Cricket 1903

THB FINEST BAT THB WORLD PRODUCES. A pril 16, 1903. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 67 BUSSEY’S w _ 2 AT THE SIGN OF THE WICKET. By F. 8 . A sh le y -C oopbr . V ) CO p e r i 0 9 BUSSEY’S It is pleasing to find that Trumper and Reginald Duff have maintained the splendid form they displayed last year in England during the Australian season which has j ust come to a close. As a first-wicket pair they may be mentioned in the same breath with Abel and Brockwell, and Brown and Tunni- cliffe. It is a curious fact that the pair should on two occasions during the season exceed the record made for the first wicket by Australians in the colonies. Their partnerships referred to were 298 against South Australia and 265 against Victoria, both feats being performed on the Sydney ground, which must be a veritable paradise for batsmen, if one may judge by the number of records established there. Although the scoring has been so great in first-class matches in Australia during the past decade, one cannot help noticing that it has been due to consistent scoring by all the players on the various sides rather than to the efforts of one or two men. As a consequence, individual scores of 200 have been so rare that one could almost enumerate them on the fingers of one’s hands, whilst a partnership of a couple of hundred runs—a very common occurrence in England—has very seldom to be chronicled. May all this be attributed to the fact that in Australia the players have generally “ played for keeps,” as the matches have not been restricted as to time, and that they have consequently been in the habit of playing a slow and tedious game? It must, at times, have been very fatiguing work to keep up one’s wicket hour after hour under the hot Australian sun, and doubtless the great majority of batsmen owed their dismissal chiefly to exhaustion. It may be that a free game is, after all, more re­ munerative to the batsman than a long-drawn- out display. The success which has recently attended the efforts of Trumper and R. A. Duff, who are both fast scorers, certainly lends support to the theory. Should brighter displays be given in the future than have been generally seen in the past, Australian cricket would increase enormously in popu­ larity. The tours of the English teams in New Zealand and India since the conclusion of last season may be briefly dealt with. Neither was a really powerful side, yet each managed to gain the easiest of victories on many occasions—a fact which does not lead one to suppose that the cricket in either country is up to county form. The success of many of the native players against the Authentics was a very pleasing feature of the Indian tour, and should do much to increase the pleasur­ able anticipation with which English enthu­ siasts are looking forward to the visit next year of a mixed team of Hindoos, Parsees, and Mohammedans. It was very regrettable that none of the crack native players appeared in the team designated The Gentlemen of India, for not only was the marked slight very keenly felt, but it caused the title of the match to be a mis-nomer. The form dis­ played by the New Zealanders against Lord Hawke’s team must be considered disappoint­ ing, the visitors at no time being hard presssd in any game. Although the visit was made almost wholly for educational purposes, one expected to find the cricket of the colony of a somewhat higher standard than was actually the case. The tour has undoubtedly given a great impetus to the game in New Zealand, and nothing but good can result from the visit. Only a few words are necessary on the subjeet of the proposal to increase the size of the wicket. The suggestion was made wholly in the interests of first-class cricket, which is, after all, not the most important phase of the game. As the Editor of “ Wisden” remarks, there is at the present time too great a tendency to legislate from the point of view of first-class players. An alteration in the laws which might be beneficial so far as great matches are con­ cerned, might work incalculable harm in games of less importance. Eor this reason, an expression of opinion should be obtained from responsible persons identified with each of the many phases of the game, whenever a proposal to legislate is seriously considered. There may be difficulties in the way of obtaining such expressions of opinion, but the task should certainly be attempted. Whether the captains of the leading counties are the persons best qualified to suggest alterations being made in the laws is a subject upon which colums might he written. The best known cricketers are not neces­ sarily the most capable critics. The question as to the body best adapted to finally decide such vital questions as the increase in size of the wicket and the alteration of the leg- before-wicket law is an interesting one, but one which need not be discussed at the present moment. The suggestion that the increased size of the wicket, if approved, should become law on the 1st of June next, besides meeting with universal disfavour, could not possibly be acted upon, as the manufacturers state they would be unable to supply the larger stumps until after the conclusion of the season, as the wood used for stumps must be well-seasoned. A few sets might possibly be procured for use in the great matches, but all minor clubs would be obliged to continue play with the 27 by 8 wicket. Although the size of the wicket will probably not be increased, the matter has provided an interesting topic of conversation during the winter months, and for this reason the county captains deserve our thanks. The individual scores of over two hundred hit in India during our non-cricket season of 1902-3 have caused many enquiries to be made on the subject of Indian records. Several correspondents have written to me asking me to give in these columns particulars of all scores of 200 or more made out there. The list is appended:— 267 Capt. G. H. Neale, Queen’s Regiment v. Gordon Highlanders, at Peshawur ... 1903 259 Lieut. Colin Mackenzie, Simla v. 2nd Queen’s Royal West Surrey Regiment, at Simla.................................................... 1881 257* K. S. Ranjitsinbji, Patiala v. Umballa, at Umballa .............................................. 1898 255 K. M. Mistri, Patiala v. Umballa, at Umballa .............................................. 1898 216 C. Mitchell, Calcutta v. Ballyganj (13 a- side), at Calcutta ............................... 1887 216 E. H. D. Sewell, Madras v. Bellary, at B ellaiy..................................................... 1898 240 W. Brockwell, Patiala v. Meerut, at M eerut..................................................... 1899 239* Lieut. E. Saulez, Ahmednager v. Poona Gymkhana, at Ahmednager................. 1894 237 Lieut. E. G. Wynyard, 8th King’s Regi­ ment v. 23rd Royal Fusiliers................ 1887 237 Capt. G. H. Neale, Queen’s Regiment v. Royal Sussex Regiment, at Lahore ... 1902 228 Private Sheiring, Royal Scots y. Band and Drummers, at Shabjehanpore .......... 1872 226 R. H. Dewing, Bellary v. Secunderabad, at Bellary ........ . ............................... 1894 225* E. H. D. Sewell, Visitors v. Residents (Ootacamund, Madras) ........................ 1898 223 S. S. Doeg, Howrah v. Jamalpur, at Jamalpur .............................................. 1885 222 W . Williams, Caledonians v. St. James’, at Calcutta ........................ .......... 1902 220* Major L. A. Hamilton, 1st K.O. York­ shire Light Infantry v. Royal Welch Fusiliers, at Dinapore (Bengal) .......... 1885 220 W . S. Gosling, Ootacamund v. Coimba­ tore, at Ootacamund ( uadras) .......... 1899 219* Bedesi Ram, Patiala v. Kasauli DepOt, at Kasauli..................................................... 1896