Cricket 1904

118 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OP THE GAME. M a y 12, 1904 YORKSHIRE v. NORTHALLERTON ANP DISTRICT. Played at Northallerton on May 5, 6 and 7. The most noticeable feature of this match was the bowling of Rhodes, who, on a wicket which just suited him, did the hat trick, and took twelve wickets for 21 runs in the first innings. Y o r k sh ir e . First innings. Brown, c Frank, b Smith ... 13 Tunnicliffe. b Theakstone... 43 Denton, b Smith................. 6 Hon.F.8. Jackson, cTheak­ stone, b Barker.................25 Wilkinson(W.H.), c Frank, b Barker ........................ 6 Hirst, b Theakstone ..........50 Rotheiy, c Theakstone, b Smith............................... 10 Rhodes, c Frank, b Smith... 3 Haigh, c and b 8mith.......... 8 Hunter, not out ................ 3 Lord Hawke, c Bulmer, b Theakstone........................ 5 B 7, lb 2, nb 3 ..........12 Second innings, c Lawson, b Firth 1 b Smith .......... 5 b Ward ..........29 c Smith, bTheak­ stone... ... ... 14 b Smith .......... 8 not out.................13 c Thursfield, b Ward .......... 6 c Wray, b Ward 32 Leg-byes.......... 3 Total .................184 Total (7 wkts) 111 N o r th a lle r to n an d D istb ic t . C.T.AtMo8cn,cRhodes b Jackson................. 0 R.S. Leather,b Rhodes 46 W . Feather*tone, c Hirst, b Jackson ... 21 A. C. Barker, c Tunni- cliffe, b Rhodes ... 6 T. Smith, b Rhodes ... 0 T. Sellers, c and b Rhodes ................. 0 J. H. Ward, b Haigh. 5 E. Theakstone, b Rhodes ................. 2 R. W. Frank,b Rhodes 23 J. Featherstone, c and b Rhodes................. 0 H. B. Wray.st Hunter, b Rhodes................ E. Thursfield.cTunni­ cliffe, b Rhodes Y. Bradley,st Hunter, b Rhodes ... ... ... C. Bulmer,b Haigh... W . Borner, b Rhodes. C. Hulton, c Jackson, b Haigh ................. O. Eirth, lbw, b Rhodes ................. G. Lawson, not out ... B 5,lb 1................. Total .. 126 MATTERS ARISING FROM THE VISIT OF THE M.C.C. TEAM TO AUSTRALIA. (Continued from page 110). Warner contended that three days meant three days or more. Now , the object to lessen the number of drawn games does not exist in Australia, because there are not supposed to be any unfinished. There have been some, they are very few, and sometimes, as in England v. South Australia last November, the draw has been the result of a misapprehension. Now , with regard to the second last day, as there is no second last day in Australia, as in England, there can be no declaration. It is impossible to say when the second or the last day will be. There will be few to dispute the statement that the M.C.C. was legislating for English cricket alone when the rule was adopted, and also when it was amended. A t Melbourne Warner again had his way, but when he got to Sydney Noble stood to his opinion, and after fruitless reference to Major Wardill, Warner at last gave in. When the time for the first Test match came round it was thought that some de­ finite pronouncement should be obtained from the Marylebone Club—a cable mes­ sage was sent—and the reply suggested that Warner should waive his point, and he did. In the event of the Test matches in 1905—when the next Australian team will visit England—being played out, and at the present time it appears certain they will be, an amendment will need to be made in the law on the subject of the closure to fit in with the altered condi­ tions. It was unfortunate that this mat­ ter was not settled at the time negotia­ tions were proceeding between Australian Associations and Marylebone Club. ROLLING "WICKET AT CLOSE OF DAY. When Maclaren was out here in 1901-2 it was for the first time, at any rate in Australia, decided that the wicket should be rolled at the close of each day. The first trouble in connection therewith arose in the second Test match at Melbourne. A t the close of the Saturday’s play, it had rained a good deal after stumps were drawn on the Friday. Warner, whose side was batting, objected to the roller being used. He claimed that it was at the option of the batting side, whereas the object was to ensure as good a wicket as possible for each succeeding day. After a lengthy argument Warner withdrew his objection. Noble was supported by the caretaker of the ground, who had received instructions from both captains. Another similar difficulty arose at the fourth Test, and perhaps it may have made some difference to the Australians. On the second last night when the caretaker was about to use the heavy roller he was stopped b y Braund, who was evidently a messenger from Warner. The former said that the light roller was to be used. The heavy roller