SUGGESTED REFORMS.
As with other games like Tennis and Racquets, so with Cricket, we may
assume that _the game as now played is excellent for experts who either
have wealth and leisure or else are professionals_. For those, and for
others at intervals, let the play be nearly as it now is. Let the best
go on. Let there be test-matches, county and ‘varsity matches, college
and school matches, house and dormitory matches, and so on. Here we deal
chiefly with reforms outside these decisive games which are likely to
remain as they are.
With those who are not experts of the classes mentioned above, the play
cries for adaptation. First of all, there is need for snob-cricket,
stump-cricket, room-cricket (not mere bedroom practice, but an actual
game), as a more regular and more enjoyable substitute. Secondly, there
is need for preparation; Cricket has been described as a trinity of
games, and the stump-practice suggested in a previous chapter can serve
as a preparation for fielding. The exercises offered in other chapters
would serve as substitutes and also as preparation for play when play
itself was out of the question. Cricket is a river that needs a good
source and many good tributary-streams; it needs preparatory exercises
and games. Such practice would soon make the play itself far more
pleasant and interesting. Thirdly, there is need of supplementation--for
example, left-handed play, the use of the left side being important, not
merely in fielding (what crocks most people are with their left hands!),
but in change-bowling also. Why should not more players be able to bowl
an over or two left-handed for a change?
Besides this, there is need of cheapness--of economy of money and of
time as well, so that each player may get more work to do and less dull
waiting.
Above all, there is need of some “fun for the duffers,” if the game is
to spread or even to hold its own. We are rapidly becoming Americanised.
No longer do the majority care to serve merely as watchers, or at the
best as ninepins to a Hirst or a Rhodes, as feeders and throwers-in for
an Abel, a Shrewsbury, a Fry, or a Ranji. They want to be up and doing
and enjoying themselves, or else they will give up the so-called play in
disgust; it _isn’t_ play. That is their true complaint.
And so we say, let the best players and the other players at intervals
have their matches and games and net-practice as before, with any
changes that may be accepted (such as those which will be touched on
directly). But let there be _something_ to give pleasure to the average
person, whether it be an occasional game of tip-and-run, or an
occasional game with some sort of a handicap.
What the handicap shall be, whether more men in the field, or both sides
fielding, or fewer men on the stronger side, or smaller bats, or larger
wickets, or a time-limit, must be left to the players themselves to
decide. Only, one could wish for a more democratic and representative
vote instead of the whole management being left to the few experts or
“aristocrats,” who, of course, will legislate from their own point of
view.
The reforms suggested by so many writers do not really deal with the
masses of cricketers at all. The time-limit for the innings (it might be
annulled in case of a difficult wicket), the running out of boundary
hits, the declaring of the innings closed at any moment, the innings of
sections of sides at a time--these things do not tend to make Dick, Tom,
and Harry really enjoy themselves or improve their play appreciably more
than at present.
As contrasted with short games of stump-cricket (to encourage accuracy
of batting and to develop new bowlers), and with the building of clubs
having plain rooms for evening games, such reforms are trifling except
for the very few who play well. It would be far better to tell people
how to field, or even how to watch with a view to interest and
improvement. Reforms must aim at giving amusement, interest,
attractiveness to the play of the average cricketer.
Let us consider a common experience in a one-day College match at
Cambridge, putting aside the wet or rather the difficult wicket on which
every player gets a knock; we want to think of Cricket at its best--on
a fine day and a good wicket. The side that wins the toss sends in its
first two or three bats; they pile up some hundreds of runs; the other
members sit and do nothing; the captain eventually declares; the
opposing side, after its hours of “country life,” has no chance of
winning, so the players either stick and try to play out time, or else
make a desperate attempt and slog at everything like a set of Jessops,
but unskilled. No wonder there is apathy.
We begin by pointing out what appears at first to be the most ridiculous
change; yet it is certain that when the tail of a team _does_ go in,
then it wants to enjoy itself for more than a few brief seconds. If the
captain will not every now and then absolutely reverse the order of
going in (at least at the end of a day’s scouting), then let the tail
improve its own batting. The improvement rests with the members
themselves. Let them begin practice on any level piece of ground, with a
soft ball and a stick (to emphasise the importance of the straight bat);
or let them in private (if not in a new form of drill) lunge with the
left foot, stretch straight forward with the head and left-wrist and
elbow, move the right foot across and cut with shoulder, forearm, and
wrist, repeat the body-swing, and so on. The drill could be made less
dull if one individual “set” the exercises to the rest, at first simple
movements, then more complex movements with varied pace. Let the players
give themselves the best possible chance of a reasonably long innings
when they _do_ go in. Let them make runs somehow,[10] not neglecting the
safest kind of pull, for example, merely because it is called “bad
style.”
More important than attention to batting is attention to bowling. We
need not allow a “free margin” to bowlers of doubtful action; there are
other remedies. Why should not people learn to make the ball curl in the
air, starting their experiments with a Lawn Tennis ball, which gives
more marked effects. That which is done habitually by Baseball throwers,
and occasionally if unintentionally by a few bowlers, can surely be done
frequently and intentionally by many bowlers, if only there be careful
and thorough research. But anyhow let the breaks be learnt; let the
first finger and the wrist be trained to strong movements of various
kinds. Let the young players be given small bats and balls to play with.
Let them and older players be given an over now and then for a change in
less important games. Certainly let the various mechanisms of bowling be
mastered before a player decides that he has not the gift of bowling;
let him do arm-and-shoulder extensions (see the photographs of Hirst),
wrist-turns, and so on; and then (as suggested above), practise with a
stump, a wicket-keeper, and another bowler on the other side of the
stump; let each have his little paper-marks on the ground, and let him
pitch the ball as near as he can to these. Let every would-be bowler,
that is to say every cricketer, try to bowl round the wicket, if only in
the old style with the low delivery (like W. G.’s, as described by Mr.
A. G. Steel). Or let him try his luck with lobs, if only that he may
learn how to make the ball break both ways. Let him see if he cannot
bowl a little with his left-hand--who knows? We _must_ raise the number
of bowlers as well as the standard of bowling. On that point all are
agreed.[11]
Perhaps at the same time the power of the batsman might be lessened,[12]
either by a number-limit or a time-limit to the innings, or by a smaller
bat (narrower and thicker), or by a larger wicket (higher or broader, or
both--at the moment when I write this, the suggested change has not been
accepted by all--), or, better still, by the following plan. On a caking
wicket we do not need to shorten the batsman’s innings, except to put a
stop to excessive poking. The ground takes whatever break is put on (and
perhaps adds some of its own). Why should there not be an artificial
material which would take a good deal of break and not be dangerous. The
M.C.C. out of its abundance might offer a reward (say of £100) to the
inventor of some material, which need not extend over more than a small
area. We want a floor that will show just what twist or spin has been
given to the ball, so that inferior batsmen shall not now make their
centuries merely because the ball will not “bite.” In Racquets, Tennis,
covered-court Lawn Tennis, and Ping-Pong, the ball performs practically
whatever antics it ought to perform. We want a pitch that will carry out
the bowler’s work without adding or subtracting _much_. Neither a plumb
wicket nor a caking wicket does that. We need some such material as Mr.
