James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1884

G The summer was, on the whole, the finest with which the countr been favoured for some yoais; foi tlnec months in succession wick were, as a rule, hard and tiue all ovei the kingdom, and that tvj batsmen made excellent use of their opportunities is amply d^n strated by the huge scores recorded in the following pages. Batti » feats without number have to be chronicled, whilst on the other lmn^ the howling average,s are hardly so good as usual. A fertile subject of discussion was provided by the fact that certain bowlers, wh0se deliveries were by a large proportion of cricketers considered to be decidedly unfair, met with n<5 check in spite of the efforts of the M arylebone C lub to provide the most competent umpires for the leading o County matches. As the opinions of several of the most experienced judges of the game are printed in another part of the Companion, our remarks here may be brief. To define a throw accurately is evidently a stumhling-ldock to most writers on the subject, and, such being the case, it is not to be wondered at that opinions as to the fairness of the action of several crack bowlers are utterly at variance. A large number of cricketers affirm positively that C rossland and N ash do not bowl fairly, and it would seem that the majority of the M arylebone Committee hold the same view, or the former, who has the reputation of being the most destructive fast howler in England, would have been asked to represent the P layers at Lord ’ s. On the other hand, Mr. H ornby , who has seen these tAvo professionals boAvl more frequently than any other cricketer, has stated again and again that he cannot detect that their deliveries are unfair. And though it is naturally urged that, as Captain of the L ancashire EleA'en, of which these two players are members, he can hardly he considered an unprejudiced critic, yet he must he given credit for an honest opinion. Further, his position is strengthened by « the fact that the umpires appointed by the M arylebone C lub and specially enjoined to take action in the case of unfair howling, have shown no sign in any of his County’ smatches. Can he fa irly be expected to refuse to play C rossland and N ash when his County Committee consider them, and the M arylebone umpires treat them, as not infringing the laAV ? We express no opinion as to the fairness or unfairness of the deliveries of these tAvo boAvlers, and have attempted merely to state the arguments of the tAvo sides on this most important question. But Ave cannot think that, in the particular cases above alluded to, Mr. H ornby can reasonably he asked to act contra to his own opinion, to that of the