Cricket 1901

44 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. M arch 28, 1901 batsman under any conditions, this must have been one of his very best perform­ ances. H e made more than half the total, and his innirgs was free from anything like a mistake. W a r d r o p e r , a Surrey colt of a few years ago, and one of the ground staff at the Oval for two or three seasons, is at present at home invalided from South Africa. He is in the 9th (Inniekilling) Dragoons, and was with General French all the ti re he was in the Transvaal. Indeed, he had his full share of the work, acting as one of the General’s scouts. In addition to the satisfaction of having had a bullet through him, he still CBrries a double record of the Boers in the shape of two bullets. He is hoping to return to South Africa, and eventually to {• rm one o f Baden-Powell’s police force. T h e cricket resources of the Stock Exchange, already very large, have recently received an important, or rather two important additions in the persons of V . F. S. Orawford (of Surrey) and F. G. Bull (of Essex). Y . F. S. is getting initiated into the mysteries of the House under the auspices of a well-known and respected stockbroker, who has been for years one of the best workers in Surrey cricket. A GREAT dfal is hoped of Gill, one of the additions to the bow ling staff at the Leicestershire County Ground. He is a brother of the Somersetshire fast bowler and is himself regarded as of considerable romise in that particular line. Both rothers, b y the way, were born and bred in Leicestershire. A l e t t e r signed b y Lord Roberts and Sir Redvers Buller has been sent to the Press, suggesting a memorial of Prince Christian Victor, who, our readers will remember, died in the service of his country in South Africa. It is proposed that the memorial shall take the form of a fund for founding and endowing beds in the Princess Christian Cottage Homes for Disabled Soldiers and Sailors. U p to the present time no announce­ ment has been made, as far as we are aware, that a testimonial is to be given to Thoms. But, doubtless, steps are being taken to recognise in some way or other the great services which the best umpire of modern days has rendered to cricket duiing his fifty years of cffice. Thoms is so exceedingly popular with young and old cricketers alike that it would be impossible that he should be passed by. I n view of the near ajproach of the cricket season, the “ Badminton Maga­ zin e” for April not unwisely devotes a considerable part of its own to matters of current cricket interest. It includes three articles: “ The Coming Cricket Season,” by Hume Gordon ; “ The Throwing Question: A Defence of the County Captains P olicy,” b y Ernest Sm ith ; and “ The Proposed Alteration in the Law of L eg Before W icket,” b y P ., F. Warner. It is pleasant to see Mr. Ernest Smith among the contributors to cricket politics. It goes without saying that he argues his case fairly and temperately. T h e follow ing are some of the latest hundreds:— JANUARY. 7. F. Midlane, Wellington v. Auckland ...........102 8. D. Hay, Auckland v. W ellington.................. 144 12. H. B. Luck, Hawke’s Bay v. Auckland ... 120 12. L. W . Pye, Central Cumberland v. Burwood (Sydney) ... ................................. ... 122 12. E. Jansen, Leiehhard-Balmain v. Glebe, (Sydney)..........................................................132 19. R. A . Duff, North Sydney v. T’edfern ............121 19. G. Gallagher, Glebe v. Leichhardt-Belmain (Sydney).................................................. ,. 107* 24. D. Sutherland, Victoria v. Tasm an ia......... 180 25. C. J. Eady, Tasmania v. V ictoria.................. 104 FEBRUARY. 6. J. H. Stuckey, Victoria v. New South Wales 130 7. V . Trumper, New South Wales v. Victoria... 530 8. M . Hathom, Queen’s Park v. Wanderers (Durban)......................... .......................... 126* 9. G. W . Stephen, Green Point C.C. v. Western Province (B )......................................... ... 121* * Signifies not out. ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS. S.E.B.—W e cannot tell you, but if you were to write to the hon. secretary, enclosing stamped envelope, he would no doubt let you know. THE CALM BEFORE THE STORM. A traveller who had not heard of the action of the County Captains in con­ demning certain bowlers, nor of the proposed new l.b.w . law, would, after being in England for a few days, come to the conclusion that, as far as cricket was concerned, there were no great questions before the public. For there is a lull in the storm of controversy which has been raging all the winter, and even occasional correspondents have ceased from troubling, and weary cricketers seem to be at rest. Neverthe­ less, there is cause for uneasiness. In the first place, the Committee of the M .C.C. are in a very trying position. They have been requested by most of the county committees to give their opinion on the action of the captains— for that is what the various resolutions come to— and they can hardly avoid doing so, but if they whitewash the captains, they will be going against their own Law 43, which states that the umpires are the sole judges of fair and unfair play, and they w ill be approving what most cricketers seem to consider a startling illegality. On the other hand, it would be very unpleasant to them if they had to say that the captains ought to have minded their own business, or at least have consulted their committees, instead of proceeding to extremeties on the spur of the moment. In any case, things have g ot to such a pass that the M.C.C. must make some move with regard to throwing, and some decided move. The great difficulty in the way of decided action on the question of throwing seems to be that there is no unanimity among cricketers as to whether any man throws or n o t; and until some definition of throwing is given by the M.C.C., there never will be unanimity or anything like it. Hitherto no one in authority has ever succeeded in giving a satisfactory definition of a throw. "Whether the com­ bined efforts of the members of the M.C.C. can do so remains to be seen. But whatever may be the issue of the general meeting of the M.C.C. in May, it must surely be impossible that the club can agree that a man is to be debarred from bow ling because he has been adjudged a sinner (by the county captains) against the code of bow ling honour; even the lowest cf criminals is allowed a chance of becom ing a decent member of society after undergoing punishment for his crime, and the unfortunate bowlers in the famous list have surely been punished sufficiently b y having their names paraded throughout the world wherever cricket is played—most of them after they have been honourably acquitted by the authorised judges, the umpires--and not one of them condemned by a majority of these judges. If the result of the deliberations of the Committee is that the action of the cap­ tains is declared legal, it is quite on the cards that when an English team lands in Australia one of these fine days it may discover that the Australian captains have agreed among themselves that they will not send in their batsmen if certain bowlers are arrayed against them. It may be thought that such a thing would be impossible, but who would have thought it possible six months ago that Lockwood would have been branded as a bowler of doubtful action by no fewer than thirteen county captains P But the other question which the M .C.C. have set themselves to decide is, if possible, of even greater importance. They will consider the proposed new l.b.w . law, and if it seems good to them, will pass iti This law would empower the umpire to give a batsman out if in his opinion a ball, no matter where it pitches, would have hit the wicket if it had not been stopped by some part of the batsman’s person. It is no secret that very many of the old school of cricketers are greatly in favour of the law, which, they consider, would greatly decrease the scores, and as they form the majority of the M.C.C. members, in all probability the law will be passed. But it is pretty certain that on perfect wickets—the only ones on which the big scores are made—the law would be of very little effect, whereas on bad ones— where the bowler already has the pull— it would probably bring about the con­ clusion of a match in remarkably quick time, that is to say if the umpires do their duty, and do not fear to give half- a-dozen men out in succession. Now we may all regret that first-class cricket is very different from what it was fifty years ago—we may regret that it has become a business, and that it is more and more a question of gate money, but there is no disputing that this is the case, and we must take things as we find them ; nothing is more sure than that we shall never return to the old style of first-class matches. The M.C.C. itself was almost the first club to recognise the possibilities of gate money, and by erecting vast stands and charging high prices for seats at big matches, set an example which