W. J. Ford suggests, perhaps a kind akin to cokernut matting.
The proposed leg-before-wicket reform by which the batsman is given out
if, in the opinion of the umpire, the ball would have struck his wicket
(rather than if the ball pitches in a line between the wickets, which
militates against the old round-arm bowling round the wicket), may or
may not prove advisable. It is not a really radical reform.
But far the best change, the most potent, and in every way most
profitable to all, to the bowler, the wicket-keep, the fielder, the
spectator, and even ultimately to the batsman, would be an improvement
in fielding. Some time ago one of the greatest of all cover-points past
or present remarked to a friend of his, “If you and I were there, that
side would have been out by now.” With this man at cover, the batsman
was never let off at cover. With a team of such fielders, the game would
be quite altered. A century would then mean something. As it is, a
player is said to have given no chances when with a field full of Vernon
Royles[13] he would have given several chances of being caught, and many
chances of being run out. But how can fielding be improved?
Why are there so few prizes for fielding? Why in athletic sports is
there a prize only for distance-throwing, and not for regulated
direction or regulated pitch? Here is a great opening for schools, and
especially to-day when, as Abel said, stone-throwing in cities is sadly
discouraged! The beach of the sea-side is not always accessible. Besides
this, it is good to practise catching and fielding with a soft ball
against a wall; various games of catching and fielding can be made
exciting enough; the stump-game (suggested in another chapter) can be
adapted to throwing as well as to bowling; points may be counted.
Excellent exercise can thus be had at odd moments. Or Fives and
left-handed Squash will develop the left side, and prizes for left-hand
throwing may be offered by schools. Boxing is capital in its effects on
alertness and “eye.” There should be boxing by all means.
And let there be training in general--for how can one field well unless
he be fresh and untired? Let there be full control of arms and legs and
body without loss of balance, full quick stretchings, full and quick
stoopings, in all directions; let there be--we repeat--plenty of Fives
for the left side and for stooping; diving and swimming for endurance;
and the fast extension-movements, at the end of which the extensions
should be held for a moment or two.
This implies careful analysis of the mechanisms of fielding--of
starting, of catching, of picking up, of throwing in. It implies a
_system or systems_ based on this analysis. It implies careful study.
But if Cricket be a desirable game, above all if it be compulsory, then
it must be taught well, especially at the outset. As Murdoch says: “A
good ground-work must be laid down, and the young beginner cannot be too
painstaking and careful.” The drill must not be in all the refinements
of Cricket, such as the Ranjiglide; it must be in that A B C of
fielding, etc., which no really great fielder has lacked. That which is
not by nature must come by art. Some drill there must be, even if it
only be self-drill. But drill itself will do a boy no harm to-day. A
veteran cricketer, in his time an excellent field and now a
superintendent of a boys’ institution, tells me on the one hand of the
inferiority of fielding to-day, and on the other hand of the lack of
persistent concentration among boys to-day. Boys, he says, lack that
power, and drill can give it to them so that it lasts through life.
Reform in Cricket must not be merely reform for a few match-players.
Apart from increased power of sustained self-control, of immediate
self-direction, apart from confidence and readiness, it must be for the
greater enjoyment and greater skill of the majority of British boys and
men. With this end in view, we may have to adapt Cricket to indoor play
in well-lighted and well-ventilated rooms in cities and suburbs (in
America the city-clubs, built storey upon storey upwards, allow of other
games by electric light). Any old room would do. We do not want _only_
this adapted game, any more than we want _only_ drill and practice; we
want net-play also; practice-games also; matches also. But we want the
game itself, the grand old game, when it _is_ played, to be played
better and to be played better all round, in all its branches, by all
its players.
When we come to look at the matter impartially, and to ask what Cricket
might and should do for us physically, aesthetically, mentally, morally,
as individuals, as groups, as a nation; when we come to compare its
effects--even as they now are--with those of our school-lessons in Latin
grammar, geography, history, arithmetic, and so on, we do not hesitate
to say that Government support is needed, not only in establishing such
clubs, for evening and wet-day play within cities, but also for allowing
Cricket--the trinity of Cricket, batting and bowling and fielding, and
perhaps the theory of Cricket also--to count something in certain
Government examinations, especially in those for the Indian Civil
Service. For is it not of more value than many crammings?
Let Cricket be given its proper place--no higher, no lower. It is an
amusement; true. But it is also an education for character and life. It
might be ten times the education that it is, for almost the whole of
character and life. Sensible reforms would make it so--reforms which
would in no way interfere with Cricket as it is now played in important
matches, and as it is now practised in practice-games and at nets. The
reforms would prepare for these excellent occasions, and would also
serve as substitutes for them and as supplements to them, and would thus
bring in many converts to the game, bring back many renegades, and
enable Cricket to hold her own against all her rivals, especially
against excessive Cycling, Golf, Croquet, Ping-Pong, idleness, the
public-house, and that evil for which at present there exists no other
name but smuggishness.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I.
THE EDITOR’S DEFENCE OF THIS SYSTEM FOR BEGINNERS AND OTHERS.
“The truth must be insisted on; many a Cricket match has been won
in the bedroom. And even with the ball a good deal may be done. I
could name two eminent batsmen who used, as boys, to wait after the
day’s play was over, and the careless crowd had departed, and in
the pavilion give ten minutes or a quarter of an hour to practising
a particular style of defence, about which more anon; the one
bowled fast sneaks along the floor to the other, at about ten paces
distance. This, too, yielded fruit in its time. Like all other
great achievements, the getting a score against good bowling is the
result of drudgery, patiently, faithfully borne. But the drudgery
of Cricket is itself a pleasure, and let no young cricketer suppose
that he can dispense with it, though some few gifted performers
have done great things with apparently little effort.”
EDWARD LYTTELTON.
I have reserved for an appendix, which I introduce by repeating the
above words of sound common sense, a defence of a system of practice
based on what the best players actually do. The system will be condemned
unless it is understood--and tried.
In games, as in health, it is the commonest acts and parts of acts that
most easily escape our notice--that are done least adequately. He who is
far beyond and above the alphabet can seldom realise its difficulties
for the beginner. The unconscious skill of the expert availeth little,
except for analysis and imitation by others. The genius is not likely to
be a good teacher. That is no less true of Cricket than of mathematics.
The natural player does the thing well, but--he knoweth not how.
A story is told of one of the most famous of Cambridge coaches (alas!
now dead), to the effect that a pupil once asked him for lessons in
Hebrew. The coach knew no Hebrew, but, thanks to his excellent teaching,
he managed to secure his pupil a Second Class in the examination, after
which the pupil heard to his surprise that the coach himself had only
been one lesson ahead all the time. So here the veriest beginner may
feel that I am not far ahead of him--that perhaps in some respects I am
behind him, since I have to undo many old and habitual faults. Let him
imagine me, at the age of thirty-four, in the midst of a busy life,
playing forward vigorously in the privacy of my small bedroom, first
with my left foot (with the body-weight) direct along a line again and
again, till it moves along that line rapidly almost of its own accord,
with only an occasional supervision as of a well-regulated servant; then
this together with the quick reaching out of a straight bat in dangerous
proximity to my left foot (which now lunges safely, surely, rapidly on
its line), while my left elbow comes well to the front at full stretch.
