The third kind--the medium-paced full-pitch straight to the top of

the stumps--is occasionally, for a slow bowler, a very useful ball. In

the first place, it is not quite so easy to hit as it appears to the

batsman; the change in pace from slow to medium often causes him to

hit a trifle slower than he should do, when the ball, coming on faster

than expected, hits the top or splice of the bat, and goes straight up

in the air. This ball is generally more successful with players who

have a partiality for on-side hitting than with others, as it is never

a difficult one to play quietly; it is only when the batsman tries to

hit that it becomes likely to get a wicket. It is also useful when a

hitter, by running out and hitting every ball, is demoralising bowler,

fielders, and the whole side. If the bowler sees the intention of the

hitter to run out before the ball is delivered--and he is often able

to do this--he can do nothing better than bowl a good medium-paced

full-pitch straight at the top of the middle stump; if the batsman goes

on with his intention of running out, he is not only apt to overrun

this faster than usual ball, and let it pass over the top of his bat,

but if he does hit it he is likely to send it high in the air, from

the above-mentioned cause of catching it with the top or splice of the

bat. There is, however, nothing so flurrying to a bowler as a batsman

who runs out to every ball, and who evinces his intention of doing

so before the ball is delivered. The writer has often talked with

old cricketers on this subject, and they have remarked how well the

old bowlers of their early days used to keep their heads under these

trying circumstances. Doubtless they deserve the very greatest credit

for doing so, for there is nothing so trying to a bowler; it spoils

his pitch, and is rather apt to do the same to his temper. The regular

attendant at matches may have seen almost every bowler of reputation in

England so thoroughly flurried and upset by a batsman doing this, that,

in spite of all efforts to keep cool, the bowling was simply paralysed

and rendered useless to the side for the time being. The best courses

for a slow bowler to pursue on these occasions is, 1st, to bowl the

sort of full-pitch just discussed; and, 2nd, to increase his pace a

little, and bowl a little short of a good length, about a foot or more

outside the legs of the batsman. There is nothing a rushing-out batsman

finds so hard to hit as a ball well outside his legs.

Widish off balls are also useful, as a batsman going down the wicket is

not only apt to miss, but also, if he can reach, to sky them. A high

full-pitch into the hands of the wicket-keeper is likewise sometimes

successful; but, though we may lay down certain rules and suggestions

as to what is best for a bowler to do at this very trying time, we are

afraid that, unless he is able to keep exceptionally cool, they will be

of no practical assistance.

The variableness of the English climate plays a very important part

in the success or otherwise of slow bowlers. A shower of rain in the

night often has the effect of making particularly deadly a slow bowler

who, the day before, on a hard and fast ground, was comparatively

harmless and ineffective. Up to 1884 the disadvantage of a rainfall in

the night to a side that had begun but not finished its innings was

increased by the rule forbidding the ground to be rolled except before

the commencement of each innings. Rain in the night not only softens

the ground, but brings up to the surface numbers of worms, which cover

the pitch with little heaps of earth mould. These little heaps, in the

absence of any rolling, made the ground bumpy and treacherous, and

consequently entailed serious discomfiture to the batting side. The

only plausible argument ever advanced for this injustice was that it

might happen to either side, and was one of the chances of the game.

However, the M.C.C. wisely decided, though not till quite recently,

that this rule should be abolished, the reason for the decision being

that the side which won the toss had a great advantage as it was, from

having the first and best of the wicket, and that, as the other side

was usually batting at the end of the day, it gave the men an extra

and unfair disadvantage in having the wicket spoilt by rain and worms

without the chance of having it rolled. No rule, however, can affect

the drawback under which a batting side is placed whose wicket is

softened by a heavy rainfall in the night. The roller may level the

worm moulds, but it cannot alter the slow, sticky state of the ground;

in fact, it often brings up more water, and makes the pitch still more

sticky and slow. It is on occasions such as these that slow bowlers

meet with their greatest success. So frequently during the course of

the season do these soft wickets occur, even in what are called our hot

summers, that it is part of the science of bowling to know how to turn

such grounds to the best advantage. The different states of the ground

caused by the weather may be roughly, and for all practical purposes,

divided into five: 1st, the hard and dry state; 2nd, the hard state,

with the grass wet; 3rd, the very soft and slow state, (_a_) with the

grass dry, (_b_) with the grass wet; 4th, the drying state, when it has

been very slow and soft, but is gradually drying under the influence

of a hot sun or wind; 5th, the hard and crumbled state. The hard and

dry state calls for no comment, as everything written on the subject

of bowling, unless otherwise specified, refers to the ground in this

condition. The hard state, with the grass wet, is perhaps the most

trying time for a slow bowler. He has to bowl with a wet ball, which

he has great difficulty in holding; he cannot get on the slightest

degree of twist, as the wet ball slips off the wet grass directly it

pitches, allowing no time for the ball to ‘bite’ the ground and take

the twist. A good batsman on these wickets knows that all he has to do

is to play forward with a straight bat when the ball is anything like

a good one, and he is bound to meet it. The slippery ball flies off

the bat like lightning, and travels, if the grass is short and not too

thick, over the hard ground faster than it does when the grass is dry.

Every now and then a ball may be inclined to keep low or shoot; but a

shooter does not possess the same terrors on a wet as on a dry ground,

because in almost every instance it can be played forward to, and a

good batsman in playing forward always keeps his bat low enough to stop

shooters (especially on wet wickets) until he actually sees the ball

rise.

The only course for a slow bowler to adopt on these wickets is to bowl

as good a length as he can, and as straight as possible. He should also

bear in mind that the ball leaves the ground far more quickly than

usual in its wet, slippery state, and that, consequently, the most

likely place in the field to capture a batsman is short-slip. Easy as

the ground is for a batsman when once he gets the pace of it, it often

happens that at first he is surprised at the great pace from the pitch,

plays back instead of forward, and places the ball in the slips. It

is a golden rule for every bowler, slow and fast, on these wickets

to have short-slip ‘finer’ than on ordinary occasions, and a trifle

further back. It is often advisable to have an extra man standing about

three yards squarer than the regular short-slip, but no farther from

the wicket. Two quick active men, who are capable at times of bringing

off smart one-hand catches, should be chosen for these places. They

are by far the most likely men in the field to dismiss good batsmen

on wet hard wickets; in fact, it is often difficult to see how two

such batsmen are to be separated on these occasions except by a catch

at one of these places, or at the wicket. A bowler should with this

object keep bowling a good length on the off stump and just outside it,

recollecting that good-length balls must pitch considerably shorter

than usual on these very quick wickets.

The very soft and slow state is the result of heavy rain which has

left the surface of the pitch dry, but the ground itself thoroughly

sodden. This condition of the ground is popularly supposed to favour

a slow bowler. How often, on coming on to the ground to inspect the

wicket after a night’s rain, is he accosted something in this style:

‘Well, Jack, this ought to suit you; those twisters of yours will want

some watching to-day!’ Jack, after looking at the pitch, which is as

soft and sodden as a piece of dough, knows full well that it will be a

long time before the ground gets back enough of its half-drowned life

to help him in the slightest degree. There is no poorer fun for a slow

bowler than having to bowl on these utterly lifeless wickets. On a

hard true ground, though it may be favourable to the batsman, he has

good sport in trying every dodge he can think of; he fishes and feeds

and angles as warily as Izaak Walton himself; the ground and ball are

full of life and go, and very often, unfortunately for the bowler, the

batsman too. On wet hard wickets, when he can get no twist on, there

is still life and pace in the ground; but in the sodden dead state,

directly the ball touches the ground it sinks in, loses all life and

pace, and comes on to the batsman like what a Yorkshire professional

was once heard to call a ‘diseased lawn-tennis ball.’ There is no

greater fallacy at cricket than to suppose that a sodden wicket is an

advantage to a slow bowler. The time when it begins to assist him is

when the surface is ‘caking’ under the influence of the sun or a drying

wind; and then it is that, as we said above, the greatest successes of

slow bowlers are met with. A slow bowler having to bowl on a sodden

wicket perceives at once that it is extremely difficult for him to bowl

to a good batsman a ‘good-length’ ball for the following reasons:--

What is called a ‘good-length’ ball on ordinary occasions remains on

the ground so long and comes off the pitch so slow that a batsman, if

he is so minded, can with ease play it back--i.e. he can see it coming

on from the pitch in time for him to get back and play it as a simple

‘long-hop.’ Anything short of this will all the more be capable of

being played as a ‘long-hop.’ If the ball is pitched farther than a

good length, it becomes at once--certainly to batsmen quick on their

legs--a half-volley. Thus, if a batsman really gets the time of the

ground, he has only to play these two simplest of balls. No amount of

spin will help the bowler; the ball in the soft ground may twist at

right angles, but it does it so slowly that the batsman has ample time

to defend his wicket. In these circumstances there is only one thing

for a slow bowler to do, and that is to bowl faster and endeavour, by

giving extra pace to the ball, to make it come off the ground quicker.

There are some batsmen whom, on these sodden wickets, it is almost

impossible to get rid of. They remain for hours, perfectly contented if

a whole day is taken up with their innings and forty runs added to the

total, the chances of a draw being thereby greatly augmented. A famous

professional stick, on one occasion, remained at the wickets when the

ground was sodden for one hour and fifty minutes before troubling the

scorer; he was then so flustered by the jeering of the mob that he

rushed out, hit a catch, was missed, and, amidst as much cheering as if

he had wanted one run to complete his hundred, broke his duck’s-egg.

Louis Hall, of Yorkshire, was a desperate man to bowl to on these

grounds; every ball that was bowled he either played back or smothered.

Nothing in cricket could be more dull or dismal than bowling to this

batsman on a sodden wicket at Bramall Lane Ground in a real Sheffield

fog. A. Bannerman, the Australian batsman, is another terrible hard nut

for a bowler to crack on these sodden wickets.

