CRICKET

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1523, 28 February 1901, Page 40

CRICKET

(BY THE “HITTITE.”)

The misfortune in the matter of weather that has dogged cricketers throughout the season was again in evidence on Saturday last, and ic was found necessary in consequence to postpone all cricket fixtures. The result of so manv postponements bids fair to be that the senior championships will not be decided this season, hut left in the same nebulous state that was the case last season. In view of the eternal uncertainty of matters mundane, the Cricket Association might with advantage at its next meeting consider the advisableness of reducing the contest to a single inter-club round, with a view to facilitating finality. It is published in English papers that Ranjitsinjhi refused to acce/pt the mandate of the English county captains that C. B. Fry must not be put on to bowl. This action on the part of Ranji is as acute a swerve as was ever made by a politician. About three years ago Ranji rushed into type in Australia to criticise the bowling of “onah” Jones. Ranji, it was well known at the time, had a personal animus against the lengthy South Australian; so in order to disarm suspicion the Prince hastened to say that he questioned Jones’s delivery on purely impersonal grounds. There were English bowlers, he added, whose deliveries were eVen more reprehensible than that of Jones, and he instanced his (Ranji’s) personal friend Fry, with whom he had often remonstrated for throwing, and it was the memory of that fact which made “Iffie Hittite” smile when he read that Ranji now objects to having Fry prevented from bowling. A Wanganui writer says that “cricketers were glad on Saturday to see Mr F. C. Skip with again don flannels for his old club, and come to the front by making top scorel. Some few years back Mr Skip with was captain of the Wanganui Club, and still has pleasant recollections of historic contests with the School team, in which he figured prominently.” The

present writer can certify that “Skippie, as he was familiarly known in the old days, is truly a cricket enthusiast. In the tune of 15 years ago or more when Jimmy Watt, Peter Sim and Saui Powell were active cricketers he was of the phalanx, and his long-distance drives were then things of beauty in the opinion of every juvenile in Wanganui town. Victoria has gained possession of the Sheffield Shield for this season, having won all four matches played. New South YVales and South Australia scored one win each and three defeats. Of the 66 matches played between the two larger States, Victoria has won 36 and NewSouth Wales 30.

The highest scorer in this season’s Sheffield matches was C- Hill, who totalled 620 runs, for an average of 103, the next best total for South Australia being Matthews’s, 134. For Victoria, Stuckey scored 235, average 58, Armstrong 316, average 45, and Graham 283, average 40. Poidevin, playing in three innings for New South Wales, averaged 77, Gregory scored 430, average 71, Trumper 458, average 65, and Noble 352, average 50. Among the bowlers the Victorian left-hander, Saunders, was tbe most successful, his twenty-nine w’ekets averaging 17.31 rurr«. Of the New Soudi Wales players, Marsh secured twentyfour wickets at an average of 23-82. though M’Beth (20.11 for nine wickets) and Hopkins (23.18 for eleven wickets) each had better averages. Travers easily headed the South Australian list, with twenty-nine wickets, at an average < f 20.72. “The Town and Country Journal, ’ m describing the finishing phases of the interstate match oetween Victoria and New Sounth Wales says:—When 6

o’clock struck, the Victorians still wanted a dozen runs to win. Those 12 runs took half ah hour to get, but they got them, and stumps were drawn at halfpast 6. Syd. Gregory had a difficult 30b to place his field, considering that several of his men were “passengers,” and his greatest difficulty was to find places for them whera they would do leaseharm.

Thus A. O. Maclaren on the vexed “throwing” question:—“l feel sure that good will eventually result, and, as one who has had to face throwing in Australia, on fast wickets (faster than anv we have in England), I for one consider it quite time the matter be taken up before someone is killed at the wicket.”

