Cricket 1905

264 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. J uly 13, 1905. JIHIHISDEI i CO. CRICKET BALL MAKERS, Supply all the Principal Counties and Clubs through­ out the world with their well-known h T grad I dge & SONS, M a r v e ll o u s T e s t im o n y . The Inns of Court Hotel, 25th August, 1902, Messrs. J o h n W is d e n & Co. 7)ear Sirs,—I have much pleasure in stating that your “ Special Crown ” Cricket Balls were used in the five Test Matches played between A ll England and Australia this season. At the Oval the play was delayed on the first day until some of your “ Special Crown ” Balls were procured, as both teams preferred them to any others in the market. Your “ Special Crown’’ Balls gave every satisfaction in all the Test Matches, and all our team always want them in all other matches in England and Australia. Yours faithfully, J . D a r l i n g . London County Cricket Club, Crystal Palace. Dear Sirs,—Your Cricket Balls (“ Special Crown ”) AGAIN GAVE GREAT SATIS­ FACTION. Please send me half-a-gross for next season at your earliest convenience. I am, yours truly, To J o h n W isd e n & Co. W . G . G r a c e . Colne Bridge, Huddersfield, Sept. 14th, 1903. John Wisden & Co. Dear Sirs,—We have used your “ Wisden’s Special Crown ” Balls in our matches for the last few years, and I find it quite the best ball on the market, very seldom getting out of sh a p e . Yours truly, W . R h o d e s . Kirkheaton, Huddersfield. Sept. 14th, 1903. John Wisden & Co. Dear Sirs,—I think the “ Wisden Special Crown ” Match Ball now used on nearly all County Grounds is quite the best ball on the market. They are not so hard to the hands when fielding as others. Yours truly, G. H . H i r s t . A Wonderful Becord made with a Wisden’s “ Special Crown” Ball. 1,297 rans were scored in eight matches by the St. George C.C. Bristol, with a “ Special Crown ” Ball, presented to the dub by Dr. E. M. G b a o x . Manufacturers of all Requisites for Cricket, Lawn Tennis, Racquets, Football, and all British Sports. PATENTEES AND SOLE MAKE Life OF THE Factory, ART ILLERY PLACE. WOOLWICH, C r i c k e t : A WEEKLY RECORD OF TEE OAMt. 168, UPPER THAMES STREET, LONDON, E.C. THURSDAY, JULY 13 th , 1905. ^ a t J t i t o n G o s s i p * The abstract and brief chronicle of the time.— Hamlet The Balls to be used in Test Matches are now settled- WISDEN’S are the only makes permissible. F r o m DealerB a ll o v e r th e w o rld , an d 2 1 , C ra n b o u rn S t., L o n d o n , W .C. C ity i f t n t l i B B M T F I I K ft CO., O H K U IIO B . B y their defeat at the hands of Surrey on Saturday, Lancashire have lost their position as the only unbeaten county of the season. The last time that Surrey beat Lancashire in Lancashire was in 1899, and in that year Surrey won the championehip, never to win it again since then. Surrey’s last victory over Lancashire at the Oval was in 1902. Until their defeat by Surrey last week Lancashire had not lost a match since August, 1903, when Yorkshire beat them at Bradford. T h e team which will represent Scot­ land against the Australians at Edinburgh on July 17, 18, 19, is to be selected from the following: — Scotland: R. H. Johnson (capt.), D. L. Smith, M* K. Dickson, and B. L. Peel (Grange Club), H. J- Stevenson (Edinburgh Academicals;, G. MacGregor (Middlesex), Lord Dalmeny (Surrey), G. W. Jupp (Carlton), J. T. Anderson (Edinburgh University), Bull (Perthshire), Hirst (Uddingston), Smith (Lord Eglinton’s XI). It will be noted that the list contains the names of Gregor MacGregor, _the Middlesex captain and old Cambridge Blue, and Lord Dalmeny, the Surrey captain. I n the match between Hampshire and the Australians, Clement Hill made 115. But when his score was 22 he was beaten by Persse and the ball hit the wicket hard without removing the bails—-a piece of execrable luck for the bowler and his county. In the Oxford and Cambridge match, Henley, the Oxford player, was completely beaten by Morcom, the ball hitting his pads, going on to the wicket and thence to the boundary. But the bails were not removed. I n c id e n ts such as the above happen so often, and are so entirely unsatisfactory, that it seems about time something was done to prevent a bowler from being deprived of the reward of his skill. It is bad enough for a bowler, when the wicket does not help him in the least, to have catches dropped, but it is wicked to have to see his efforts thrown away when he has fairly and squarely beaten a man, and hie the wicket. If nothing can be done to make bails more sensitive to the touch of a ball against the stumps, a law might be made by which if an umpire was satisfied that the ball hit the wicket he might give the batsman out. There is not one case in ten in which the bowler’s umpire does not know when a ball has hit the wicket without removing the bails. Bowlers have so little done for them that they surely ought not to be handicapped in a most unfair manner because the bails decline to fall off when a batsman has been bowled. I t may be objected that if an umpire were empowered to give a batsman out uuder these circumstances it would be placing a powerful weapon in the hands of unscrupulous bowlers who know their umpire in “ weak medium ” matches. But there are so many ways now in which an unscrupulous bowler, when he has the umpire’s assistance, can dispose of his man, that a new weapon would make very little difference. All that he has to do now is to get a ball past the batsman into the wicket-keeper’s hands, and out the batsman goes—caught at the wicket, while to touch a batsman any­ where—from the top of his head to his toes—is to get a l b w decision against him. O n an electric tramcar between East Ham and Manor Park, on Saturday evening, were two cricketers. They both looked very unhappy. For some time they did not speak a word to each other, but at last one of them said thoughtfully, “ I think we should have won this match, if they’d turned up, don’t y o u ?” His ' companion’s reply was very brief indeed,