Although, as has been said, slow bowlers are not assisted by the ground

when in this condition, and it is extremely difficult to bowl anything

approaching a good ball to a good batsman, there are some batsmen, and

real good ones too on a hard true ground, who are utterly unable to

adapt their style of play to a slow ground, or rather never can realise

that a ball pitched into a lump of dough will leave it much slower than

when pitched on to a stone. These batsmen, if they kept their keenness

of eye and activity till they were a hundred, would still be seen

playing a quick forward stroke on the sodden ground, sending the ball

up in the air in every direction. A batsman who persists in playing

forward on a dead wicket and finishing his stroke as he would do on a

fast wicket is certain not to last long. It is very curious to notice

how sometimes nearly a whole batting side will make a mistake about

the condition of the wicket. The first batsmen see the ground slow and

the ball twisting a good deal, and begin playing as they would do on a

faster wicket, viz. playing forward to the pitch instead of waiting and

playing a back game. Four or five batsmen will follow, play in the same

style, and lose their wickets, generally bowled, or caught and bowled.

Some batsman will then come in who at once finds out what the slow

bowlers have long since known--that it is a slow easy wicket he has to

bat on, and not a ‘caked,’ ‘kicky’ one. What happens? He plays every

ball back except those that he hits, and he hits everything except a

long-hop, because he can get to the pitch of anything else. The slow

bowlers who have been doing the mischief are soon knocked off, and

his side, in spite of the failure of its four or five most competent

batsmen, makes a good score. On one occasion in a first-class match

the first seven wickets fell for fifty runs, the wicket being deadly

slow and dull; the eighth man came in, and, by dint of playing back and

hitting and a little luck, made over a hundred in about an hour and a

half, being fortunate enough to have some one to stick in with him at

the other end.

When the ground is very soft and the grass wet, the bowler is in

about the same position as when the grass is wet on a hard wicket;

he has to bowl with a wet slippery ball, and cannot get any twist at

all upon it. This is called the ‘cutting through’ state, which means

that, the ball being slippery and the ground and grass wet, it cuts

through the surface of the pitch, taking with it a small piece of wet

sticky turf. As in the hard state with wet grass, short-slip is an

important place and likely to get chances. Although the ground when

in this condition is in favour of the batsman, cricket is miserable

under such circumstances, and is enjoyed neither by batsman, bowler,

nor fielders. The batsman cannot stand on the slippery mud; the bowler,

with wet dirty hands, and boots and trousers bespattered with slush, is

utterly unable to do anything with the slimy ball; and the fieldsmen

can neither hold nor stop it. The ground is covered with sawdust,

without the use of which it would be impossible for the bowler to grasp

the ball firmly, and altogether the whole scene is so unlike cricket,

essentially a fine-weather game, that it always seems a pity under such

conditions to go on playing.

The drying state, when the ground has been very soft and sodden, but

is gradually drying and caking on the surface under the influence of a

hot sun or wind, is the time when slow bowlers have it all their own

way. It is on this condition of ground that in former days bowlers

like Alfred Shaw, and Peate, of Yorkshire, and in present times

Tyler, Briggs, and Wainwright, have so often astonished the cricket

community with wonderful analyses. When the ground has got into this

state, it will often remain so for several hours. At Lord’s, when the

ground after being soft has become caked on the top, it is no unusual

occurrence to see thirty good wickets or more fall in the course of the

day. When a side, no matter how many really good batsmen it may number,

has to go in on ‘caked’ wickets against good bowling, they may think

themselves lucky if they get 100 runs. The ball takes almost as much

twist as a bowler wants to put on; it comes off the ground at different

paces, one part of the pitch being a trifle drier and harder than

another. The first ball of the over will perhaps get up almost straight

and very quickly from the pitch as a batsman is playing it; the next

pitches a trifle shorter, may stop in the ground, and ‘get up and look

at you,’ as it is called, making correct play an impossibility. Or

perhaps one ball will get up very quickly and high, and hit the batsman

on the arm or side, and the next, pitched in almost the same spot,

will leave the pitch equally quickly, but never rise more than an inch

from the ground. It is no recommendation to a bowler to be able to get

wickets on such grounds as these; any bad bowler might bowl a good

batting side out for a small score with such assistance. The only way

a batsman can reasonably hope to add any notches to the score of his

side is to grasp the situation at once, throw careful correct play to

the winds, and hit, pull, and slog in every direction where he thinks

he can get rid of the teasing ball. The Australian eleven of 1882 were

particularly good on this class of wicket; they had four men--Giffen,

Bonnor, McDonnell, Massie--who, rarely needing much inducement to hit,

used to launch out most vigorously and successfully on these occasions,

often cracking up twenty or thirty runs in about half the number of

minutes, and securing victory for their side.

Although very badly caked wickets are not uncommon, perhaps the best

for bowling and the worst for batting in modern experience was at the

Oval during the last innings of the England _v._ Australia match, in

1882. It is the only disastrous match for England in the whole list

of national fixtures that have been played in this country. It may be

remembered that England, having only a few runs to get to win, nearly

made them for the first two wickets, Grace and Ulyett both making about

twenty. The ground at this time was drying and becoming every minute

more difficult, and the way in which our English wickets were mowed

down by Spofforth is now a matter of cricket history, too well known to

repeat. Spofforth was bowling rather more than medium pace, bringing

the ball back a foot or more very quickly from the pitch, sometimes

kicking to the height of the batsman’s head, and at others shooting.

Some of our cricket reporters talked in an airy manner about the ‘funk’

of the English team on that occasion, but the charge was wholly without

foundation. A batsman’s consciousness that twenty thousand spectators

were watching each ball with breathless interest, and that on his own

individual efforts depended the reputation of English cricket, that

the bowling was about as good and the ground as bad as any cricketer

had ever seen, might, and probably did, cause a feeling of intense

anxiety in the minds of each of the English players who failed in his

efforts to win victory for his side; but to say that their efforts were

paralysed, or that any one of them was unnerved by what is popularly

called ‘funk,’ is certainly unjust to the well-tried cricketers who did

battle for England on that memorable and disastrous occasion.

The hard and crumbled wicket is perhaps almost more difficult for

batsmen than when it is caked. The ball will twist a great deal on this

class of wicket, and does it very quickly. It is also inclined both to

‘pop’ and keep low. Spofforth and Turner of the Australian bowlers, and

Peel, Briggs, and Attewell of the English ones, are all most deadly

bowlers on such a wicket as this.

Some of our most successful slow bowlers have been left-handed. The

peculiarity and difficulty about left-hand bowling is that the natural

spin imparted to the ball by a left-handed bowler is the off-spin,

which, of course, makes the ball after the pitch twist from the leg

side of the right-handed batsman to the off. This, as we have mentioned

above, is the most difficult twist for a batsman to play, as an off

break is more easy to watch after the pitch than a leg-break. The

leg-break which a batsman has to meet from a right-handed bowler is not

so difficult to play as that from a left-hander; because, first, the

latter is usually faster than the former, and, secondly, it is much

more disguised. The right-hand leg-break is impossible without getting

the ball in the centre of the hand and screwing the hand round just

as if it were twisting a corkscrew the reverse way--an action which

at once prepares the batsman for the leg twist. Thirdly, because it

usually twists very much less than the right-hand leg-break. It is not

the ball which twists the most that gets the wickets; it is the ball

that just twists enough to beat the bat.

The mode of attack generally adopted by a slow left hander is to place

all his men, with the exception of a short-leg and a deep mid-on, on

the off side. He then proceeds to bowl on the off stump and outside

it, making the ball go away from the batsman to the off as much as

possible after the pitch. Great care has to be taken by the batsman,

as the slightest mistake in hitting or forward play will give a catch

to one of the numerous traps laid all round on the off side. It is the

object of the bowler to get the batsman either to hit at a ball which

is not quite far enough to be smothered, or to reach out and play

forward at one which is a little beyond his reach. A favourite device

of the left-handed bowler is to get the batsman to hit at widish ones

on the off side, a stroke that must cause an uppish hit somewhere,

as it is impossible for a batsman to smother a ball that is a trifle

out of his reach. It is often a good thing for a left-handed bowler

to send down a ball without any twist on it at all, especially if he

is bowling on a wicket where he is able to ‘do’ a good deal. The ball

without any spin on it should pitch on the middle and off stumps; and

if the bowler is bowling from round the wicket, as left-handers usually

do, it will then come on in a line with the pitch and the hand at the

moment of delivery, and if not stopped by the bat, take the leg-stump.

This slow ball that comes with the arm in the middle of others going

the other way is very successful. Slow left-handed bowlers often have

their tempers sorely tried by a class of batsmen that were discussed in

a previous portion of this chapter, namely, those who are so frightened

of getting out that they will never play at an off ball, long-hop,

half-volley, or good-length. There are many enticing balls bowled by

left-handed bowlers that ought to be left alone by every batsman,

notably those that pitch too wide to enable them to be played forward

and smothered. There is no greater or more successful trap for wild

young players than these widish off balls. But it is indeed a trying

time for the bowler when he keeps pitching just outside the off stump,

and is not even played at by the batsman. Bowlers should, in these

circumstances, bowl ball after ball on the off stump and just outside

it. It is by no means an uncommon occurrence to see these punishing

batsmen taken in by a ball that comes in a little with the arm, and

removes the bail while they are striking an attitude, bat over shoulder.

We have had some excellent left-handed bowlers in England, and there

can be no doubt that every team should possess one of this sort if

possible. Peate for some years enjoyed the reputation of being the

best left-hander in England, and rightly so. He was an exceptional

good length, difficult to see, and had a lot of work on. Some of his

performances against the Australians are truly wonderful. When Peate

first began to play cricket he was a very fast, high-actioned bowler,

and the writer remembers finding him on the slow sticky wicket of

the Carlisle ground very nasty to play. He subsequently altered his

pace to slow, and it is a remarkable fact that after this alteration

he completely lost the power of sending down a really fast ball.

