Cricket 1911

M a t 6, 19 1 1. C R IC K E T : A W EEK LY RECORD OF THE GAME. 1 1 5 Cricket Notches. B y th e R e v . R . S. H o lm e s . This is a photographic reprodu ctio n of the C rick e t B a t from which it is tak en w ithout a n y faking w h a te ver. Have you seen a blade showing such a m arvello u s ra p id ity o f g row th ? C rick e te rs should read “ T h e E v o lu ­ tion of a C ric k e t B a t," obtainab le free uPon ap p licatio n to C R IC K E T D E A L E R S o r GEO. G. BUSSEY & Co., Ltd., 36 & 38, QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, L O N D O N . WAS surprised to see the heavily-signed protest against the alteration in the no-ball law ; for, after all, it is but a trifling matter. One scruples, however, to be in opposition to veterans like C. E. Green and A. P. Lucas, both famous batsmen who have always kept in closest touch with the game since retiring from active play. But the very term no-ball means that it is not a b a ll; it becomes dead as soon as it is called. If a batsman can score off it, it ceases to be a no-ball: it becomes a playable ball. In my judgment it corresponds to a “ fault” in tennis, which is an unplayable ball, whilst it penalizes the server, who plays the same role in tennis as the bowler does in cricket. I have always held that if abatsman is allowed to score off any ball he should also be liable to get out from such astroke.With a no-ball he has nothing to d o ; as it is not reckoned in the over, it should be dead. I anticipate fewer no-balls when the proposed alteration comes into operation, aud for this reason: every bowler with an eye on his analysis now knows that he will be debited for every no-ball he delivers; consequently he will be more careful to avoid the penalty of two runs. Whether one or two runs should be reckoned is a debatable point, although at the moment I cannot discover why one no-ball should be treated as if it were two no-balls. Yet another proposed change, for which Warwickshire is responsible; “ that it be an agreement amongst the Counties to decide the choice of innings in the first match by tossing, and to give the choice of innings in the return match to the side that loses the toss in the first match.” As this proposal was received with unanimous approval by the Advisory Committee it is almost certain to be sanctioned by the M.C.C. I welcome it with enthusiasm; only I want a small addition to it. When I revised the Taws in this journal in March, 1894, I anticipated Warwickshire’s proposal, and my revision took this fo rm :—“ Thechoiceof innings shall be decided by tossing: but when a second, or return match isplayed, the choice shall rest with the side that lost the toss in the first match. When more than two matches are played in one and the same year , the same course shall be adopted as in the first and second matches .” This latter clause is important in view of Test matches, although, when writing it, I never dreamed that in 1905, and again in 1909, the respective Captains of England and Australia would have choice of innings in the five Test matches playel in those two seasons. Could anything have been much more farcical ? It is preposterous that the issues of such a series of matches should largely depend upon the spin of a coin. As everybody knows, winning the toss means winning a match, more often than not. I have heard it complained that, if it were known beforehand which side had choice of inninss in a return match, an unscrupulus groundsman might be tempted to handicap the visiting team. But the answer to this objection is very simple ; the visiting captain would inspect the w.cket before deciding whether to take first innings or put his opponents in ; he simply has “ choice of innings,” but he is not bound to have first knock. The oldest book I possess on cricket, in which the Laws are set out, is T. Boxall’s “ Rules and Instructions for playing the Game of Cricket.” It appeared in 1804, and at the end are the “ Laws as revised by the Cricket Club at Marv-le-bone, 1800.” In those days the Law under notice took this form :— “ The Party which goes from home shall have the choice of innings, and the pitching of the wickets, which shall be pitched within thiriy yards of a centre fixe 1 by the adversaries. When the parties meet at a third place, the bowlers shall toss up for the pitching of the wickets and the choice of going in.” Were the bowlers then the captains ? Or had the c iptains no part in the choice of innings ? Observe the use of the words “ party” and “ adversaries,” where to-day we speak of “ s i d e s a n d “ opponents.” This same Law appears unaltered in another book in my possession, which was published at Gravesend in 180'J. So evideutly it gave satisfaction. A pity, I think, it was not retained. The proposed change in this Law looks very much like a reversion to the original type, as scientists delight to tell us. Perhaps it will be discovered in cricket as in politics that wise legislation frequently consists in undoing what never ought to have been done. If this new Law ob‘ains in County cricket, which is all apparently that Warwickshire desire, it will, I take it. become law in club cricket as well. At any rate it should be operative in the Triangular contest which has been fixed for next year. Surrey’s Annual Report has just been issued. As it has been given publicity in the daily press, I make no apology for briefly ref*-rriug to it. I do so for this reason ; Surrey, like nearly all the counties, showed an adverse financial balance last year, although Surrey would have easily piesented a clean sheet had they not with their wouted generosity given Apted the proceeds of the Kent match. “ In consequence (of this deficit) the Committee wish to emphasize the great necessity of securing new members.” Well, it is evident that County Clubs must either increase their income or reduce their expenses. A crisis in county cricket is impending; some counties have already given out that at the present rate their days are numbered. Now it is no easy matter to cut down expenses. Winter-pay is of course a very serious item, but we should all regret the necessity of withholding it. Something, however, must be done, and at once ; accum­ ulated deficits can have but one issue. Surrey ask for more members. They realize that subscriptions are the only reliable source of income : gates certainly are not. The weather—always variable in our climate—makes them so. Theu again, many persons care to watch matches only when their county or club is doing w ell; most of us are bad