Cricket 1900

38 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. M akch 29, 1900. A N ODD C R ICK E T NOTCH . By the R e v . R. S. H olm es . It would seem as if we were fast re­ covering from the recent panic. At the close of last season sundry reforms were freely mooted. Scoring was too h igh ; drawn games were taking all the interest out of cricket; players and spectators alike longed for some changes in the laws. And much more of a similar nature. Now we are beginning to realize that in a summer of perfect weather batting is bound to be in the ascendant, and bowlers must have a correspondingly bad time. But that is no reason for a panic, no justification for any such alterations in the elements of the game as would handi­ cap, if not paral ze, batsmen during an average season, or a season of sticky pitches. As we are scarcely likely to have for many years a rammer as brilliant as that of 1899, we can well afford to possess our souls in patience. Batting will always be the most attractive feature of the game, and cricket will cease to be our national pastime when the ball triumphs over the bat to any perceptible extent. And je t one feels that something might be done to help bowlers without unduly handicapping batsmen. Nearly every alteration in the laws has been favourable to batsmen, not to bowlers. Time was when all bits were run out, boundaries being unknown. One has delightful recollections of certain splendid drives and cuts for 6 , 7, and 8 runs apiece. George Anderson’s off diive for 8 in the North of England v. Surrey match of 1862 comes back to mind. He told me recently that they could have run nine for the hit, had not Carpenter been so winded that he could not stir another inch. Well, present-day crowds, not to mention btands (Trent Bridge is just now before me), effectually prevent hits being runout. “ Thenboardthegroundsround,” say some. And in this way encourage either “ podging” —to use a common term in the North for pokey batting—or else sky-scraping hitting. Such a boun­ dary would effectually put a stop to ground hitting, which is the very acme of scientific batting. Take that glorious off-stroke—a somewhat risky stroke, as Gunn once admitted to me, in that the batsman plays at the pitch of the ball— but what stroke is more perfect ? It is done largely with the wrist, and men like the Hon. Edward Lyttleton, Lionel Palairet, Gunn, and a few others, get the ball to the boundary quicker than thought. Now put up a rigid boundary, and the ball will rebound a score or more of yards. Ground batting will be dis­ continued. Lofty hits will become the fashion. No, I cannot favour this suggestion. Alter the instruments of the game ? That is, decrease the width of the bat, and increase the dimensions of the stumps. The latter was tried twice, just for an experiment. The giant stumps are still on view, I believe, in the pavilion at Lord’s. “ Ward’s folly ” is the historic name of that Gentlemen v. Players match. And did not W.G. play in a match at Lord’s in the early seventies, and prove conclusively that an extra inch both in the height and width of the stumps made no difference to him P If bats were only made to pass through a gauge, the regu­ lation four and a-quarter inches would not give an unfair advantage to the bat over the ball. Any other suggestion ? Are the pitches too true, too peifect? Scarcely. The most scientific games demand the most perfect conditions. Fancy playing billiards on a table which was not abso- lately level, or with balls not irreproach­ ably tru e! The game would not be worth playing, inasmuch as luck would stand as good a chance as skill. Nobndy who, like myself, can recall the cricket grounds of forty ye: rs sgo, can long to watch or play the game on the wickets of those days. We may have become too fastidious ; some of us fmile when we see a batsman carefully patting a spot because the ball has happened once to get up bail high, but we, old fogies, who are prepared to maintain that George Parr, Tom Hay­ ward, Carpenter, and Richard Daft have never been surpassed in batting skill, even we are not at all anxious to see the ball fly over batsman and wicket-keeper, or hit ba*sman on every part of his person above the “ mark,” to use a boxing term. No, let us have good wickets, whatever else you give us. Poor Freeman once told me that his favourite ground was the Oval, and just because thirty-five years ago it had the best wicket in the country. “ I always knew exactly how much the ball would do there, whereas on the rough wickets we used to get else­ where, my best balls would be quite harmless, whilst indifferent balls would get batsmen out.” Surely every bowler of spirit and self-respect likes to know that a wicket was taken because of his skill, and not because of a faulty pitch. The rain is sure to prove friendly to him not seldom, and then head work will not be thrown away. After all said, is not this “ Champion­ ship ” fever responsible for a great deal of the current dissatisfaction f When I go to a match, I don’t go to see one side win and the other lose. Of course I have my partialisms ; but my chief interest in cricket is in seeiog the game well played all round. Thus, when I was at Old Trafford last year for the fourth Test match, my sympathies were with the old country, and I hoped England would bring off a maiden victory. But Hay­ ward’s batting was so perfect, as I watched every stroke from the press box, that I felt quite satisfied. After that I seemed to lose interest in the result of the contest. I was very glad not to have been present on the third day. Noble v. Time is not to my taste. You see, I do not bet, and so am not especially ke<n on this championship business. Leagues also are my pet aversion in club cricket, just as individual averages have long since ceased to fascinate me. Cricket is a sport, not a gate-money show. The M.C.C. alterations are interesting. Years ago, in this column, when I was a voice crying in the wilderness, I urged that the bowler’s umpire could not possibly watch both the hand and feet of bowler at one and the same moment, and I further stated that he stood too close to the bowler to see the play of his elbow. The other umpire is in a much better position to judge of his arm action. But will the enlargement of the second um­ pire’s powers do very much good ? I conclude that this extension has been granted in order to prevent bowlers throwing. Well, will it ? But what bowlers do throw ? I know none, never have indeed. There are several bowlers whose delivery has not fully satisfied me. The Australian, Noble, was one. It has been said that he threw habitually. Nothing of the kind. But what bowler’s delivery was more open to suspicion ? Yet how often was he no-balled last year ? The more I think about it, the more unsatisfactory is the well-known Law No. 10—“ the ball must be bowled, not thrown, nor jeiked.” Now what is a throw ? Define it. It can be defined. Once upon a time I undertook to give a definition of a throw. T ie critics imme­ diately went for me, but I was right all the same. You can’t throw from the wrist, but only from the elbow. “ An ugly whip of the wrist ” never can result in a throw. Hence I would earnestly entreat once more the M.C.C. to draw up a careful definition of a throw and a jerk, and then draft Law No. 10 after this fashion : “ A throw is ” . . . “ a jerk is ” . . . “ these are both illegal, but any other sort of delivery is fair.” It will not be forgotten, 1 hope, that every new delivery was at first called a throw. And we use the same word just as reck­ lessly to-day. So evidently there is room for a careful and exhaustive definition. Take my word for it that such an ex­ pression as “ everybody knows what is a throw ” covers an immense amount of ignorance, and that what everybody is supposed to know, as a rule nobody does know. This is the reason why I antici­ pate little or no good from the augmented powers of the short-leg umpire. The closure on the second day is another old fad of mine; so I welcome this proposal. Just as 1 do that which relates to the follow-on. Of course you must have a numerical limit—in this case it is, if I remember, 150 runs behind, But it seems anomalous that an arrear of 149 might bring about an entirely different result. However, having a limit at all, 150 is a round number, although I should have been equally as satisfied if the old limit—120—had been left. All I have wanted for years is the power now for the first time granted, which enables the “ leading” side the option either of putting their opponents in a second time or of sending them out into the field. But the bowler is still knocking at the door. Have we any relief to give him ? None at present. He must trust to him­ self a little longer; must practise the “ swerving” or “ swimming” ball. Noble has mastered the trick, so did Walter Wright and a few others. Now in a matter of this sort what one can do many can also, with practice. The double-break, and the hanging and dropping ball, must also be studied. Anything else ? What