SPORTING ANECDOTE AND RECOLLECTIONS.

Evening Star, Issue 10931, 13 May 1899, Page 1 (Supplement)

SPORTING ANECDOTE AND RECOLLECTIONS.

By “Thormanby,” Author of ‘ Kings of the Turf,’ ‘ Kings of the Hunting Field,’ etc.

lI.—CRICKET: “THE DEMON’S

THROW.”

Remedies Suggested for Slow Play and Drawn Matches—Widening the Stumps— How they tried it in Gentlemen v. Players Sixty-seven Years Ago—The Result—ls the Fast Bowling of To-day Equal to that of Thirty Years Ago?—“W.G.’s” Opinion—Edgar Willsher as a BowlerSensational Scene at the Oval How Lillywhito No-balled him, and what came of it Willsher’s Great and Unrivalled Feats of Bowling—Rate of Scoring in the Old Days—William Clark’s Famous Ex-ploit-Anecdote of Clarke and the Flashing Amateur—Shortening the Boundaries—Running out Big Hits—Roupell’s Wonderful Performance on Parker’s Piece Throwing the Cricket Ball—Some Long Throws—Anecdote of Snofforth and the West Country Farmer.

There was a suggestion made by Mr J. A. Dixon, the able captain of the Notts Eleven, at the recent annual meeting of the club, which has somewhat puzzled me. According to the abridged report of the proceedings in the London Press, he is represented as suggesting that the widening of the wickets and the shortening of the boundaries would be a remedy for that slow play which has long been the reproach of Notts. I imagine that what ho really did say was that the only way of obviating the drawn games, of which Notts had a splendid share last season, would be by these innovations. Whenever the bat appears to have gained an ascendency over the ball there are invariably some persons who advocate drastic measures of reform in the whole constitution of the game. But then comes a wet season, with consequent low scoring and triumphs for the bowler, and the reformers shrink into their shells again and are silent. This notion of, widening the stumps so as to place the attack more on an equality with the defence is no new one. It was very seriously put forward a few years ago, and there was a hot controversy over it. But the common sense of the majority prevailed, and the world was thus spared such a melancholy piece of folly as that which in another pastime produced those ludicrous championship tables which condemned the competitors for the billiard championship to play a frame which was not billiards. In both cas'es it was admitted that the games were quite difficult enough ns they stood for ordinary players. Yet the penalty of superior skill was that it should be exhibited under conditions which practically robbed it of its signification. *****

In the year 1832, when Alfred Minn made his first appearance for the Gentlemen against the Players, the superiority of the latter was confessedly so great that to make the match an equal one it was arranged that _ the Gentlemen should defend wickets 22 inches by 6 inches, and the Players wickets 27 inches by 7 inches. But even with this allowance in their favor the Gentlemen could only score 57 and 60 in their two innings, against the 151 of the Players in their single innings. Then it was decided that this absurd alteration of the fundamental rules of the game to suit the Avoaker side Avas as useless as it Avas distasteful, and accordingly the plan Avas never tried again. ******

There can be no doubt that the perfection to AA’hich cricket pitches have now attained makes the boAyler’s task harder. But, taking one season Avith another, the trundler still holds his oAvn. Admirers of the old round-arm boAvling, of which Mynn, Redgate, LillyAvhite. Tarant, Jackson, and Freeman Avere such brilliant exponents, declare that it was far deadlier and more difficult to play than the modern over-hand style; but then the ground helped the boAvler far more than it does noAV. Still, “W.G.,” Avhose experience is greater than that_ of any other living cricketer, is of opinion that the fast boAvling of to-day is inferior to that of thirty years ago. * * * » *

I can remember well the storm o£ controversy provoked by Edgar Willsher’s stylo when eight and thirty years ago he introduced in a modified form the overhand action which is now universal. I was present at the Oval when the memorable no-balling took place, during the match between England and Surrey in 1862. England had gone in first and scored 503. When Surrey went in Willsher opened the bowling. He howled two overs without any protest. But when he started the third, Lillywhite promptly no-balled his first delivery, and each of the succeeding five, though no one could detect any difference between Willsher’s action in this over and in the two preceding ones, Lillywhite, however, insisted that Willsher's bowling was in direct contravention of the rule which forbade the bowler’s hand to bo raised above his shoulder in the act of delivering the ball. At last Willsher in indignation flung down the ball and left the field, followed by the whole of the English Eleven. As Lillywhite stuck to his point (and mind you he was perfectly right in doitm so), the Committee of the Surrey Club held a consultation, the issue of which was that Lillywhite was superseded as umpire by Street, and the fairness of Willsher’s bowling was challenged no more. * * * * *

On looking back over the last eight and thirty years, I hold to the opinion that Edgar Willsher was one of the very finest bowlers I have ever seen. I do not think that at his best he has ever had a superior, not even Spofforth. One great feat of his occurs to mo which is without a parallel in my experience. In the memorable match between Sixteen of Kent and Eleven of England, at Canterbury, in 1863, Willsher had the extraordinary analysis of 41 overs, 31 maidens, 17 runs, 8 wickets! and, remember, this was against a side which comprised such splendid cricketers as C. G. Lane, R. Marsham, W. Nicholson, Caffyn, Carpenter, Grundy, Hayward, Jackson, J. Lillywhite, Lockyer, and George Parr.. I was glad to find, in talking to Richard Daft a year or two ago, that he is of my opinion as regards the excellence of Willsher’s bowling. “ I never played,” he said, “ against a more difficult bowler than he was at his best.” * * * * *

