William Beldham saw as much of cricket as any other man in England,
from the year 1780 to about 1820. Mr. E. H. Budd and Caldecourt are the
best of chroniclers from the days of Beldham down to George Parr. Yet
neither of these worthies could remember any injury at cricket, which
would at all compare with those “moving accidents of flood and field”
which have thinned the ranks of Nimrod, Hawker, or Isaac Walton. A
fatal accident in any legitimate game of cricket is almost unknown. Mr.
A. Haygarth, however, kindly informed me that the father of George III.
died from the effects of a blow from a cricket ball. His authority is
Wraxall’s Memoirs:--
“Frederick, Prince of Wales, son of George II., expired suddenly in
1751, at Leicester House, in the arms of Desnoyèrs, the celebrated
dancing master. His end was caused by an internal abscess that had long
been forming in consequence of a blow which he received in the side
from a cricket ball while he was engaged in playing at that game on the
lawn at Cliefden House in Buckinghamshire, where he then principally
resided. It did not take place, however, till several months after the
accident, when a collection of matter burst and instantly suffocated
him.”
A solicitor at Romsey, about 1825, was, says an eye-witness, struck so
hard in the abdomen that he died in a week of mortification. There is a
rumour of a boy at school, about eighteen years since, and another boy
about twenty-eight years ago, being severally killed by a blow on the
head with a cricket ball. A dirty boy also, of Salisbury town, in 1826,
having contracted a bad habit of pocketing the balls of the pupils of
Dr. Ratcliffe, was hit rather hard on the head with a brass-tipped
stump, and, by a strange coincidence, died, as the jury found, of
“excess of passion,” a few hours after.
The most likely source of serious injury, is when a hitter returns
the ball with all his force, straight back to the bowler. Caldecourt
and the Rev. C. Wordsworth, severally and separately, remarked in my
hearing that they had shuddered at cricket once, each in the same
position, and each from the same hitter! Each had a ball hit back
to him by that powerful hitter Mr. H. Kingscote, which whizzed, in
defiance of hand or eye, most dangerously by. A similar hit, already
described, by Hammond who took a ball at the pitch, just missed Lord
F. Beauclerk’s head, and spoiled his nerve for bowling ever after.
But, what if these several balls had really hit? who knows whether the
respective skulls might not have stood the shock, as in a case which
I witnessed in Oxford, in 1835; when one Richard Blucher, a Cowley
bowler, was hit on the head by a clean half-volley, from the bat of
Henry Daubeny--than whom few Wykehamists _used_ (_fuit!_) to hit with
better eye or stronger arm. Still “Richard was himself again” the very
next day; for, we saw him with his head tied up, bowling at shillings
as industriously as ever. Some skulls stand a great deal. Witness the
sprigs of Shillelah at Donnibrook fair; still most indubitably tender
is the face; as also--which _horresco referens_; and here let me
tell wicket-keepers and long-stops especially, that a cricket jacket
made long and full, with pockets to hold a handkerchief sufficiently
in front, is a precaution not to be despised; though “the race of
inventive men” have also devised a cross-bar india-rubber guard, aptly
described in Achilles’ threat to Thersites, in the Iliad.[2]
[2] Hom. Il. II. 262.
The most alarming accident I ever saw occurred in one of the many
matches played by the Lansdown Club against Mr. E. H. Budd’s Eleven,
at Purton, in 1835. Two of the Lansdown players were running between
wickets; and good Mr. Pratt--_immani corpore_--was standing mid way,
and hiding each from the other. Both were rushing the same side of him,
and as one held his bat most dangerously extended, the point of it met
his partner under the chin, forced back his head as if his neck were
broken, and dashed him senseless to the ground. Never shall I forget
the shudder and the chill of every heart, till poor Price--for he it
was--being lifted up, gradually evinced returning consciousness; and,
at length, when all was explained, he smiled, amidst his bewilderment,
with his usual good-nature, on his unlucky friend. A surgeon, who
witnessed the collision, feared he was dead, and said, afterwards, that
with less powerful muscles (for he had a neck like a bull-dog) he never
could have stood the shock. Price told me next day that he felt as if a
little more and he never should have raised his head again.
