Cricket 1901

J an . 31, 1901. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OP THE GAME. 13 T H E A C T IO N OF T H E CO U N T Y C A P T A IN S . The craze for taking snapshots and for automobiling seems to have demoralised the world. Everything must now be done in a hurry. Cricketers, therefore, ought not to have been surprised when an announcement was made that the captains of all the first-clubs counties, except three, at a private meeting assembled, had passed a resolution by which they placed on an Index Expurga- torius the names of certain bowlers who are said to be suspected of throwing, while the names of other bowlers were to be held up as a warning without actually being placed on the Index. Neverthe­ less, the surprise was complete. The announcement was soon followed by rumours which were not set at rest b y a circular signed b y Mr. F. E. Lacey, apparently as Secretary of the M.C.C., setting forth definitely the names of the offenders of both kinds. The circular stated that the voting was unanimous, but it omitted to state that an important amendment was only negatived b y a two-thirds majority. In a letter to one of the newspapers for which he writes, Mr. MacLaren let the world into the secret that it was a chance question by him on the subject of throwing whica brought about the momentous decision of the captains, who had not gone to the meeting intending to vote on the question. It was, perhaps naturally, thought at first that the action of the captains had been endorsed b y the Committee of the M .C.C-, but this does not seem to have been the case at all. As the position stands at the present moment, the county captains of twelve first-class counties have bound themselves not to utilize the services of certain bowlers during the season. On principle, cricketers as a body strongly object to this, on the ground that the captains have no juris­ diction and no legal or moral right to punish players, whether amateur or pro­ fessional. If the M .C.C. had p ssed the same resolution it would have been quite another matter, unfortunate and ill-timed as such a resolution would have been, or would ever be. Everybody feels the greatest respect for the county captains, individually and collectively, but because a man is a good captain it does not follow that he is a good legislator. Even if anything could be said in favour of the new stjle of legislation, the captains have quite spoiled their case by re­ appointing the very umpires whom, as a simple corollary to their resolution, they have condemned as incompetent or un­ worthy. At present the Marylebone Club has made no formal move in the matter, nor have the county committees, except Notts and Hampshire, and the resolution of the captains is in possession of the field. But it may be taken for granted that before the season begins the M .C.C. or the county committees, or both, will have something to say on the subject—whether with approval or not remains to be seen. W. A. B e t t e s w o r t h . T H R E E O R F O U R S T U M P S ? By “ A n O ld H abboviah .” Having seen in a paper lately that it was proposed to add a fourth stump at cricket to the present three, I wish to protest strongly against this plan, which I consider would if carried out ba a monstrous innovation. When the authorities of cricket matters wish to prevent drawn or unfinished matches, and at the same time desire to reduce the inordinate number of runs now compiled in most contests, great and small, one of the several remedies they ought to take is this. Let all cricket grounds be not so ex­ cessively rolled and beaten, whereby they become like billiard-tables, and let them not be over-prepared any more, for by their extreme levelness much life and spring and break are taken out of the ball, even when delivered b y the best performers. Cause the “ pitches ” to be got ready in a reasonable manner, and then a reduction in the enormous quan­ tity of runs as now made will partly result. The “ pitches” ought to resemble (somewhat improved of course) as far as is possible what they were fifty years back, and even at a later period, fo r there is no doubt at all that the over-smooth wickets or “ pitches ” existing in these days have done much injury to cricket generally through or by destroying equality as regards batting and bow ling, which desideratum should first and fore­ most be always preserved. The “ pitches ” have year b y year slowly but surely been “ improved,” till at last, b y arriving at “ perfection” (so Cilled) they have destroyed equality in the game altogether 1 For equality as regards batting and bow ling is most necessary, and cau only be obtained on wickets or “ pitches ” not to extremely level as they are at the present time. Our great national game is now all one-sided, and batting reigns supreme, while the bowlers have not a fair chance given them to display their latent talents. A ll cricketers who have seen the “ pitches ” at Lord’s or at the Oval in 1850, and contemplated those existing in 1900, will allow that the former were too bad and that the latter are far too good. A few celebrities of the former period are still alive, and will bear witness of the truth of my assertion on that head I feel sure. A t this epoch also it is un­ fortunately the batsmen and not the bowlers who attract together the vast assemblages at all cricket matches, and they CDnsequently are the principal cause of increasing to an enormous extent the funds of all cricket clubs. The batsmen, if successful, receive much and continuous applause from the spectators generally, but the poor bowlers, under the difficulties they are placed ow ing to the extreme evenness of all grounds as now existing, have but a small share of approbation bestowed on them, let them bow l ever so finely. Hard and successive hits to the boun­ daries are all the “ m o b ” cares for now, and if an eleven piles up 600 the parfor mance is highly appreciated, while a total of 50 is despised altogether. “ F orcin g ” the game, or “ slogging ” as it was formerly called, is now required, but much science is destroyed thereby. Indeed, it may almost be said that fine and successful bow ling is actually objected to, merely because it puts a stop to “ hard knocks.” Alas ! that it should be so, and to think that cricket should have arrived at such a state at the end of the century is lamentable indeed. In the year 1775 the last alteration in the number of the stumps took place. There hald been up to that date, as far as is known, only two stumps with one long bail laid across these two, and they were pitched or placed much further apart than they are now. [See the published picture of a cricket match of about tjiat period.] “ Lum py,” whose real name was Edward Stevens, was at that date one of the best bowlers in England, and John Small, sen., of Petersfield, about the best batsman. “ Lumpy,” being on the opposite side to Small, did three times in one innings send the ball through the two stumps which composed Small’s wicket, the latter, according to the laws as they then existed, being “ not out.” Hence the addition of a third stump to the previous two, the alteration being absolutely necessary, and it was certainly an improvement- and greatly needed then. Let us, however, after an interval of no less than 125 years, abstain from further change, on that head, which would now be introduced only b y and through the “ fad ” of some individual, and not by a true lover of the noble game for itself alone. To add a fourth stump in 1901, cr at any future ti^ae, would be dreadful indeed, and should not be thought of for a moment. It may here be mentioned, however, that one great match has come off when one side defended four stumps, the other having only the usual three. It was tried at Lord’s on July 3rd aud 4th, 1837, and was one of the two contests between the Gentlemen and the Players during that season. The Gentlemen, who were very weak about that period, used three stumps of the customary size, namely 27 inches by 8 inches, while the Players guarded four of the height of 37 inches by 12 inches in width, but nevertheless the latter won easdy. This match was subsequently called or named the “ Barn door match,” or “ Ward’s folly,” it having been got up and arranged b y Mr. William Ward, M .P., the once very famous Hampshire amateur. But, being considered too absurd and a mere farce, it was never repeated. Cricket in and about 1850 was played on good old English turf and grass. But in and about 1900 it may be said (with but little exaggeration of speech) that the batsmen exhibit their skill on stone or marble “ pitches,” crushed positively flat and level, while the fieldsmen have