Cricket 1900

260 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. J u l y 12, 1900. T h is w eek I append th e score o f a m atch in w h ich M r. A . B . W illia m s scored tw o separate hun dreds in a m atch in N e w Zealan d . A t "Wellington (N .Z ), February 12, 19, 26, and March 12, 1698. M idland . J.V eybcurx e. b Richnrdton S6 b Riehaidson ... 24 F. Lat-h, b At-lbolt ........... 0 b Boldbhip........... 0 A. B. W iliams, b Hickton 115 c O’Sullivan, b Bales ..........105 K. Tucker, c Weybourne, b Boldship .......................... 6 c Niven, b W ey­ bourne .......... 65 C. Hickson,c Cuff, b A*hbolt 18 c W eyboume, b Holeship.......... 0 J. Jones, b Pichardfron ... 0 b Boldthip............. 14 F. Stephenson, c Gore, b Bales ...............................54 b Boldship.............. 4 R. Carswell, c O’Sullivan, b Bales ...............................10 b Holdship.............. 0 F.HoldswoithjC O’Sullivan, b Hales................................ 0 not out...................... 0 F. Upham, c Bales, b Ash- bolt .. ......................... 14 b Hales ............... 0 J. Smith, not o u t................ 0 run out ............. 29 Extras .......................18 Extras................. 11 Total.............................261 T o t a l................252 W ellington . F.L.Ashbolt,lbw,t Stephen­ son ................................. 9 b Smith ................28 B. W eytourne, lbw, b Stephenson.......................27 c W eyboum e, b Tucker ...............42 C. A . Richardson, c and b Holdsworth ..............20 c Carswell, b Up­ ham .......................14 A . R. Holdship, c Williams, b Upham ..............................52 c W illiams, b Tucker ........... 12 C. Gore, b Holdsworth .. 35 b Tucker ................24 W . R. 8. Hickson, b Holds­ worth ... ........................ 3 c Smith, b Tucker 1 W . W ood, not out .......13 c Williams, b Holdsworth ... 2 C.A.Cuff,c Upham,b Holds­ worth ....................................... 11 c T u c k e r , b Stephenson ... 0 F. O’Sullivan, c Upbam, b Holdsworth ... ............ 0 notout...................... 6 R C. Niven, b Upham ... 6 b Tucker ............... 4 E. O. Hales, b Upham ... 1 b T u cler .............. 0 E xtras..............................36 E xtras.................21 Total .................. 213 To-al ..154 Midland winning by 146 runs. T h e score Of th e above m atch w as n ot inserted in th e N ew Zealand C ricketers ’ A n nual or in an y o f th e E n g lish sp ortin g papers. I t w as k in d ly furnish ed (by request) b y M r. Jas. H u tch ison , o f O tago. P la y in g fo r S u rrey v . Y ork sh ire at the O val, in A u gu st, 1874, H . Ju p p carried his bat th rou gh b oth innings, scorin g 43 and 109, a p erform a n ce unique in th e annals o f first- class crick et. I n m in or m atches th e feat o f ca rry in g the bat th ro u g h both in n in gs of a m atch has been p erform ed b y W . B row n , H . E . B u ll, J . M . C otterill, W . J . C raw shaw , H . G . O w en , T . P a d w ick , H . P a yn e, H . P ellew , H . T . R a tcliff, A . P . Snell, and W . Sm yth. THE PARLOUS CONDITION OF CRICKET. (Fr< m the National Review for July.) [While we cannot say that we agree with Mr. Horace Hutchinson that a narrow bat would make a more cheerful game, quicker cricket, livelier run-getting, and less defence, we think that there would be more finished matches, because on very bad wickets a match would be over in a few hours. It is pretty certain that very few men would dare to make fancy strokes with a bat an inch narrower; they would, most of them, have to do all they knew to keep the ball down and out of the wicket; hence defensive play would increase. We fancy, too, that county committees would not be very anxious to make a rod. for their own backs by shortening the game, and thus decreasing their income, and, as they are generally consulted before any al­ terations in the laws are made, we should be very surprised if they voted for a narrower bat. But Mr. Horace Hutchinson makes out an excellent case, as he was bound to do, and though we differ from him, we are sure that our readers will be glad to read the following extracts from his article.— E d .] But for this unhappy first-class cricket in its parlous condition, is there no remedy to be found? We firmly believe that there is some kind of a remedy if those with whom it rests will have the courage to apply it. It is not in netting the ground. It is not even in giving the umpire leave to call “ out ” if the ball is prevented by the batsman’s person from hitting the wicket, no matter where the ball pitched. This is a move in the right direction, but it fails to go far enough. What we would have, for the shortening of the scores, is no more elaborate a piece of legis­ lation than the narrowing of the statutory bat. It is a proposition that startles in the first instance by its very simplicity. It seems impossible that a measure so obvious can be adequate remedy in evils so great. Yet it is no novel idea. Neither can we pretend for a moment to regard it as a panacea, as a cure for all the ills under which cricket groans. The narrow bat will do little, if anything, to cure tbe evils of professionalism ; but it will, undoubtedly, have the effect of making innings and scores shorter, and so bringing matches to a quicker close. Two measures, more or less correlative to one another, have beenmooted for giving back to the bowler the undue balance of advantage that the increasing truth of the wickets has given to the batsman. The