CRICKET.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 8666, 5 July 1906, Page 4

CRICKET.

NOTES.

(By SCORING-BOARD.) > Cambridge University inflicted a severe defeat on Yorkshire in May, the champion ooanty being beaten by 305 runs. In the University's first innings, Eyre scored 153. Yorkshire's totals were 119 and 51 Napier (seven wickets for 88 runs) and May (twelve for 68)/ bowling unchanged throughout the match. This- is the first time Cambridge has beaten Yorkshire since 1897. Lancashire appears to have unearthed a highly promising bowler in the pearson of Harry. Playing against Warwickshire, his record was fifteen wickets at a total cost of 70 runs, this being the best bowling performance of the season.

W. Mead, who has hot played with the Essex team since 1903, on account of a rupture with the committee, made hie reappearance in May against Surrey, and was greeted with an enthusiastic reception by the crowd. He scon proved his value to his side by dismissing Hayward before tho Surrey champion had scored. Writing of the proposed visit of a South African team, an. English exchange ©ays:— "lt is, perhaps, just as well, and is certainly according to precedent, that the M.C.C. does not seem to have any idea of suggesting five test matches with the South Africans. The Australians, beginning with a single test match, were promoted to three, and it is only of recent years that five have been played. It is also just as well to remember that. after the return of the M.C.C. team from Australia, some of its members told marvellous tales about the extraordinary strength of Australian bo-wling, and It is just possible that the strength of South African bowling may have been unconsciously exaggerated by some of those who did not succeed in mastering it. It is, moreover, always a very difficult thing for batsmen who have been accustomed to matting wickets to become thoroughly at home on turf, much more difficult than for batsmen used to turf to settle down comfortably on matting wickets."

The cricket at Keiwington Oval on May 11, when Surrey met Leicestershire, will always be remembered by the large number of people present, saya tho "Sporteman," if only for an extraordinary incident which led up to the. dismissal of the Leicestershire batsman, King, who is described upon the official score-sheet as being out for hitting the ball twice. King only partially stopped a very fast one from Kriox, and the ball looked like rolling on td the wicket. The batsman, however, turned the ball away, and, no doubt momentarily forgetting the law governing the case, attempted to run. Now, Law 27 of cricket enacts that if the ball be struck, or be stopped by any part of a batsman's person^ and he wilfully strike it again, except it be don© for the purpose of guarding his wicket, which he. may do with hk bat, or any port of his person, except his hands, the striker is out — " Hit the ball twice." The inference to be drawn from King's action, is that by calling for a run he hit the ball twice for a purpose other than that of guarding his wicket, and, upoa Hayward's appeal, Millward, after consultation with the other umpire, West, gave the batsman out. There was really no alternative. Subsequently, one heard the suggestion of sharp practice, but this idea cannot be entertained for a sinkle moment. King, admittedly without wrong intent, made a mistake for which the rules provide a penalty, and both Hayward's appeal and Millward's decision were in j>e>rfect order. It is to the bast interests of cricket that the laws governing tho game should be strictly adhered to, and not tb» slightest liberty allowed. Ca»e» of a man being out for hitting the ball twice may often have happened in club or local matches, but it is indeed difficult to recall 6uch an incident in first-class cricket. King's remarkable episode directs attention to Law 27. As at present worded it leaves too much to be taken, for granted. There should be some pronounced definition of the intention to run.

Inspired, no doubt, by this season's form of the Surrey orack, T. Hayward. "Dux" wrote in a recent number of the "Sportsman" as follows:— The cricket historian, fifty years hence, ik> matter how strict he may be in the construction of his honour list, will be obliged to find room in it for three professional batsmen — Arthur Shrewsbury, Robert Abel and Thomas Hayward. k Shrewsbury is no more, failing eyesight rather than the advance of years has 'caused the retirement of. Abel, but Hayward still holds the field. It may be that he will yet rank above either of tho other two, though comparisons are difficult to make, seeing that the contexts in all three cases are not similar. "Hayward 1 s recent batting lias not com© as a surprise to those who have taken the v trouble to study him closely. No • cricketer, perhaps, has been the subject of wilder and more extravagant criticism, and he has suffered at the hands of the extremists. He could afford- to smile at those who, regardless of the. situation, always blamed Mm for not going faster. Well might ho have said "Save me from my friends," when his uproarious admirers invariably approved hie methods on all occasions. A brief retrospect will help usto appraise him more justly. Hayward was at. the _ tulness of Ms powers when without" warning misfortune overtook his great county colleague, Abel, and the fortunes of Surrey were already then on i the wane. Hayward was called upon, to bear »n unusual burdeu. If Jw» got

out there too often followed an instance of that grimly humorotis game called, "Follow my leader." It was idle to ignore the fact or to pretend to explain it away. Only at rare intervals was Hayward legitimately in a position, when playing for Surrey, to indulge in the minimum of rick. Where, however, his tactics were open to criticism was in the bigger games, notably in last year's test matches, when nearly every batsman who was to follow him was well accustomed to make centuries in firstclass cricket. Had those games been played under Australian conditions he would have r&oeived an unanimous verdict of approval, for no other man in the side was, by justly earned reputation, so certain, of making runs. But in our English three-day match the clock is a more important factor than the bowler, a.nd each test match only served to confirm tie general strength of English batting when opposed to the Australian bowling of 1905. Hayward would have been tactically justified, remembering his undoubted, capacity to do so, in making bolder efforts than he did to increase the rate of scoring. Last year, however, saw the welcome return of . Surrey's good fortune, and this year the evidences of even better tilings are so unmistakable that Hayward is now in a position of greater freedom than he has yet known. Few men have ever had a better cricket nerve or cricket temperament, and no success in any direction is likely to lead Hayward astray. If he hits the first five , balls of an over to the boundary, the temptation of the ordinary batsman io hit the sisth there, too, i 3 not for him. , , :