Cricket 1900

338 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME A ug . 6, 1^00. was nervous), for there was very little time to prepare the speech.” “ What cricket did you play after you left school ? ” “ I lived with my father at Trafford, near Manchester—the Old Trafford cricket ground belonged at that time to my father—and played in one-day matches for the club and ground. In 1884 I played for Lancashire against Derbyshire, but as I made a duck and missed two catches, though I caught two others, I was never asked to play again for the county. I was in pretty good form about this time, and made a lot of runs.” After this, Mr. de Trafford joined the M.C.C., and in 1887 was top of the club averages for the year, making several hundreds, including 196 against Rich­ mond, and 157 against Epsom College. In 1888 he began to play for Leicester­ shire. “ My father,” he said, “ bought a place for me in Leicestershire not long before his death in 1886. Part of the grounds are in Northamptonshire, so that I am qualified for either county. It was in 1888 that I began to play for Leicestershire, and I believe that it was Wheeler who brought my name before the committee; he had seen me play in the previous year. For the first two years I was not quite a regular member of the team, but then I became captain and have played in neaily all the matches.” “ Do you believe in the future of the county ? ” “ I certainly think that it is on the rise. We have a young and enthusiastic side now, and not such a tail as formerly, while there are a few good ycungsters coming on. A great deal of cricket is played in the county, but although many bowlers and batsmen have splendid averages, it is very hard to find new talent; so many men who are splendid second-class cricketers can do little good when tle y are opposed lo first-class men. Emmett, who gave the team tome coach­ ing for a year or two, improved it, I think ; he can still bowl. But he some­ times amused me by trying to persuade me to run out to hit instead of playing fast-footed, and to adopt a more careful game, while he wanted Wood to try to bit. I am afraid that our styles cannot be altered, for we are what we are by tature.” " Do you ever bowl ? ” “ Very seldom in first-class matches; and the only time that I ever met with any success was in a match against York­ shire. when I went on and got rid of poor Frank Milligan and Hirst. But Hirst had made over a hundred. I have g o t one or two other wickets in county matches, but that is all. Even in club tricket I seldom bowl, but I cnce took five wickets in the first in n iD g s and four in the second against Malvern College for tie Emeriti, a club for which I played a good deal after I left school. It was a iwo-day match, but as it was finished on ttie fiiBt day we played a return next morning, and, I believe, we finished that too.” “ Do you agree with those who would alter the laws of the game in order to make the scores smaller ? ” “ No. The reason why there are such big scores is that so many catches are missed. If you enquire into the way in which the many hundreds were made, you will find that in nearly every instance the batsman was missed two or three times. It is all very well to say that the bowling ought to be better, but you can­ not expect a bowler to do everything; and, if chances are missed off him con­ tinually, all the life is taken out of him, however experienced he may be. Geeson is a great sufferer in this way; it fre­ quently happens that a chance is missed off him in the first two or three overs, with the consequence that he gets an average of about thirty a wicket, and people say he is of no use. Whether it is that there are so many matches nowadays, that men get tired and indifferent in the field, it is certain that sharp catches are often missed because men are not looking out at the precise moment when the ball comes. I think it would be a great mis­ take io alter the l.b.w. rule, to give the bowlers a chance. The present rule gives quite enough latitude to umpires, especi­ ally those who are not experienced. I remember being given out once, after I had made a hundred in a local match. I had played a ball to square-leg, and I suppose that in doing so I got my leg in front of the wicket, and that the bowler appealed in the excitement of the moment. The umpire afterwards told me that he had made a mistake. I think that the umpiring in first-class matches is much better than it used to be.” W A. B ettesworth . THE QUESTION OF BOUNDARIES. We have so often pointed out the difficulties under which umj ires labour in having to decide whether a batsman is out or not out when he is caught under certain conditions on the boundary, that the followingshort leading article from the Field, referring to a recent incident, may be of interest to our readers :— “ Having survived the recent fruitless assault of the Marylebone Cricket Club committee, the boundary bit may surely now claim to be a