Cricket 1901

258 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OE THE GAME. J uly 11, 1901. they both have a style which would seem very liable to failure, and yet E. M. was nearly always successful, as Jessop is now. Their style of fielding is much the same—keen and always alert, and anxious for something to come their way. As a bowler E. M. always thought he was going to get you out in a minute or two, and it is my impression that Jessop has the same feeling of confidence. Tarrant was another bowler with the same unlimited confidence. Indeed, it always seems to me that if a bowler does not think he is likely to get a man out, it is of verv little use for him to go cn at all.” “ How long did you play for Kent ?” “ Pretty regularly, as often as I could get away from my military duties, for about fifteen years. But Kent were very weak then, although we had some very good men in Willsher, Bennett, Kelson, Fryer, Goodhew and W . S. Norton—very few of them are alive now. My last match for Kent was in 1877, Kent v. Notts, and it was a good match to finish with, for we won in a single innings, a thing which had never previously hap­ pened in my time. It was a low-scoring match on a dead wicket. If my memory serves me, Arthur Shrewsbury made his first appearance for Notts in that match.” “ Did you bowl much ? ” “ In the Artillery I was, I believe, looked upon as one of the best bowlers, but in county matches I seldom went on —I was never a first-class bowler. Once, however, I went on with lobs when Jupp and Tom Humphrey (or it may have been Dick Humphrey) had made a long stand for Surrey at Maidstone, and got them both out, much to my delight. As a rule I was not very much hit about in county matches, but probably this was chiefly because I was not kept on long enough for the batsmen to get used to me. The mention of lobs reminds me of old Charlie Absolcn. He once came down to Woolwich with a team got up by Ben Robertson. I was fairly well set when Ben said to Charlie, who was bowl­ ing, ‘ Charlie, you must come i f f ; you’re never going to get this chap out.’ But Charlie pleaded so hard for another over that Ben let him keep on. As it hap­ pened, I made a very hard hit on the off­ side fcr which we ran eight, and Ben Bubertson had to go after tbe ball. When he returned he sorrowfully eaid, ‘ Well I was a fool. Never no more, Charlie. Never no more.’ I think it is a peculiarity of slow bowlers that they are always more sanguine than others.” Captain McCanlis was in Paris in 1867 when M.C.C. and I Zingari sent over teams to play matches against the club there. “ I was then on duty at the Exhibition,” he said. “ We had fairish wickets, which bad been well rolled, but the outfield was not very good. There were hardly any French­ men in the Paris team. After the second match I played in tba only single wicket game of my life, and I came to the con­ clusion that single wicket cricket is the most uninteresting game ever invented. Alfred Lubbock and C. F. Bailer p'ayed about five of us. I made 34 runs, and it tired me so much that I never wanted to play single wicket again; you keep on running about three parts of the way to the other wicket, and then have to scuttle back again for dear life.” “ You still play cricket ? ” “ Yes, regularly for Charlton Park. I have a son who plays for the same club. I have got to ‘ poin t’ now, but I still like fielding in the country, although I can’t move as fast as I did once ; but I can still generally hold a catch if it comes my way.” “ What do you think of modem wickets ? ” “ The wickets are certainly on the whole much better now than in my early days ; that is, there are so many more good ones now. I don’t believe that the wickets at the Oval or Brighton are any better than they used to be when I played for Kent-—they always were as good as they could be. At Lord’s, of course, things were very bad once. Modern wickets may, I think, become worse, when affected by rain and sun­ shine, than they were in my time.” “ You have played against the old- fashioned and the modem style of bowl­ ing. Have you any comparisons to make ? ” “ I notice a great deal of difference in the style of bowling, but I should not be at all surprised if bowling were to work in a circle, so to speak, and go back to the old style again of coming in from the leg. Nowadays it nearly all breaks from the off. I should be inclined to say that there is no ball bowled by an off-break bowler as difficult as that which used to pitch on the leg stump and come in a little. Bichard Daft told me that he knew no ball