Another of our great slow left-handed bowlers was David Buchanan, and,

strangely enough, he too was in his early days a fast bowler. As one of

the slow school he is best known, and we have no doubt that he at the

present moment has taken nearly twice as many wickets in the course of

his career as any other living cricketer. His bowling was celebrated

for the great amount of work he got on to the ball; unless the batsman

was on the pitch of it, a mistake was certain. The only team that ever

seemed to enjoy Buchanan’s bowling was the Rugby boys, and constant

practice had robbed it of all terrors for them.

It is a doubtful point amongst cricketers whether Peel of Yorkshire

or Briggs of Lancashire was the best left-handed slow to medium

bowler. In the writer’s opinion Peel was the best. He bowled perhaps

a slightly better length than Briggs, and as he had a more difficult

action to see, was not so easily hit by a resolute batsman as Briggs.

They were both, however, excellent bowlers, but both are now a little

past their prime. Briggs possesses a marvellous strength of wrist and

fingers, which give him great power of twist and pace. His very fast

ball is nearly as good as that of Palmer, the Australian. One of his

best performances was in England _v._ Australia at Lord’s in 1886. None

of the English bowlers on this occasion could do much with the ball

except Briggs. There is one Australian left-handed bowler who we regret

has never been seen on English cricket grounds--Tom Kendall. In 1878,

when the first colonial team visited this country, great accounts of

Kendall’s prowess with the ball had reached us. His name was included

in the list of the players whom we were led to expect, but for some

reason or other, though he did actually start with the team, he left it

at Adelaide or at some other port at which the ship touched. The writer

saw him and played against him in 1882 in Tasmania, and, though getting

on in years and rather on the big side for bowling, he was about as

nasty a left-hander as any batsman could wish to play. He had a high

action, changed his pace well, from slow to medium, and then to very

fast, had lots of work both ways on his slow and medium balls, and the

very fast ones went with the arm. When the writer saw him his length

was not as good as it might have been, or, from all accounts, as it

once was. His action reminded us rather of that excellent bowler J. C.

Shaw, in his day the best left-hander in England.

In the first Australian team that visited this country, in 1878,

there was another left-handed slow bowler named Allan, about whom the

Australians themselves spread most extraordinary statements. It was

said that Allan, ‘the bowler of the century,’ as he was called in

Australia, possessed some of the most remarkable qualities. Rumour

declared his spin off the ground was so great that the slowest

ball came off up to the bat at ten times greater speed than it had

travelled to the pitch; that he could twist either way, to almost any

degree, at will, and that his bowling had a most remarkable curve in

the air, which rendered it most deadly. This left-handed bowler is

mentioned because, though his powers of bowling had, of course, been

greatly exaggerated, it was certainly most puzzling. He met with some

considerable success at the outset of the tour; but subsequently his

health gave way before the wearing work of cricket every day, and he

was unable to bowl at all. His bowling had a considerable amount of

spin, but what was the most extraordinary thing connected with it was

the inward curl in the air towards the body of the batsman, and then,

after the pitch, the outward twist of the ball. A ball that goes one

way in the air, and another after the pitch, is calculated to try the

mettle of the best batsman. It is a subject for regret that Allan,

through increasing years and his consequent inability to stand hard

work, has not accompanied any of the later teams, as his bowling was so

very different from anything we have ever seen at home.

Does bowling curl or twist in the air? is a question we have often been

asked, and we have frequently heard disputes, by men who possessed some

considerable knowledge of the game, as to whether it was possible for

balls to travel thus or not. It seems almost incredible that men who

have over and over again handled the bat should doubt the tendency of

some kinds of bowling to twist or curl in the air. Nearly all leg-break

slow bowlers curl inwards towards the batsman before the pitch, and no

one who has ever played against W. G. Grace’s bowling can doubt that

the real secret of his success as a bowler has been in the peculiar

flight his action gives the ball, causing it to curl before it pitches.

However, the question as to balls turning in the air has been

definitely settled by the American base-ball players. In this game the

pitcher throws one full-pitch after another to the batsman, and even

if the latter happen to be one of the best and most experienced in

the game he misses a considerable proportion of these full-pitches.

And why? because of the twist or curl in the air which the pitcher

imparts to the ball. A very interesting account is given by Mr. R. A.

Proctor in ‘Longman’s Magazine’ for June 1887 of a well-known English

cricketer’s failure to strike the full-pitches of one of the best

American pitchers. Time after time the bat struck the air and nothing

else; and this was simply owing to the curl the pitcher put on the

ball. Mr. Proctor scientifically explains the curl in the air, and it

may be of interest to insert a short extract from his article:--

When a ball (or in fact any missile) is advancing rapidly through the

air, there is formed in front of it a small aggregation of compressed

air. (In passing we may remark that the compressed air in front of an

advancing cannon ball has been rendered discernible--we can hardly

say visible--by instantaneous photography.) In shape the cushion of

air is conical or rather conoidal, if the ball is advancing without

spin; and therefore it resists the progress of the ball equally on

all sides, and only affects the ball’s velocity. The same is the case

if the ball is spinning on an axis lying along its course. But in the

case we have to consider, where the ball is spinning on an axis square

to its course, the cushion of compressed air formed by the advancing

ball has no longer this symmetrical shape. On the advancing side of

the spinning surface the air cannot escape so readily as it would if

there were no spin; on the other side it escapes more readily than it

would but for the spin. Hence the cushion of air is thrown towards

that side of the ball where the spin is forwards and removed from the

other side. The same thing then must happen as where a ball encounters

a cushion aslant. A ball driven squarely against a very soft cushion

plunges straight into it, turning neither to the right nor to the

left, or if deflected at all (as against a billiard cushion) comes

straight back on its course; but if driven aslant against the cushion,

it is deflected from the region of resistance. So with the base ball.

As the cushion of air against which it is advancing is not opposed

squarely to it, but is stronger on one side than on the other, the

ball is deflected from the region of greatest resistance.

There is one style of slow bowling that has of late years almost

completely vanished from first-class cricket: we refer to under-hand

slows. When Ridley left off bowling lobs, about twelve years ago,

nobody except Humphreys attempted to bowl lobs, but in 1897 Jephson,

of Surrey, has introduced them again with some success, and we hope

he will prosper. As under-hand was at one time the only bowling that

was allowed by the rules of cricket, and as it met with a great amount

of success, even after the raising of the arm was permitted, it will

be as well to refer to the cause that has brought about its practical

abolition. This is owing to the increasing popularity of the game,

and the consequent great increase in the number of good batsmen. The

greatest under-hand bowler that ever played was probably William

Clarke, whose merits have been so often discussed in cricket writings

that it is unnecessary to repeat them here. In order to ascertain

the style of batsmen Clarke made his great reputation against, we

must refer to some one who has seen and known the great bowler and

conversed with those who were in the habit of playing against him. We

are told that Clarke had perfect accuracy of pitch, a quick rise from

the ground, and a good leg twist on his bowling. These attributes in

an under-arm bowler, most excellent as they are, would not nowadays,

with the present efficient state of batting, justify the name of the

possessor being placed in the first rank, because we consider no amount

of accuracy of pitch, twist, or anything else can ever secure this

coveted distinction to a bowler of this kind. Mr. Pycroft gives us

the information we require on the subject of batting against Clarke’s

bowling. He says with regard to Pilch, at that time the best batsman of

the day, ‘He played him back all day if he bowled short, and hit him

hard all along the ground whenever he over-pitched; and some times he

would go in to Clarke’s bowling, not to make a furious swipe, but to

“run him down” with a straight bat.’

Now this description of the play of a man who was able to meet

Clarke’s bowling is interesting to us, because it shows us that the

way in which the great bowler was played by one of the few who could

oppose him successfully is exactly the same method in which every good

batsmen of the present time _does_ play under-hand bowling. If any man

of to-day, chosen to take part in the Gentlemen _v._ Players match as

a batsman, were to endeavour to play under-hand bowling in any other

manner, he would be laughed at as being devoid of the most elementary

rules of the game. Mr. Pycroft goes on to tell us the way which many

did adopt in playing Clarke. He says, ‘This going in to Clarke’s

bowling some persons thought necessary for every ball, forgetting that

discretion is the better part of cricket; the consequence was that

_many wickets fell_ from positive long-hops.’ This description shows

that a great number of those who fell victims to Clarke’s bowling

were absolutely uninitiated in the first principles of playing slows,

viz. never to hit except on the volley, or just as the ball pitches.

Nowadays every batsman--at any rate all who play in first-class

cricket--knows the danger of playing wildly at under-hand ‘lobs,’

as they are called. Occasional mistakes are made, no doubt, when an

unexpected lob bowler appears, but more from wildness and anxiety to

score than from any ignorance as to the mode of playing such balls. The

way to play lobs is exactly the method Mr. Pycroft tells us was adopted

by the great Fuller Pilch.

Slow lobs have therefore in first-class cricket died a natural death,

and although we may expect to find a lob bowler occasionally cropping

up here and there, we do not think there is much prospect of seeing an

exemplar of this style who will ever attain the rank of a first-class

bowler such as that acquired by Clarke, Mr. V. E. Walker, and Tinley.

