Cricket 1903

134 CRICKET A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. M ay 14, 1903. LORD HARRIS AND MR. A. G. STEEL, K.C., ON REFORMS. At the annual general meeting of the M.C.C. last week, Mr. A. G. Steel, as president, introduced the question as to widening the wickets. Ttte following are extracts from his speech :— “ Now gentlemen, it is admitted, I think, by everyone in this room that cricket has for some years been in an un­ satisfactory condition. (Hear, hear.) In the course of last year I had occasion during the Test matches and otter matches to visit many pavilions in this country, and I can only say that I was continually badgered by people saying, ‘ Why don’t you do this ? ’ ‘ Why don’t you do that ? ’ ‘ Why don’t you do the other thing ? ’ it being admitted all over the country that cricket was in an unsatisfactory condition. Now, gentlemen, I think we can assume that this afternoon. The question then comes, what is to be done ? Well, now, what we want to do is this, and I think it is a logical thing to do. We want to help the bowler a little but we do not want to revolutionise the game. (Hear, hear.) We do not want to make any great alteration in the rules, but we want to give some assistance to the bowler to redress the balance which previously existed and now does not.” “ The captains of the counties met and they practically unanimously decided—I think there were two dissentients—that the wickets should be widened by one inch. Well, now, I do not know whether the captains of the counties had a man­ date from their counties; they may or may not, but they certainly published the resolution they came to in the Press. They are a responsible body of persons, they are people whose views of cricket one should respect, they play with all classes of people all over the country, and they sent the resolution they had come to up to the Lord’s Committee. Now, gentlemen, what did the Lord’s Committee do ? Of course it went to the Cricket Sub-Committee and that Cricket Sub-Committee—the names are not hang­ ing np in this room, but it consists of names that are well known to the whole cricket world ; I think I may say that nearly all of us have been captains of universities, captains of counties, ani some captains of both ; we carefully con­ sidered it in a full committee, and we came to the unanimous conclusion that it would be in the interests of the game to widen the wicket. After that resolution was unanimously come to by the Cricket Sub-Committee, it was unanimously con­ firmed by the General Committee, a full committee, not every member present—I think there were two absent owing to ill-health—but it was a very full meet­ ing of the committee. So what is the position ? You have the captains of the counties sending a resolution, and you have the whole committee of Lord’s in favour of widening the wickets. Now, what did the committee do ? They thought it would be a proper thing to send round circulars to all the leading clubs in the country; in fact, to all the counties and to all the colonies and Scot­ land. Now, we did not expect unanimity when we sent them round; we never can expect it in the cricket world and we did not get it. Bat we got notices from various counties in favour of it, from a considerable number against it, and several counties were in favour of other things, such as heightening the wicket. Well, now, gentlemen, that is the posi­ tion.” “ Now, gentlemen, we are told that it should have a trial; well, we don’t think so. If we were going to diminish the bat by au inch, or if you were going to put three more stumps on, or curtail the ground in which the batsman is to stand, let us have a trial; but why should we think a trial necessary when you are only putting on an inch ? We know it will help the bowlers, and we know also it cannot injure the game. Now, gentle­ men, there is one other matter. We are told by Gloucestershire, who are against it, that the desired effect will be reached by better fielding. (Hear, hear.) Gentle­ men, I say this in presence of you all, that I believe myself the fielding is every whit as good to-day as it was thirty years ago. I tell you what we did not have : we did not have statistics in those days in the Press. That is practically the case which the Committee put before you, and, as I said before, I am going to ask you to give us a solid vote to support your Committee on this question. But I want to tell you this, and I suppose it is public property : It was found out some considerable time after we had decided to come to this meeting to ask you to vote for the widening of the wicket, it was found out that in practice the wicket really had been wider than eight inches. Now, that is an extraordinary thing. I have been told by a cricketer who is present in the room that he was aware of it before. I never heard of it. How­ ever, we were told by a celebrated umpire that on various occasions he had measured the wicket and found them half an inch too wide. We at once wrote to the counties, and we practically got this result from the letter we wrote to the counties, that on nearly every ground the wicket is always 8J inches, and in many cases 8J. Tiiat, of course, is con­ trary to the Kule, and I cannot under­ stand myself how the umpires have per­ mitted it to pass; but so it has been. Now, gentlemen, if you vote against this motion of the Committee this afternoon, if it is not carried, what will be the result ? Practically that we go back to the eight inches, because we cannot have the umpires breaking the law. The result will be that we narrow the wickets by half an inch.” Lord Harris spoke as follows; “ When­ ever I have had the opportunity, I have endeavoured to do something with the laws of cricket which shall help the bowlers agiinst the batsmen. But the tendency of umpires as well as of cricketers has for long—so long as I can remember at any rate, and I daresay in the memory of those older than I—has always been in favour of the batsman; the tendency of the umpire if he has any doubt is to give it in favour of the batsman; therefore, whenever I hare had the opportunity I have always en­ deavoured to help the bowler by some alteration of the law. I was very dis­ appointed about the lbw rule. I v, as not here at the time it was moved by the Committee; I was in South Africa. Had I been here I should have supported it with my voica as well as with my vote. In fact, in the Committee the previous year When the matter was discussed, Mr. Lyttelton and I were those who proposed it. We proposed the trial here of the lbw, as was eventually done. Mr. Lyttelton proposed to alter without any trial. I am extremely disappointed with the result. The result was that the umpires—I really am almost inclined to say from obstinacy—reported against it. The men here at Lord’s have not sufficient intelligence to be able to adapt their minds to the alteration, although they were umpiring constantly in the M.C.C. and County matches which were to be played under the rule as proposed to be amended; they seemed to be unable to adapt their minds to the proposed altera­ tion, and the result was dissatisfaction with the trial. In other parts of Eng­ land, where the second - class matches were played, the umpires were again divided in opinion, and the captains have reported on the whole against it, because they are satisfied with their system of scoring. Well, the result was that we are able to do nothing, and all I say is, are we to go on perpetually helping the batsman and never doing anything for the bowler ? There were a great many cheers when the president re­ ferred to a recent suggestion for not altering the law — that fielding could be improved. Well, I entirely agree with the president that fielding is as good now as ever it was, that is to say in my experience, and it includes America and Australia, as well as England and India. I cannot say that I have seen any race which fields better than any other race. As far as I can see, all young men are about as active and about as good catches and as about as good fields on the ground as those of any other race. But what has happened in this country and has spoiled fielding is the enormous crowds round the ground—that bank of spectators—and the result is the fields­ man does not see the ball quickly enough to know in what direction it is going or at what pace. It is simply a flash of the eye to decide that. It is the banks of spectators behind the batsman that has spoiled the fielding, and I do not think we can improve fielding whilst you have these banks behind. Therefore, I press for doing something with the laws which shall help bowlers. We have rejected —for reasons which I regret—we have rejected the resolution for helping the bowler by preventing the batsman puttiug his leg in front of the wicket, so what is there leftP There is the change in the implements of the game, and this comes