Cricket 1904

J unk 2, 1904. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME 163 BUSSEY’S “DEMON DRIVERS. < C C B « - GEO, G. BUSSEY & GO Desire to inform Cricketers all over the world who may experience a difficulty in ob­ taining “ D em on D r iv e r s ” that this difficulty arises in consequence of the ever-increas­ ing demand exceeding the supply. Readers of G e o . G . B u s s e y & Co.’s pamphlet, entitled “ Evolution of the Demon Driver,” are aware that a fea­ ture of the success of the “ D em on D r iv e r ” is due to a special process, occupying a long period, that the bats under­ go before leaving the works, and although there are always a large number of Bats under this treatment which could be placed on the market, G e o . G . B u s s e y & Co., in the interest of cricketers and their own repu­ tation, will not deviate from the system that has made the The Finest Bat the World produces. GEO.G.BDSSEY&CO, 36 & 38, QUEENVICTORIASTREET, E.C. Manufactory— PECKHAM, S.E. Timber Mills—ELMSVELL SUFFOLK. AGENT8 ALL OVER THE WORLD. AT TH E SIGN OF TH E W IC K E T . By F. S. A shley -C ooper . It -would be unwise to attempt to express an opinion on the amount of success likely to be met with by the South Africans whilst on tour in this country on the strength of their display in the match against the M.C.C. and Ground. Play on the opening day took place on a slow wicket and, despite the fact that Hathom and Mitchell, the two chief batsmen on the side, failed, the visitors had very little the worst of the game when stumps were drawn for the day. At the same time it must be remembered that they were largely indebted for their good position to Llewellyn, who hit hard for 68 not out, and who will not be able to assist the side very often, on account of his connection with Hampshire. Kotze will apparently prove the mainstay of the eleven in bowling, and Sinclair, who per­ formed well on Monday, although he failed to obtain wickets, should also meet with success. The side is likely to prove stronger with the bat than with the ball, for, including Llewellyn, they possess seven men any one of whom might at any time make a hundred. With the wicket-keeping entrusted to Halli­ well and Wallach, there should be no anxiety concerning that department of the game, for there is probably at the present time no superior to the former,whilst the latter has already participated in first-class cricket with success. It is to be hoped that none of the counties will place weak elevens in the field when opposing the South Africans, for to do so would not only be to under-rate their strength but also to cause the public to give poor support to their matches. A long letter, covering five pages of quarto note-paper, reaches me from Australia, concerning law 15, which reads:— “ The bowler may require the batsman at the wicket from which he is bowling to stand on that side of it which he may direct.” This is one of the laws to which attention is very rarely drawn, and probably the one which has most seldom required the support of the umpires. My correspondent states that, in a match in which he was batting, was a bowler delivering the ball round the wicket who insisted that he should stand on the side of the wicket from which he was bowling, and who, as soon as the ball had left his hand, deliberately placed himself in front of the batsman, making a short run impossible. Instances in which a bowler avails himself of causing the batsman to stand on the side of the wicket from which he is bowling are extremely scarce, though Major Bethune, of Hampshire, is a player who frequently does so. But in the case mentioned by the Australian correspondent, it was apparent that the bowler intended to place the batsman at his end at a disadvan­ tage. The question is, Was there any remedy for the batsman? In such a case, that is if it were evident that the bowler’s manoeuvre was executed solely to baulk the batsman,the umpire would be justified in over­ ruling the bowler, and in allowing the non­ striker to take his stand on the other side of the wicket, by virtue of Law 43, which says, “ The umpires are the sole judges of fair or unfair play.” Curiously enough, the M.C.C., in their pamphlet, published two years ago on the decisions and interpretations authorised by the club, did not furnish any notes or remarks concerning this law, whilst Mr. Alfred D. Taylor, in his “ Annals of Lord’s, and History of the M.G.C.,” sayB (p. 222):— “ What consequences would arise if the bats­ man flatly refused to obey the bowler’s injunction it is impossible to conceive.” With this last remark it is somewhat difficult to agree, for it would be a case in which an umpire’ s ruling would be imperative, and if the verdict given favoured the batsman all would be well, whilst if it supported the bowler there would be nothing for the non­ striker to do but “ grin and bear it,” unless, of course, he was a bigger man than the bowler, in which event he might contrive to accidently fracture one of the latter’s ribs whilst backing u p ! There were some interesting experiments in captaincy last week. Playing for London County, at Leicester, W . G ., on winning the toss, sent his opponents in. Up to a certain point his action appeared justified, but his side was eventually defeated by over 100 runs. This is not the first occasion upon which an eleven led by W . G. has been defeated after allowing the other side to bat first. Would one be justified in consequence in remarking that the G.O.M.’s judgment in such matters was generally faulty, or may it be that ,we are all prone to remember the instances in which his policy has failed and to forget when it has proved successful? When W. G., after sending his opponents in first, is on the beaten side, more attention is drawn to the matter on account of his unique experience and wonderful career as a cricketer whereas in the case of most other captains the occurrence would pass almost unnoticed. A few players, who are entitled to express an opinion on the subject by virtue of their great acquaintance with the game, maintain that in no case should a captain, upon win­ ning the toss, allow the opposing side to have first use of the wicket. One such is Mr. A . P. Lucas, whose opinion naturally carries great weight. But “ W .G .” obviously thinks otherwise, and “ When doctors disagree who shall decide?” It is, of course, impossible to lay down any hard and fast rule on the point, but doubtless the great majority of those who follow the game closely will agree in thinking that there are certainly occasions upon which a captain would be fully justified in allowing the other side to have first innings. At times even greater discretion is necessary to decide at what time an innings shall be declared closed. At Brighton, last week, Mr. C. B. Fry, in the match against Gloucestershire, declared the Sussex innings closed when hardly suffi­ cient time was left, despite the deplorable state of the wicket, in which to dismiss the visiting eleven, who certainly had not even a remote chance of obtaining enough runs to pull off the match. Doubtless the closure was so unduly postponed “ lest Jessop might come off. ’ But not eleven Jessops would have been likely to make the necessary 213 runs in the 95 minutes which remained for play, considering the state of the wicket. But perhaps Mr. Fry, when considering at which moment to apply the closure, remem­ bered the match against Oxford University, at Brighton, two years ago, in which the University scored 381 in just over four hours, and won by five wickets, with almost an hour to spare, after he had declared the County’s second innings closed with the score 272 for seven wickets. It was obviously a case of “ Once bit, twice shy.” So far as one is able to judge from the games yet played by the Universities, Oxford possesses a distinctly superior side to any that Cambridge could place in the field. In W. H. B. Evans, a nephew of the famous A. H. Evans of a quarter of a century since, the Oxonians possess a captain who has already had considerable experience of first- class cricket. The Old Malvernian, although