Mr. A. W. Ridley was the last well-known amateur under-arm bowler who

made a mark in first-class cricket. His performance against Cambridge

in the now famous University match is too well known to need record

here. Humphreys of Sussex has only retired two or three seasons, and

for a long time he got a lot of wickets. His bowling has always been

useful to his county, but during the season of 1893 it has met with

extraordinary success. He has great command over the ball and can

consequently vary its flight, pitch and break at will. Humphreys will

always be a terror to those batsmen who prefer to hit the ball in the

air rather than along the ground, and to those who recklessly leave

their ground and hit wildly at the pitch of the ball. J. B. Wood of

Oxford has occasionally got wickets for his University with lobs,

and helped materially to win the match _v._ Cambridge in 1892; but

he, though useful as a change, is a long way removed from a good lob

bowler, and, indeed, his best ball would seem to be a straight high

full pitch. Although we have stated that lob bowling has died a natural

death, and cannot ever be expected to cope with the present state of

batting, still under-hand slows are occasionally such an excellent

change that we are sorry they are not more practised. It is not,

however, wonderful that there are so few lob bowlers who can go on at a

pinch for a change, when we consider what has been already said about

batting having mastered the art of under-hand; men will not practise

any art unless they have some fair prospect of being ultimately

successful, and knowing that lobs will only be useful very occasionally

and cannot attain to great success, they will not practise them. It is

a pity they do not, as over and over again we see instances of a good

wicket falling to a poorish lob bowler when everything else has failed.

The previous remarks about under-hands refer to first-class cricket;

against schools and against second-class batsmen lobs have been and

always will be particularly deadly. There is something so tempting to

an inexperienced player in seeing a ball chucked up in the air slowly

and simply, it looks so very easy to hit, so peculiarly guileless, that

a wild slog is frequently the result, too often followed by disastrous

consequences.

For this reason the captain of every school eleven should insist on one

of his team devoting himself to lob bowling; a little practice will

enable any one to get a fairly accurate pitch, and twist from the leg

side any boy can manage. Lob bowling thus acquired at school will often

be useful in after days as a change, even in first-class cricket. There

are one or two simple rules connected with lob bowling which everyone

who attempts this style should master.

First.--Do not bowl too slow; if the ball is thrown high and slow in

the air, a good batsman, quick on his legs, will have time to reach and

hit it before it pitches. Old Clarke used to say, ‘It wants a certain

amount of pace to make a good-length ball with proper rise and twist.’

The ball should be sent at such speed as will oblige the batsman to

play forward to it.

Secondly.--A good long run should be taken, as this gets way and ‘fire’

on to the ball, and is always more likely than a short run to deceive

the batsman as to the pitch.

Thirdly.--Generally bowl round the wicket.

Most of the remarks that we have made on slow round-arm leg-break

bowling apply to slow lobs.

Having devoted a number of pages to the subject of slow bowling,

let us now turn to the consideration of what is almost equally

important--fast bowling; indeed, it may be said that the co-operation

of a good fast bowler is absolutely essential if a team wants to rank

amongst the best, particularly as, if there be one of each sort bowling

at either end, the change in pace is more likely to embarrass the

batsman than if he had to play two bowlers of the same pace. Between

1872 and 1887 there was a great dearth of good fast bowlers, at the

time much regretted and not easily accounted for. Now there is a great

improvement, and fast bowling gets much more attention paid to it than

formerly was the case.

Although ordinary fast balls are easy to play on good wickets,

however, it is but seldom that a wicket which is good at the beginning

of a match remains so to the close. The ground wears and cuts up with

the continual pitching of the ball and the tramp of feet, and fast

bowling on such occasions often becomes most deadly. Then, again, a

fast quick delivery to a newcomer, even though the best of batsmen,

may deceive him in the pace, and, before the eye gets accustomed to

the light and the hand becomes steady, cheat him into playing back

at a ball which ought to have been met with forward play. Often have

crack batsmen been dismissed summarily by the first or second ball

coming quicker than they expected off the pitch. Murdoch, the famous

Australian batsman, was particularly apt to mistime fast bowling on

first going in, and several times has the author seen his stumps

shattered immediately by an ordinary straight fast ball without any

‘work’ at all on it. The tail end of a team are usually victims to a

good straight fast bowler, as, unless a fast bowler is met by straight

fearless forward play, he is bound to be dangerous, and it very rarely

happens that the tail end of an ordinary team, even a county team, is

capable of this. A great deal has been said and written about young

fast bowlers bowling too fast for their strength, thus overtaxing their

powers and over-bowling themselves. It is doubtless a fact that many

young promising fast bowlers have been rendered useless by this anxiety

to get more pace on the ball than their strength warranted; and there

can be no better advice to a young aspirant for the honours of a fast

bowler than that so often given, viz. ‘Bowl within your strength, or

else you will over-bowl yourself.’ Although the wisdom and truth of

this warning are generally ascertained by personal experience pretty

early in the career of most fast bowlers, it is seldom, we are sorry

to say, remembered in actual practice--which remissness, we are bound

to add, does not in the least surprise us. It may possibly sound like

heresy to many old cricketers to say that in fast bowling pace is

nearly everything; but such is our opinion. Assume that a man can bowl

straight and a good length--i.e. has a good command over the ball--and

then it may be said that the faster he bowls the more likely he is to

get wickets. And this is generally discovered by young bowlers who have

an aptitude for fast bowling, with the result that many ‘over-bowl’

themselves, strain muscles, rick shoulders, and render themselves

useless.

The object of fast bowling is to beat the batsman by the pace of the

ball, and if this object be accomplished the ball will either be missed

or a bad stroke will be made by the batsman. The faster the bowling

the more likely it is that a batsman will be beaten both before and

after the ball leaves the ground. Should the ball ‘shoot’ or ‘get

up,’ the chances of its being played accurately are rendered much

less when the ball leaves the ground with lightning-like speed and is

almost invisible to the eye than when it leaves it with less speed,

and gives the batsman an opportunity of seeing what is going to happen

for an appreciable moment before it reaches him. Besides, the faster

the bowling the more scope there is for the bowler to change his pace

should he be one of the few fast bowlers who have the power of so doing

with advantage. While saying that pace is everything in a fast bowler,

we do not wish for a moment to cry down or disparage the advantages of

medium-paced bowling. This style has its own characteristics, which

are more closely allied to slow bowling than to fast; but at the same

time there are many moderately good medium-paced bowlers now bowling

with some success in first-class matches who would be much more deadly

and successful could they add about half as much speed again to their

bowling. There are, of course, men who, on the other hand, spoil a good

style by trying to bowl too fast--men who depend for their success

on peculiarity in flight and the work on the ball. Every man must

judge for himself; if he possess great powers of twist combined with

accuracy, and anything peculiar or difficult to see in his action, then

let him devote himself to slow or medium-paced bowling.

When the first edition of this work was published, first-class cricket

was almost entirely without any really fast good bowling. Things have

changed since then, and the hope that we then expressed that a new

race of good fast bowlers would arise has been happily fulfilled.

Ten years ago the only really fast professional bowler was Ulyett of

Yorkshire. He was fast and bumpy, and occasionally most deadly with

his break-backs. Allan Hill of the same county, with his easy and

beautiful delivery, had retired owing to increasing years. There were

brilliant comets for a season or so who shone brightly and then quickly

disappeared. Harrison, likewise of Yorkshire, seemed likely to make

his mark, but after a brilliant beginning vanished from the scene of

first-class cricket. Crossland of Lancashire, for a brief period,

mowed down the County Palatine’s opponents like ninepins, but he too

retired--a victim to the just cry against unfair bowling. There was

Bowley of Surrey, a very fast and uncertain bowler, who was perhaps

the best fast bowler for a season or so, but it was a pitiful best for

English cricket to produce. Amongst the amateurs were A. Rotherham, S.

Christopherson, Whitby and C. Toppin. H. Rotherham, at the beginning

of his career, his last year at Uppingham and the year following, was

a very deadly bowler. He had a good slow ball and a splendid yorker;

but he only lasted a very short time. S. Christopherson was a fairly

good fast bowler at one time, but he took a good deal out of himself

with his action, and soon lost the fire and life that a fast bowler

must possess. The temporary absence of good fast bowlers during some of

the years between 1880 and 1888 was one of the most remarkable facts

connected with first-class cricket. It was the more remarkable because

it was only a few years before this that nearly all the great bowlers

were fast: the list included Tarrant, Jackson, and Freeman, whose

bowling used, it was said, to hum in the air; and after these what a

harvest of fast amateur bowlers there was--Butler, Francis, Powys,

Evans, Morton, and names too numerous to mention.

Now, we are happy to say, English cricket can once more be proud of

her array of fast bowlers. Richardson of Surrey, the greatest in our

judgment that ever lived, Mold and Cuttell of Lancashire, Hearne and

Davidson are all good fast bowlers. Among amateurs, S. M. J. Woods

was the best, but for the last few seasons he has been handicapped by

a sprain, but when at his best he was a magnificent fast bowler with

a most deceptive slow ball; while Jackson, Kortright, Jessop, and

Cunliffe are all far above the average.

As mentioned above, with reference to slow bowling, the higher the hand

and arm are raised at the moment of delivering the ball, the higher the

ball will bound after it leaves the pitch. A fast bowler should always

bear this in mind, and keep his hand as high as possible. It is simply

a matter of ordinary common sense that a ball which rises up high from

the pitch is more difficult for a batsman to get over and smother than

one that comes on low and skimming. A fast ball, when it is anything

like a good length, must be met with the bat, i.e. it must be played

with the forward stroke; consequently a ball that rises quickly from

the pitch, and is still rising when it meets the bat, is extremely

likely to rise higher still after it leaves it, unless it is played

with great care and caution.

The low skimming fast bowler is generally an easy man to play; the

batsman, when the ground is true, can play hard forward to almost any

length of ball; there is no abrupt rise to render an uppish stroke

probable, even if he does slightly misjudge the pace and length of the

ball. There is, of course, in fast bowling, a much greater difficulty

in getting any appreciable twist on to the ball than in slow. The ball

leaves the ground so quickly that it is hardly in contact with it

long enough to ‘bite’ the turf, and so avail itself of any spin that

may have been imparted to it by the bowler. It is to be remembered,

however, that the slightest deviation of a fast ball from its course

after it has pitched is, if a good length, most likely to deceive the

batsman. The latter is bound to play to the pitch of the ball, as it

leaves the ground so quickly as to render it impossible for him to

follow it with the eye in its course from the ground. He plays forward

with a straight bat to meet it; should it turn an inch or two he will

most likely miss it.