would have improved the Australians’ chances of v icto ry ; there was only one wicket of the Englishmen to fall. So it did not matter to them ; the light roller would scarcely roll out the little hills and hollows made while the turf was soft. A debate between the captains of the two teams ensued for an hour and a half, at the end of which Warner evidently convinced the opposing captain that though he had but one wicket to fall he was the man in possession, and on that score had the right to say which roller should be used. That was the only ground he could go upon. When the English captain has furnished any reasons for any position he has taken up he has not been happy therein. Had he said that the light roller was used because it would improve the wicket more than the heavy one for the remainder of h i 3 innings, people would have smiled. It scarcely alters the case to say that Warner, in reply to the question as to which he would order to be used had he only two wickets down, said “ In that case I would use the heavy roller.” His reason was, of course, that the heavy roller would have improved the Austra­ lians’ chances. The light roller was used that n ig h t; the follow ing morn­ ing the wicket was not rolled at all. Tnere is no doubt that Warner was acting according to law on the last morn­ ing. He may or he may not have been acting according to arrangement in using the light roller on the previous afternoon. I f it were simply a question of the wicket being rolled at the close of each day, then he was justified in saying which roller should go o n ; if it were arranged that the wicket should be put in the best possible condition in the opinion of the caretaker—as was claimed by the Austra­ lian captain— such as rolling, clipping the grass, etc., then the heavy roller should have been used. The fact of there being any dispute at all shows that there was a difference of opinion as to what was arranged. On future occasions it will ba necessary to have everything drawn up b y a lawyer, signed by both captains, and duly attested. DECLARING TEAMS. Another matter which some people m ight consider “ smart ” was the altera­ tion of the team on winning the toss in the return N .S.W . match. The English captain on the evening before the match gave his team, without demur or con­ dition, to me as “ Knight, Relf, and Strudwick out.” On winning the toss Knight was included in the eleven and Fielder omitted. There is n o th in ' in the rules to prevent an alteration being made up to the time the last man is going in. And here is where a serious omission occurs in the rules. The captain who loses the toss declares that the team he takes into the field is his side. “ In all cases where a substitute shall be allowed, the consent of the opposite side shall be obtained as to the person to act as substitute, and the place in the field which he shall take,” says the rule, therefore, as the captain taking the field has not intimated to the opposing captain that he has a substitute for an absentee, he declares his eleven. The inside has not to declare until each man goes in to bat. Therefore, the “ o u t” captain is placed at a double disadvantage through losing the toss ; his opponent has choice of innings and has not to declare his team. The Marylebone Club has touched upon this matter in a light sort of way, which is not law. There should be an exchange of names before the toss is made. Had this been done Knight would not have played for England v. New South Wales, in which he obtained 104, and without that performance it is evidently doubtful if he wo aid have taken part in the fourth Test match, in which he got 70 not out, which probably did more than anything else to win the rubber for England. COVERING THE WICKET. For the first time in the history c f the Sydney Cricket Ground, perhaps for the first time in New S juth Wales, the wicket was covered to protect it from rain prior to the beginning of the fourth Test match. It has been the custom for some years to cover the pitch on the Melbourne and the Adelaide grounds. There is a good deal to be said in favour of protection of this kind, without touching upon the fiscal question. It is claimed that cricket is a fine weather game, and everything should be done that would contribute towards assuring a good wicket for the match, or at any rate for the start of it. It has been urged that it increases the artificiality of the wicket, and in reply thereto it is said that con­ sidering the days of preparation and rolling the pitch for a big match receives it is going a very little step further to perpetuate what has taken a long time to