In fact, let him picture me practising for a few minutes morning after
morning, with ever-decreasing difficulty, all that the best exponents
seem to do so naturally and easily. He would see me ready to start and
starting at hundred yards’ pace here there or anywhere, as Mr. Vernon
Royle used to stand and start at cover; or extending now this arm, and
now that, up, down, out to imaginary balls, and then throwing these in
at once just above imaginary bails (which will be spots on the
wall-paper).
“It is not thus that _Cricket_ is learnt,” I hear the genius say. Yet
it was thus--partly thus--that my Racquets and Tennis were learnt, and I
for my part shall try to learn Cricket thus also; and I shall advise
others who are as backward as I am to try thus. If the plan be wrong,
yet at least I am putting it into action in my own case, so as to make
as much a part of me as I can those movements that seem always to have
been a part of the born experts, who are my models, and whose expertness
has hitherto been regarded as beyond hope. I do not mean fancy strokes,
such as the risky glide, but the ordinary and common strokes, the “nine
out of ten,” for which the many mechanical workings are buried so
securely deep in the sub-conscious minds of the skilful, that there is
needed a thorough probing and cutting up by the anatomist if ever the
secrets are to be laid bare.
There must be no reliance on mere theories; actual models and
photographs of models have been and are to be the basis of my advice and
of my own steady practice. Photographs are less likely to err than the
opinions of those whose chief merit is to do well rather than to teach
well or even to know well.
But, though the most careful analysis has been made, and though I myself
shall do whatever I urge the beginner to try, yet the advice will all be
put forward as worth a fair trial--no more, at least for purposes of
Cricket. For purposes of physical development, health, control of the
body and of the will, and so on, I think that every such exercise can
safely be recommended to most people. I cannot believe that a few
minutes each day would do any Anglo-Saxon boy or man any appreciable
harm, if only the rapidity and extension be increased gently and
sensibly.
My point of view is entirely new. I come to the reader not as a good
batsman, bowler, or fielder. I was what may be called a Public School
and College cricketer, and poor at that! In my last season of College
Cricket I made one or two centuries and got well over my hundred
wickets; but all this I did in the most atrocious style. And I gave up
the game many years ago. Why then do I dare to offer hints?
Let me repeat that, as a player of Racquets and Tennis, in spite of much
play, I still used to exhibit practically every serious fault except a
bad eye, weakness, and indifference to success. As I have confessed or
boasted elsewhere, and as anyone who saw me would confirm, the positions
and movements of my feet, legs, trunk, shoulder, arm, wrist, and fingers
were incorrect; and I used to let my eye wander from the ball. These
faults I found out; and I afterwards found out that my faults in Cricket
were closely akin to these. Now comes the interesting argument. I taught
myself and am teaching myself what is less incorrect. I practised and am
practising sedulously, to a great extent outside the court, and
especially in my bedroom. I chose good models in Racquets and
Tennis--for example, Latham and Fairs; I analysed their strokes,
watching part by part, asking questions, accepting kind advice,
listening to sane or mad theory. I tried to master each part of the
mechanism, at first by itself, then with other parts, at times repeating
with concentration, at times exaggerating the opposite fault. There
cannot be the slightest doubt that I _am_ mastering the mechanism of
these racket-games.
Incidentally I may mention that these two games taught me many
useful principles for Cricket-practice: the right positions of the
legs; the art of running side-ways with the eyes looking forwards;
the formation and preservation of that correct pose and poise which
may be called “the ready”; the use of the straight right leg and
firm right foot as a pivot; the body-swing from the hips; the
shoulder-jerk; the forearm snap in contrast to the mere
wrist-flick, which of course is also extremely useful, as in
peg-top whipping; the wrist-flick itself, especially at the last
moment; the habit of not taking the ball too far in front of one
except when one wishes to hit high; the follow through; the fast
full extension with power but without loss of balance or else
followed by rapid recovery of balance.
As a player of Cricket I used to suffer from similar and equally
fundamental hindrances to success; most of these I believe that I have
now found out. I shall give myself nearly two years in which to correct
these faults and to embody and infibre the best positions and movements
that I can learn from the actual play of the best models (Abel, Hirst,
Shrewsbury, and many others besides), as shown in practice and in their
photographs. Much of this apprenticeship will take place in my bedroom.
All the time I shall continue to watch, to ask questions, to study
theories; I shall try to keep up to date both in my learning and in my
advice in this volume if future editions should be needed.
In a word, I write and shall write not for genius-players so much as for
players like myself. For genius-players, the Lytteltons, Steel,
Ranjitsinhji, Grace, and others have already written infinitely better
than I ever could. I have no ambition to supersede these great
authorities except in so far as I must set the evidence of the camera
and of the muscles themselves above theoretical opinion. Even here I
wish to show the foundation of fact underlying the superstructure of
dogma.
Similarly in Tennis I have read and heard again and again the
theory that the head of the racket must be kept above the level of
the wrist, in spite of the common practice of Lambert and Latham.
The truth here is that the wrist should be firm. So with the late
cut: the theory that it is a wrist-stroke only is not altogether
absurd--the wrist may play an important part even if it is kept
nearly or quite rigid (the power and direction being given by the
shoulder, forearm, etc.).
The reader must not misunderstand my contention. If I think that most
experts do so-and-so, this carries little weight; if the experts
themselves think that they do some other so-and-so, this carries little
weight either. The question is what the experts actually do. If the
reader after careful study of these or any other photographs and after
careful observation of these or any other experts shall decide that the
experts actually do something different, then let him practise that
something rather than what I suggest. Only let him not confuse me with a
doctor who prescribes all sorts of drugs with apparent confidence yet
himself would not swallow a tithe of them. In a tentative and
truth-seeking spirit I suggest only that which I shall myself use daily
with heart and soul; and I shall suggest it only as deserving of a fair
trial before condemnation. By their fruits ye shall know them; and so
shall I. The fact that I am going to submit myself to such
apprenticeship would show at least this--that I am convinced of the need
of such apprenticeship for duffers like myself, and that, if I had a son
of my own, I would put him through such an apprenticeship before he had
much chance of falling into those bad habits under which I myself
laboured so long and so unhappily. I should teach him to master, with
me, elements not only of the language of his tongue, but also of the
language of his whole body; I would practise, with him, many positions
and movements and extensions of feet, legs, trunk, shoulder, forearm,
wrist, and neck--to fit him for Cricket and other games. In some
practices I should err. But here, as in matters of diet, I should treat
him as I should like to be treated, teach him as I should like to be
taught, were I in his place; teach him as I--for want of better
knowledge--shall teach myself; urge him to do only what I myself have
done or am doing.
It is simply in this spirit, in the spirit of an experimenting and
enthusiastic fellow-learner, that I approach my readers--all except the
genius-cricketers, unless these wish to be teachers also. As almost the
only self-made Racquet player and Tennis player who knows every single
step of his own slow journey out of a hopelessly dark jungle of
hampering errors into a comparatively clear and light country, a journey
elaborated during a very busy life of reading, writing, and teaching, I
can speak with weight. I can honestly say that all my thousands of
Racquet and Tennis foot-exercises, shoulder-jerks, body-swings, and so
on, in bedrooms and elsewhere, have been well worth while; and that
those which I am now doing and shall do for Cricket will be well worth
while for many reasons, including physical development and personal
appearance (I do not mind what others think of it so much as what I
think of it!), health, enjoyment, and hope.
