Cricket 1914

332 THE WORLD OF CRICKET. J u l y i i , 1914. Photo by J [£. Hawkins & Co., Brighton. H a r d s t a f f (J.) (Who scored 213 not out v. Sussex last week). Pressmen Cricketers. T h e Press—Fleet Street and the Provinces alike included— has probably as many good athletes as any of the other pro­ fessions. But the nerve-racking strain of journalism, the clicking of the typewriter and the tape machine, the incessant ting-a-ling-ling of the telephone, the long night watches under the pitiless glare of electric light, unfortunately compel too many newspaper men to abandon open-air sports just when they should be in their prime. The London Daily Newspaper Cricket League, however, has courageously fought this regrettable though pardonable apathy. Practically every London *Daily,’ from the majestic Times to the little rebel Herald , runs one or two cricket teams. The Daily Citizen can also field a very fine eleven, as was proven last summer when they played the Labour M.P.'s. Messrs. A. C. MacLaren, C. B. Fry, and P. F. Warner, household names in cricket, also engage in newspaper work ; but they have been sensible enough not to allow their eyesight and physical condition to be harmed by the frenzied strain of modern journa­ lism. (Editors will not like the author for this !) There are, of course, AUTHORS (big type, please, Mr. Comp.), people who draw fat royalties and merely occasionally condes­ cend to write for the papers, who are tip-top cricketers. Genial Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Hesketh-Prichard, the demon bowler, J. C. Snaith, are among the Authors’ X I which annually play the Publishers. But, leaving these aside, among the rank and file of Fleet Street worker^ you could pick a really excellent team. For example, there are W. Douglas, of the Daily Graphic , who has sung of his native Scotland in inspired verse and who is as good a trundler as he is a poet ; Teddy Thompson, the young sporting writer, who is a first-class wicket-keeper and often turns out for Shurey’s X I ; and Marshal, the newspaper artist, who is a younger brother of the Queensland and Surrey batsman. One could give a list of many more men, all good sound cricketers, who might be recruited from the offices of Fleet Street. The London Press supports a powerful golfing society, but who among the younger men wants—or ought to want— to play golf when there are green fields for the battle of bat and ball ? It is a matter for regret that the London Press does not occasionally turn out a representative eleven. From The Tim es , Daily M a il , and Morning Post there could be drawn men who have won their “ blues ”, while the sporting papers could furnish another capable squad. Possibly the W o r l d o f C r i c k e t could “ help some,” as the Americans say, for it has several contribu­ tors who are quite useful, not to mention the Editor. (The writer is here endeavouring to get popular again ! ) One hears so much of the athletic prowess of the Stage, the Church, the Bar, et hoc genus omne, that it seems quite time that the much-maligned folk who edit and write should uphold the credit of their profession on the good green sward ! D. C. --------+ -------- Correspondence. T o t h e E d it o r o f “ T h e W o r l d o f C r i c k e t . ” D e a r S i r , — In the latest issue of your paper to hand here 1 notice a story reprinted from The Dom inion of this city, and as I was the umpire in the match in question—Wellington v. the Australian Eleven—you will, I am sure, allow me to give you the correct version of the incident in which Warwick Armstrong and I figured. Vou might ask why I did not contradict the statement made in the local paper at the time, but I have found out from a long experience in umpiring that if one takes notice of newspaper comments one will be forever making corrections. In the case of a paper like T h e W o r l d o f C r i c k e t , sir, it is a different matter, for your paper has an unique place in the cricket world, being read only by those who take a keen interest in the game and its doings. After this preamble, to the tale. At a certain stage of the Wellington innings, while the batsmen were at the wickets (please note this !) the Australian captain handed the ball to Warwick Armstrong. After he had placed his fieldsmen the Victorian opened his shoulders with a trial ball between the wickets. 1 told him that he was violating a law of the game by indulging in trial balls, and he laughingly asked : “ W hat’s the penalty ? ” My reply was that there was only one penalty,, and that when I called “ Play ! ” if he did not go on with the game 1 could declare his side to have lost the match. “ You’re not likely to do that,” said the lengthy one, and I am bound to say 1 was not. But the fact remains that he was violating an in­ struction of the M.C.C., and Rule 45 is comprehensive enough to have justified me in taking action if the direction I have indicated. At least, I think so, and I have been umpiring for a matter of sixteen years now. I stood at one end, with John Moss at the other, when New Zealand defeated the English team that came to the Dominion under the captaincy of Captain Wynyard. I officiated also in matches with P. F. Warner’s team a few years previously, and claim that I am not likely to have made such a bloomer as that attributed to me in the paragraph you have reprinted, viz., that of stopping a bowler opening his shoulders when waiting for the batsman to come in. Thanking you in anticipation, congratulating you on the excellence of your paper, which is keenly appreciated by followers of the game in this part of the Empire, and wishing you all success possible, I am, Yours fraternally, Wellington, N.Z., M a y 27, 1914. D a n M c K e n z i e . ------- + -------- W ilsox took 10 for 40 (6 for 23 and 4 for 17) in the Staffordshire y. Northumberland match at Stoke. The analysis did not reach 11s in time for insertion last week : and now that a card has come along it has a curious omission—the Northumbrian bowlers’ figures are not given, though those of the Staffordshire trundles are. T he card shows that the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth wickets in the two innings of Northumberland fell thus : 5 6 7 8 First inns. 60 60 61 61 Second inns. 61 (?T. 61 61