The off break is the one most usually attempted by fast bowlers; the

ball is grasped firmly, generally by the seam, to give the hand a

firmer grip, and is delivered in the same way as described for the slow

off break. There have been but few really fast bowlers who have been

able consistently to make their balls come ‘back.’ Every now and then,

however, for some unaccountable reason, a fast bowler finds that he is

making the ball do a lot from the off side. Perhaps his grasp is firmer

and his wrist and fingers are more powerful than on ordinary occasions,

or the ground may have more turf on it, or, for some other reason, his

bowling twists in from the pitch with most fatal results to the batsmen.

If a fast bowler happen to be a man of strong physique, which is

usually the case, a fairly long run up to the wickets before delivering

the ball is an advantage to his bowling. This gives more impetus to the

ball, and what is popularly known as ‘devil.’ Spofforth, the Australian

bowler, when bowling fast, took a much longer run than when bowling

medium pace. It is also an advantage to keep the batsman waiting for

the delivery of the ball, which happens when the bowler runs several

yards up to the wicket. For a fast bowler who intends to change his

pace from very fast to medium slow, a long run is of great advantage,

as the sight of the bowler coming up to the wicket before the delivery

of a slow ball as fast as before the delivery of a fast one, is

extremely likely to take in the batsman with regard to the pace. There

are not so many tricks and dodges in the art of bowling fast as there

are in bowling slow; the chief object to be sought is to bowl straight

and good length, and to make the ball bound. A fast bowler, when first

being put on, should remember that his muscles are probably stiff, and

that he may not at first be able to bowl as accurately and as fast

as he will be when thoroughly warmed to his work. For this reason it

is always well to bowl two or three balls to one side of the wicket

before beginning. These should be not quite at full speed, for fear of

straining or ricking a muscle not yet in full swing, but a good medium

pace. It is always best for a fast bowler to try a ball or two before

beginning, excepting in circumstances when he is called upon to bowl to

some one he has never bowled to before, and especially so to some one

who has never seen him bowl. How often when batting have we silently

chuckled with joy at seeing a man quite unknown to us rapidly loosening

his arms with two or three balls before beginning to bowl! It is a

great thing to have an unknown bowler on one’s side, but he loses half

his value if his style and action are revealed to the batsman before he

receives the ball. In 1886 the writer was playing in a match against

the Australians, when, although things had been going very well for the

English side, the team was beginning to get tied up into a knot owing

to the steady careful way in which Scott, the colonial captain, was

defying all the efforts of our bowlers to dislodge him. A fast bowler,

who had never seen Scott in his life before, was deputed to bowl, and

was proceeding to get ready for ‘two or three down’ to loosen his arm,

when he was told not to mind his arm being stiff, but to bowl the first

over as fast as ever he could. The first ball sent Scott’s leg-stump

flying; it was quite a simple ball, never turned a hair’s breadth

either way, but the action and pace of the bowler took him in, and this

would have been very unlikely to happen had he had an opportunity of

seeing the bowler’s style.

A fast bowler must be straight to be good. This is not the art of one

skilled in the dodges of slows; he has to bowl straight, and a good

length too, or else the runs will come at an enormous rate. In the

present day it is usual to do without a long-stop even to the fastest

bowlers; this makes it imperatively necessary for the bowler not to

bowl to leg, or, if missed by the batsman, the balls have a good chance

of flying past the wicket-keeper to the boundary for four. Whether

it is a good principle to do without long-stops, even when the best

wicket-keepers are behind the sticks, is a doubtful point.

A fast bowler should have such command over the ball as to be able to

bowl a ‘yorker’ whenever he wishes, for the fact may be repeated that a

fast ‘yorker’ is a most deadly ball.

Spofforth and Palmer, the Australians, and Rotherham, the old

Uppingham bowler, Woods, and Mold were about the best fast ‘yorker’

bowlers of modern times. The ball came from these bowlers as high

as the arm would allow, and seemed to fly like an arrow, with

lightning-like rapidity, straight to the block-hole, or a few inches

inside it. A high-action ‘yorker’ is more likely to deceive a batsman

than a low-action one, as in the former case the starting-point of the

ball is above the line of vision, and in the latter on a line with

or below it, which naturally makes the course and pace of the ball

more easy for the eye to judge. A very common error into which good

fast ‘yorker’ bowlers fall is not being content with trying the ball

occasionally to a batsman, and when he first comes on or when they

first go on, but persistently trying, over after over, to break down

his guard with a ball with which he is evidently quite at home, and

which presents no terrors to him. The result of this mistake is that

the balls get considerably punished, either by being driven on the

full-pitch or else on the half-volley, the latter ball being often

the result of a tired-out ‘yorker’ bowler’s persistency. The writer

remembers, when playing in a match some years ago, asking W. G. Grace,

who was on the same side, what sort of a fast bowler a certain man

was who was going on to bowl. ‘Oh, I’m never frightened of him; he is

always trying to “york” you, and bowls any amount of half-volleys,’ was

the reply, and this was soon proved to be, like most of the champion

cricketer’s opinions, perfectly accurate.

A good length just outside the off stump and between the off and middle

stump is the direction that may be commended to the bowler who bowls

over the wicket, and tries to get a little off spin on the ball. The

leg-stump, in olden days, was considered the most deadly spot for a

fast bowler to aim at; but since every first-class batsman now stands

up to his wicket, and does not draw away an inch when the ball comes

between it and his legs, leg-stump bowling is rather expensive work.

By all means let fast bowlers lay siege to the leg-stump of inferior

batsmen; but good batsmen, getting over this ball, will play it with

an almost perfectly straight bat on the outside, and tax it most

unmercifully for the total of their side.

As a rule, it is better for a fast bowler to bowl over the wicket,

as by so doing he has more of the wicket to bowl at, and has,

consequently, a slightly better chance of hitting it if the ball is

missed by the batsman. He has also a greater chance of an appeal for

leg before wicket being answered in his favour than if bowling from

the other side of the wicket. There are some fast bowlers, however,

who must, from the very nature of their action and delivery, bowl from

round the wicket, viz. those who have either a natural bias from the on

to the off, or who are able by their strength of wrist and fingers to

impart such a bias to the ball. A man who bowls from the very extent

of the crease outside the wicket, and whose bowling has naturally or

otherwise this leg side bias--it can hardly be called twist in fast

bowling--is a particularly awkward customer for the batsman. There is

such a constant tendency and inclination for the ball to keep going

farther away to the off side, both before and after its pitch, that

the greatest care must be exercised by the batsman to prevent himself

playing inside the ball and putting it up either to point, third man,

or short-slip. A fast ball that comes in from the leg side is the most

difficult ball that has to be played, assuming its good length. There

have been very few--too few--fast right-handed bowlers who have been

able to manage this ball, but there are many instances of left-handed

men who have attained to great accuracy with it. The late Fred Morley,

of Nottingham, and Emmett, of Yorkshire, are instances.

About thirty years ago there were numerous good fast bowlers, who used

to get the leg bias on the ball in the following way: They bowled round

the wicket, and delivered the ball from about the height of the hip;

the backs of the fingers were presented to the batsman before and at

the moment of delivery; the result being that the ball had on it a

slight amount of what, in slow bowling, we have described as leg-break.

This was a useful style, and it is a pity that it has almost altogether

died out at the present day.

It is quite impossible to say with any certainty what essentials are

necessary in fast bowling before it can be ranked as first-class; so

very much depends on whether the action is easy or difficult for the

batsman to see. By the word ‘see’ is meant whether the pace and pitch

of the ball at the moment of delivery can be instantly gauged by the

batsman or not. Given equal straightness, pace, and command over the

ball in every respect, the bowler who has an action which it is easy

to see cannot compare with the man who, from some peculiarity in the

movements of his body at the moment of delivery, has an action which

is not easy to see. Now, it is a very difficult task to lay down any

rules or reasons why some bowlers are easier to see than others; but

after a good deal of consideration on this subject the writer has come

to the conclusion that the bowlers who do _not_ present a square front

to the batsman when the ball is delivered, but who stand sideways or

half turned, are, as a rule, the most difficult to judge. The hand

comes then from behind the body, and is often not plainly seen till

the very latest moment before delivery. There may be, and no doubt

are, many mannerisms in bowlers which have their effect, but the above

suggestion will probably be found to contain a good sound working rule.

Take Giffen, the Australian; almost as much of his back as his front

was visible to the batsman when he delivered the ball, and his bowling

was most difficult to see--at any rate until the batsman was thoroughly

well set. Perhaps the best English batsmen have made more bad and

utterly mistimed strokes off Giffen than off any other modern bowler.

Spofforth may have bowled more men out, but Giffen certainly was the

cause of more misjudged and uppish strokes, due, in all probability, to

the fact of his bowling being so difficult to see.

[Illustration: Low delivery.]

The best bit of bowling the writer ever recollects playing against was

in the second innings of the Gentlemen of England _v._ Australians, at

Lord’s in 1884. It was Giffen’s day, and a batsman had to have luck

on his side if he succeeded in staying in long enough to appreciate

the beauty of the bowling. Take Peate and Emmett, the two Yorkshire

left-handers, both in their day the best bowlers in England--both these

men stand sideways to the batsman when they deliver the ball, and both

are most difficult to see. Palmer, the Australian, bowled very nearly

quite square; his bowling was very easy to see and to judge, and the

more credit is therefore due to him for being such a successful bowler.