I only dare speak for myself, because games, and therefore practice for
games, are to me so much of all that seems best--possibly far too much.
To others a similar preparation and practice might be sheer drudgery and
slavery. To me they are at their worst a discipline--which I know I
need--and an invaluable lesson that much work must be done of which the
results will not show for years, but without which the naturally
unskilful person like myself may never be able to show any appreciable
results at all.
Speaking for myself, I shall not be content with trying to learn
batting. I want to bowl and to field and to watch, and to enjoy all
these parts, and to do them well enough to avoid the look of boredom
which I see on so many faces on the Cricket-field. My egotism in these
pages will be pardoned because I am genuinely anxious to improve myself
and others--our physique, our standard of play, our enjoyment.
Let me here answer two objections made by friends of mine to whom I have
told my plan. The first has already occurred to most readers. It is that
I shall never become a good cricketer. This was precisely what every
critic with one exception, Smale, the late Racquet coach at Wellington
College, bless him! asserted confidently about my Racquets and Tennis as
well as my Cricket! My style was so bad as to be beyond hope. Smale told
me many of my faults and, as I said just now, I went for them and “stuck
to it” for month after month, with the result that in America, where
people are quick to observe and detect faults, I was frequently told,
not that my feet were always in the wrong position and unprepared, but
that they were nearly always in the right position and prepared, in “the
ready.” “I can’t catch you on the hop”--that was the common compliment.
If I achieved this for Racquets and Tennis, if I made the (at first)
utterly unnatural movements so easy, so habitual, so automatic, so
sub-conscious, so nearly inevitable, that not one in a hundred people
will now believe that I ever had any difficulty or serious fault here;
then why not in Cricket also? And, if _I_ can, then I believe any one
can.
The objection may be put more mildly, it being held that I should only
be a “laboured” player. But am I a laboured Racquet and Tennis player
now? Is not the labour past? Are not the positions and movements now my
very own? I can seldom convince people that they ever were laboured,
that I once was among the clumsiest of all.
Or it might be asserted that though I mastered the individual parts of
movements--no one dares to deny that I could do this--yet the parts
would not work together. “The secret of playing forward is to throw all
the full weight forward together.” Now, though I began each part of the
Tennis stroke separately and mastered it _per se_, yet I regularly and
habitually combine these parts into a unity to-day. Tennis certainly
seems to me to need the full weight at the right moment: I am repeatedly
told that I seem to use _all_ my weight in my strokes. And, if here, why
not at Cricket? I fail to see any radical difference, though I do see
that my distance from the ball must be different: but that is what I
intend to get over! I also see that I must not lift the ordinary ball;
but with my left elbow well forward I hope to stop that defect in
batting; even in Tennis I try not to lift the ball much more than is
necessary.
The second objection is that the game is not worth this drudgery: this
is the objection chiefly of those who do not play games, or who have
played them well without apprenticeship, or who have played them badly
without apprenticeship or else after bad apprenticeship. This objection
I answer in another chapter. It is a personal matter, and depends on
what the game (and success in it) means for the individual--what it does
and will do for him. To me Cricket (and success in it) would mean a very
important benefit for the whole of my life, just as Racquets and Tennis
(and improvement at them) have already done, and in these I have not
nearly come to the top of my game yet. As to drudgery, lists of battles
and dates and names and places would be drudgery to me; so would
weight-lifting and other strain-exercises; so would society at-homes;
but fast full-movements and extensions, control of my weight and
balance, _for a few minutes each day_, are not drudgery to me,
especially if I am stripped and have plenty of air and light, and an
ambition or two in view.
I should be sorry to see Cricket reduced to the level of a school study,
but I should be still more sorry to see it given up altogether. Why has
it decayed so much? Why is there this apathy even among the (ordinary)
players themselves? We are wont to hear the blame ascribed to Lawn
Tennis, Golf, Cycling, Croquet, and to the expensiveness of Cricket in
time as well as in money. But to me it is patent that the real cause of
the decay lies deeper, lies nearer home, just as the real cause of
physical decay lies nearer home than in the murky atmosphere of a
nerve-harassing city. The source is within ourselves.
People do not play the game well enough to enjoy it as much as they
enjoy their other games and exercises--or their laziness and
“amusements.” And behind this low standard of play (and hence of
enjoyment) is the fact that they have not yet mastered and appropriated
the alphabet of Cricket.
I have never yet heard of anyone who systematically divided Cricket
strokes into a number of parts, persevered in assimilating each part,
combined and co-ordinated the parts; and then, even then, looked out for
faults to be corrected by a similar process. I have scarcely ever read
or heard of a sensible analysis of any Cricket stroke, except by a few
such writers as Mr. C. B. Fry (for we must put on one side the nonsense
that the late cut is done only with the wrist: that is not analysis but
bad guess-work). And this, too, although any stroke _can_ be analysed.
I will go further. I have never yet read or heard of the following
advice (let the reader tell me if it has ever been given): that, if a
beginner must or will do the full stroke at once, he should concentrate
on each part of it in turn, now on the left foot again and again, now on
the left elbow, and so on; somewhat as--to repeat a comparison--the
conductor might during rehearsals concentrate his attention on each
instrument in turn, now on the first violin, now on the ’cello, and so
on. The end and aim would be a perfect whole; but each part must first
be perfected if ever a complete harmony is to result.
Now why should there not be at every decent school, if not in every
decent home, a drill for games? A few foundation-movements were
suggested in the “Training of the Body” (Appendix II.). I remember a
deadly dull drill of monotonous rhythmical both-sides-together exercises
at two private schools; the compulsory drill for first-year-students at
Yale College in America was better, but still far from fascinating. Why
was there no swift lunge for the left foot in a straight line; no
throwing in all directions with each hand in turn; no wrist-turning (as
suggested in “Daily Training”); no starting out and then back and then
sideways; no running similarly? In a word, why was there no drill at all
in view of those games and sports in which every single British boy I
have ever met would love to be able to excel; why was there no sort or
kind of apprenticeship for Cricket or other athletics? The drill was not
even healthy--did not make us lively and fresh. It was the acme of
dreary discipline.
Every true British subject is at least slightly annoyed when England is
beaten; when it is shown that we, _the_ nation of game-players, who play
habitually at schools and elsewhere, play--let us recognise the
truth--not very well. Most of us have many important muscle-groups
absolutely or partially undeveloped; nor will the few repetitions of any
movement, in a wrong manner, tend to develop these groups. We rely on
the unreliable--especially the wrist. Our very foundations are out of
course; our feet and our bodies are wrongly posed, wrongly poised, slow
to extend, slow to change, slow to bend.
No book tells us to develop our muscles rightly _before_ we play games
_constantly_. Right practice in bedrooms and elsewhere would be most
valuable for Cricket and other games, and for development; as far as I
can tell--and I believe I have studied all known systems--it would be no
less valuable for physical and mental health and vigour than any of
these systems; granted a keenness for success in games, it would be far
less dull. We need not practise to an American University extreme. My
many hours’ work each day is a safeguard against that extreme for me.
