Cricket 1900

2 0 2 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. J u n e 14, 1900. A n Adelaide cricketer who took part in all the Electorate matches for his club, made six duck’s eggs iu his seven innings during the past season. A c u r io u s incident occurred in a match at the beginning of May, says the River Plate Sport and Pattime. A bats­ man hit a ball to square leg and it went into a small tool room under the stairs of the pavilion. After a search had been maie for the ball for some five minutes it was found in the pocket of a coat which was hanging up on the wall. E anjitsinhji ’ s last four innings are as follows; they are about as near an approach to four hundreds in succession as could be wished for:— June 5-7, for 8ussex v. Glos., c Brown, b Paish ... 97 „ „ „ c Board, b Wrathall 127 „ 7-9, for Sussexv. Somerset,c Gill,bCranfleld 222 „ 10-12, for Sussex v. Cambridge, not out ... 215 A n incident happily of rare occurrence marked the first innings of Somerset against Surrey at the Oval on Monday. Lewis, a young cricketer, who is likely to train on, by the way, was batting, and had made 34. Playing at a ball from Smith he was, as many of the field thought, caught at the wicket. Thinking the umpire had given him out he moved away from his crease, and evidently hearing from the umpire that the decision had been given in his favour he turned to regainhis ground. Meanwhile the wicket­ keeper had put down his wicket, and as he'was not in his groundatthetime he was given out by the umpire at his end. His record on the score sheets was “ stumped Stedman, b Smith.” But as Lewis was not playing at the ball, law 28 applies to his case, “ If in running or at any other time while the ball is in play be he out of his g ro u n d ;” he was therefore “ run out.” B u t the unfortunate fact remains that he ought not to have been out. It is absurd and unfair to penalise a man because he happens to be batting at the wicket farthest from the pavilion ; of course if he had been at the other end he could have walked into the pavilion and returned without suffering for so doing, as long as he came in again before another ball was bowled. It would be easy enough to make a law on the subject, and seeing how much heartburning has been caused by similar incidents in recent years, one would think that a law to prevent the scandal was at least as important aB one to prevent a man from being out when he plays a ball into his clothing, which happens about once in a century. O n the question of blaming the wicket­ keeper for putting down the wicket and appealing in such a case we have fre­ quently given our opinion. If a wicket­ keeper once begins to think about what he ought to do he can be of no use to any team whatever—not even a second rate boy’s team. It is open to the umpire to act on Law 43— “ The umpires are sole judges of fair and unfair play ” — and there are a few umpires who in such a case would boldly take this view of the matter, but if they do not do so they can no more be blamed than the wicket­ keeper for appealing. A new law is needed badly. O ddly enough a similar incident marked the match between the same counties at the Oval in 1885. This time the victim was a Surrey batsman, Mr. W. E. Rollor. The wind was pretty high, and Mr. Roller, not hearing the decision of the umpire on an appeal for a catch, turned to inquire of the wicket­ keeper, who said, “ You have to go.” Maurice Read, who was batting at the other end, called to Mr. Roller to go back, saying the umpire had given him not out. The wicket-keeper, in the excitement of the moment, put the wicket down, and Mr. Roller was given out. His record in the score stands, and properly, one would say, “ runout.” The wicket-keeper sub­ sequently put his knee out, and was unable to bat in either innings. By irony of fate Mr. Roller, who had been also unfortunate enough to put his knee out more than once, had his cricket bag requisitioned for a knee pad he was wont to use, and which was lent to the Somer­ setshire wicket-keeper. I had forgotten while referring to the incident itself, to say that Mr. F. Sainsbury, the Somerset­ shire captain, asked Mr. Roller to resume his innings. This kind offer the Surrey batsman declined, recognising fully that he must be penalised for his infringement of the rules, even under a misapprehension. A correspondent writes “ Can you tell me how the county championship is arrived at as regards ‘ percentage of points.’ This (Monday) morning’s table shows Surrey with 4 points, 9 matches played, and a percentage of 66 - 66 . Notts, with 2 points and four matches, have 50 per cent., and Essex, 2 points and seven matches have a like percentage. Does a drawn match count in reckoning the percentage, and if so, how ? ” W e have frequently endeavoured to explain to the best of our ability the peculiarities of the championship table, but as we are ct ntinually receiving enquiries as to how it works out, we once more state the rule as laid down by the M.C.C. “ One point shall be reckoned for each w in ; one deducted for each loss; unfinished games shall not be reckoned. The county which during the season shall have, in finished matches, obtained the greatest proportionate number of points shall be reckoned Champion County.” We believe we are right in saying that the actual way in which the percentage is arrived at is to subtract the losses from the wins, and divide the result by the total of finished matches (not counting drawn games at all), but we have never quite been able to under­ stand how a county can have a minus percentage of points, as often happens. I n an account of a match between the Albion Cricket C lub. of Paris and the United Sports Club for the championship of France, Le Journal des Sports states that the former “ a toujours a regretter l’absence prolongee de son bolleur hors ligne Mac Evoy ”— a name which seems to us somewhat lacking in a French flavour. T he same paper gives a little veiled advice to the players as follows:— Pour 1’Albion, Braid et Browin ont bien battu et bolle, et leur capitaine M. Willan a bien demontre a ces equipiers qu’il s’agit non seulement de faire des courses, mais de se tenir pret a attraper la balle aussi souvent que l’occasion se presente, il a fait un catch magnifique aujourd’hui. “ To hold themselves ready to catch the ball as often as the occasion presents itself ” is quite charming. In the Sportsman of Wednesday, “ Wanderer” states that Mr. F. S. Jack­ son is down with typhoid fever at the Z*nd River hospital. R anjitsinhji ’ s 215 not out for Sussex v. Cambridge University brings the total of innings of 200 for the season to i-ix. They are as follows, in the order in which they were made:— May 21. Abel, Surrey v. Worcestershire ........... 221 „ 29. Board, Gloucestershira v. Somerset ... 214 June 4. C. J. Burnup, Kent v. Lancashire ... 200 „ 4 A. E. 8toddart, Middlesex v. Somerset 221 „ 7. K . 8. Ranjitsinhji, Sussex v. Somerset 222 „ 12. K . S. Ranjitainhji, Sussex v. C. Univ. 215* •Signifies not out. It is to be noted that three of these innings were played against Somerset, and that three of them were 221. La st week, Mr. C. Robson, the Hamp­ shire cricketer, made his first hundred in first-class cricket at the age of 40. This week, Ernest Robson, the Somer­ set cricketer, made his first hundred in first-class cricket at the age of 29. T he following are some of the latest hundreds:— MAY. 30. H. E . M urrell, L ea m in g ton v. R u g b y .............104* 31. J . J . H . O rm an, B ed ford v. B igglesw ad e ... 116 J U N E . 7. 8. M . J . W oods , S om erset v . S u s s e x ..............148 8. K il lic k , bussEX v . S o m e r se t ................................127 9. K . S. R a n jitsin h ji , S u ssex v . S om erset ... 222 9. J . D a n ie lls , C am bridge U n iv . v . S u rrey 101* 9. C. R obson , H am pshire v . W a r w ic k sh ir e .. 101 9. E . M . S pbot , H am psh ire v . W a r w ic k sh ir e 103* L il l e t ,W arw ic k sh ir e v . G lou cestersh ire 111 J . R. M ason , L ondon C o u nty v . W . I n d ian s 126 H . R . P a r r e s , L ondon C o u n ty v .W .I ndians 106 K . 8 . R an jitsin h ji , S ussex v . C am b . U n iv . 215* R obson , S om erset v . S u r r e y ..............................104 T . H od gson , B rom ley v . G ran ville.......................103 A . E . S todd art. H am p stead v. F in ch ley ... 114 C .W eth erall, K eb le C ollege v. In co g o iti !.. 163 C. W . P feiffer, S outh H am pstead v. U x b rid g e 1C8 F .W . B rabham , H orle y v . G ranville .............100* F . E . L an d er, G ranville v. H o rle y ......................110* C. M ou n tain , J . C. L o v e ll’s X L v . B rix .W a n . 113 J. C arr, U p p in gh am S ch ool v. In co g n iti ... 105 J. O rm an, In cog n iti v . U p p in gh a m S ch ool 104 J . P . H ed ley, St. T h om s. H os. v . K en sin gton 103 W . 8. N ealor, K en sin gton v . St. T h om s. H os. 116p W . R . B en ingfleld, L a n cin g C ol. v. D olp h in s 107* * S ignifies n o t ou t. a n s w e r s t oc o r r e s p o n d e n t s . G . H. L e d g a r d .— (a) It is an interesting point. W e will think it over. (6) There are no such things. Th* secretaries have somttimes given their opinions, but these are opinions and nothing more. “ O xonian .” —N o room to reply this week. W ill try to find space next week.