one means proposed is widening the wicket, the other is narrowing the bat. There are some people who are gravely shocked by either proposal. They look upon all connected with the game of cricket as part of a divine institution or a natural growth with which it would be impious and dangerous to meddle. A wicket, in their view, is a wicket, and a bat a bat, and the idea of changing either is unthinkable. As a matter of fact, so far is a bat from being a bat, in the sense of being necessarily what it is, that the ordinary “ full-sized ” bat of the shops is not as long either as to blade or handle as the law allows. Bats of the extreme legal length are used by an occasional cricketer here and there, such as Mr. A. P. Lucas, Mr. W. H. Fowler, and so on. Wickets, more­ over, are not the immutable things that custom leads the irrefiective cricketer to sup­ pose. During the last century there have been frequent alterations in their size, and a while ago the amateurs and professionals used to play matches with the handicap that the latter had to defend the bigger wickets. From all this it is evident that there is no such absolute finality in the fashion of the instruments of the game as some folks assume, nor any violent outrage in modifying them. The laws of no game are like those of the Medes and Persians. Even the laws of golf, a very much more venerable game than cricket, have only now begun to assume a shape that is anything like satisfactory, and still there are many flaws in the code. So, regarding these two measures, widening of wicket and narrowing of bats, as both within the range of practical politics, it remains to estimate their relative merits ; and on every count the advantage seems to lie with the proposal to narrow the bat. Mr. Alfred Lyttelton well points out that a likely result #f widening the wickets would be that a man would play more and more on the defensive, having a larger surface to defend, so that the cricket might tend to become slower and less attractive than ever—a con­ summation to be avoided by every conceivable effort. On the other hand, this would not be the case with anarrower bat, because aball off the wicket would still be a ball off the wicket, independently of the size of the bat, though by no means independently of the size ol the wicket; and with a narrow bat a man can hit not only as hard aswith a broader one, but a good deal harder, because the weight is more concentrated behind the point of the impact with the ball: witness the hits that are made with the so-called “ broomstick.” Nevertheless, it is likely that scores would be shorter: witness the many lives that are sav( d by the ball just snicking the very edge of the bat and so missing the wicket. With a bat half an inch narrower on each side the ball would just have missed the blade instead of just snicking it—a snick too much that makes all the difference between “ out ” and “ not out.” It is the opinion of Mr. Lyttelton, and of many other first-class cricketers of the right sort, that the narrow bat would tend to enliven the cricket, to bring matches to a close, and generally to bring about some of those very changes that are most essential for the health of the game. While grounds con­ tinue to improve in excellence this seems to be really the only way of giving back to the bowler the fair and equal chances of which the perfect grounds are robbing him. The man who will oppose any change of the kind is the inveterate average-monger. It is, of course, a fact that the value, if they have a value, of averages is comparative. An average of twenty in a wet season may be as good, and may put a man as high on the list, as an average of forty in a dry season. So, too, twenty with a narrow bat may be equal to forty with a broad one. This is an obvious truth, but it does not follow that everyone will recognise it, and the average average-monger is apt to say, “ Oh, this will affect my average.” It is not true; nor, if true, is it worthy of consideration. Therefore let it be unconsidered. But a view that will assert its claimto consideration more emphati­ cally, evenif not much more justly, is the view that the counties may take, urging, as is not unlikely, thatthe shortening of matchesmeans the decrease of “ gates.” They may care less about the results of the cncket than about the results shown in the balance-sheet, and may oppose every measure that tends to reducing the cricketing days, that is to say, the money-making days, of the year. If they take this view, and act upon it with energy, we fail to see what the best endeavours can effect. We are yet again at an impasse. But we are loth to believe that they will hold this view without surrender or compromise. It is, after all, in the long-run a doctrine that defeats its own ends, for if it finishes with making cricket unattractive, it means that cricket will bring no “ gates.” And that is a conclusion that seems within the reasonable horizon. A certain county, that shall still be nameless, ceased to attract spectators (though it was a county famous in cricket) by the tameness of its batting and its ineradicable tendency to the drawn match. Let the counties takes this well-known in­ stance as a beacon-light of possible danger, and steer clear of shipwreck on the same rock. We want a more cheerful game, we want quicker cricket, livelier run-getting, less defence, more finished matches. The narrow­ ing of the bat seems a simple means to so great an end. But it still seems an adequate H orace G. H utchinson .