But, for the sake of the self and the side and the nation, I cannot but
feel that if games are to be compulsory, then we had far better teach
them well, and so raise the standard of excellence and with it the
standard of interest and pleasure. We need not give more time: we might
give many hours less time each week (I shall find less than ten minutes
ample for most days). But we _must_ give more sense, more care, if we
are to hold our own as a nation of all-round cricketers and a nation of
healthy all-round men.
APPENDIX II.
LAWS OF THE GAME.
The reader is strongly recommended to buy the (Threepenny) Laws of
Cricket, with Interpretations, etc., published by the Marylebone Cricket
Club.
THE LAWS OF CRICKET.
AS REVISED BY THE MARYLEBONE CLUB, 1884, 1889, 1894, 1899, 1900,
AND 1902.
1. A match is played between two sides of eleven players each,
unless otherwise agreed to; each side has two innings, taken
alternately, except in the case provided for in Law 53. The choice
of innings shall be decided by tossing.
2. The score shall be reckoned by runs. A run is scored:--
1st. So often as the batsmen after a hit, or at any time while the
ball is in play, shall have crossed, and made good their ground,
from end to end.
2nd. For penalties under Laws 16, 34, 41, and allowances under 44.
Any run or runs so scored shall be duly recorded by scorers appointed
for the purpose. The side which scores the greatest number of runs wins
the match. No match is won unless played out or given up, except in the
case provided in Law 45.
3. Before the commencement of the match two Umpires shall be appointed;
one for each end.
4. The Ball shall weigh not less than five ounces and a half, nor more
than five ounces and three-quarters. It shall measure not less than nine
inches, nor more than nine inches and one-quarter in circumference. At
the beginning of each innings, either side may demand a new ball.
5. The Bat shall not exceed four inches and one-quarter in the widest
part; it shall not be more than thirty-eight inches in length.
6. The Wickets shall be pitched opposite and parallel to each other at a
distance of twenty-two yards. Each wicket shall be eight inches in width
and consist of three stumps, with two bails upon the top. The stumps
shall be of equal and sufficient size to prevent the ball from passing
through, twenty-seven inches out of the ground. The bails shall be each
four inches in length, and when in position, on the top of the stumps,
shall not project more than half an inch above them. The wickets shall
not be changed during a match, unless the ground between them become
unfit for play, and then only by consent of both sides.
7. The Bowling Crease shall be in a line with the stumps; six feet eight
inches in length; the stumps in the centre; with a return crease at each
end, at right angles behind the wicket.
8. The Popping Crease shall be marked four feet from the wicket,
parallel to it, and be deemed unlimited in length.
9. The Ground shall not be rolled, watered, covered, mown, or beaten
during a match, except before the commencement of each innings and of
each day’s play, when, unless the in-side object, the ground shall be
swept and rolled for not more than ten minutes. This shall not prevent
the batsman from beating the ground with his bat, nor the batsmen nor
bowler from using sawdust in order to obtain a proper foothold.
10. The ball must be bowled; if thrown or jerked either umpire shall
call “No ball.”
11. The bowler shall deliver the ball with one foot on the ground behind
the bowling crease, and within the return crease, otherwise the umpire
shall call “No ball.”
12. If the bowler shall bowl the ball so high over or so wide of the
wicket that, in the opinion of the umpire, it is not within reach of the
striker, the umpire shall call “Wide ball.”
13. The ball shall be bowled in overs of six balls from each wicket
alternately. When six balls have been bowled, and the ball is finally
settled in the bowler’s or wicket-keeper’s hands, the umpire shall call
“Over.” Neither a “no ball” nor “wide ball” shall be reckoned as one of
the “over.”
14. The bowler shall be allowed to change ends as often as he pleases,
provided only that he does not bowl two overs consecutively in one
innings.
15. The bowler may require the batsman at the wicket from which he is
bowling to stand on that side of it which he may direct.
16. The striker may hit a “no ball,” and whatever runs result shall be
added to his score: but he shall not be out from a “no ball” unless he
be run out or break Laws 26, 27, 29, 30. All runs made from a “no ball”
otherwise than from the bat, shall be scored “no balls,” and if no run
be made one run shall be added to that score. From a “wide ball” as many
runs as are run shall be added to the score as “wide balls,” and if no
run be otherwise obtained one run shall be so added.
17. If the ball, not having been called “wide” or “no ball,” pass the
striker without touching his bat or person, and any runs be obtained,
the umpire shall call “Bye”; but if the ball touch any part of the
striker’s person (hand excepted) and any run be obtained, the umpire
shall call “Leg-bye,” such runs to be scored “byes” and “leg-byes”
respectively.
18. At the beginning of the match, and of each innings, the umpire at
the bowler’s wicket shall call “Play”; from that time no trial ball
shall be allowed to any bowler on the ground between the wickets, and
when one of the batsmen is out, the use of the bat shall not be allowed
to any person until the next batsman shall come in.
19. A batsman shall be held to be “out of his ground,” unless his bat in
hand or some part of his person be grounded within the line of the
popping crease.
20. The wicket shall be held to be “down” when either of the bails is
struck off, or if both bails be off, when a stump is struck out of the
ground.
The STRIKER is out--
21. If the wicket be bowled down, even if the ball first touch the
striker’s bat or person:--“Bowled.”
22. Or, if the ball from a stroke of the bat or hand, but not the wrist,
be held before it touch the ground, although it be hugged to the body of
the catcher:--“Caught.”
23. Or, if in playing at the ball, provided it be not touched by the bat
or hand, the striker be out of his ground, and the wicket be put down by
the wicket-keeper with the ball or with hand or arm, with ball in
hand:--“Stumped.”
24. Or, if with any part of his person he stops the ball, which in the
opinion of the umpire at the bowler’s wicket, shall have been pitched in
a straight line from it to the striker’s wicket and would have hit
it:--“Leg before wicket.”
25. Or, if in playing at the ball he hit down his wicket with his bat or
any part of his person or dress:--“Hit wicket.”
26. Or, if under pretence of running, or otherwise, either of the
batsmen wilfully prevent a ball from being caught:--“Obstructing the
field.”
27. Or, if the ball be struck, or be stopped by any part of his person,
and he wilfully strike it again, except it be done for the purpose of
guarding his wicket, which he may do with his bat, or any part of his
person, except his hands:--“Hit the ball twice.”
Either BATSMAN is out--
28. If in running, or at any other time, when the ball is in play, he be
out of his ground, and his wicket be struck down by the ball after
touching any fieldsman, or by the hand or arm, with ball in hand, of any
fieldsman:--“Run out.”
29. Or, if he touch with his hands or take up the ball while in play,
unless at the request of the opposite side:--“Handled the ball.”
30. Or, if he wilfully obstruct any fieldsman:--“Obstructing the field.”
31. If the batsmen have crossed each other, he that runs for the wicket
which is put down is out; if they have not crossed, he that has left the
wicket which is put down is out.
32. The striker being caught no runs shall be scored. A batsman being
run out, that run which was being attempted shall not be scored.
33A. A batsman being out from any cause, the ball shall be “Dead.”
33B. If the ball, whether struck with the bat or not, lodges in a
batsman’s clothing, the ball shall become “Dead.”