recognised institution. But in order to confirm its status the one thing necessary is that it be mentioned and explained by the laws of cricket. At Kennington Oval last Wednesday a fieldsman effected a catch so close to the pavilion that he was obliged to use his hands in older to fend himself off the railings; and had he not had this assist­ ance he would almost inevitably have crossed tbe boundary with the ball in his grasp. In that case the umpires would have had to decide one of the most familiar of cricket problems with no assistance fiom the law, and in the light —or rather darkness—of conflicting pre­ cedents. Before now, a batsman has been dismissed by a (atch made by a fieldsman reaching beyond the boundary line, though he had a plausible case for demanding an addition of four runs to his score. Of course, the exact position of ball and hand in an event of this kind are matters hardly cognisable by the um­ pires standing in the middle of the ground; but the difficulty of ascertaining the facts can hardly be alleged as a reason for declining to remove the addi­ tional trouble caused by the uncertainty of the law. At present the boundary only exists by virtue of what amounts to a tacit and indefinite agreement between the contending teams. Whether it ex­ tends, like a legal land mark, usque ad ccelum is a moot point. It would almost certainly be ruled that a fieldsman stop­ ping a ball on the ground, and carrying it beyond the limit of the arena, had failed to save tbe four runs, but the extension of this principle to a catch is by no means beyond argument. Another point that needs attention is the anomaly which occurs when batsmen, having virtually made five runs for a hit, are by this convention deprived of the fifth. In the course of time such matters are regulated by usage in first-class cricket, but the pro­ cess is tedious, and the results not always logically consistent. Nor is it easy for the multitude of players to find out for their own guidance what is the latest ruling of professional umpires or the M.C.C. A short clause in the laws of the game would effectually remove all perplexity.” I N D I V I D U A L R E C O R D S C O R E S O N IM P O R T A N T G R O U N D S . M r. F ran cis J . C u n yn gh a m e, th e com piler o f th e fo llo w in g table, w rites :— “ I enclose a list I have m ade o f th e record scores on every' larg e grou n d in E n g la n d and A u stralia in o n ly strictly first-class m atches. I hope it w ill b e o f interest, as I have n ot seen such a list an yw h ere before. I t is in terestin g to n ote that eigh teen nam es o f am ateurs appear to six o f profession als.” 424 ... A . C. MacLaren, for Lancashire, at Taunton, July.................. ........... 1895 357*... Abel, for Surrey, at the Oval, May ... 1899 344 ... W .G .Grace, for M.C.C., at Canterbury, August ................... ........... ........... 1876 321 ... W . L. Murdoch, for New South Wales, at Sydney, February ... .......... 1882 318*... W . G. Grace, for Gloucestershire, at Cheltenham, A u g u s t ......................... 1876 311 ... Brown (J. T.), for Yorkshire, at Shef­ field, July................................................... 1897 301 ... W . G. Grace, for Gloucestershire, at Bristol, August ................................... 1896 300 ... V . Trumper, for Australians, at Brigh­ ton, J u ly ................................................... J899 592 .. L. C. H. Palairet, for Somerset, at Southampton, July ................... ... 1896 275 ... K. S. Ranjitsinhji, for Sussex, at Leices­ ter, July ................................................... 1900 274 ... Davidson (G.), for Derbyshire, at Man­ chester, August ................................... 1896 271 ... G. Giifen, for South Australia, at Adelaide, November ................. ... 1891 268*... J. A . Dixon, for Nottinghamshire, at Nottingham, M a y ................................. 1897 260 ... K . S. Ranjitsinhji,for Susstx, at Lord’s, May ........................................................ It 97 257 ... W . G. Grace, for Gloucestershire, at Gravesend, May . ........................... 1895 246 ... Devey, for Warwickshire, at Birming­ ham, July................................................... 1900 237 ... G. Giffen, for 8outh Australia, at Mel­ bourne, January ........... .. ... 1891 229*... Hajwar.l, for Surrey, at Derby, May . 1896 227*... N. F. Druce, for Cambridge University, at Cambridge, May ................... ... 1897 226*... Peel, for Yorkshire, at Bradford, July 1892 221*... C j L. Townsend, for Gloucestershire, at Clifton, August . . . . ... 1899 214*... W . W . Read, for Surrey, at Leyton, J u n e ........................................................... 1885 206 ... H .H . Massie, for Australians, at Oxford, May ........................................................... 1882 172*... W . L. Foster, for Worcestershire, at Worcester, July ................................... 1899 * Signifies not out.