Cricket 1904

100 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME, M at 5, 1904. good cricket. For financial reasons all the leading counties arrange matches with the Australians, and these fixtures are now so numerous that no opportunity is found for the Colonials to meet teams representative of the Gentlemen, the Players, the North, the South, etc. “ ’Tis true, ’tis pity, and pity is, ’tis true.” The seriousness which has become insepara­ ble from inter-county cricket during recent years has caused far more importance to be attached to the batting and bowling averages which are published every week than used formerly to be the case. Lord Hawke, speaking on this subject, says: “ The publication of these statistics deliberately encourages slow play. A man with his eye on his average will not take a risk................... The figures at the close of each season are invaluable, but for sport’s sake preserve us from the multiplicity of averages during the summer months.” Every cricketer who has the welfare of the game at heart will agree with every word uttered by Lord Hawke on this point. The man who plays for his average—“ The wretch concentrated all in self,” Mr. Pycroft called him—is a bore on the field and a nuisance off it. The degeneracy of cricket from a game into a business has caused the cricket humourist—the man who was a source of joy to the crowd, as well as a delight to his companions—to become as extinct as the dodo. John Briggs, the cheery Lancashire bowler of immortal memory, was the last of the race, of which James Dean (of Sussex) and Tom Emmett (of Yorkshire) were notable examples. The sayings which these men would at times utter were often extremely quaint and witty. A story concerning the late “ Jimmy ” Dean is occasionally told, but is not too well-known to be repeated here. Dean, who was on the staff of the M.C.C., was one day hurriedly sent for to umpire in a match at the Oval. It so happened that on the same day an important game was in progress at Lord’s, so it was only natural that Dean, on reaching the Surrey ground, should be asked what was happening at headquarters. His reply was: “ Mr. ’Aygarth and Lord S-” —two great stickers— “ ’as been in three-quarters of a ^our ; neither has made a run, but , just as I left , his Lordship kicked a beautiful leg-bye! ” Speaking of Mr. A. W. T. Daniel, the late “ Jimmy ” Grundy, of Nottingham, said : “ When he gets a ball he doesn’t know what to do with, sir, ’e ’its it to leg for fou r! a description which all those who can recall that gifted batsman to mind will appreciate. (It is, by- the-way, remarkable that this saying has not been made to apply to Ranjitsinhji. But perhaps it was not sufficiently well-known to the adapters). Men who could frequently make amusing remarks like those recorded above are not now to be found participating in first-class matches. Perhaps the serious­ ness attaching to the game has killed their wit. Be that as it may, cricket is the poorer owing to their loss. From Zanzibar a correspondent writes to me at great length, respecting a curious hit out of the ground which occurred in a match in which he was umpiring. It was arranged before play commenced that four runs should be scored for every boundary stroke, and six for every hit out of the ground. One of the batsmen made a long, low, skimming hit to square-leg, and everybody, whose opinion on the matter was asked, declared that if the ball had not come into contact with anything during its flight it would have been only a boundary hit, as it would have been too low to have cleared, unaided, the wall which surrounded the ground. But, standing near the boundary line, on the field of play, with his back to the wicket, was a young negro, on whose head the ball struck and off which it rose with just sufficient impetus to enable it to bound over the wall. The question then arose as to whether four or six runs should be awarded for the stroke. My correspondent allowed six, and I think that he was right, because the bey was on the field ofplay. Had the ball, instead of strik­ ing the top of the negro’s head, hit the back of it, and so have enabled a fieldsman to make a catch, the batsman would have been out. Therefore, whatever share the boy took in the performance should be ignored—a decision which he would possibly dispute, especially as he probably suffered from “ swelled head” on account of it. (N.B.— This is a joke.) Had the boy not been on the field of play, but among the spectators, when he received the blow, the ball—and, perhaps, the boy too !—would have been dead im­ mediately, and, even had the ball rebounded into a fieldsman’s hands, it could not have been held legally to be a catch, as before the game commenced it was decided that boun­ dary hits should count four. Some years ago, in a match at Luton, on a ground which was so large that it was arranged to run everything out, and so dispense with boundary hits, Mr. J. B. Challen made a stroke for which quite six runs could have been obtained in the ordinary way. But the ball landed full-pitch on the forehead of a small boy, and rebounded so far towards the wicket that only two were made. In this case the batsman would have been given out if caught off the rebound, despite the fact that the boy was stationed in the crowd, because it had been previously arranged to dispense with boundary strokes. The