34. If a ball in play cannot be found or recovered, any fieldsman may
call “Lost ball,” when the ball shall be “Dead”; six runs shall be added
to the score; but if more than six runs have been run before “Lost ball”
has been called, as many runs as have been run shall be scored.
35. After the ball shall have been finally settled in the
wicket-keeper’s or bowler’s hand, it shall be “Dead”; but when the
bowler is about to deliver the ball, if the batsman at his wicket be out
of his ground before actual delivery, the said bowler may run him out;
but if the bowler throw at that wicket and any run result, it shall be
scored “No ball.”
36. A batsman shall not retire from his wicket and return to it to
complete his innings after another has been in, without the consent of
the opposite side.
37. A substitute shall be allowed to field or run between wickets for
any player who may, during the match, be incapacitated from illness or
injury, but for no other reason, except with the consent of the opposite
side.
38. In all cases where a substitute shall be allowed, the consent of the
opposite side shall be obtained as to the person to act as substitute,
and the place in the field which he shall take.
39. In case any substitute shall be allowed to run between wickets, the
striker may be run out if either he or his substitute be out of his
ground. If the striker be out of his ground while the ball is in play,
that wicket which he has left may be put down and the striker given out,
although the other batsman may have made good the ground at that end,
and the striker and his substitute at the other end.
40. A batsman is liable to be out for any infringement of the Laws by
his substitute.
41. The fieldsman may stop the ball with any part of his person, but if
he wilfully stop it otherwise, the ball shall be “Dead,” and five runs
added to the score; whatever runs may have been made, five only shall be
added.
42. The wicket-keeper shall stand behind the wicket. If he shall take
the ball for the purpose of stumping before it has passed the wicket,
or, if he shall incommode the striker by any noise, or motion, or if any
part of his person be over or before the wicket, the striker shall not
be out, excepting under Laws 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30.
43. The Umpires are the sole judges of fair or unfair play, of the
fitness of the ground, the weather, and the light for play; all disputes
shall be determined by them, and if they disagree the actual state of
things shall continue.
44. They shall pitch fair wickets, arrange boundaries where necessary,
and the allowances to be made for them, and change ends after each side
has had one innings.
45. They shall allow two minutes for each striker to come in, and ten
minutes between each innings. When they shall call “Play,” the side
refusing to play shall lose the match.
46. They shall not order a batsman out unless appealed to by the other
side.
N.B.--An appeal, “How’s that,” covers all ways of being out (within the
jurisdiction of the umpire appealed to), unless a specific way of
getting out is stated by the person asking.
47. The umpire at the bowler’s wicket shall be appealed to before
the other umpire in all cases, except in those of stumping, hit
wicket, run out at the striker’s wicket, or arising out of Law 42,
but in any case in which an umpire is unable to give a decision, he
shall appeal to the other umpire, whose decision shall be final.
48. If either umpire be not satisfied of the absolute fairness of
the delivery of any ball, he shall call “No ball.”
48A. The umpire shall take especial care to call “No ball”
instantly upon delivery: “Wide ball” as soon as it shall have
passed the striker.
49. If either batsman run a short run, the umpire shall call “One
short,” and the run shall not be scored.
50. After the umpire has called “Over,” the ball is “Dead,” but an
appeal may be made as to whether either batsman is out; such
appeal, however, shall not be made after the delivery of the next
ball, nor after any cessation of play.
51. No umpire shall be allowed to bet.
52. No umpire shall be changed during a match, unless with the
consent of both sides, except in case of violation of Law 51; then
either side may dismiss him.
53. The side which bats first and leads by 150 runs in a three
days’ match, or by 100 runs in a two days’ match, shall have the
option of requiring the other side to follow their innings.
54. The In-side may declare their innings at an end in a three
days’ match at or after the luncheon interval on the second day; in
a two days’ match on the second day, at any time; in a one day
match at any time.
ONE DAY MATCHES.
1. The side which bats first and leads by 75 runs shall have the
option of requiring the other side to follow their innings.
2. The match, unless played out, shall be decided by the first
innings. Prior to the commencement of a match it may be agreed that
the over consist of 5 or 6 balls.
N.B.--A Tie is included in the words “Played out.”
SINGLE WICKET.
_The Laws are, where they apply, the same as the above, with the
following alterations and additions._
1. One wicket shall be pitched, as in Law 6, with a bowling stump
opposite to it at a distance of twenty-two yards. The bowling
crease shall be in a line with the bowling stump, and drawn
according to Law 7.
2. When there shall be less than five players on a side, bounds
shall be placed twenty-two yards each in a line from the off and
leg stump.
3. The ball must be hit before the bounds to entitle the striker to
a run, which run cannot be obtained unless he touch the bowling
stump or crease in a line with his bat, or some part of his person,
or go beyond them, and return to the popping crease.
4. When the striker shall hit the ball, one of his feet must be on
the ground behind the popping crease, otherwise the umpire shall
call “No hit,” and no run shall be scored.
5. When there shall be less than five players on a side, neither
byes, leg-byes, nor overthrows shall be allowed, nor shall the
striker be caught out behind the wicket, nor stumped.
6. The fieldsman must return the ball so that it shall cross the
ground between the wicket and the bowling stump, or between the
bowling stump and the bounds, the striker may run till the ball be
so returned.
7. After the striker shall have made one run, if he start again he
must touch the bowling stump or crease, and turn before the ball
cross the ground to entitle him to another.
8. The striker shall be entitled to three runs for lost ball, and
the same number for ball wilfully stopped by a fieldsman otherwise
than with any part of his person.
9. When there shall be more than four players on a side there shall
be no bounds. All hits, byes, leg-byes, and overthrows shall then
be allowed.
10. There shall be no restriction as to the ball being bowled in
overs, but no more than one minute shall be allowed between each
ball.
INSTRUCTIONS TO UMPIRES.
These instructions, drawn up in 1892 by the Committee of the M.C.C., are
intended as an appendix to the Laws of the Game. Some little alteration
had to be made in 1901, the decision as to the fitness of the ground and
light being now in the hands of the captains.
FITNESS OF GROUND.
LAW 43.--At the commencement of a match, the umpires may be
appealed to by either side as to the fitness of the ground for
play.
Should they not agree, play will not commence until they are
agreed.
In case of interruption from rain, as soon as the rain has ceased,
the umpires shall, immediately, without further instruction,
inspect the wicket, unaccompanied by any of the players, and decide
upon its fitness. Should it prove unfit, they shall continue to
inspect at intervals, until they decide that it is fit for play,
when they shall call upon the players to resume the game.
The ground is unfit for play--when water stands on the surface, or
when it is so wet, muddy, or slippery as to deprive the bowlers of
a reasonable foothold, or the fieldsmen of the power of free
movement.
The umpires are not to be biassed by the opinions of either side,
still less are they to allow themselves to be influenced by the
impatience of the spectators for a resumption of the game, and are
not to be induced, by the public interest in a particular match, to
declare the ground fit for play, unless they would consider that
ground fit under any circumstances.
FITNESS OF LIGHT FOR PLAY.
The umpires may decide, on appeal, that there is not sufficient
light for play. Should the light improve before the time for
drawing stumps, they shall, without waiting for instructions, call
upon the players to resume the game.