Touching that complaint of slow scoring and cautious play made against the Notts men, I wonder what the objectors would have said to the rate of scoring fifty years ago. Talk of your Scottons and Barlows, these were rapid run-getters compared with most of the batsmen of that day. For example, at the first Canterbury Week in 1841 Lillywhite was an hour and a-half scoring seven runs, and the total score for that time was only 15. That was no doubt exceptionally slow even for those days; but 50 runs an hour was then, and for long afterwards, considered fast scoring. No less than one hundred balls were bowled on that occasion at Canterbury before a run was scored. That eclipses old William Clarke’s famous feat when he bowled 60 balls to Fuller Pilch without a run, and took his wicket with the sixty-first.

Clarke, by the way, like George Giffen, had an unconquerable aversion to taking himself off when he was captain. Once he kept himself on against a famous amateur, despite the fact that he was knocked all over the field. At last he got the batsman caught off his bowling, and, turning in great triumph to the field, he said : “ There ! I knew I should get ’un; I knew I should get ’un.” To which the retiring batsman retorted : “ Yes, Mr Clarke, you have got me, but I’ve made 80 runs.”

Apropos of slow cricket, I think the slowest I ever saw was in one of the England v. Australia matches at the Oval, “W.G.” and Scotton went in first, and at the end of the first hour there were only 20 up, of which Scotton had made 3. If I remember rightly, he did not add to his score, though he was in another half-hour or more. After'lunch W.Gi let out gaily, and knocked up a big three-figure score. Without doubt, the slow and cautious play of the Notts team has militated against

their popularity both at home and “ abroad.” The general public gets wearied of such dull methods. And, personally, I must say. it often makes me mad to see a man with such magnificent hitting powers as William Gunn ' poking and pottering away as""if“lie" didn’t know how to open those broad shoulders of his.

I cannot quite see the drift of Mr J. A. Dixon’s idea of shortening the boundaries. As a rule, the boundaries are short enough —too short in the opinion of , many good cricketers, who grumble because the batsmen have not to run out every hit as they used to do in those “good old days” so dear to the memory of your laudator temporis acti. If grounds were big enough to allow of this, the spectators would hardly be within sight of the wickets; and how many men would be able to stand the wear and tear of running out every hit in a long innings ? When I was up at Cambridge Mr Roupell, of Trinity Hall, playing in a match at Parker’s Piece, hit a 7, a 9, and a 10 in one and the same innings and ran all the hits out. I have seen many a boundary hit at Lord’s and the Oval which would have kept rolling along the vast expanse of Parker’s Piece till 8 or 10 runs at least had been scored,, for it would have taken at least three men to throw the ball up. *****

And the mention of throwing leads me to express my satisfaction at the restoration of throwing the cricket ball to its old place among the events of the ’Varsity Athletic Sports. It was, lam snre, both an attractive and a useful feature in these games. But if it is to be restored I hope strict provision will be made that the throw's be straight. I write feelingly on this subject, for I was a cricket-ball thrower myself, and I can recall my disgust when, after a fair and straight throw' of just over 100 yds. I was placed second to a man who never knew where the ball was going when it left his hand, and though he could send the ball a great distance (on the occasion I refer to I think he threw 114 yds) could not, to save his life, have shot a ball in from long-leg within 20yds either side of the w'icket-keeper. Two stumps should be placed at a distance of, say, 6yds from one another, and 90yds or 100 yds from the thrower ; unless he can throw the ball between the stumps his throw should not count.

I should like to see how far the present generation could throw the cricket ball. W. H. Game, some time captain of the Oxford Eleven, was one of the best throwers I ever saw. If I recollect rightly, he threw over 120 yds. Bonnor, the Australian giant, whose magnificent proportions elicited the admiration of Mr Ruslan, is credited -with 135 yds ; but how far that record is authentic I am not prepared to say. A good story, by the way, is told of Spofforth, the “ demon bowler,” in this connection. When he was in the west country in 1878 or 1880 there was a Plymouth man who was backed to throw the cricket ball against another for £5 a side. The backer of the winner, who threw well over 100 yds, a burly gentleman farmer, turned to Spofforth, as the winning throw was measured, and said: “ What d’ye think of that now for a throw?” “ It’s not a bad throw,” replied Spofforth, carelessly. “Not bad!” exclaimed the other, indignantly. “ I should think not, indeed.” “ No,” replied Spofforth, quietly, “ it’s not a bad throw—but nothing to make a fuss about.” “Eh, what! Well, dammce, I’ll lay £SO you couldn’t equal it.” “ Done,” says the “ Demon,” tranquilly, “ I’ll take that bet.” And without taking off his cricket jacket the Australian took the ball and sent it 3yds further than the Plymouth man. The face of the burly farmer as he paid the £SO was a sight not to be forgotten by those who saw it. [Next week Golf Gossip.]