There is no doubt a greater difficulty in attaining to perfect length

and command over the ball when the body of the bowler is not square at

the moment of delivery; but if these essentials to good bowling are

obtained by patience and constant practice, the bowler has this great

advantage, that his balls are more difficult for the batsman to judge

accurately. It seems strange that not one of the numerous published

books on cricket has ever suggested the advantage to the bowler which

is obtained in this way. In almost every one of these works great

stress is laid upon the necessity of the bowler presenting a full face

to the opposite wicket at the moment the ball leaves the hand. It is

doubtless easier for a beginner to bowl _straight_ if he adopts this

style of bowling; but if he can once gain straightness by the other,

viz. the sideways style, he has enlisted a great help to success.

W. G. Grace is, however, an exception to this rule. He delivers the

ball perfectly square with the batsman; and yet we suppose that to

a batsman who meets him for the first time, his bowling is about as

difficult to see and to judge as that of any bowler ever was. It is a

fact that his bowling is invariably fatal to men he has not met before.

This is owing to the hovering flight that his action imparts to the

ball. The first time the writer ever played against W. G. Grace’s

bowling was at Cambridge in 1878, and on the way to the wickets he

was greeted with the cheering cry, ‘I’ll get you out; I always get

youngsters out!’ and surely enough he did, caught and bowled for two or

thereabouts. What the champion did next morning showed that he was as

generous and kind to young cricketers as he was skilful in the game. He

took the writer to the nets prior to the beginning of the second day’s

play, and saying that youngsters required to know his bowling before

being at home with it, he proceeded to bowl for quite twenty minutes

to him; a comprehension of his method was thus gained, and the result

was an addition to the Cambridge score of some forty odd in the second

innings. Few latter-day cricketers would do this.

Perhaps one of the reasons why W. G. Grace is so deadly to young

cricketers is this: the batsman, seeing an enormous man rushing up

to the wickets, with both elbows out, great black beard blowing on

each side of him, and a huge yellow cap on the top of a dark swarthy

face, expects something more than the gentle lobbed-up ball that does

come; he cannot believe that this baby-looking bowling is really the

great man’s, and gets flustered and loses his wicket. W. G. Grace is

certainly enormous, and a year or two ago at Lord’s an amusing remark

might have been overheard on this subject. The England _v._ Australia

match was being played. W. G. walked out into the field side by side

with Briggs of Lancashire, the latter, as is well known, being very

small, perhaps hardly up to W. G.’s elbow. A small child of about five

was in the pavilion with his father, and said, ‘Father, who is that big

man?’ ‘That’s Dr. Grace, the champion,’ said the papa; and ‘Who is the

little one?’ the child continued. ‘That is Briggs.’ Dead silence for a

few moments, and then, ‘Papa, is Briggs Dr. Grace’s baby?’

Although power of pace, straightness, and command over the ball are

the really essential qualities of good fast bowling--as, indeed, of

all sorts--there are many occasions when fortune smiles upon bowling

which possesses none of these good attributes. And it is for this

reason, we think, that every cricketer should be able to bowl when

called upon to do so by his captain. Every man who has played cricket

has bowled at a net, and he certainly has an action which is different

from everybody else’s. As a rule, men who are not considered regular

bowlers can send the ball in somehow or other at a fairly fast pace

more or less straight, and these unknown, wild, and erratic bowlers

often succeed in getting rid of well-set batsmen who have defied all

the efforts of the recognised bowlers of the side. There are numerous

instances of a side being deeply indebted to a bowler who never

before nor afterwards showed the slightest ability to get wickets.

In Australia in 1882, when Ivo Bligh’s English team was playing

combined Australia, on a certain occasion two of the best Australian

batsmen--Murdoch and Bannerman--seemed immovable. They had been in

for about an hour, and every one of the regular English bowlers had

been on and off. A suggestion was made to try C. F. H. Leslie. Now

this gentleman, with all his great merits, was never, even in the

estimation of his best friends, a great bowler. But on he went with

pleasure, as every cricketer should when ordered. The first ball was a

very fast one, rather wide, the second ditto, but the third one--‘Ah,

the third!’--was a head ball, designed after the manner of Spofforth’s

best; and it pitched on the middle of Murdoch’s middle stump! The next

comer was Horan, at that time the reputed best player of fast bowling

in the Colonies. A very fast long-hop, wide on the off side, was

prettily cut straight into Barlow’s hands at third man, and Mr. Leslie

had secured two wickets for no runs. He continued for another over or

two, had Bannerman beautifully stumped by Mr. Tylecote off a fast wide

half-volley on the leg side, and then retired in favour of one of the

regular bowlers, after having, simply by wild erratic fast delivery,

lowered three of the best Australian wickets. We give this as an

example of the principle that every cricketer should try to bowl, and

if he finds that he cannot attain to any efficiency, even with constant

practice, then let him try to ‘sling in’ as hard as ever he possibly

can; he will often be of use to his side when in a fix.

Before leaving the subject of fast bowling a word must be said about

what--some years ago, and again now--may be called the great cricket

bugbear of the last few years--viz. throwing. It is worthy of notice

that when over-arm bowling was first allowed a great outcry arose,

and there were not wanting those who prophesied that this ‘hand over

head’ style would ultimately result in ‘a mere over-hand throw--a kind

of pelting, with a little mannerism or flourish to disguise it.’ Now

it is an astonishing thing that, in a great variety of cases, this is

just what actually has happened. Some of the bowling that has been

allowed to pass unnoticed by umpires is well described by the phrase

quoted; but, although this is so, there are many minor offenders whom

all would like to see pulled up short, not out of any ill-will to them

personally, but in the interests of the game. Now throwing is most

pernicious to cricket, and is calculated, if allowed to increase (as it

surely will unless promptly suppressed by the authorities, backed by

public opinion), to exercise a most disastrous effect on the game. The

subject of throwing is sometimes pooh-poohed by prominent cricketers,

who have remarked, ‘What does it matter whether a man bowls or throws?’

If it makes no difference, by all means let the M.C.C. at once expunge

the rule relating to throwing and jerking. But let us pause for a

moment to see if there are any reasons to suppose that it does make a

difference. There are, in truth, two very good reasons why throwing

should be stopped. First, if it were allowed it would seriously

interfere with the art of bowling. The reasons for this proposition are

as follows: In throwing there is no scope for dissimilarity of style.

All men who throw must, from the very nature of the delivery, send the

ball on its course with exactly the same description of spin. It is

impossible for a thrower to make the ball go across the wicket from

the leg to the on side; every ball which leaves a thrower’s hand has

the off-side spin on it, and none other is possible. Any style which

tends to cramp bowling, as this does, must be bad. Again, a throwing

bowler cannot change his pace as other bowlers do; he dare not bowl the

slow high-dropping ball so successfully used by Spofforth and others,

because he knows that when his arm and wrist move slowly the unfair

jerk of the wrist and elbow will be more manifest than when it is

partially concealed by the usual quick movement of his arm. If throwing

tends to cramp bowling, as it does, and render certain essentials for

the development of the science impossible, then it must be injurious

to the game. Secondly, if throwing were allowed the batsman would

be in a position of considerable danger. Many cricketers say, ‘Let

throwers alone, they are always easy to play;’ and this, no doubt, is

so, for the reasons given above, especially when every thrower must,

for the sake of appearances, adopt some slight measure of disguise in

his action; but once let it be recognised that throwing is part of the

game, and a race of sturdy chuckers will spring up, whose pace will be

so terrific that the best and pluckiest batsman will not be able to

defend his body, much less his wicket, against their lightning-like

deliveries. Imagine what it would be if Bonnor, or Forbes, or Game

were to be allowed to throw, all of them having thrown in their best

days as much as 120 yards--is it likely that a batsman at a distance

of only twenty-one yards could be quick enough with his bat to stop

such bowling? Even with an ordinary fast bowler a batsman has sometimes

difficulty in preventing himself from being struck by the ball, and

with an undisguised thrower the danger would be tenfold.

The question then arises, what can be done to stop the throwing

nuisance? And it is one which every member of the cricket-loving

community should ask himself. It is a question of the greatest

difficulty, as is evident from the fact that the committee of the

M.C.C. have so far found it impossible to legislate with regard to

the nuisance. The committee has done everything in its power; it

has instructed the umpires to watch closely the delivery of every

doubtful bowler, and probably the umpires have acted fully up to their

instructions; but they have stopped here, and absolutely refused to

report to the world the result of their careful observations. It is a

fact that of late years no professional umpire in a first-class match

has no-balled a professional bowler for throwing. This is not to be

wondered at: professional umpires themselves have been professional

bowlers, and they cannot bring themselves to take the bread out of the

mouth of one of their own class by no-balling him, and stigmatising him

at once and for ever as a ‘thrower.’

We cannot get amateur umpires to stand: these would, no doubt,

fearlessly no-ball any unfair bowler; but if we could, we should

probably find that the quantity of bad decisions in the course of

the year would be greatly increased. An umpire wants practice and

experience in keeping his attention and whole mind fixed impartially on

the game, and this can only be acquired by those who stand day after

day in that capacity.

The only way, then, to our mind, to stop throwing, as the M.C.C.

cannot and the umpires will not, is to get public opinion to step in

and sweep it off our cricket grounds. Let every amateur cricketer,

whether he plays for his county or his village club, set his face

resolutely against the evil, and do his utmost to discourage it. If an

‘Anti-Throwing Society’ could be established amongst cricketers, we

firmly believe it would effect its object.

In the North of England, where the game is ever increasingly popular,

there are many ‘chuckers’ to be met with. The clubs who do not possess,

to say the least, a doubtful bowler are, we should say from our

experience, in the minority. Young professional bowlers see the general

laxity that prevails, and adopt the peculiar flick of the wrist and

elbow, hoping thereby to get more twist on the ball, and this sooner

or later develops into a throw. Young bowlers of this description get

drafted from their village clubs into the county team, and thereby

augment the number of ‘doubtful’ bowlers in first-class matches. Now if

every amateur stood out against this system, and even went so far as to

say, ‘I will not be one of a team that wins its matches by such means,’

unfair bowling would soon die out.

