Cricket 1904

404 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME, Sept. 15, 1904. ©ormponflence. Thg Editor does not hold himtel/ responsible tor the opinions of his correspondents. THREE CURIOUS QUER IES. To the Editor of C ric k e t . D e a r S ir . — In tw o matches recently played ia Nova Scotia there occurred three very nic9 points upon which I would appreciate your opiuion ia the columns of Cricket : — (1) The batsman hits a ball, which runs up his body and lodges under his a rm ; he retains it for a second or two, and as he turns from his wicket to release it, the wicket-keeper deliberately pulls it away from under his arm. An appeal is made, and he is given out as “ caught.” Was he out, or was the ball dead ? (2) The batsman hits a ball which takes a somewhat p9rpendicular course, and is about to drop on the top of his w ick et; he hits it again with the same result, whereupon he hits it a third time. During this rather strange feat the wicket-keeper has tried twice to catch the ball, but is obstructed b y the bats­ man hittiDg each time. In the umpire’s opinion there is no doubt but that the ball would have fallen on the wicket, and at the same time no doubt but that the wicket-keeper could have made the catch. Was the batsman out for “ obstructing the field,” or was he privileged to defend his wicket ? (3) The ball hits the batsman’s leg, and he is given “ o u t” by the umpire (l.b.w .) without an appeal. The batsman refuses to go because there was no appeal. The bowler then appeals, and the umpire says “ o u t” — this time, of course, to the appeal. Is there no penalty for such a “ give away ” on the part of the umpire, which plaid ly told the bowler that he could obtain a wicket b y asking for it ? Y ery truly yours, D esm ond K il l ik k l l y . Ingraham Block, Sydney, Nova Scotia. August 22nd, 1904. [With regard to the above queries, No. 1 would be answered by one of the notes to Laws 33aand 33b in the M.C.C. “ Decisions and Interpretations,” viz., “ Lodging in a batsman’ s clothing includes practically all ways in which a ball can be said to lodge in or against his clothing.” In this case the ball must have lodged against the batsman’s shirt, and would become dead. Hence “ not out.” No. 2 would be a very ticklish ques­ tion for the umpire to consider. But the note to Law 27 says, “ It is for the umpire to decide whether the ball has been struck ‘ wilfully ’ for some purpose other than that of guarding his wicket." Again the note on Law 30 says, “ The umpire must decide on the facts before him if the obstruction was ‘ wilful.’ ” It Beems a question for the umpire in this particular case. As to No. 3, Law 46 says, “ They (the umpires) shall not order a batsman out unless appealed to by the other side.” But the “ Decisions and Interpreta­ tions ” are silent as to what happens when an umpire breaks the Laws.] R ICHARD DAFT’S “ Nottinghamshire Marl.**— Particulars apply, Radeliffe on-Trent, Notts. [ A d v t .1 THE COUNTY SEASON. T h e extravagant praise which has been bestowed on Lancashire this year because of their sixteen victories and no defeats is ha-dly likely to be echoed b y Lanca­ shire men themselves, who must recog­ nise that the results of the season do not look very well when analysed. Let us examine carefully the results of the various matches. There were sixteen victories, all of them, except one over Derbyshire, gained before August when all the weaker counties are able to put their strongest teams in the field. Kent, Surrey, Somerset, Gloucestershire, W or­ cestershire, and Derbyshire were each beaten twise, and Leicestershire, Middle­ sex, Essex, and Warwickshire one). It will thus be noticed that the only de­ feated counties which appear among the first six (including Lancashire) in the championship table are Kent (twice) and Middlesex (once). A ll the counties which were beaten twice (except Kent) are right at the lower end of the cham­ pionship table, and both the Kent matches took place early in the season, when the county can never get a representative team together. O f the ten drawn games four were distinctly un­ favourable to Lancashire, viz., those against Warwickshire at Birmingham, Yorkshire at Leeds, Middlesex at Lord’s, and Leicestershire at Liverpool. In the Warwickshire match the scores w ere: Lancashire 156 and 254 for two wickets ; Warwickshire 426; in the Yorkshire match Lancishire made 173 and 163 for three wickets against 403 b y their opponents; against Middlesex Lancashire soored 180 and 47 for two, while Middlesex Bcored 369; Leicestershire made 220 and declared, while Lancashire scored 147 for eight. It caa hardly be disputed that Lancashire had the worst of each of these matches. O f the other six drawn games those against Notts (2), Yorkshire, Sussex and Essex may be considered as fairly even, for neither side could be sure of victory, while the match against Sussex at Brigh­ ton may possibly be said to have been drawn in favour o f Lancashire. The record for the month of August, when nearly all county teams can play their full strength, is 7 matches, 1 victory, 6 drawn games, tw o of which were very decidedly against Lancashire. Y et even this poor record would have given them a higher percentage in the championship table than Kent, who, in the same month, played 8 county matches, of which 5 were won, 1 lost by a wicket, and two not badly drawn, or Middlesex, who played 8 matches, won 5, lost 1, aDd drew two, one of them very decidedly in their favour. From what­ ever point of view one may look at the record o f Lancashire for the season, the fact remains that they did not get any change at all out of Yorkshire, Sussex, or Notts, and very little out of Warwick­ shire, Middlesex and Leicestershire, all of which counties are in the upper half of the table. An extraordinary theory has been advanced to account for the ill success of the team in August. It is to the effect that the team was stale, through the misfor­ tune to win so many matches b y an innings. Apparently, if the sides which were beaten by an innings had made a hundred or so more runs so as to make Lancashire bat again, the task of bowlers and fieldsmen would have been easier. The real reason, and an excellent one, for the comparative failure of the team in August, was the absence of Brearley and Hallows. To take away the tw o best bowlers from a side is to place it under an enormous disadvantage. But it is a mis­ fortune which cannot be considered in dealing with actual results. When it comes to the question whether Lancashire deserved to be champions, no one would dream of disputing their right to the title. On the system by which the table is worked they have incontestably placad themselves out of the reach of all competitors; and it matters not in the least whether their victories were gained over the strongest sides or the weakest, whether their drawn games were in their favour or against them. It is very likely that with their present season’s record they would have won the championship on any system which is in use. The team played splendid cricket in nearly every match until August, and it completely pulverised the weaker counties as a rule. It was particularly strong in batting, more esp9cially when Poidevin came in. The two great batsmen of the team, R . H. Spooner and Tyldesley, quite upheld their reputations; Hallows and Poidevin were towers of strength, and at times Maclaren was quite in his old form , while A. H . H ornby and Sharp played many most useful innings. Ia bowling Hallows, Cuttell and Brearley were very formidable, but Kermode hardly came up to the expectations which had been formed of him, although at times he bowled splendilly. Whenever C. B. F ry and Ranjitsinhji both appeared in the Sussex team the opposing sides oould never feel at all certain about victory until they were bath out twice. Indeed, on tw o of the four occasions when Sussex were beaten Ranjitsinhji was absent. The tw o men carried the team on their shoulders, with Vine always ready to lend a helping hand. Relying almost entirely as they did on these three men to make scores large enough to be of any great service to the side, it is certainly remarkable that Sussex should only have been defeated twice when all three o f them were playing. The fact is that both Fry and Ranjitsinhji, each of them capable of making a large score no matter what may be the odds against them, hardly ever both failed in the same match. They can both play a magnificent uphill game, and it is this which has so often saved their side. They are especially dangerous when defeat stares them in the face, and it is at such times that they make their most astonishing efforts. Vine has been most consistent all through the season, and his first wicket partner­ ships with Fry were quite one of the features of the year. Relf, C. L . A.