores and Biographies, Vol. XIII., page 516:—“ A Shaw’s bowling was something marvellous ; and the great batsmen he had to contend against must also be taken into con­ sideration. Only five singles and a two (‘ a fluke’) were hit from his howling. . . .” Notts v. Leicestershire, at Leicester, Sep­ tember 16, 17 and 18, 1878:—21-3 overs, 14 maidens, 7 runs, 7 wickets. Players v. Gentn., at the Oval, 1880:—38 overs, 31 maidens, 17 runs, 7 wickets. Players v. Gentn., at Brighton, 1881 :— (The remarkable match—Jim Lillywhite’ s benefit—which the Players won by 1 run, thanks to Shaw’s bowling.) 26 overs, 15 maidens, 19 runs, 6 wickets. ALFRED SH AW ’S BEST BOW LIN S YEARS. Year. Overs. Mdn-*. Runs. Wkts. Aver. 1867 . 885 . . -35 .. 957 .. 96 . . 9 93 1870 . . 1171 . 645 .. 1289 .. 103 . . 1263 1871 . . 1404 . 76b .. 1467 .. 98 . . 1495 1872 . . 1006 . . 498 .. 1109 .. 92 . 12*5 1873 . . 1317 . 630 .. 1638 .. 128 . . 12102 1874 . . 1461 . . 72£ .. 1729 ... 131 . . 13 26 1875 . . 1741 . . 1' 22 .. 1499 . 161 . . 9 50 1876 . . 2646 . . 147) 2515 .. Ii8 . . 14 23 1878 . 2522 . . 1612 .. 2084 .. 196 . . 10124 1879 . . 1675 . . 924 .. 1269 .. 134 . . 953 1880 . . 1994 . 1231 152 > . 1 7 7 . . 8-H9 MESSKS. PRESCOTT, DIMSDALE’S. M AY. 2. v. Brown, Janson’s* 14. v. Robarts, Lubbock and Co.* 24. v. Glyn, Mills and Co.* JUNE. 11. v. Smith, Payne’s* 21. v. Glyn, Mills and Co.* 25. v. Coutts and Co.* JULY. 23. Atlas Assurance Company* AUGUST. 2. London and Westminster Bank (2)* 18. Smith Payne’s* iQ Lloyd’s Bank* SEP I EMBER. 1. House Match {in conjunction with Robarts, Lubbock and Co.). * Two-day matches. CTorregponDtncc. The Editor does not hold himself responsible tor the opinions of his correspondents. THE NET EXPERIMENT. To the Editor of C r ic k e t . S ir , —As I have seen observed more than once in Cricket, “ nemomortaliumomnibus horis 8apit. ’ ’ So, I suppose, we do not all see things in quite the same light. In the present instance may I point out a detail or two in which I disagree with your reporter of the first day’s play of thematch M.C.C. v. Notts ? Your reporter tells us that “ the avowed subject (sic I) of the experiment (the three- foot net) was to discourage boundary hitting.” This possibly may be the result; it certainly was never the object the M.C.C. had in view. Lord Justice A. L. Smith, in his address to the general meeting of the club held the same day, was particularly clear in enunciating the result the committee hoped would follow the introduction of the net. It was to do away with drawn games by rendering it a physical impossibility for batsmen to make so many runs as they have lately done. As the Presi­ dent observed, three days used to be all sufficient time in which to play and conclude definitely a first-class match. And the M.C.C. committee had to consider why it was that nowadays the same time was insufficient. As a result the committee—of courre I am not reproducing the Lord Justice’s words in any way, but merely giving my own (doubtless faulty) interpretation of them—had concluded that the main cause of drawn games was the advantage the batsman had over the bowler, a perfect wicket to bat on, and, comparatively speaking, the entire absence of fatigue in making big scores. In short, then, “ the avowed subject of the experiment ” is to place a heavy tax on batsmen. And, undoubtedly, there is every probability that herein the experiment will be successful. That the fieldsmen likewise will suffer additional fatigue is more than probable, but that’s an incidental; this, it may reasonably be ex­ pected, will right itself ; for matches will not last so long, and players generally will have a shorter day’s work, and more time to rest and recuperate. I quite agree that, as your reporter says, the general opinion, at first blush, was adverse to the experiment. It was even surmised that at the general meeting, already referred to, the out-going President would sadly confess that he and the rest of the committee had already been convinced that the scheme they had initiated was a hopeless failure, and would not be tried after the present match ! But Sir A. L. Smith on his own behalf, and that of the committee, said nothing of the sort. He and they knew that if a vote had been taken then and there the net experiment