Cricket 1903

J an . 29, 1903. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 5 t’fotrespondetue. Tht Editor does not hold himself responsible tor the opinions of his correspondents. SLOW CRICKET. To the Editor of C r ic k e t . gIR>—Much has been written from time to time of the evils of modern cricket, and writing, I suppose, has come in for more animadversion than slow cricket, or “ the goose game.” True, not so much has been heard of it in 1902 as in previous years, but can it be said that players have taken a turn for the better, and are less enamoured now than formerly of taking care of their wickets and letting the runs take care of themselves ? I fear not. Victor Trumper, during the past summer, gave us many an exhibition of the contrary of “ going fo r” the runs, and the runs came. And in consequence he has been hailed as a wonder, and is placed by the critics—personally I think with too great precipitation—as “ the finest batsman in the world.” I am not going to make any attempt here to compare Victor Trumper and his methods with the deposed deity (of the critics) Ranjitsinbji and his methods. Last summer I was particularly lucky in seeing the Indian absolutely at his best. I know that he was supposed to have fallen away in 1902 from his highest standard of excellence, but if a strict analysis of his failures is made, I fancy it would be easy to show that as regards strokes and execution, he was as fine a batsman as ever ; in nerve and discretion, possibly even in luck, he was, undoubtedly, at fault more frequently than he had been in past seasons. I saw Victor Trumper play twice as many innings as the player he has deposed from the critics’ sovereignty, and greatly though I admired—and have always admired his methods since I first saw them in the Test match at Lord’s in 1899—I could not see how, as a stylist, he even approached the Indian. As to their effectiveness, little as I believe in mere figures, I really cannot see where it is that the Australian has so much the better of the argument. For to say that because Ranjitsinhji failed iu each of the Test matches in which he took part (and as I have always contended, from 1896 onwards, as an Indian he has no right whatever to play on an England side against Australia), that therefore he is not the batsman he was, and that because some of Trumper’ s greatest successes were found in the same games, etc., is to my mind little better than balderdash. But as to slow cricket, after this somewhat prosy digression. One chief factor, if not the principal, is the scoring board, and the knowledge it affords the batsman of what his score stands at. Many cf your readers can doubtless recall the introduction, in 1898, of the score or telegraph board as it now appears at practically every important ground. I daresay they can remember, too, that many more men made their runs quicker fourteen or fifteen years ago than is the case to-day. Of course, it is human nature for a man to want to get 50 or 100, talent money or no talent money. But how many of those (or their predecessors in the game) who now know their score as every run is made, counted their notches and could tell when they had made 25 or 35, leave alone 45 ? Very, very few, I expect. And as a con­ sequence we did not see that miserable pottering about as in these days. Nor did we read, as now, that “ as he approached the half-century (or three figures) Blank natur­ ally displayed extreme caution.” One day I timed Hayward, at the Oval, and he took longer to pass from 39 to 60 than he had done from 0 to 39. And he had not actually “ dashed at ’em ” at any particular period of his innings. After the 50, he certainly ran to somewhere in the 80’s at quite a decent rate of scoring, but after once getting into the 90’s his pace was funereal in the extreme, and when he had stolen two or three short runs off (what appeared like) the same kind of half-volleys he had been taking “ fours ” from twenty minutes earlier—simply pushing them away for stolen singles—it was with very little disappointment, I am confident, that others besides myself saw him eventually run out without ever reaching his century. And Hayward, though undoubtedly a bad— very bad example of this 50 and 100 craze, is by no manner of means singular at it. The question is, have these big score boards, and the display on them of individual scores necessarily become an institution? The M.C.C. are nowadays ready to try practically any experiment in the good interests of the game, if the fad appeals to them. Let them during the coming season, say in Club and Ground matches,—as in the past season they experimented with the l.b.w. amend­ ment—make no use of the two big score boards, at any rate, so far as the individual scores of the batsmen are concerned. And then let some statistician tell us the different rates of progress of batsmen between 40 and 50, and 90 and 100 at Lord’s, as compared with those rates at other grounds. Let me, please, through your columns, put this forward as a serious suggestion. If I were likely to be in England in May, for the General Meeting, I would give due notice, and pro­ pose there that the experiment be adopted. M.C.C. nowadays get no “ gate” for these Club and Ground matches (and little wonder when the teams are so unattractive !) So that there need be no financial loss. And batsmen, not accustomed to count their runs, will find it very hard to remember their exact total in