so difficult as that on e; you were obliged to play at it, and you were always liable to be caught off it in the slips. When it pitched on the ‘ blind spot,’ as we used to call it, there was great difficulty in judging i t ; there is no blind spot with off-break bowling. I think that writers on cricket have done a lot of harm by sneering at mere accuracy, but it takes years to get mere accuracy, and what is the use of trying experiments of all kinds if you can’t pitch the ball within a yard of where you want it ? By accuracy, W. G. Grace gets his thirteen wickets in a first-class match at Lord’s when he is over fifty; he can generally pitch the ball where he likes. If you see youngsters practising bowling at school you will find them trying to do all sorts of extraordinary things without having any idea of wheie the ball is going t o ; they would be much better employed in learn­ ing to get a pitch.” “ What about the pace of modern fast bowlers as compared with the fast bowlers of your day ? ” “ I should say that there is practically no difference between them, but it is quite impossible to judge with any aj proach to accuracy. Tarrant, Jackson and Harvey Fellowes were all very fast. Men often judge a man’s pace by an ex­ ceptional time when he is bowling at an exceptional rate—in a close match for instance, or when he is feeling particu­ larly fit. As far as I can see the rising generation is just as keen as it ever was.” “ Are you a believer in any of the suggested reforms ? ” “ Of the alterations I have seen sug­ gested, the one that commends itself to my judgment most is the proposal to widen the wicket by a fourth stump. This would give the bowler more chance, and kill the ‘ legging ’ which is con­ sidered so objectionable now. It should not be forgotten, however, that this practice is the outcome of bad bowling. Another point may be worth considera­ tion with the object of curtailing very long innings on perfect wickets, viz. :— A batsman should retire when he has made a hundred. Everybody has seen enough of him then, and it would pre­ vent one man beating a whole side just because he has got his eye in. As regards missed catches, it is hardly necessary to say much. Catches always have been missed and always will be. If people only knew a little more about the difficulty of making certain catches they would be more lenient. In the slips, off a bowler like Richardson, a man gets a one-handed catch, which comes at a tremendous pace to him. If he happens to get the ball full in the hand he makes the catch ; if the least bit on the side of the hand he doesn’t, and there is an immense amount of luck about it. And even with the so called easy catches, few people seem to realise what the various stands and buildings about grounds do to spoil the sight of the ball at the critical moment. Still, catching and throwing are not sufficiently practised.” Captain McCanlis is strongly of opinion that umpires are often blamed without sufficient reason. “ People do not realise how difficult it is to act as umpire,” he said, “ and I think it would be a good thing if some of those who are perpetually finding fault would have a try to see what they could do themselves. I ’ll be bound that they would afterwards be much more moderate in their opinions. In connection with the misjudging of umpires, I was told a little anecdote by Jim Lillywhite about Jupp. Now, Jupp in his day used to be very free in expressing his dissatisfaction with de­ cisions that did not accord with his desires. When he left off playing he acted as umpire, and one day, after his duties were ended, he said to Jim Lilly- white ‘ Do you know, Jim, I should like to have all the umpires, who used to stand when I played, now before me and apologise to ’em.’ ” W. A. B e t t e s w o r t h . GRANVJLLE v. CHARLTON PARK.- Lee on June 29. G r a n v ille . -Played at L. R. Haverp, cCowley, b Pease .....................24 C. J. M. Godfrey, c Me Canli8,bS.R.8argent 61 T. H. Summers, b S.R. Sargent ... .............29 F. E. Lander, cCowley, b H. C. Sargent ... 13 C h arlton P a r k . J. P. Clarkson, bPease 86 P. P. Lincoln, not out 24 £ . Rymer Jones, b Pease......................... 0 G. Helder, not out ... 7 Extras...................34 Total (6 wkts.) 228 A. L. McCanlis, lbw, b Havers ................... 3 R. G. Cowley, b Brown 1 H. C. Ogilvy, c Rymer Jones, b Havers ... 25 S. Robertson, b Haveis 40 W . McCanlis b Havers 1 H. C. Sargent, notout 45 S. K . Mills, stGodfrey, b Lincoln...................19 S. R. Sargent, not out 9 Extras... ... ... 17 Total (6 wkts.) 160