was doomed to be still­ born. And as a consequence of this know­ ledge it was with something almost of pathos about it that the President urged members not to be in a hurry to condemn the scheme, but to give it a fair trial. And Sir A. L. Smith in doing this frankly admitted that the committee never expected the net to be popular from the batsman’s point of view. The experiment was being tried solely in the interests of the game at large, in which are included the pleasure of the huge crowds that throng our cricket grounds, who do not go there to see a man pile up runs, and waste time, and so prevent the whole object of the game—victory for one side or the other— being attained. Then, again, your reporter fails to mention the most important fact that the wicket used for this match was very con­ siderably nearer the grand stand side than the tavern side of the ground. And as a consequence Dench’s “ magnificent hit to square leg,” for which he obtained 3 only, might conceivably have been caught if hit from the opposite end; while 5’s and 6’s are by no means unknown at Lord’s under similar conditions, i.e . , when the wickets are so pitched, even when the ordinary boundary obtains. So far as I could learn the prejudice against the net—so far as spectators were concerned— tended to decrease as the game progressed, and I fully believe that when a few minor alteration are made—as for instance giving 6 instead of 3 for a hit over the net—“ the revolutionary experiment” will “ have an abiding home” at Lord’s, whatever may happen on grounds at large ! Still, that of course is merely a personal belief, though I may add that no one went up to Lord’s last Thursday more prepared to scoff at the new scheme and damn the net than 1. One word in conclusion. What constitutes, in your reporter’s eyes, a wicket in favour of run-getting ? I think if he were to ask the M.C.C. bowlers, Young, Trott, Hearne and Co., they would tell him that Thursday’s wicket was certainly not a bowler’s conception of the term Paradise ! Nor can, considering the fact that Nottingham batsmen were playing, and that, to quote your reporter, hitters were severely penalised by the net, an aggregate of 359 runs for a comparatively short day’s play be accounted so bad. Or, if the conditions were against run-getting, must we thank the net? With apologies for the length of this letter, I am, Sir, your obedient servant, KING WILLOW. [It would hardly seemnecessary to explain to the readers of Cricket that the word “ sub­ ject” was a printer’s error for “ object,” but as “ King Willow” has thought it necessary to call attention to the mistake by means of a note of exclamation as well as a “ sic,” it may possibly be that there are other readers who do not know this. ‘ ‘ King Willow ’ ’ states that ‘ ‘ it certainly was never the object the M.C.C. had in view” to discourage boundary hitting, but he does not mention whatothtr construction can be placed on the section of the committee’s re­ port which says “ It has been decided . . . . to dispense, as far as possible, with boundary hits . . . . boundaries to count three.” A President’s speech at a general meeting may be excellent in every way, but it does not dispose of the committee’sreport. Again, “ King Willow ” says, ‘ ‘ I fully believe that ‘ the revolutionary experiment ’ will have ‘ an abiding home ’ at Lord’s, what­ ever may happen on grounds at large ! ” In other words, he fully believes that the Marylebone Club, which has hitherto made thelaws of the game, will continue to use the net, with its attendant rules, even if on all other grounds cricket is played under other conditions. It would, indeed, be a startling reversal of the present order of things if the Marylebone Club were to hold aloof from other clubs and play a game of its own. “ King Willow ” also asks, “ What consti­ tutes, in your reporter’s eyes, a wicket in favour of run getting?” To which the negative reply may be given that it is not one on which the team representing M.C.C. could lose nine wickets for 110 against the Notts bowling. Into the other questions raised by “ King Willow ” it is not necessary to enter. His opinions may be right or they may be wrong. THE W R ITE R OF THE REPORT OF THE FIR ST D A Y ’S CRICKET BETWEEN M.C.C. AND NOTTS ]