In the event of the captains agreeing as to the condition of the
ground or light, the umpires will, so far, be relieved of their
responsibility.
LAW 47.--An umpire is only justified in appealing to the other
umpire when he is unable to decide, owing to his having been
prevented from seeing the occurrence on which the appeal is based.
He is not to appeal to the other umpire in cases on which he could
give a decision, merely because he is unwilling to give that
decision. If he be in any doubt, the principle laid down in Law 43,
“That the existing state of things shall continue,” shall be
followed, and, in consequence, the decision should be in favour of
the batsman.
LAW 48.--The special attention of umpires is called to this law,
which directs them to call “no ball,” unless absolutely satisfied
of the fairness of the delivery.
Umpires should not allow themselves to be unduly influenced by
appeals from such of the field who were not in a position to form a
judgment on the point appealed upon, or by tricks--such as throwing
up the ball, on appealing for a catch at the wicket, without
waiting for the decision. Umpires, being the sole judges of fair or
unfair play, should remember that such devices are obviously
unfair, and are not in accordance with the spirit in which cricket
should be played.
By order of the Committee of the M.C.C.
June 20th, 1892.
In the course of the season of 1899 the following additions to the
Instructions to Umpires were approved by the M.C.C. Committee:--
LAW 54.--“Declaring.”--
(A) If a side declare its innings during the luncheon interval, it
must do so within fifteen minutes after the commencement of such
interval, otherwise an extra ten minutes will be allowed for
rolling.
(B) If a side declare its innings closed in the morning before play
commences, it must do so in sufficient time to enable the other
side to choose the roller it prefers, otherwise an extra ten
minutes will be allowed for rolling.
CODE OF SIGNALLING.
Boundaries shall be signalled by waving the hand from side to side.
Byes shall be signalled by raising the open hand above the head.
Leg-byes shall be signalled by raising the leg and touching it with
the hand.
Wides shall be signalled by extending both arms horizontally.
No-balls shall be signalled by extending one arm horizontally.
The decision Out shall be signalled by raising the index finger
above the head.
Umpires should wait until a signal has been answered by the scorer
before allowing the game to proceed.
Besides signalling, the umpire should “call” distinctly for the
information of the players.
On giving a decision the umpire should make sure that the batsman
understands what the decision is.
_Passed by M.C.C. Committee, June 16th, 1902._
(A) Umpires are not justified in deciding the ground unfit for
play, merely because the grass is wet and the ball would, in
consequence, be slippery.
(B) In order to facilitate play at the earliest possible moment in
wet weather, the Umpires shall see that the foot-holes made by the
bowlers and batsmen are cleaned out, dried, and filled up with
sawdust at any time during the match, although the game is not
actually in progress.
RULES OF COUNTY CRICKET.
At a meeting of County representatives, held at Lord’s on Monday,
December 5th, 1898, the question of amending the rules of County Cricket
was left in the hands of the Marylebone Club, who had offered to form a
committee to deal with the matter. The committee which, in accordance
with a resolution passed by the County representatives included a
representative from Kent, Yorkshire, Surrey, Lancashire, and two Minor
Counties, was duly formed, and after long deliberation, the following
scheme was agreed to. The M.C.C. committee approved of the alterations,
and in the spring of 1899 the rules as given below were made public.
Practically the only point in dispute had been the residential
qualification, it being strongly felt in many quarters that Rule 3 in
the old code had been interpreted in a way quite foreign to the
intentions of those who framed it in 1873. Hence the far more strict
definition of “residence” now put forward. In order, no doubt, to avoid
interference with existing qualifications, it was agreed that except as
regards Rule 5, the new rules should not come into operation until the
1st of January, 1900.
1. A cricketer born in one county and residing in another may not play
for more than one county during the same season.
2. QUALIFICATION BY BIRTH.--A cricketer is always eligible to play for
the county of his birth.
3. QUALIFICATION BY RESIDENCE.--A cricketer is qualified to play for any
county in which he has resided for the previous 24 months and is
residing, but--
(A) The mere acquirement or hiring of a tenement, unless used as a
_bonâ fide_ home, does not constitute “residence.”
(B) The occupation of a tenement during the cricket season only
does not constitute “residence.”
4. Where a cricketer uses as residences in the course of the year,
tenements in more than one county, or where he leaves the country for
the winter months, and in all other cases where his qualification is in
any doubt, it is obligatory on the county for which he wishes to play to
prove his qualification to the satisfaction of the M.C.C.
5. A cricketer who has played for a county for five successive years is
qualified to play for that county for the rest of his cricket career, or
until he plays for some other county.
6. A cricketer may play for his old county during the two years that he
is qualifying for another.
7. TRANSFERS.--A cricketer, already qualified for a county but wishing
to qualify by residence for another county, must give notice in writing
to the Cricket Club Committee of the former county before he commences
such residence; and a County Cricket Club wishing to engage, under a
residential qualification, a cricketer who is already qualified for
another County Club, must inform the committee of the latter before
commencing negotiations with the cricketer.
8. APPEAL.--Should any question arise under these rules it shall be left
to the decision of the committee of the Marylebone Club, which shall be
final.
The following were established as the laws of county qualification, at a
meeting held in the Surrey County Pavilion, Kennington Oval, on June
9th, 1873, and remained in force until January 1st, 1900, when they
were superseded by the new rules set forth above. Representatives were
present in 1873 from Surrey, Middlesex, Sussex, Kent, Gloucestershire,
Yorkshire, and Nottinghamshire.
I. That no cricketer, whether amateur or professional, shall play for
more than one county during the same season.
II. Every cricketer born in one county and residing in another shall be
free to choose at the commencement of each season for which of those
counties he will play, and shall, during that season, play for that
county only.
III. A cricketer shall be qualified to play for any county in which he
is residing and has resided for the previous two years; or a cricketer
may elect to play for the county in which his family home is, so long as
it remains open to him as an occasional residence.
IV. That, should any question arise as to the residential qualification,
the same should be left to the decision of the committee of the
Marylebone Club.
V. That a copy of these rules be sent to the Marylebone Club, with a
request that they be adopted by the club.
The county qualification was discussed at a meeting of the County
Cricket Council, held in the Pavilion at Lord’s, on December 10th, 1888.
Representatives were present from the following nineteen
counties:--Surrey, Kent, Yorkshire, Gloucestershire, Lancashire,
Nottinghamshire, Middlesex, Sussex, Derbyshire, Essex, Leicestershire,
Cheshire, Hampshire, Norfolk, Warwickshire, Northamptonshire, Somerset,
Hertfordshire, and Staffordshire. It was carried unanimously that--
“For purposes of county cricket, county boundaries are not affected
by the Local Government Act, 1888.”
And on the motion of Sussex, seconded by Gloucestershire, it was decided
by ten votes to five that--
“During the two years a cricketer may be qualifying to play for
another county under the residential qualification, he shall be
allowed to play for the county for which he has previously been
playing under that rule.”
In consequence of the passing of this latter resolution, the rules of
county cricket were modified by the addition of the words: “That a man
can play for his old county during the two years that he is qualifying
for another.”
COUNTY CLASSIFICATION.