It may be accepted as an absolute truth that the greatest bowlers

do not throw, and never have. Spofforth, Turner, Palmer, Lohmann,

Richardson, Morley, and a host of others are true bowlers, and to the

credit of the Australians it may be said that till 1896, when Jones and

McKibbin came over, there had been no suspicion against any Colonial

bowler, and it is a matter of great regret that both Jones and McKibbin

must be described as very great offenders in the matter of throwing.

[Illustration: Doubtful delivery.]

It will be well for everyone to realise that, if this question is

allowed to drift on from year to year without any serious protest from

public opinion, it will become absolutely necessary for the committee

of the M.C.C. to do something in the matter. What this should be is, as

we have said, very doubtful, and many and varied would be the opinions

of competent judges as to the form of legislation that would meet

the evil. It can almost be taken for granted that it is impossible

satisfactorily to define a throw, and even if this were not so the

solution of the question would be no nearer, as there would be just the

same difficulties in the way of an umpire saying that a bowler came

within the definition as there is now in saying that he throws. What

is wanted is to get rid of throwers in small club and village matches,

and then we should never get them drafted into first-class cricket. If

the umpire at either end were allowed to no-ball, we believe the system

of throwing would receive a serious blow. It often happens that the

thrower can only bowl at his own umpire’s end; if he attempted it at

the other end he knows what would await him; and if both umpires had

the right to no-ball _for throwing_, this difficulty would be overcome

by his not being able to bowl at either end. It is, however, earnestly

to be hoped that no change of any sort in the rules will be necessary,

but that all true cricketers will unite in discountenancing that which

is always a source of wrangling and dispute.

Before leaving the subject of fast bowling a few remarks on the

position of the field will not be out of place. Every bowler who is

worth his salt knows much better than anyone else how the field should

be placed to his bowling. So much depends upon the style and favourite

strokes of the batsman to be dislodged and the mode of attack that is

going to be brought into requisition, that the general rules we suggest

here are more as a guide to young fast bowlers than to those who have

gained their experience. To a fast over the wicket round-arm bowler (on

a true wicket) the field should be placed as on page 176.

● ●

COVER SLIP LONG SLIP

SHORT SLIP

●

3ᴰ MAN

●

●

WICKET KEEPER

╔╦╗

● ║║║

POINT ¯¯¯¯¯

●

COVER POINT

●

MID ON

● ╔╦╗

MID OFF ║║║

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

●

BOWLER

●

LONG FIELD

The field for a fast right-arm bowler.

Should the bowler, however, be one who changes his pace to slow and

relies occasionally on quite a slow head ball, it will be as well to

bring short-leg half-way between the umpire and the bowler, and put

mid-on out deep in the field on the on side. On no occasion should

short-slip be dispensed with; he should on a fast wicket be fairly

fine, and if he is a quick active man with his hands (as he should

be for this post), about eight yards from the wicket. The object of

short-slip is to pick up snicks which just miss the wicket-keeper, and

although he may hold a larger proportion of these quick snap catches

when a long way from the wicket, he will get an infinitely greater

number when closer in; consequently, if he is a man of quick sight and

tenacious hand, he will actually secure more catches close in, although

at the same time he may miss more. The positions of long-leg, third

man, short-leg, and mid-on depend to a great extent on the batsman’s

play. It is a golden rule never to do without a point and cover-point,

although in some instances--e.g. when a strong cutting batsman is in

on a fast wicket--it is sometimes advisable to place point in front

of the wicket and cover-point square. It is, however, but seldom that

this is necessary, and many cricketers always view the change with some

misgiving as to its correctness, because a good active cover-point in

the usual place saves a large number of runs and, probably, gets more

catches than any other man in the field, with the exception of the

wicket-keeper and short-slip.

A round the wicket fast bowler requires the field in much the same

position. But in his case it is sometimes necessary to have an extra

man on the leg side, as these bowlers are very apt to bowl between

the legs and the wicket, which means with good batsmen that they get

played on to the leg side, between mid-on and short-leg. If this change

is necessary long-leg may be sent almost to the boundary, very fine,

behind the wicket, and long-stop be brought on to the leg side. A very

fine long-leg prevents boundary byes, and generally manages to save the

fine long-leg boundary hits. Unless there is a first-class man behind

the stumps, however, this generally results with first-class bowling

in rather too many extras to justify its continuance. Fast left-hand

bowlers want more men on the off side, as, from the nature of their

bowling, they get more punished in that direction than anywhere else.

If fast left-hand bowling is accurate and straight, long-leg is usually

dispensed with, and, in fact, mid-on as well is often taken to the

other side of the wicket, leaving short-leg, who is brought forward a

few yards, the only man on the leg side of the wicket. Then there is an

unbroken line of fielders on the off side, which the batsman finds it

difficult to break through if it is composed of active and energetic

men. The way in which fast left-handed bowlers place their field is

usually as on page 177.

●

LONG SLIP

●

EXTRA SHORT SLIP ● SHORT SLIP

●

3ᴰ MAN

●

WICKET KEEPER

╔╦╗

● ║║║

POINT ¯¯¯¯¯

●

COVER POINT

●

MID ON

●

EXTRA COVER POINT

╔╦╗

MID OFF ● ║║║

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

●

BOWLER

The field for a fast left-arm bowler.

There is a class of fast left-hand bowlers who require more men on the

on side--viz. those who give the ball the leg side bias on delivery,

which, to a right-handed batsman, causes the ball to come in from

the off side, or, as it is usually termed, to come with the arm. It

is often necessary with this style of bowling to have a very fine

short-leg, to stop the snicks and leg byes which are caused by the

batsman playing outside the ball. Then a short-leg by the umpire is

necessary, and also a mid-on, making three on the on side. Mr. Appleby,

of Lancashire, is an example of this style of bowler, as is Wright of

Kent, who at times is most deadly with the ball coming with the arm,

especially if he has any assistance from the lie of the ground. We have

occasionally seen a left-arm bowler, like Emmett of Yorkshire--who

relies exclusively on the off break, which, to a right-handed batsman,

brings the ball from leg to off--involuntarily send down a ball that,

instead of taking the bias imparted to it, for some strange and

unaccountable reason went the other way, an accident which places the

batsman in a most awkward fix.

Some bowlers experience great difficulty in bowling to left-handed

batsmen. The necessary alteration in their style seems to worry them

and interfere with their accuracy of pitch. Usually a slow bowler tries

to get a left-handed batsman caught on the off side. He places most of

his men on this side, and bowls the off break (or, as it would be to

a left-handed batsman, the leg-break) with the object of getting the

batsman to play inside the ball, and thus make an upstroke. In short,

he places the men as a left-handed bowler places them when bowling to

a right-handed batsman. Left-handed batsmen are notoriously strong and

powerful in their off hitting, and consequently in this direction must

the bait be laid. As a rule, left-handed batsmen are apt to be a trifle

wild and unable to restrain their keenness to hit, and consequently

they pay the usual penalty of attempting to hit widish off balls

going away from them. But occasionally a bowler meets a left-hander

who is too wide awake and too good a batsman thus to throw away his

chance of scoring, and then different tactics must be employed. There

have been, and are, wonderfully few really good left-handed batsmen

in England, and the chance of a bowler having to meet one of them is

very slight. Between the years 1880 and 1890 there were only, in first

class cricket, the late W. Scotton of Notts and Peel of Yorkshire and

the late F. M. Lucas. The best of this class was perhaps F. M. Lucas,

whose early death in India will always be deeply regretted by his wide

circle of friends. He was really an accomplished batsman with good

sound defence and great punishing powers. A slow bowler might bowl for

hours on the off side to him with the sole result of seeing four after

four being despatched all along the ground to the boundary. Moses of

Sydney has many times distinguished himself against our English teams

in Australia, and was an excellent batsman. At the present time we

have Ford, Clement Hill and Darling the Australians, and the two last

are probably the two finest left-handed batsmen the world has seen.

Ford as a hitter was perhaps the hardest left-hander that ever lived,

and Hewett a few years ago was almost as hard. Bruce the Australian

is a fine free left-handed batsman, and certainly has a more graceful

and finished style than any other left-hander we have yet seen. In

our opinion, when a really good left-hander comes in, one who is not

likely to get himself out on the off side by careless hitting, an

attack should be made on his leg-stump. Most left-handers are good

leg-hitters, but we have never yet seen one (not excepting those above

named) who was as good on the leg-stump as a first-class right-handed

batsman. There is an awkwardness apparent in the left-hander’s play

to a ball pitching on the leg-stump, or just inside it, and there is

always a great likelihood of a cross bat being used for a leg hit.

Many and many a time has the writer, after trying the off-ball trick

unsuccessfully against one of these batsmen, succeeded in dismissing

him by bowling over the wicket at the leg-stump and between the legs

and leg-stump of the batsman. This manœuvre only entails a couple of

men being brought across from the off side to stop the run-getting.

There is one species of ball which we have not discussed, deadly as it

is, both in fast and slow bowling. This is the ball which, after the

pitch, never rises, but shoots along the surface of the ground, and

is commonly called a ‘shooter.’ The reason why no notice was taken of

this when the different kinds of ball which may be bowled were being

dealt with is because no amount of practice or skill can enable a

bowler to bowl thus. It depends for existence upon inequalities in the

ground. There are some grounds which have acquired great reputation for

supplying ‘shooters’ for the benefit of bowlers; but this reputation is

unfortunately always accompanied by one for being lumpy and dangerous.