And what Wykehamist of 1820-30 does not remember R---- Price? or what
Fellow of New College down to 1847, when
“_Multis ille bonis flebilis occidit_,”
has not enjoyed his merriment in the Common Room or his play on
Bullingdon and Cowley Marsh? His were the safest hands and most
effective fielding ever seen. To attempt the one run from a cover hit
when Price was there, or to give the sight of one stump to shy at,
was a wicket lost. When his friend, F. B. Wright, or any one he could
trust, was at the wicket, well backed up, the ball, by the fine old
Wykehamist action, was up and in with such speed and precision as I
have hardly seen equalled and never exceeded. When he came to Lord’s,
in 1825, with that Wykehamist Eleven which Mr. Ward so long remembered
with delight, their play was unknown and the bets on their opponents;
but when once Price was seen practising at a single stump, his Eleven
became the favourites immediately; for he was one of the straightest of
all fast bowlers; and I have heard experienced batsmen say, “We don’t
care for his underhand bowling, only it is so straight we could take
no liberties, and the first we missed was Out.” I never envied any man
his sight and nerve like Price--the coolest practitioner you ever saw:
he always looked bright, though others blue; and you had only to glance
at his sharp grey eyes, and you could at once account for the fact that
one stump to shy at, a rook for a single bullet, or the ripple of a
trout in a bushy stream, was so much fun for R. Price.
Some of the most painful accidents have been of the same kind--from
collision; therefore I never blame a man who, as the ball soars high
in air, and the captain of his side does not (as he ought if he can)
call out “Johnson has it!” stops short, for fear of three spikes in his
instep, or the buttons of his neighbour’s jacket forcibly coinciding
with his own. Still, these are not distinctively the dangers of
cricket: men may run their heads together in the street.
The principal injuries sustained are in the fingers; though, I did once
know a gentleman who played in spectacles, and seeing two balls in
the air, he caught at the shadow, and nearly had the substance in his
face. The old players, in the days of underhand bowling, played without
gloves; and Bennet assured me he had seen Tom Walker, before advancing
civilisation made man tender, rub his bleeding fingers in the dust.
The old players could show finger-joints of most ungenteel dimensions;
and no wonder, for a finger has been broken even through tubular
india-rubber. Still, with a good pair of cricket gloves, no man need
think much about his fingers; albeit flesh will blacken, joints will
grow too large for the accustomed ring, and finger-nails will come off.
A spinning ball is the most mischievous; and when there is spin and
pace too (as with a ball from Mr. Fellowes, which you can hear humming
like a top) the danger is too great for mere amusement; for when, as
in the Players’ Match of 1849, Hillyer plays a bowler a foot away from
his stumps, and Pilch cannot face him--which is true when Mr. Fellowes
bowls on any but the smoothest ground--why then, we will not say that
any thing which that hardest of hitters and thorough cricketer does, is
not cricket, but certainly it is anything but _play_.
Some of the worst injuries of the hands occur rather in fielding than
in batting. A fine player of the Kent Eleven, about three years ago, so
far injured his thumb that one of the joints was removed, and he has
rarely played since. Another of the best gentleman players broke one of
the bones of his hand in putting down a wicket: but, strangest of all,
I saw one of the Christchurch eleven at Oxford, in 1835, in fielding at
Cover, split up his hand an inch in length between his second and third
fingers: still, all was well in a few weeks.
Add to all these chances of war, the many balls which are flying at the
same time at Lord’s and at the Universities, and other much frequented
grounds, on a practising day. At Oxford you may see, any day in the
summer, on Cowley Marsh, two rows of six wickets each facing each
other, with a space of about sixty yards between each row, and ten
yards between each wicket. Then, you have twelve bowlers, _dos à dos_,
and as many hitters--making twelve balls and twenty-four men, all in
danger’s way at once, besides bystanders. The most any one of these
bowlers can do is to look out for the balls of his own set; whether
hit or not by a ball from behind, is very much a matter of chance.
A ball from the opposite row once touched my hair. The wonder is,
that twelve balls should be flying in a small space nearly every day,
yet I never heard of any man being hit in the face--a fact the more
remarkable because there was usually free hitting with loose bowling.
Pierce Egan records that, in 1830, in the Hyde Park Ground, Sheffield,
nine double-wicket games were playing at once--TWO HUNDRED PLAYERS
within six acres of grass! One day, at Lord’s, just before the match
bell rung after dinner, I saw one of the hardest hitters in the M.C.C.
actually trying how hard he could drive among the various clusters of
sixpenny amateurs, every man thinking it fun, and no one dangerous. An
elderly gentleman cannot stand a bruise so well--matter forms or bone
exfoliates. But then, an elderly gentleman,--bearing an inverse ratio
in all things to him who calls him “governor,”--is the most careful
thing in nature; and as to young blood, it circulates too fast to be
overtaken by half the ills that flesh is heir to.