On the burning question of illegal bowling, the u on don “Athletic News” says : We pointed out last summer - which, by the way, is the season during which cricket is played—that if a man cc-uld throw he would tire himself much sonner than if he bowled. We suggest,cud a match, with a view to testing the deadliness as distinct from the danger of throwing—a match, in which one side would be allowed freedom from all restrictions as to sending the ball down short, of course, of overstepping the crease, and the other would be compelled to bowl under thei existing rules. Such a match would, we think, prove conclusively that neither the pace nor the deadliness—whether in pitch, or break, or accuracy—of a bowler depe/nded upon his action so far that action was illegal or technically unfair. Moreover, it is a very open question whether, on physiological or anatomical grounds, it is possible for a bowler to keep 011 throwing, even in the technical sense. In any case, if it were determined to condemn certain bowlers and to prohibit them from playing for past offences, it is clear that a grave injustice—contrary to the spirit of all sport—would be done. If, of course, it is proposed to licence a man to bowl as a jockey to ride then each bowler should pass an examination, and be certificated. If he commits a breach of lus certificate, then let him he suspended or these reflections suggest are so opposed to the principles of the game that, sa to counsels must, sooner or later, prevail. Mr J. Lang, of Corowa, New South Wales, writes in the following strain on the matter of stonewalling and its possible prevention:—'‘There is in existence, I think, in both services, a regulation that if an officer, at a certain age, or after so many years’ service), shall have attained a certain rank, he must re - tire. Why not apply this to cricket? If a batsman, after being at the wicket for one hour, shall have failed to score, say, 25 runs, let him give place to the next, man; and if, having made his 25 runs in the stipulated time, he fails wit hi a two hours to score, say 60 runs, let trim then retire. To the crowd; it matters not whether he be out lbw, or by effluxion of time—if by the latter, he is f weel awa/ But if a batsman knows that his stay at the wicket is dependent on his making runs, it goes without saying thuc there will be more lively cricket, and less pottering than is the case at present, and we shall be spared many a weary yawning hour, many an unnecessary maiden over. From the point of view of the umpires, I do not think there is much tobe urged against thei proposal. It merely entails on theim the necessity of carrying pocketboek and pencil, and making an entry opposite the name of each batsman of the minute at which his innings began. Doubtless many holes may he picked in the scheme—that is inevitable —hut I think that the good in it ou > weighs the bad, and the details can be threshed out and improved upon.” Sayan English sporting paper: —Robert Crispin Tinlefy, who died in December, was in his day the most successful lob bowlers in England. He played his first match at Lord’s, for Notts against Ehglancf, in 1853, and for a good numb 'r of years afterwards was a regular member of the Notts and All-England Elevens. Hd took any number of wickets when

playing for the All-England Eleven against local twenty-twos all ever the •country, and was no less effective when, in the autumn of 1863, he journeyed to Australia as a rnembeir of George Par ••A famous team. In those days lob bo;T~ ing was greatly cultivated, and Tinley had among his contemporaries Mr V'. E. Walker, the Rev. E. T. Drake, and the late Mr T. G. Goodrich, of the Free Foresters. Tinley’s -fame rested on his . iob bowling, but he was also a very fine he'd at point, and as a batsman he often got a few runs when they were most wanted. Appended is a list of the largest individual innings on record : 628, A. E. J. Collins', Clarke’s Don so- v. North Town, at Clifton Col leg i. June 22, 23, 26, 27 and 28/ 1899. 485, A. E. Stoddart, Hampstead v. Stoics, at Hampstead, Augusc 4, 18S6. 424, A. C. Maclaren, Lancashire v. , Somersetshire at Taunton, Ju.lv 15, 16, and 17, 1895. 419, J. S. Garrick, West of Scotland, v. Priory Park, at Chichester July 13 and 14, 1885. _ •'ll7, J. Worrall, Carlton v. Melbourne University, at Carlton, February 8, 1896. 415, W. N. Roe, Emmanuel College L.V.C. v. Caius, College L.V.C , at Cambridge, July 12 and 13. 1881. 404, E. F. S. Tyleccte, Classical v. Mo ]- ern, at Clifton Collegel, May 14, 19, and 26, 1868. 402, T. Warne, Carlton v. Richmond, at Carlton, December 3, 10 anu 17 18^8 400, W. G’ Grace, U.S.'E.E., v. Twentytwo of Grimsby and District, at Grimsby, July 10, Ji, and 12, 1876. 386, Major Speus, United Services v. Nondescripts, at Portsmouth, August 9 and 10, 18S2. 365, K. E. Bum, Wellington v. .Derwent, at Hobart, February March 4 and 11, 1899.

365, Clem. Hill, South Australia v. New South Wales, at Adelaide, December 17 and 18, 1900.