Cricket 1901

290 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. J uly 25, 1901. happened. A man named Trollope, of John’s, who was pretty casual in the field, was leisurely strolling off with his hands behind his back to his place at mid-off at the end of an over. He was so long about it that the bowler did not wait for him to get to his place. So the ball was bowled and was hit hard in the direction of mid-off, striking him on the hands, which were still behind him, and, closing his hands mechanically, he brought off a marvellous catch. The same man was very badly cut up by a catapult which he was working. Somebody called Out ‘ heads ’ just before he was ready to let the b ill go, with the result that he let go prematurely and the ball sprang up and hit him full in the face.” “ Did you play much cricket at Cam­ bridge ? ” “ In college matches, in which I was pretty fortunate, often making about fifty— there were not many hundreds then, for the wickets were not good enough. I never got into the ’Varsity eleven. I was not good enough. Never­ theless, in one year I was nearly lucky enough to get my Blue, for we were weak in bowling, and I was thought of. But Lord Royston and Hayward of Corpus were better than I.” “ What was your first county match?” “ Kent v. Sussex, at Hove, in 1856. I was bowled by John Lillywhite for a duck. At that time the professionals used to put up at old Tom Box’s, and it was customary for the amateurs to go and have a pipe with them in the evening. I went with them, and I very well remember old Tom Barker coming up to me and saying, with his Nottinghamshire brogue, ‘ However did you coom to plaay so bad ? Ah’ve seen you plaay a little toidy. Ah’m doubtful you was narvous! ’ In after years I was more fortunate on the Hove ground than on any other.” “ You still go to see first-classmatches?” “ As often as I can get away. What strikes me as the most remarkable thing about modem cricket is that the bowlers of the present day are so wonderfully clever. How they get anybody out at all on tbe perfect wickets is a puzzle to Hie, but their ingenuity is very notice­ able. If the public could only realise the difference betwetn the wickets of to-day and those of forty years ago they would be astonished. In 1862 we played two excellent matches with Yorkshire. At Bramall Lane they beat us by two pickets, and at Cranbrook we won by 12 runs ; on a wicket made in the open park which had never had a lawn mower near it. There was always a good deal of grass on a wicket, and one’s fingers were rapped about every over.” All through his career Mr. Biron, like Mr. R. D. Walker, did without pads. “ It is true,” he said, “ that twice in an over from Tarrant I was hit inside the knee, and was black from the ankle to the hip on the next morning, but arnica soon put that all right, and it was the only time that I was much hurt. Naturally, 1 played with my b it instead of my legs, and in 435 consecutive innings I was only out leg before wicket twice. I really don’t qnite understand some of the methods of modem players. When I have objected to some of them that it is not good cricket to play leg-break bowlers with the pads, time after time, they reply, ‘ Well, what else are you going to d o ? ’ To which I say, ‘ How did W. G. get his runs in his early days with twenty-two men in the field ? ’ If a man cannot hit a full pitch to leg without getting in front of the wicket, 1 really think he had better go to bed. But perhaps I am too severe, having been accustomed to leg-break bowling all through my career, and, no doubt, when modern batsmen get used to it they will play it with freedom and gracefulness. I must own that I am absolutely opposed to playing the ball deliberately with the legs. If a man tries to play a ball, and it hits his leg, that is another matter, but I hate to see the ostentatious way in which some men, when beaten by the ball, stand in front of their wickets and hold their bat high above their heads.” “ You would have appreciated the pro­ posed alteration in the leg-before-wicket law? ” “ Certainly I should. P. F. Warner has said that the rule would have shortened the innings. But I don’t believe it. I never considered myself a first-class bat or even up to county form. But in 1860 I had an average of 27 runs; in 1861, 1862 and 1863 from 15 to 18, owing to rheumatism having affected my eyes; and in 18641 averaged 40 and a frac­ tion. Now, if a second-rate bat could do this with the ball twisting and turning all over the place as it used to do, why shouldn’t men who are admittedly first- class do much better on the wickets which are in use nowadays ? Of course they could. It seems to me that if you are allowed to play with your legs you ought to be liable to be caught off them. There can be nothing more depressing than to see a field and the bowlers tired out and men still getting in front of their wickets whenever they are beaten by a ball. It need not be done even now. I never saw a finer innings in my life than Jack Mason’s 117 against Essex on a queer wicket, at Maidstone last year; he made the runs in an hour and three quarters, and Mead admitted that he had never bowled better in his life. That’s what I call cricket.” On the subject of fielding Mr. Biron has strong opinions. “ Look what field­ ing ought to be,” he said, “ on the smooth grounds which we see everywhere now. What possible excuse can be urged for missing ground strokes, except that no one ever thinks of practising fielding? I have seen catch after catch missed off Bradley, until it is sometimes a marvel how he can go on without seeming to be affected in any way by these mistakes. But though he is one of the most good- tempered men in the world, he must often feel that it is hopeless to try to get wickets. Not but what catches always have been missed and always will be. I remember a shocking case in which I was concerned. We were playiug against Sussex, and things were getting most exciting when John Lillywhite ciir - ;n. Willsher knew one of old John’s weakest points, and placing me carefully at short leg-sharp, he told me to keep my eyes open. He bowled, and John played the ball, as Willsher anticipated, straight and easily into my hands. I dropped it. For­ tunately we won after all by a narrow margin. I was more lucky on another occasion when we played Sussex at Tun­ bridge Wells. I was placed right among the Sussex section of the crowd on pur­ pose to catch out Charlie Ellis, who was then at his best. Over after over was bowled, and still no catch came—not a hit of any kind. The crowd began to chaff me, and informed me that if I did get a catch I shouldn’t be able to make it. At last Ellis skied a ball in my direc­ tion, and I thought to myself, ‘ If you drop this you’ll catch it from the crowd,’ who, I may say, were making all sorts of good-humoured remarks with the object of making me turn my attention from the ball. But, as luck would have it, I held it, and afterwards bowed gravely to the crowd, who applauded heartily.” Mr. Biron was not a cricketer who was ever discouraged by adversity; he always believed that something might happen to give his side the victory, however far behind it might be. “ I can give you two remarkable instances of the uncer­ tainty of cricket,” he said. “ I was play­ ing for Gentlemen of Kent in 1861 or thereabouts against Gentlemen of Sussex at Brighton, and we went down there very weak, with only nine men. One of our bowlers had a brother who had come down to look on, who was asked to fill the tenth place, and we picked up a man on the ground. We had to field all the first day, Sussex making 296 for six wickets. On the following morning we got down the last four wickets for 4 runs. We did badly in our first innings and had to follow on, with the result that at the end of the second day we were one short of the Sussex total and had only five wickets in hand and a weak tail, including our two emergencies ! In the evening I said to A. O. Wathen, ‘ Go to bed in good time.’ Harry Andrews, who kept wicket for Kent, laughed and Siid, 1Why, you don’t expect that we shall win, do you ? ’ I replied that on the Brighton ground one could never tell what might hap­ pen. To cut a long story short, we lost another wicket next morning for one run, and then Wathen and I made a good many runs—we both made over 60. We put Sussex in to make 132, and got them out for 106.” “ And the other instance ? ” “ This was in a match in which the Quidnuncs went down to Rickmansworth to play the town club, which was then about the strongest local club in England, except, perhaps, Southgate. We had one of the weakest bowling teams ever turned out by the Quidnuncs, and al­ though they often put an exceedingly powerful eleven in the field, it was astonishing what they could do in the way of weak teams at other times. We had the full strength of Rickmansworth arrayed against us, including the Fellows and the Heames, while on our side, with i the exception of George Cayley, we had