A well known Wykehamist player of R. Price’s standing, was lately
playing as wicket-keeper, and seeing the batsman going to hit Off, ran
almost to the place of a near Point; the hit, a tremendously hard one,
glanced off from his forehead--he called out “Catch it,” and it was
caught by bowler! He was not hurt--not even marked by the ball.
Four was scored at Beckenham, 1850, by a hit that glanced off Point’s
head; but the player suffered much in this instance.
A spot under the window of the tavern at Lord’s was marked as the
evidence of a famous hit by Mr. Budd, and when I played, Oxford _v._
Cambridge, in 1836, Charles, son of Lord F. Beauclerk, hitting above
that spot elicited the observation from the old players. Beagley hit a
ball from his Lordship over a bank 120 yards. Freemantle’s famous hit
was 130 yards in the air. Freemantle’s bail was once hit up and fell
back on the stump: Not out. A similar thing was witnessed by a friend
on the Westminster Ground. “One hot day,” said Bayley, “I saw a new
stump bowled out of the perpendicular, but the bail stuck in the groove
from the melting of the varnish in the sun, and the batsman continued
his innings.” I have seen Mr. Kirwan hit a bail thirty yards. A bail
has flown forty yards.
I once chopped hard down upon a shooter, and the ball went a foot away
from my bat straight forward towards the bowler, and then, by its
rotary motion, returned in the same straight line exactly, like the
“draw-back stroke” at billiards, and shook the bail off.
At a match played at Cambridge, a lost ball was found so firmly fixed
on the point of a broken glass bottle in an ivied wall, that a new ball
was necessary to continue the game.
Among remarkable games of cricket, are games on the ice--as on
Christchurch meadow, Oxford, in 1849, and other places. The one-armed
and one-legged pensioners of Greenwich and Chelsea is an oft-repeated
match.
Mr. Trumper and his dog challenged and beat two players at single
wicket in 1825, on Harefield common, near Rickmansworth.
Female cricketers Southey deemed worthy of notice in his Common-place
Book. A match, he says, was played at Bury between the Matrons and
the Maids of the parish. The Matrons vindicated their superiority and
challenged any eleven petticoats in the county of Suffolk. A similar
match, it is noted, was played at West Tarring in 1850. Southey also
was amused at five legs being broken in one match--but only wooden
legs--of Greenwich pensioners.
Eleven females of Surrey were backed against Eleven of Hampshire,
says Pierce Egan, at Newington, Oct. 2. 1811, by two noblemen for 500
guineas a side. Hants won. And a similar match was played in strict
order and decorum on Lavant Level, Sussex, before 3000 spectators.
Matches of much interest have been played between members of the same
family and some other club. Besides “the Twelve Cæsars,” the four
Messrs. Walker and the Messrs. B Ridding have proved how cricket may
run in a family, not to forget four of the House of Verulam.
Pugilists have rarely been cricket players. “We used to see the
fighting men,” said Beldham, “playing skittles about the ground, but
there were no players among them.” Ned O’Neal was a pretty good player;
and Bendigo had friends confident enough to make a p.p. match between
him and George Parr for 50_l._ When the day came, Bendigo appeared
with a lame leg, and Parr’s friends set an example worthy of true
cricketers; they scorned to play a lame man, or to profit by their
neighbour’s misfortunes.
In the famous Nottingham match, 1817, Bentley, on the All England side,
was playing well, when he was given “run out,” having run round his
ground. “Why,” said Beldham, “he had been home long enough to take a
pinch of snuff.” They changed the umpire; but the blunder lost the
match.
“Spiked shoes,” said Beldham, “were not in use in my country. Never
saw them till I went to Hambledon.” “Robinson,” said old Mr. Morton,
the dramatist, “began with spikes of a monstrous length, on one foot.”
“The first notion of a leg guard I ever saw,” said an old player,
“was Robinson’s: he put together two thin boards, angle-wise, on his
right shin: the ball would go off it as clean as off the bat, and made
a precious deal more noise: but it was laughed at--did not last long.