Not a great many years ago Lord’s used to be celebrated for shooters,

owing to its rough condition; and even now, well looked after as it is,

shooters are of more frequent occurrence there than on most other good

grounds. Although it is not in the power of any man to bowl shooters

at will, still there is no doubt that men with a low delivery have a

greater chance of being helped by a shooter than men who bowl with a

high overhead action. The writer recollects at Cambridge, about 1879

or 1880, being told by a young professional bowler, engaged at the

University ground at that time, that he had found out how to bowl

shooters. He was a bowler of considerable promise, and had begun to

make his mark in county cricket, but it being known that his cricket

abilities far exceeded his intellectual powers, the announcement of

this wonderful discovery was received with some amount of doubt.

However, out he came to bowl, to prove his prowess with the celebrated

shooter; but it simply appeared that, instead of bowling with an

overhead delivery, which was his wont, he bent his body quite low, and

proceeded to bowl in a manner which was hardly removed from genuine

under-hand. It is unnecessary to say that there were no shooters. His

balls kept low after the pitch because his action was low.

There is one style of bowling sometimes seen in the present day that

has not been mentioned, viz. fast under-arm. This is of two kinds:

first, that which pitches a good length as with round-arm bowling;

secondly, ‘sneaks,’ or bowling that pitches near the bowler’s hand and

travels along the ground till the ball reaches the batsman. The latter

can never be of any avail against a good player on a decent wicket, as

every ball can be met by the forward stroke and rendered harmless. In

country matches it is amusing to see the batsmen holding their bats

in the air and trying to pounce down at the very last moment on these

balls. This mode of playing such bowling is essentially incorrect, and

would even be likely to cause the downfall of a good batsman; it is as

certain as anything can be at cricket that a good forward straight bat

cannot miss a ‘sneak.’ Mr. C. I. Thornton at one time attempted this

style of bowling, and was known to get a wicket or two. The good-length

fast under-arm, when bowled round the wicket with a good leg twist on,

might be made very dangerous. The old style of low round-arm, mentioned

a few pages back, was very similar to this style of bowling, and was

bowled with the same object as this has in view, viz. catches in the

slips and on the off side. We only know of one fast under-arm, leg

twist, good-length bowler, and he does not play in first-class cricket.

His name is Bunch, an old sergeant of the Black Watch, well known on

many military cricket-grounds all over England and India. Some years

ago he was decidedly a good bowler, his balls came very fast, pitched

good length on the leg-stump, and, having lots of leg stuff on, wanted

very careful play.

And now, after having discussed the different styles of bowling known

in cricket, let us consider some of the main rules which must guide

the action of every bowler in the field. The first and chief principle

that a young bowler must master is that he is bowling for his side’s

success, and not for his own; and that, with that object in view, he

has voluntarily placed himself under the leadership of his captain.

He must, therefore, give in at once, and readily, to every order. A

captain is always ready to hear the suggestions of a bowler, and, as

a rule, with regard to placing the field, is always willing to adopt

them; but should he not do so, the bowler must accept the decision

with the best grace possible. There is nothing more discouraging and

demoralising to a side than a sulky bowler--i.e. one who gets angry

when spoken to, and subsequently adopts a defiant manner towards his

captain. This bowler is usually a very poor stamp of sportsman, but

unfortunately he may often be seen, and the marks by which he may be

recognised are: First, bowling wildly and much faster than usual.

Secondly, getting to his place at the end of his over after everyone

else. Thirdly, if he fields a ball, throwing at the wicket, instead

of to the wicket-keeper, as hard as he can, generally causing an

over-throw. Fourthly, if he misses a ball in the field, standing still

and allowing some more remote fielder to run after it, or else running

after it himself at about the same pace as if he were just starting on

a five-mile race. He is a great nuisance generally in the game. We do

not deny that circumstances often arise when one is bowling that tax to

the utmost the temper of the mildest man in the world; it is, to say

the least, very irritating to try for half an hour to get a man caught

out by a particular stroke off a particular ball, and then at the end

see the ball bowled, the stroke made, and the catch missed; but, as

chance enters to a great extent into the game, the bowler ought to do

his very utmost to curb his feelings, in the interests of others who

are taking part in the game.

A bowler should be ready to take any place in the field when he is

not bowling. In these days, when slow bowling is frequently on at

both ends, there is often a difficulty in getting four men to do the

out-fielding. A bowler should not object at all to help his side by

doing this out-country work. Although a great specialist in the field,

such as an excellent cover-point or point, is always an object of

admiration, more admirable still are men good at all places. W. G.

Grace, A. N. Hornby, and many others we could mention were at one time

equally safe and at home in any position where they were placed.

A bowler should never grumble aloud at catches being missed; the

unfortunate man has done his best and failed, and any censure only

makes him more flurried and adds to his discomfiture without doing any

good.

A golden rule for every bowler to observe is--after the batsman has

played the ball, _get back to the wicket as quickly as possible_.

Neglect of this rule loses many a ‘run out.’ If a bowler does not

get back to his wicket, there is no one to take the ball and knock

the bails off should the batsmen run and the ball be returned to the

bowler’s end. When the ball is thrown up, the bowler should not take it

till it has just passed the wicket; he should then seize and sweep the

ball into the stumps in one and the same action. Should he stand behind

and take the ball before it reaches the wicket, there is great danger

of his disarranging the bails before he gets the ball in his hands. Of

course there are exceptions to this rule--e.g. when a ball is coming

very slowly up to the wicket from a feeble throw or because the ground

is sticky and dead; then the bowler must do his best anyhow to get the

ball into the stumps before the batsman reaches the crease.

A bowler should never throw the ball at the wicket unless it is the

only possible chance of running the batsman out. There is always a

chance of the ball slipping out of his hand and missing its aim.

A bowler should take plenty of time between each ball he delivers. If

he hurries he will get flurried and out of breath and bowl badly.

It is a mistake for a bowler to appeal unless he has a good chance of

getting a favourable decision. Umpires are very peculiar individuals;

once let it enter their heads that a bowler is trying to ‘jockey’ a

decision out of them, up go their backs, and they suddenly become a

mechanical toy that glibly answers every appeal with the two words ‘Not

out,’ and those only. A bowler is quite justified in appealing for a

leg before wicket even if he is himself doubtful and uncertain as to

whether the ball pitched quite straight or would have quite hit the

wicket, since he is exceedingly likely not to form a correct impression

of its straightness from the fact of his being at the moment of the

pitch of the ball a little out of the straight line between the wickets.

Bowlers should always take care before a match that they are shod with

good stout shoes with plenty of nails in them. It is a most important

thing for a bowler to have shoes which will prevent him from slipping,

and this is somewhat difficult when grounds are so constantly changing

from hard to soft. For a hard ground nothing is better than big nails

or screws; these do not go into the ground, but grip it and give a firm

foothold. The left shoe of a right-hand bowler and the right shoe of a

left-hand one should be extra well supplied with nails, because in the

act of bowling the whole weight of the body comes down upon the left

foot with the right-hand bowler and the right with a left-hand one.

For a soft ground the old-fashioned spikes are the best. They can be

put in and taken out in a few minutes before the beginning of a match,

according to the state of the ground. Every bowler should carry spikes,

nails, and screws, a screw-driver and gimlet, in his cricket-bag.

A bowler should do all in his power to prevent cutting up the wicket

with his feet in a place where bowling from the other end may pitch. If

he finds that he is doing so with either foot he should at once change

sides of the wicket, and if he then finds that, do what he will, he

cannot help damaging the wicket--which is a most unlikely event--he

should at once desist from bowling. If the ground is unduly cut up and

made artificially difficult for the batsman by bowlers’ feet, whether

it is done intentionally or not, such bowling is unfair and should at

once be stopped. Spofforth in some states of the ground used to spoil

it terribly, and this although he wore no spikes on the offending

foot. The side of this foot, however, came down with great force a few

yards in front of his own wicket. No doubt great damage at times was

caused to the opposing batsmen by this unfortunate foot, and also to

the Australian batsmen themselves, and on one occasion an appeal was

made to the umpire as to whether, though caused unintentionally, it was

or was not unfair. The umpire declined to give an opinion. But there

can be little doubt that a bowler who has unfortunately developed this

tendency is transgressing the rules of fair cricket.

A chapter on bowling would not be complete without the addition of some

rules for the guidance of those who are beginning to play cricket and

who want to learn how to bowl. Success depends so much upon the natural

action of the bowler that the multiplicity of rules so often laid down

for the guidance of young bowlers, though followed out to the letter,

does not greatly profit the aspirant to bowling honours. There are many

straight accurate bowlers who can put as much twist as most men on the

ball, and who yet never attain to any eminence in the art. This is due

to their action being simple and easy to see, and to their consequent

inability to deceive the batsman as to the pace and flight of the ball.

There are, however, one or two simple elementary rules which it would

be always as well for young bowlers to follow.

First.--Take every opportunity of bowling at imitation cricket with

a racquet or fives ball, or any other sort of ball. This teaches you

by practical experience the difference in the spins of the ball and

what constitutes a good ball. Small cricket with a fives ball and a

fives bat is splendid fun, and has initiated many a youngster into the

mysteries of break-backs and breaks from leg.

Secondly.--Keep your arm as high as possible.

Thirdly.--If naturally inclined to be a fast bowler, aim at

straightness first of all, and take care to bowl well within your

strength.

Fourthly.--Always bowl in the same style and action. Bowl every day

in practice, but not for more than half an hour. And take a rest of a

minute or so after every six balls; remember in a match you have a rest

after every four or five. Bowl carefully in practice. If you get tired

leave off at once. If you find your bowling is getting worse instead of

better, leave off for a few days and have a complete rest.

Fifthly.--Take a good long run, whether you bowl slow or fast; and if

you can, run on a little after delivering the ball. This gives extra

‘fire’ to the ball.

Sixthly.--Be sure to practise bowling both sides of the wicket.

Seventhly.--If you want to become a really good bowler accustom your

fingers early to get as much twist as possible on the ball, both ways.