Cricket 1904

330 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. A u g . 11, 190f. against Derbyshire. Besides this he made 37, and played much better cricket than anyone else on his side, although M cG ihey made a few more runs. F rom Rotterdam M r. J. van der Leek writes of a curious incident which occurred in a remarkable match in that city. H e says : “ One of our bowlers, left hand and round the wicket, was no-balled b y the umpire at the wicket­ keeper’s end, on the ground that he had both feet over the bow ling crease. We scored 38 and 34, and the other party 37 and 36 for five wickets which, if the no­ ball was to count, gave them the victory. Bat we disputed the no-ball and the match was continued, with the result that the remaining five wickets fell in the next two overs for no ruus, so that the ques­ tion of the no-ball is of the greatest interest. We claim that the no-ball ought not to count, and that the match was a tie. W ill you tell us if we are right ? ” T h e umpire at the wicket-keeper’s end oan only call a no-ball when he considers that the bowler throws, and in the above case he had no more right to call a n o-ball than any spectator on the field. The no-ball cannot possibly count, and the match ended in a tie. O ld Surrey players who remember the famous old professional Julius Csesar, may be interested to hear that in the “ H istory and Antiquities of Surrey,” it is mentioned that a Sir Julius Csemr, who was Master of the Rolls to Queen Eliz ibeth, resided at Mitcham. C ricket is indebted to Mr. J. B . Barker, the old Lancashire cricketer, who lived at M itcham for a long time during the days of Southerton, for the reference, which is as follow s: — Tuesday, September 12th, 1598. The Queen visited my house at Mitcham, supped and lodged and dined there the next day. I presented Her Majesty with a gown of silver, richly embroidered, a black net-work mantle with pure gold, a taffeta hat, white, with several flowers, and a jewel of gold—set therein with rubies and diamonds. Her Majesty removed from my house after dinner, September 13th, to Nonsuch, with exceeding good contentment, which entertainment of Her Majesty, with the former disappoint­ ment, amounted to £700 sterling besides mine own provisions, which were sent me by my friends. F rom the above it does not seem at all unlikely that Julius Cffi3ar, the Surrey cricketer, was descended.from the Master of the Rolls, at any rate he had a good deal of the humour of Sir Julius. It may be mentioned that Sir Walter Raleigh had a residence about this time in Whit- ford Lane at Mitcham. H . B. R ich abd son , who played for Surrey a few seasons ago, has been scoring pretty freely this summer in Cali­ fornian cricket. In three innings he had for San Fransisco County between May 8th and June 12th he made 57, 100 not out and 103 not out. The two hundreds were agaiust the Pacific Club, the 57 against Alaneeda. The three matches were in the competition for the Califor­ nian Ciicket Association Championship. N. W . J olly , who has been chosen as the Rhodes scholar for South Australia, has a good record in South Australian athletics. He is well known in cricket circles as a capable wicket-keeper and fair batsman. In 1901-2 he played four times for the Sturt Electorate Club. He caught one and slumped three, and allowed 12 byes in a total of 673 for thirty-four wickets. The particulars of the extras were : 4 in 96, 6 in 264 for six wickets, 1 in 136, and 1 in 117. He is a good sportsman, and is sure to make a name for himself over here. T h e M .C.C. has given its verdict on the substitution o f W . L . Murdoch and L . Y . Harper for P . F . Warner aud G. W. Beldam in the Gentlemen and Players match at the Oval on July 8th. As the result of its deliberations the follow ing judgm ent has gone the round of the P ress: — It was resolved that what was done in the recent Gentlemen v. Players’ match at the Oval—allowing a substitute to take the place in the Gentlemen’s team of Mr. G. W. Beldam after he had bowled on the first day— was an infringement of Law 37. Having regard, however, to the fact that similar cases have occurred in the past, upon which the M.O.C. have not been asked to give a ruling, no retrospective action will be taken. Law 37 reads, “ A substitute shall be allowed to field or run between wickets for any player who may during the match be incapacitated from illness or injury, but for no other reason, except with the consent of the opposite side.” Tne irony of the situation would seem to be that the Surrey authorities have been practically convicted of a violation of a rule b y the M .C .C ., which has itself on SBveral occasions not only condoned such an infringement on its own ground, but actually broken the rule. As a matter of fact, in allowing the double substitution in the Gentlemen v. Players match at the Oval, those responsible were merely follow ing the example of the M.C.C. in a match of its own at L ord’s on May 8, 1902. A n o th er curious feature of the recent crusade has been the uniformity with which the newspapers have condemned the Oval incident while discreetly silent over recent violations of the same rule at L ord’s. It seems, too, to be a pity that in recording its judgment the M .C.C. did not at the same time give some clue to the identity of the person or persons by whom it was asked to give a ruling in this particular instance. It is, indeed, hardly conceivable that such a request c*n have come from any cricket authority or any cricketer. I t is quite a mistake to suppose that the question of substitutes batting is of the present day only. Here is an extract from Baily'a Magazine of 1870 :— There was more irregularity about the , conduct of the match between M.O.C. and Notts than should be allowed at a ground like Lord’s. Four of the M.C.C. team (against Notts) did not put in an appearance until the afternoon of the first day. Next, after Mr. V. E. Walker had unfortunately injured his hand while fielding at point in the first innings of Notts, a batting substitute was provided for him in the person of Mr. H. A. Richardson, and, lastly, after this latter gentleman had had his two innings he quietly decamped leaving all his work to be done by yet another substitute, Walter Price. As to the matter of the batting substitute we are aware tbat there are precedents for such a concession being granted by one side or the other, and that, in the absence of any definite law on the subject, the question of substitutes is very much left to mutual agreement. The writer in Baily then becomes indignant, and adds : — “ But we think it would be much better if a more specific rule were includel among the laws of cricket, as otherwise a request from one side for a substitute cannot fail to be often strenuously resisted by the other side, and an element of discord would thus be introduced into the game. Of the bad taste of selecting for the batting substitute a gentlemtn who was unable or unwilling to do his share of the work in the field also we need not speak. I l is very seldom that the Yorkshire bow ling has been treated as it was by B. J. T. Bosanquet, R. E. More, and J. T. Hearne on the afternoon of the s e o n d day of the match against Middlesex. The last two wickets put on 219 runs in an hour and a half. T h e r e was some remarkable scoring on the first day of the match between the United Service and the Old Cliftonians on Monday on the officers’ ground at Portsmouth. The Old Cliftonians were batting all day, scoring 605 for six wickets. The chief scorer was E . Field with 229 not out. The total for three wickets was 501, which is a run below the record for the ground. M r . H . W ebber , who made 209 notout on Saturday for Horley agaiust Lowfield Heath, is fifty-seven years old. He was at the wickets for only three hours, and made his runs out of a total of 376 for three wickets. O n Saturday last L . O. S. Poidevin made 233 for Oundle Rovers against London County, at the Crystal Palace, and followed it up on Tuesday with a score of 153 for Lancashire v. Sussex, at Brighton, “ where the runs comes from .” I n the last two matches played by Essex (v. Kent, at Canterbury, and v. Notts, at Leyton) 155 extras were recorded — 82 in the former and 73 in the latter. “ Bravo, Mr. Extras ! ” For the benefit of those clubs which experience difficulty in making big scores, we may add that the balls used in the above matches were manufactured by Mr. Dash o f Blank. (See our advertisement columns.)