Cricket 1901

THE FINEST BM' THE WORLD PRODUCES. A pril 11, 1901. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 51 BUSSEY’S £ > ^ 0 . C ) r > ’t - 4 1 & CO p « r s 0 3 BUSSEY’S AT THE SIGN OF THE WICKET. By F. S. A sh l e y -C oopek . FACTS, FEATS AND FIGURES OF 1900- M E M O R A B IL IA . Continued from page 36. Kent v. Hampshire, at Tonbridge. Hum­ phreys (W. A., sen.), aged 50, who played for Sussex for many years, made his first appear­ ance for Hampshire, the county of his birth. At one time in Kent’s second innings 56 runs were hit off him in six overs, C. J. Bumup and P. C. Baker adding 77 in 25 minutes. Gloucestershire v. Surrey at Bristol. Whilst together in the first innings of Surrey Abel (R.) and D. L. A. Jephson at one time added 25 runs in 5 minutes. In the second innings V. F. S. Crawford drove a ball from Paish (A.) over the pavilion out of the ground, this being the first occasion upon which the feat had been performed on the Bristol ground. The length of the drive, from hit to pitch, was 160 yards. The distance was carefully measured. Essex v. Middlesex, at Leyton. For Essex C. J. Kortright scored 131 out of 166 whilst in. He and Russell (E.) added 117 runs for the 6th wicket, of which number the latter scored 16. The latter stages of the match took place on a fresh wicket, by agreement of the two captains, owing to a shower during the lnncheon interval on the third day. ‘ Somersetshire v. Surrey, at Taunton. On the first day of the match Tyler (E. J.) was twice no-balled for throwing by the square- leg umpire, Phillips, Jas. (of Lord’s)—an opinion which the other umpire Wright (W.), did not share, and, as Wright was the umpire at the bowler’s end, he decided not to allow extra balls for those called by Phillips. Gentlemen v. Players, at Scarborough. This was the first occasion upon which Thompson (G. J.) assisted the Players, and he scored 125, and, with Haigh S. (41), added 86 for the seventh wicket in 30 minutes. F. S. Jackson, having been some months in South Africa, returned to first-class cricket and played an innings of 134 for the Gentlemen. Surrey v. Derbyshire, at the Oval. On the second day Surrey scored as many as 523 runs for 5 wickets, Abel (R.) scoring 101* before the luncheon interval. Derbyshire’s total of 325 was passed by Surrey without loss of a wicket. Lancashire v. Leicestershire,at Manchester. In the second innings of Lancashire A. C. MacLaren scored 145 in an hour and 55 minutes out of 215 made whilst in. He obtained 34 runs from the first three overs delivered by Woodcock (A.), and of the first 38 runs made by the side he claimed 37. He made 53 out of 69 in 45 minutes, 79 out of 100 in 55 minutes, 103 out of 135 in 80 minutes, and altogether 145 out of 215 in 115 minutes. Yorkshire v. C. I. Thornton’s England X I., at Scarborough. In the first innings of the latter G. L. Jessop made 95 out of 134 in 50 minutes. North v. South, at Hastings. During the three days 1,227 runs were made for 30 wickets in 12 hours and three-quarters. In the second innings of the South G. L. Jessop made 123 not out in 75 minutes. North v. South, at Lord’s. In the first innings of the ‘South P. F. Warner drove a ball back to E. Smith, who only succeeded in turning it on to the broad figure of W . G. Grace, who was batting at the other end. Off the rebound Smith made the catch, Warner thereby being caught and bowled. In the South’s second innings G. L. Jessop scored 32 in 9 minutes. A. E. Stoddart caught four in the second innings of the North, although only seven wickets fell. * Signifies not out. © o r r t s t p o r t lK c n c e . The Editor does not hold himself responsible for the opinions o f his correspondents. To the Editor of C r ic k e t . S ir , —Some years ago (after no-balling a man for throwing) I jotted down some notes upon bowling, throwing and jerk­ ing. The subject is very much to the fore just now, and I send you notes in case they contain any points worth mentioning in any article you may have in view. They include no attempt to define throwing, and I am convinced that no satisfactory definition is possible. But there is an attempt to explain it. In my experience all fast “ chucking ” bowlers (by the way, perhaps “ chuck” is in effect different from “ throw” ) are very muscular about the chest, with a strong tendency towards being muscle- bound. Now it is always difficult for a muscle-bound man to “ bow l” fast except in the old-fashioned round-arm way, and it seems to me that the fast chuckers have simply found out the only way in which they can send down a fast ball with a high hand. They really appear to have found some sort of compromise between a clear throw and a clear “ bowl.” I doubt whether they are conscious of any illegality in their delivery, unless in the ease of their very fastest ball, and such chuckers not unfrequently say that they are positively unable to throw at all. If chucking and throwing are distinct actions, as I conceive they may be, they speak truly. There are, of course, a few very slow bowlers who admit they throw, but there seems little reason for stopping them. Yours truly, H . C. BowLiNa. Bowling now includes several styles or methods of urging and directing a ball. Originally, no doubt, it was confined to one,— the most obvious, the easiest, the most natural, and that which even now is capable of most accuracy of direction —namely, the old-fashioned “ under­ hand.” In plain underhand bowling, the hand and arm are swung more or less vertically, hand undermost, the swing being easy and continuous until the ball is released from the grasp. The release is not instantaneous, but lasts a perceptible fraction of a second. At the moment when the release commences, the velocity of the hand is at its maximnm, and the position of the hand is but little, if at all, in advance of the shoulder. In bowling a fast “ grub ” or “ grounder,” the point of maximum velocity, which we will call V, is never in advance of the shoulder, but slightly behind it, and even at the end of the release the hand will be very little, if at all, in advance of the vertical