Robinson burnt some of his fingers off when a child, and had the handle
of his bat grooved, to fit the stunted joints. Still, he was a fine
hitter.”
A one-armed man, who used a short bat in his right hand, has been known
to make a fair average score.
SAWDUST.--Beldham, Robinson, and Lambert, played Bennett, Fennex, and
Lord F. Beauclerk, a notable single wicket match at Lord’s, 27th June,
1806. Lord Frederick’s last innings was winning the game, and no chance
of getting him out. His Lordship had then lately introduced sawdust
when the ground was wet. Beldham, unseen, took up a lump of wet dirt
and sawdust, and stuck it on the ball, which, pitching favourably, made
an extraordinary twist, and took the wicket. This I heard separately
from Beldham, Bennett, and also Fennex, who used to mention it as among
the wonders of his long life.
As to LONG SCORES, above one hundred in an innings rather lessens than
adds to the interest of a game.
The greatest number recorded, with overhand bowling, was in M.C.C.
_v._ Sussex, at Brighton, about 1844; the four innings averaged 207
each. In 1815, Epsom _v._ Middlesex, at Lord’s, scored first innings,
476. Sussex _v._ Epsom, in 1817, scored 445 in one innings. Mr. Ward’s
great innings was 278, in M.C.C. _v._ Norfolk, 24th July, 1820, but
with underhand bowling. Mr. Mynn’s great innings at Leicester was in
North _v._ South, in 1836. South winning by 218 runs. Mr. Mynn 21 (not
out) and 125 (not out) against Redgate’s bowling. Wisden, Parr, and
Pilch, Felix, and Julius Cæsar, and John Lillywhite, have scored above
100 runs in one innings against good bowling. Wisden once bowled ten
wickets in one innings: Mr. Kirwan has done the same thing.
IN BOWLING.--The greatest feat ever recorded is this:--that Lillywhite
bowled Pilch 61 balls without a run, and the last took his wicket.
True, Clarke bowled Daniel Day, at Weymouth, 60 balls without a run,
but then Daniel would hit at nothing. Clarke also bowled 64 balls
without a run to Caffyn and Box, in Notts _v._ England in 1853, no
doubt a great achievement; still, at slow bowling, these players have
not their usual confidence: they had over pitched balls which they did
not hit away. But Pilch was not the man to miss a chance, and the fact
that he made no run from 61 balls speaks wonders as to what Lillywhite
could do in his best day.
Mr. Marcon, at Attlebury, 1850, bowled four men in four successive
balls. The Lansdown Club, in 1850, put the West Gloucestershire Club
out for six runs, and of these only two were scored by hits--so ten
ciphers! Eleven men last year (1850) were out for a run each; Mr. Felix
being one. Mr. G. Yonge, playing against the Etonians, put a whole side
out for six runs. A friend, playing the Shepton Mallet Club, put his
adversaries in, second innings, for seven runs to tie, and got all out
for five! In a famous Wykehamist match all depended on an outsider’s
making two runs, he made a hard hit; when, in the moment of exultation,
“Cut away, you young sinner,” said a big fellow; and lo! down he laid
his bat, and did indeed cut away, but--to the tent! while the other
side, amidst screams of laughter at the mistake, put down the wicket
and won the match.
In a B. Match, 1810, the B.s, scored second innings, only 6; and four
of these were made at one hit, by J. Wells, a man given, though the
first innings scored 137.
True, E. H. Budd was “_absent_,” still the Bentleys, Bennett, Beldham
and Lord Frederick Beauclerk were among the ten.
On the Surrey ground, 1851, had not an easy catch been missed, the
Eleven of All England would have gone out for a run apiece.
The Smallest Score on record is that of the Paltiswick Club, when
playing against Bury in 1824: their first innings was only 4 runs!
Pilch bowled out eight of them. In their next innings they scored 46.
Bury, first innings, 101.
In a match at Oxford, in 1835, I saw the two last wickets, Charles
Beauclerk and E. Buller, score 110 runs; and in an I.Z. match at
Leamington, the last wickets scored 80.
TIE MATCHES.--There have been only four of any note: the first was
played at Woolwich, in 1818, M.C.C. _v._ Royal Artillery, with E. H.