A special meeting of county secretaries, called together by Yorkshire to
discuss the subject of county classification, was held in the Pavilion
at Lord’s on Tuesday, the 1st of May, 1894. Mr. H. Perkins occupied the
chair, and there were present--Mr. M. J. Ellison and Lord Hawke
(Yorkshire), Messrs. W. E. Denison and C. W. Wright (Notts), Mr. A. J.
Webbe (Middlesex), Mr. F. Marchant and Mr. A. J. Lancaster (Kent), Mr.
C. W. Alcock (Surrey), Messrs. W. Newham and W. L. Murdoch (Sussex),
Messrs. H. Murray-Anderdon and S. M. J. Woods (Somerset), Messrs. H. W.
Bainbridge and W. E. Ansell (Warwickshire), Mr. W. Barclay-Delacombe
(Derbyshire), Messrs. T. Burdett and G. W. Hillyard (Leicestershire),
Dr. Russell Bencraft (Hampshire), and Messrs. C. E. Green and O. R.
Borradaile (Essex). The meeting was a private one, but the following
details were officially communicated to the Press:--
The original proposition by Mr. Ellison, on behalf of Yorkshire, “That
for the purpose of classification there should be no distinction drawn
between counties who play out and home three-day matches with not less
than six other counties,” was seconded by Mr. Hillyard, and then
withdrawn in favour of the following amendment:--Proposed by Mr. Denison
and seconded by Mr. Murray-Anderdon, “That the M.C.C. be requested to
consider and advise upon the whole question of classification of
counties.” This was carried unanimously.
It was also made known that, as the result of a meeting of the various
captains of the first-class counties, Lord Hawke had sent in the
following resolution signed by himself and Messrs. J. Shuter (Surrey),
S. M. J. Woods (Somerset), J. A. Dixon (Notts), F. Marchant (Kent), W.
L. Murdoch (Sussex), A. J. Webbe (Middlesex), A. N. Hornby (Lancashire),
and W. G. Grace (Gloucestershire):--“That the matches played by the
following four counties, Derbyshire, Essex, Leicestershire, and
Warwickshire, against the counties at present styled first-class, and
also against one another and against the M.C.C., should be regarded as
first-class matches, and the records of the players engaged in these
matches shall be included in the list of first-class averages.” Lord
Hawke’s resolution was afterwards formally ratified by the committee of
the Marylebone Club.
On the 20th of October the Committee of the M.C.C., to whom, as stated
above, the whole question of the classification of counties had been
referred, made public the following scheme:--
Lord’s Ground, N.W., October, 1894.
The Committee of M.C.C. having, at the request of the leading counties,
prepared a scheme for regulating the county championship, and that
scheme having met with the approval of counties concerned, the contest
for the championship will in future be regulated by it. The scheme as
finally approved is as follows:--
CLASSIFICATION OF COUNTIES.
Cricketing counties shall be considered as belonging to first-class or
not. There is no necessity for further sub-division.
First-class counties are those whose matches, with one another, with
M.C.C. and Ground, with the Universities, with the Australians, and such
other elevens as shall be adjudged “first-class matches” by the M.C.C.
Committee, are used in compilation of first-class batting and bowling
averages.
There shall be no limit to the number of first-class counties. The
M.C.C. Committee may bring new counties into the list, may remove
existing ones from it, or may do both.
The list for 1895 is as follows:--
Derbyshire
Essex
Gloucestershire
Hampshire
Kent
Lancashire
Leicestershire
Middlesex
Nottingham
Somerset
Surrey
Sussex
Warwickshire
Yorkshire
THE COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP.
After the close of each cricket season, the Committee of the M.C.C.
shall decide the county championship.
It shall be competed for by first-class counties. No county shall be
eligible unless it shall have played at least eight out and home matches
with other counties, provided that if no play can take place owing to
weather or other unavoidable cause such match shall be reckoned as
unfinished.[14]
One point shall be reckoned for each win; one deducted for each loss;
unfinished games shall not be reckoned.
The county which during the season shall have, in finished matches,
obtained the greatest proportionate number of points shall be reckoned
champion county.
At the meeting of County Secretaries on December 6th, 1898, it was moved
and carried as a recommendation to the M.C.C. that the number of out and
home matches qualifying for the championship should in 1899, in view of
the Australian visit, be again reduced to six. This was subsequently
agreed to by the M.C.C., Worcestershire having at the Secretaries’
meeting secured six out and home matches with leading counties, made
formal application to the M.C.C. to be promoted to a place among the
first-class counties, and on December 12th their request was granted,
subject to the usual regulations being complied with.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Mr. C. B. Fry, after studying the foundation-positions and
foundation-movements which I have found most useful for Racquets and
Tennis, was struck with their great similarity to those which he
himself had found most important for Cricket.
[2] “Keep your eye on the bowler; watch how he holds the ball and runs
up to the wicket before delivering it, and you may be able to detect
any alteration in length and pace. And never get flurried whatever his
action may be; for if you take your eyes off his arm or lose your head
for a second, he has you at a disadvantage.”
[3] Compare also Dr. W. G. Grace, who says: “Timing the ball is the
secret of all good play; and timing, as far as I can make out, means
the harmonious working of eye, wrist, arms, legs, and shoulders, which
can only be acquired by constant practice.”
[4] Murdoch’s words will serve as a good example. “To cut well, you
must be able to time the ball well, for the effectiveness of your
stroke is entirely due to your proper timing and your wrist work, for
you need to use your wrists more in making this stroke than in any
other.”
[5] “There is a right and a wrong way of holding the ball. Good bowlers
grip the ball as much as possible with their fingers--that is to say,
they use the fingers and not the palm of the hand to work the ball.”
[6] The Macdonald Smith system is most appropriate for Cricket.
[7] Invented and taught by Macdonald Smith, of Steinway Hall.
[8] The following quotation from a high authority is typical:--
“The left foot precedes the advance of the bat, it being one of the
first maxims of forward play that the bat must never be in front of
the left foot. This rule is absolute. A neglect of it means that there
is nothing to prevent the base of the bat being as near, or nearer, to
the bowler than is the handle--no certainty, that is, against the ball
being spooned into the air.”
[9] “If the batsman cuts up the action of the stroke into separate
parts, something must be sacrificed: either the weight is not brought
to bear on the ball, or balance is lost. The result is an emasculated
stroke.”
[10] Most authorities are agreed here, as these typical quotations will
show:--
“It ought to be the aim of all advice in batting to help a young player
to get runs, quocunque modo runs, otherwise he will not learn the game.”
“Many a devotee has been lured into less noble pursuits simply because
he cannot score.”
[11] “Any reform of cricket law has for its object a levelling up of
attack and defence--in other words, of batting and bowling.”--Haddon
Hall Library.
[12] Mr. W. J. Ford is against this. He says:--
“The grace and the skill of batting is so attractive to the eye
and so delightful to the batsman himself that, _pace_ various wise
authorities, batting must be regarded as the chief factor in the game.
Cramp batting, and the game will be spoiled.”
[13] Quaife and Jessop are the best modern types of alert anticipation.
[14] In 1896 the number of out and home matches qualifying for the
Championship was reduced to six, owing to the Australians’ tour, and
for 1897 the number was fixed at seven. In 1898, however, all the
counties played at least eight out and home matches, thus complying
with the rule as originally laid down.