Cricket 1907

406 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. S e pt . 12, 1907. CRICKET NOW—AND THEN. Under the above title Sir Home Gordon, Bart., contributes a thoughtful and instructive article to the September if sue of the Badminton Magazine , from which we make the follow ing extracts:— “ I f K . S. Ranjitsinhji came hack to-day after an absence of two seasons he would see many alterations. Hirst, for example, has entirely changed the way he sets his field for his howling. Swervers, or those who aim thereat, are in every team, and place their men in all sorts of odd places. I am not quite sure Ranjitsinhji could make those wonderful glances off Mr. R. O. Schwarz to-day that he did in the England Eleven match of 1902. I am not adversely reflecting on his batting, hut favourably on the in­ creased deadliness of the Pauline African’ s bowling. To-day the Rajah would see his pet desire that players and amateurs should issue from the same gate realised on the majority of grounds, whilst at Lord’s “ E sq.” has disappeared from the cards— an uncon­ scious exercise of demonstrating the truth in many cases.” “ Cricket plays a very small part in litera­ ture. There has never yet been one first-rate account of an imaginary cricket match in fiction. Tom Hughes took a real game, in which he had represented Rugby, and altered it to suit his purpose, but it is the most lifeless part of the immortal ‘ Tom Brown’s School­ days.’ Mr. George Meredith—who I think never played cricket— has given us the only vivid picture. Even schoolboys yawn over the cricket stories in their serials, and ‘ Raffles * conveyed little of the idea of a big hitter, though the book made a big hit. The bards have been happier than the novelists, thongh Lord Byron never gave us a cricket song. Even now we await some laureate’ s ‘ How we brought back the ashes’ to form a genuine companion to the ‘ good news from Ghent ’ which has been thrown to the ruth­ less mercies of that arch-fiend the amateur reciter. Nobody is so fond of reminiscing as the spectator in the pavilion, which makes it odd that books of cricket reminiscences do not pay. I suppose everybody wants to talk rather than to listen. “ It may be news to many that the old bats—of which such historic examples are in glass cases at Lord’s— were made for hitting, not for defence. William Beldham has recorded that he ‘ was supposed to be tempt­ ing Providence by rushing in to hit. Sly opinion has always been that too little is attempted in that direction. Judge your ball, and, when the least overpitched, go in and hit her away.’ Now those words should be written in letters of gold in every school pavilion as a maxim against playing with the legs, which entails simply poking at over­ pitched balls. One is tempted to say that there is no pitch about most bowling, for directly it becomes good it merely plays in the modern batsmen unless it has spin, devil, or variation in it. Not long ago, when Mr. Bosanquet was vainly trying to repeat his old-time success with the bill, a member of the vl.C.C. said, ‘ The googlies that do not google are about the poorest tosh which ever reduced cricket to an absurdity.’ On the other hand, does any batsman ever look so foolish as he who is bowled round his legs by a ball he has not attempted to touch? As a matter of fact a clever bowler sometimes gets a wicket by bowling a perfectly simple ball after a dozen tricky ones. The batsman waits for the ball to do something, and it never does. Reference having been made to Mr. Bosanquet, although I pay scant attention to records, I presume he holds one, namely, that of being the only cr.cketer in a championship county match who has bowled a batsman with a ball that pitched three times.” “ ‘ Now—and then ’ one hears of a possible revolution in cricket owing to a revival of lobs. Once the Harrow Eleven were set practising for fear of the rumoured skill of Mr. Hervey-Bathurst, and once the Cantabs for fear of Mr. J. B. Wood. In neither case were the alarms realised. Men under fifty have never seen great lobs. Those of Dr. E. M. Grace and of Mr. A. W . Ridley are really the only ones we can recall, always excepting those of Mr. D. L. A . Jephson. It is historical how poor an exhibition the Players at Lord’s once made against him. But it seems as though the modern bat could drive a lobbed ball far out of our playing spaces. To make lobs efficacious a second and wider boundary would have to be employed, which is out of the question. A generation which tries everything to make the ball beat the tat—and generally finds that the weather is the best agency—may well make some attempt at combining under­ hand bowling with swerves. I do not even say it is practicable, but any experiment in this direction would evoke considerable interest - and possibly considerable punish- m nt.” “ M y topic, ‘Now—and Then,’ mustprovoke some reference to the topical ‘ Wake up, sport! ’ discussion. I am specially per­ mitted to refer to it because Mr. J. M. Bullock has stated, in ‘ The Families of Gordon,’ that I ‘ have taken to the dropping of large tears in the magazines over the conditions of such an alien game as first- class cricket—just as if the fate of the Empire depended on it.’ W ell, I do think that cricket is helping to knit the Empire closer, and I do aLo think that a few mot< s need to be removed from the otherwise clear and healthy eyes of first-class cricket. The apathy displayed by the English people, not only in sports but in business methods as well, is a serious disease. Still, I also think cricket is again gaining, and not losing, ground.. It is jealousies and differences thit mar it. If Mr. Brearley is good enough to be among the selected to represent England v. South Africa and to appear for Gentlemen v. Players, it is a thousand pities that he does not turn out for Lancashire, especially as he played under Lancashire’ s captain for the Gentlemsn at the Oval, and, as I hear, is going with him on tour in India. This is one instance sufficiently public to be cited. And there are others. Cricket has always provided occa­ sions of dissension : inter alia, in 1818, when a great amateur, Mr. George Osbaldeston (who bowled so fast that he always required two long-stops), was beaten at Lord’s, he was so infuriated that he took up a pen and obliterated his own name in the list of members of M .C .C .; whilst the temper of old W illiam Clark has been as notorious as his amazing pkill. George Parr used to say that he played not by sight but by sound, for he had only one eye, having lost the other at fives quite early in life. Yet he bowled till the year of his death at the age of fifty-seven, the fact of having broken his arm, whilst playing, appearing to make little difference.” * * * * * “ Then, as well as now, the paid amateur seems not to have been unknown. At all events, about 1820 is was stated that Lord Frederick Beauclerck, though in holy orders, reckoned on making 600 guineas a year out of cricket. This certainly appears to rival modern emolument, considering how far money went in those days: but then public matches were played on which large sums of money depended. Now the laws on betting in cricket are the one sign that such things ever existed. To-day anything more than an annual sovereign with an old chum as to Eton beating Harrow or Oxford beating Cam­ bridge is unknown, except the occasional innocent and infinitesimal wager of a shilling as to which batsman will be out first after a protracted stand. Cricket in that way is as clean as an angel’ s wing. Equally so is the umpiring. The last suggestion of a big game being given away by an umpire occurred many years ago—and then out of England. The honesty of contemporary first-class umpires I have never heard assailed. Of course there are scores of bad decisions, but he who perpetrates many does not find himself long on the active list. It is one of the deep-rooted unnoted symbols of the purity of English cricket that the advisability of amateurs to umpire in great matches has never even b3en mooted. Lord Harris and the Duke of Rutland in white coats in the field, relieved periodically by Lord Lichfield and Lord Howe, would in the eyes of Mr. Lloyd George be doing better work than he generally considers is per­ petrated by the House of Lords.” “ Then—and now—suggests a splendid alteration in the type of cricket professional. The old style had excellent points and played an excellent game, but the moral of the present* day avowedly paid department is incomparibly superior. The death of Edward Pooley a few weeks ago suggests the extent of the contrast. To see him in shabby clothes, with grizzly-white hair, and a strained, sordid appearance, gazing at the Oval on the scene of his former triumphs, was pitiable. Yet no one could help him, because he would not help himself, and his careless, calamitous life ended in the Lambeth infirmary. There have been many prosperous and steady professionals in every generation, but on the whole the new type is preferable to the old.” Th**rj i< m uch more i i Sir H om e’s essay which cannot f±il to appeal to those .vho are interested ia cricket. LONDON AND WESTMINSTER BANK (3) v. CROYDON (3).—Played at Norbury on Septem­ ber 7. L. & W. B ank (3). W. E. Smith, b Pearce 5 F. L. Sharpin, b Pearce 0 S. A. Ellerm, c and b Campbell.................37 G. O. Anson, not out 78 T. C. Sampson, c Mac- Adam, b Campbell 0 W.Horncastle,notout 4'.» Byes ................. 7 Total (4 wkts)*185 H. H. Keeping, J. T. Merry, L. E. Hunt, L. T. Wild, and J. L. Challis did not bat. *Innings declared closed. C roydon (3). L. W. Fulcher, c Horn­ castle, b Anson ... 33 W. Helson, c Ellerm, b Smith .................12 A. J. Pascall, c Hunt, b Anson .................16 J. Campbell, c Horn- castle, b Anson ... 1 P. Barley, A. MacAdam, Ii. P. Long, and G. Bow- land did not bat. F. J. Allen, c Hunt, b Anson .................27 G. O. Pearce, not out 20 H. A. Long, not out... 17 Byes ................. 5 Total (5 wkts) 131