Cricket 1901

A u g 8, 1901. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. after bow ling well, and could take no further part in the match. Mr. G. W . Beldam also seriously injured his hand when fielding, and disappeared frcm the scene, a substitute being allowed to ta t for him on the suggestion of the Essex captain, as he had cnly fielded before the accident happened. Mr. Foley and Mr. Robertson also met with accidents to their hands. T y l d e s l e y does not confine his long innings to first-class cricket; and on Saturday he scored 157 for Manchester against the Harrow Wanderers. A n o t h e r famous batsman who is a lively customer to meet in second-class matches is Mr. G. L. Jessop, who, at Aigburth, scored 79 and 140 for a Gloucestershire X I ., chosen by himself, against Liverpool and District in a three- day match at the end of last week. His second innings was put together in 90 minutes, his 140 runs being scored out of 174 made while he was at the wickets. O t h e r well-known players did some pretty batting in this match, viz., Mr. H . G. Garnett, with scores of 81 and 90 ; Mr. R . W . Rice, 144 and 35; E. C. Hornby, 70 and 35. But the highest score of the match was made by a local cricketer, Mr. T. Ainscougb, of Ormskirk, who put up the highest score of his life, namely, 195. The Gloucestershire men were a little sat upon, despite the fact that they scored over three hundred in each innings, for Liverpool and District made 321 and 421, a total of 1,461 runs being made in the match for 39 wickets. O n Thursday of last week Mr. C. B. Fry brought his total for the season to just over two thousand runs, and is thus the third cricketer to accomplish the feat this year. He was preceded by Abel and Tyldesley. N o one else except Hayward seems likely to join the small band for a week or two. S in c e the last issue of Cricket appeared F. W . Tate and Mead have brought their total of wickets for the season up to a hundred, both having up to Saturday night taken exactly a hnndred wickets. Llewellyn, with 94, Hargreave, with 95, Sharp, with 92, Webb, with 94, Mr. Bradley, with 90, Geeson, with 96, and Braund, with 94, were all gotog strong by the end of the week, and in the first three days of this week Geeson and Llewellyn reached the three figures. “ A P h il a d e l p h ia n ” writes as fo llow s:— Philadelhia, July 29, 1901. In two cases in local Halifax Cup cricket this summer, the following question has arisen :—A hall is played by a batsman, and is returned to the wicket by a fielder of the opposing side, and when about to receive the ball, the wicket-keeper dislodges one hail by accident. He then receives the ball while the batsman is still outside of his crease, and knocks the other bail off. The question is, is the batsman out without a stump having been removed from the ground? Law 20, which is the only law which applies to this case, I believe, reads : “ The wicket shall be held to be ‘ down ’ when either of the bails is struck off or if both bails be off when a stump is struck out of the ground.” The umpires in the two cases, which I mention, rendered different decisions, and hence this letter. From the wording of the rule, it seems that a wicket may be put “ down” five times, once for each bail, and once for each of the three stumps. Is this in your opinion a correct interpretation of the rule ? Thanking you for any information, which you may give me on these points. [The law is not very clearly worded, but it is sufficient for practical purposes. By the words “ the wicket shall be held to be ‘ down ’ when either of the bails is struck off,” the law makers intended to imply that in order to dismiss a batsman it is not necessary to displace both bails. The second reference, that is to say to what happens when both bails are cff, leaves it clear that when only one bail is off it is sufficient to remove the other bail. It does not follow that a batsman is out when the wicket is “ down.” ] mb. e . j. mann (Capt. Marlborough XI. {From a Photo by E . Roberts, Marlborough.) T h e follow ing paragraph appeared in the B righton A rg u s on Bank H oliday:— Verily the Argus is not only read but filed by cricket enthusiasts. My notes on the demise of Mr. Charles Hammond, of Storring- ton, have been lifted not only in Cricket, but in several contemporaries. The information of the death of the famous old Sussex cricketer came direct to me from a member of the family. 1 visited Storrington a few years ago with Mr. Alfred Lawson Ford and had a long interview with the members of the Hammond clientele. Naturally, I was the first to be notified as to the death of the old Sussex yeoman. [With regard to this we should like to say that so far from “ liftirg ” the notes about Mr. Hammond from the A rgus, we received a marked copy of the A rgus, presumably from the author of the notes, and in quoting the notee,we acknowledged their source. W e may also state that we, as well as many others, knew of the death of Mr. Hammond on the day after it occurred], M r. J e sso p ’ s latest feat is as good as anything he has ever done. W ith his side in a hopeless position against Sussex on Tuesday at Bristol, he received thirty- seven balls in tbe course of less than half an hour’s batting, and off twenty- two of them scored 66, which was the whole of the runs made while he was at the wickets. H is partner was Mr. R . W. Rice. I n an article by Mr. A. C. MacLaren, which appeared in this week’s Sunday Times, there occurs the follow ing remark­ able statement:— There has been a hitch about a side from England not going out this autumn, but for once the men playing the game to-day have most rightly put their foot down and empha­ tically declined to go out to the Colonies. I n the same article Mr. MacLaren says :— We all make mistakes, but the Australians to-day, as a whole, make fewer mistakes than any team I have ever played against. The manner in which the fieldsmen are placed at times for myself in county cricket is ludicrous, to say the least, and half the batsmen to-day in England who make a century can hardly be said to make their runs; they are really presented with the same, or, more strictly speaking, with half of them. T o this the captains of the County teams which have opposed Mr. MacLaren this year m ight reasonably point out that, although he is such a splendid cricketer, they have managed to get rid of him pretty cheaply on the whole. M r . M ac L a r e n hag something to say about the way in which teams are selected for the big matches between England and Australia, and many people will be found to agree with him that a change would be advisable in the home methods. Cricket in Australia is practically governed by those playing the game to-day, the three veterans of the side selecting those whom they consider likely to justify their selection, and very few mistakes are made in conse­ quence. Before a test match takes place, every evening for a fortnight do the Austra­ lians thoroughly go into the matter, every man who is sure of his place on the side having his say, which is worth an audience, for they all have that confidence in themselves which is fully justified, since they are all judges ; they know what they are talking about, and never miss even a fine point, as do all except those who are now to-day artists at the game. Surely this method is in front of ours, for the players themselves must be the best judges as to who should and who should not play. _ I, therefore, hope that in England the time is not far distant when three players certain of their place in every match will be invited to the meeting held for the purpose of selecting the team, and that the Selection Committee will be guided to a great extent by the views of the three players. W h a t e v e r may be thought in England of Mr. MaoLaren’s team, it is certain that Australians are mightily interested in the