negro in Zanzibar, as well as the boy at Luton, seemed “ more surprised than hurt,” which proves that thick heads are occasionally beneficial to their owners. In the letter from Zanzibar, already referred to, it is asked—“ A match is played in which neither hits to the boundary nor out of the ground are arranged for. A player hits the ball against the wall of ahouse outside the ground, and the ball rebounds and is caught by a fielder. Is the batsman ou t?” Morally, n o ; but legally and cricketically, yes. In this event, the circumstance that no arrange­ ment was made for boundary strokes or hits out of the ground would have to be taken into consideration, and so the bowler would obtain credit (?) for the wicket. CRICKET IN SOUTH AMERICA. SAN MARTIN v. BELGRAVE II. A SMALL TOTAL. Played at Buenos Aires. Second division championship match. San Martin batted one short. In the second innings San Martin compiled 136. S an M a e t in . G.R. Roberta, cDilljn, b Norman...............5 F. J. Griinsditch, b Norman ................. 0 R. H. Roberts, c For­ rester, b Godfery ... 1 E O.Jacobs,c Norman, b Godfery......... ... 0 P.P.8chultz,b Norman 0 H.J.St.John,bGocfery 0 B k lg bavk (2). L. H. Knight, c and b Jacobs ................. l W . Dentjn, b Jacobs.. 2 P. Dillon, b Roberts .. 0 L.B.Woodgate,cKoths- child, b Roberts 0 A.Forrester, b Roberts 49 P. Norman, b Schultz 8 A. Coste, b Roberts ... 8 W. J. Clydesdale, b Norman ................. F. H. Schultz, not out E. Griffen, b Godfery A. Rothschild, b Nor­ man ........................ Exi ras .......... T otal.......... S. K hlberg, b Schultz 20 C. M. Godfery, b Jacobs ................. 7 G. Norman, not out... 9 A.F. Coaker, b Jacobs 3 Extns................. 0 Total ...107 L A N C A SH IR E (X II.) v. L A N C A S T E R A N D D IS T R IC T (X V III.) Played at Lancaster on A pril 29 and 30. The Eighteen won by 88 runs. Despite the good bow ling of Kermode, the Lancashire eleven were unable to cope with the powerful eighteen which opposed them inthis match. Haines,an amateur from Ulverston, bowled splendidly for the local team in both innings. A . N . H ornby, the famous old Lancashire captain, played for the county. L ancaster and D istrict . First innings. second innings. R. G. Mortimer, b Kermode 0 b Kermode......... 3 Warner, b Kermode ........... 9 c.........Sharp, b Hal­ lows ................. 4 I’Anson, c Sharp, b Hallows 10 c Kermode, b Littlewood ... 82 G. F. Linney, run out......... 0 st Worsley, b Littlewood ... 17 J. W . Jackson, b Kermode 3 notout................. 9 W. Wilmot, c Sharp, b c Ben*on, b Kermode ......................... 0 Littlewood ... 2 W. Parker, c Worsley, b c A. H. Hornby, Rowlands ...........................33 b Littlewood,.. 4 Iddon, lbw, b Hallows... 1 b Littlewood ... 3 G. F. St. John Davey, b c A. N. Hornby, Kerm ide ......................... 9 b Littlewood ... 0 F. Mabbutt, b Rowlands ... 7 st Worsley, b Littlewood ... 2 J. S. Punchard, c Worsley, b Rowlands......................... 8 W. G. Collinge, c Worsley, b Littlewood .................. 0 C. B. Allen, b Cuttell............21 A. G. Haines, c A. N. Hornby, b Kermode ... 10 G. Warren, b Cuttell........... 1 R. Hurtley, c Sharp, b Kermode ............................13 W. Gregson, b Cuttell ... 0 J. T. Sanderson, not out ... 2 Extras......................... 8 Extras .... 7 Total........................185 Total (9 wkts)*83 * Innings declared closed. L ancashire . First innings. Second innings. A. H. Hornby, lbw, b I’Anson ........................ 7 b I’Anson .......... 5 Ward, c Mabbutt, b Parker 17 c and b I’Anson 6 Tyldesley, b Parker ..........11 cWarner,bHaines 9 Hallows, c Parker, b Haines 19 Bt Wilmot, b Haines .......... 1 Cuttell, c Parker, b Haines 5 cLinney,b Haines 0 Sharp, c Parker, b Haines 5 c Sanderson, b Haines .......... 2 C. H. Benton, c Haines, b Hurtley ........................ 5 c and b Haines... 0 Littlewood, c Sanderson, b Hurtl-y ........................ 4 c and b Haines .. 2 Kermode,cWarner,b Haines 14 b I*Anson.......... 9 Rowlands, b Hurtley.......... 0 not o u t................ 1 Worsley, c Davey, b Haines 3 b Haines .......... 1 A. N. Hornby, not out ... 3 absent................. 0 Bye ........................ 1 Extras .......... o Total .................94 Total ............86 L ancaster and D istrict . First innings. Second innings. O. M.R. W . O. M. R. W. Kermode .......... 26 9 43 7 ........... 9 4 22 1 Hallows .......... 16 6 23 2 ........... 6 0 19 1 Rowlands ......... 16 5 25 3 ........... 10 4 6 0 Littlewood......... 12 3 22 1 ........... 13.1 6 12 7 Cuttell................. 6.4 1 11 3 .......... 6 1 16 0 L ancashire . First innings. Second innings. O. M. R. W . O. M. R. W. I’Anson .......... 7 2 10 1 .......... 8 2 19 3 Haines ......... 19.3 2 48 5 .......... 8*4 2 17 7 Parker ..........11 4 12 2 ........... Collinge .......... 3 0 5 0 ........... Gregson .......... 4 1 6 0 .......... Iddon ........ 5 4 4 0 .......... Hurtley .......... 5 2 9 3 ........... OXFORD UNIVERSITY SENIORS’ MATCH. Played at Oxford on April 28, 29, and 30. Mr. Cartwright’s Side won by eight wickets. As no fewer than eight of last years’ team are available this season, it will not be an easy task for the Oxford captain to fill up any vacant places. In the Seniors’ match there was much for him to thiuk upon, as far as batting was ooncemed, for several men were seen to