Budd, Esq.; the second, at Lord’s, in 1839, M. C. C. _v._ Oxford;
the third, at Lord’s, between Winchester and Eton; the fourth at the
Oval, in 1847, Surrey _v._ Kent. But at a scratch match of Woking _v._
Shiere, in 1818, at Woking, there was a tie each innings and all four
innings the same number, 71!
As to HARD HITTING.--“One of the longest hits in air of modern days,”
writes a friend, “was made at Himley about three years since by Mr.
Fellowes, confessedly one of the hardest of all hitters. The same
gentleman, in practice on the Leicester ground, hit, clean over the
poplars, one hundred long paces from the wicket: the distance from
bat to pitch of ball may be fairly stated as 140 yards. This was
ten yards further, I think, than the hit at Himley, which every one
wondered at; though, the former was off slow lobs in practice, the
latter in a match. Mr. Fellowes once made so high a hit over the
bowler’s (Wisden’s) head, that the second run was finished as the ball
returned to earth! He was afterwards caught by Armitage, Long-field On,
when half through the second run. I have also seen, I think, Mr. G.
Barker, of Trinity, hit a nine on Parker’s Piece. It took three average
throwers to throw it up. Mr. Bastard, of Trinity, hit a ten on the same
ground. Sir F. Heygate, this year, hit an eight at Leicester.” When Mr.
Budd hit a nine at Woolwich, strange to say, it proved a tie match:
an eight would have lost the game. Practise clean hitting, correct
position, and judgment of lengths with free arm, and the ball is sure
to go far enough. The habit of hitting at a ball oscillating from a
slanting pole will greatly improve any unpractised hitter. A soft ball
will answer the purpose, pierced and threaded on a string.
The most vexatious of all stupid things was done by James Broadbridge,
in Sussex _v._ England, at Brighton, in 1827, one of the trial matches
which excited such interest in the early days of overhand bowling. “We
went in for 120 to win,” said our good friend, Captain Cheslyn. “Now,”
I said, “my boys, let every man resolve on a steady game and the match
is ours; when, almost at the first set off, that stupid fellow Jim
threw his bat a couple of yards at a ball too wide to reach, and Mr.
Ward caught him at Point! The loss of this one man’s innings was not
all, for the men went in disgusted; the quicksilver was up with the
other side, and down with us, and the match was lost by twenty-four
runs.” But, though stupid in this instance, Broadbridge was one of the
most artful dodgers that ever handled a ball. And once he practised for
some match till he appeared to all the bowlers about Lord’s to have
reduced batting to a certainty: but when the time came, amidst the most
sanguine expectations of his friends, he made no runs.
Now for Generalship: A manager had better not be a bowler, least of all
a slow bowler, for he wants some impartial observer to tell him when
to go on and when to change,--a modest man will leave off too soon; a
conceited man too late. To say nothing of the effect of a change, so
well known to gain, not only wickets, but catches (because the timing
is different), it is too little considered that different bowlers are
difficult to different men,--a very forward player, and one eager for
a Cut, may respectively be _non-suited_, each by the bowling easiest
to the other. A manager requires the greatest equanimity and temper,
especially in managing his bowlers, on whom all depends. He should
lead while he appears only to consult them, and never let them feel
that the men are placed contrary to their wishes. By changing the best
fieldmen into the busiest places, four or five good men appear like a
good eleven. To put a man short slip who is slow of sight, and a man
long leg who does not understand a long catch, may lose a match. In
putting the batsmen in, it is a great point to have men in early who
are likely to make a stand,--falling wickets are very discouraging.
Also beware of the bad judges of a run; and match your men to the
bowling, I have seen a man score twenty against one bowler who was
at work two against another--keep your men in good spirits and good
humour; if the game is against you, save all you can, and wait one
of those wondrous changes that a single Over sometimes makes. Never
despair till the last man’s out. The M.C.C. in 1847 in playing Surrey
followed their innings, being headed by 106; still they won the match
by nine runs.
