John and James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1882

32 y sweeper, who taught my friend to p|. i days o f L illywiiite , in Midhurst pi,^’ o J ohn D uff , the Midhurst chimne and bowled round-arm before the ground. The truth is, discoveries come by degrees, and enter more than on, mind at once. '* L ambert and I,*’ said Mr. Hum), “ introduced a low k jj oi round-arm,—tlu* hand above the wrist, but below the elbow—at least pretended so to be, and with this we were very successful, but soon it w ' no-balled, and Mr. W ard , Lord F rederic B f . auclerc , and others, W|, found their averages falling short, defended the old law against us.” So great a revolution in the game, as was involved in the introduction of round-arm bowling, could not, of course, be made without many j>loycr! lamenting , ii <)i hello’s occupation's gone." Lord F rederic , then j>ast his 1)CS| made this epoch the time tor his retirement, after a brilliant career of above twenty years. Ago, and an inability to change and adapt his play, induced Mr. B udd also to do the same. The new style was naturally at the iir>st unpopular. Shouts from the ring of 44No hail ! ’ ’ “ Throwing !” “ Shying!’ and the like, with such complimentary notices as 44 th row n ou t by L illy , wh ite ” instead of b ow led , in the newspaper scores were common. This, and the like signs of prejudice against the new style, and such evidence o f the dying hard of the old style lasted for some little time. But a change was really required. Scores were beginning to be tediously Ion* It was remarked that hunting, even yachting, and every other contest ended in a day, and the idea of a second, and even a third day, being devoted to a cricket match, with two elevens to keep together at much cost both of time and money eouhl not he entertained, so something must be done. Yet/ said Mr. W akd , 44this was the wrong remedy after all. One great reason of the long scores was that the M aryleuone Cm;n would keep to their old bowlers when decidedly past their best. I repeatedly encountered difficult howlers in the country, who would have shortened the game at L ord ’ s , but fresh blood was too little sought for, and the old bowlers were used up." I Mr. W ard ’ s so-called, in satire, Barndoor match, in which he tried to equalise the play of the gentlemen against players, by making the latter * defend a larger wicket, shows me that I do not misrepresent Mr. W ard , if I say he agreed with me that a larger w icket was the natural remedy. The size o f the wicket had before been changed, tirst, when a middle stump was added, and afterwards in width and height ; why then should it be deemed rank heresy to change it again? Cricket could never so easily admit of balancing or of handicapping as by modifications of the changing w icket. If it is absurd to teach mere children to bowl at twenty-two yards, it is no less absurd to require that muffs who play once a fortnight should bowl at the same wickets as professionals who bowl everyday, neither would there be any mechanical difliculty. No clumsy wicket need be required. I would simply use longer or shorter bails, and trusting to the umpire (blind if be could not detect) to say when tlie ball went through. I throw this out ns a hint in passing, because, with improved and improving grounds, and more and more serious attention paid to hatting, scoring may once more | prove too easy, and consequently the matches too long. Now that bowling hand over head is allowed, grounds must he made true and easy to play, or blows in ihe head or face, already on the increase, will he serious. [ That B roadbridgk and L illywi i ite , the tirst well-known ronnd-arm bonders, should have been about the best ever known seems remarkable : f°r th ougli L illy white ' s name is the better known, B ox told me he considered