one particular match, and the result shall be, I am convinced, brighter cricket, at any rate on the part of those who now “ go to sleep” as they approach these “ magic ” numbers. Apologising for the length to which this letter has run. Yours, etc., Lagos, 25th Nov., 1902. “ K ing W il lo w .” EARNED AVERAGES. To the Editor of C r ic k e t . S ir , —Away back in 1870 I lived as a student of medicine in London and one of my favourite pastimes was to spend many sum­ mer afternoons at Lord’s or at the Oval. I am not standing up as an old fogy when I say without fear of contradiction that there were better players at cricket then than there are now. I say that the turf then was so poor in comparison with what I found it to be at my last visit to England in 1900, that a man making a score of 50 in 1870 was a much better player than one making a century nowadays. Furthermore, in those days hits were run out, so that if on bad turf you made a possible fourer or a fiver, you stood a chance at every time of crossing wickets of a quick return of the ball and of being run out in spite of your good hitting. But nowa­ days you take no such chances and up goes your average, without your being so good a fellow as the man who once had to run everything out. This brings me to your ridiculous averages, according to which, in these degenerate days, a batsman with small skill can stand high in the list when, if his due were given to him, he would be about as low as the last in the list: and in this way. If averages arc to be the standard of skill, why do you not compile them on the basis of what the hit earned; that is to say, on what the player earned by his skilful hit and not by his lack. An average ought to prove what a man can do by his own skill, and should not be based on what score he makes owing to the mistakes of the fielders. If I bat and am palpably missed off of the first hit that I make, then my average as earned ought to be nothing. But under the system now in vogue, if I misplay the first ball which ought to have been caught or fielded so as to run me out and then go on and make 100 , my average is 100 , but it has not been earned by my skill. In other words, by mere good fortune I am at the top of the list when by my lack of skill I ought to be at the foot. The crying need, if you will insist on averages, is to have two columns, in one of which you place the average as earned and in the other the average that you finally make by being let off by your opponents. Then, and not until then, will you know what sort of a cricketer any man is ; how much of his fame is due to luck and how much to skill. Runs that have been earned can be decided at the instant of the hit by the scorers. If a ba’l goes easily from the bat to the fielder and is missed, that batter’s average is then and there marked with the error and the average as so far earned put down in the column for averages earned. If the player missed goes on and makes more runs, his total average is made up at the end of his innings and entered in the average made column. If it happens that a ball is hit with such rapidity or with such tremendous force that it would be super­ human to catch or field it, and if such a difficult hit is missed the scorers can at once decide between themselves whether the catch was possible, and, so deciding, then continue the earned average until another chance for dismissing the batsman occurs. Just as the umpire decides whether or not a ball was fairly caught, or caught on the first short rapid bound close to the ground, or whether a man is out l.b.w., and so on, to the scorers can dccidc regarding the chances for dismissal given by batsmen as they take turn. If some system like this were introduced into English cricket, you would soon see some players tumble a good notch or two in their earned averages, whilst better men would go higher and we should not have the humiliat­ ing spectacle of seeing a Trumble for instance — let off-more than any other batsman in 1902— standing at the top of the lot with the best average, but with an average not earned if the fielders had done their duty. J ames A . S palding . Portland, Maine, U .S .A . December, 1902. CR ICK E T IN SOUTH A F R IC A . KRUGER8DORP v. GARRISON.—Played at Kru- gersdorp on November 15th. R. H. Crake, who scored m^re th<»n one half of the runs made by the Garrison from the bat, was the wicket-keeper of the Harrow X L in 19*.0. Lieut. E. T. F. Hood Lieut. W. G. Stonor (R.H .A.),b Wood... 0 (K.0.8.B.),c Moore, Lieut. R. F. Crake b Connillin .......... 48 (K.O.S.B.), b Wood 150 Lieut. J. C. Dunbar Lieut. J.C. L.Godfray 1 (K.H.A.), lbw, b (K.O.8.B.), b Wood 3 Larkin ..................29 Capt. A. G. Fraser Lieut. J. M. Ferguson (K.0.8.B ), c Bur- (K.0.8.B.),b Larkin 0 ness, b Larkin..........32 Lieut. I. B. Hopkins Lieut. R. J. C. Mey- (K.O.S.B.), not out 5 ricke (R.H.A.), b i Lieut. G.R. S. Logan- Sandemau.................10 j Home (K.O.S.B.), c Capt. L. D. Spencer Larkin, b Coni-ihan 3 (K0.8.B.),cTumer, Extias................. 24 b Wood ................. 9 I K ruoersdofi ’. Total .. 313 Lariio,b Logan-Horae 3 Moore,b Logan-Home 24 Wood, b Logan-Home 5 Van Blomenstein, not Van Blomenstein, c out ..........................32 Spencer, b Hood ... 67 Bumess, b Hopkins .. 4 Sandeman, b Hood ... 18 Edwardep, not out ... 18 Turner, b H ood........ 13 Extras................. 7 Chandler, c Godfray, b Fiaser .......... 34 Total .................. 215