The manager should always choose his own Eleven; and, we have already
hinted that fielding, rather than batting, is the qualification. A
good field is sure to save runs, though the best batsman may not make
any. When all are agreed on the bowlers, I would leave the bowlers to
select such men as they can trust. Then, in their secret conclave you
will hear such principles of selection as these:--“King must be Point,
Chatterton we cannot afford to put Cover unless you can ensure Wenman
to keep wicket; Dean must be long-stop: he works so hard and saves so
many draws; and I have not nerve to attack the leg stump as I ought to
with any other man. We shall have three men at least against us whom we
cannot reckon on bowling out; so if for Short-slip we have a Hillyer,
and at leg such a man as Coates of Sheffield, we may pick these men up
pretty easily.” “But as to Sir Wormwood Scrubbs, our secretary vows he
shall never get any more pine apples and champagne for our Gala days if
we don’t have him, and he is about our sixth bat.” “Can’t be helped,
for, what with his cigar and his bad temper, he will put us all wrong;
besides, we must have John Gingerley, whose only fault is chaffing, and
these two men will never do together: then for Middle-wicket we have
Young George.” “Why, Edwards is quite as safe.” “Yes; but not half as
tractable. I would never bowl without George if I could have him; his
eye is always on me, and he will shift his place for every ball in the
Over, if I wish it. A handy man to put about in a moment just where
you want him, is worth a great deal to a bowler.” “Then you leave out
Kingsmill, Barker, and Cotesworth? Why, they can score better than most
of the tail of the Eleven!” “Yes; on practising days, with loose play,
but, with good men against them, what difference can there be between
any two men, when the first ripping ball levels both alike?”
When taking the field, good humour and confidence is the thing. A
general who expects every thing smooth, in dealing with ten fallible
fellow-creatures, should be at once dismissed the service: he must
always have some man he had rather change as Virgil says of the bees--
_Semper erunt quarum mutari corpora malis_;
but if you can have four or five safe players, join your influence with
theirs, and so keep up an appearance of working harmoniously together.
Obviously two bowlers of different pace, like Clarke and Wisden, work
well together, as also a left-handed and right-handed batsman, like
Felix and Pilch, whom we have seen run up a hundred runs faster than
ever before or since;
_Nunc dextrâ ingeminans ictus, nunc ille sinistrâ._
Never put in all your best men at first, and leave “a tail” to follow:
many a game has been lost in this manner, for men lose confidence
when all the best are out: add to this, most men play better for the
encouragement that a good player often gives. And take care that you
put good judges of a run in together. A good runner starts intuitively
and by habit, where a bad judge, seeing no chance, hesitates and runs
him out. If a good Off-hitter and a good Leg-hitter are in together,
the same field that checks the one will give an opening to the other.
Frequent change of bowlers, where two men are making runs, is good: but
do not change good bowling for inferior, till it is hit; unless, you
know your batsman is a dangerous man, only waiting till his eyes are
open.
With a fine forward player, a near Middle-wicket or forward Point often
snaps up a catch, when the Bowler varies his time; generally, a third
Slip can hardly be spared.
If your Wicket-keeper is not likely to stump any one, make a Slip of
him, provided you play a Short-leg; otherwise he is wanted at the
wicket to save the single runs.
And if Point is no good as Point for a sharp catch, make a field of
him. A bad Point will make more catches, and save more runs some yards
back. Many a time have I seen both Point and Wicket-keeper standing
where they were of no use. The general must place his men not on any
plan or theory, but where each particular man’s powers can be turned
to the best account. We have already mentioned the common error of
men standing too far to save One, and not as far as is compatible with
saving Two.
With a free hitter, a man who does not pitch very far up answers
best; short leg-balls are not easily hit. A lobbing bowler, with the
Long-stop, and four men in all, on the On side, will shorten the
innings of many a reputed fine hitter.
A good arrangement of your men, according to these principles, will
make eleven men do the work of thirteen. Some men play nervously at
first they come in, and it is so much waste of your forces to lay your
men far out, and equally a waste not to open your field as they begin
to hit.
* * * * *
We must conclude with comments on the Laws of the Game.
I. The ball. Before the days of John Small a ball would not last a
match; the stitches would give way. To call for a new ball at the
beginning of each innings is not customary now.
II. The bat. Here, the length of the blade of a bat may be any thing
the player likes short of thirty-eight inches. As to the width, an iron
frame was used in the old Hambledon Club as a gauge, in those primitive
days when the Hampshire yeomen shaped out their own bats.
V. The popping crease must be four feet from the wicket, and
parallel to it: unlimited in length, but not shorter than the bowling
crease,--_unlimited_ in this sense that it shall not be said the runner
is out because he ran round his ground.
The bowling crease is limited; because, otherwise, the batsman never
could take guard; and umpires should be very careful to call “No Ball,”
if the bowler bowls outside the return crease.
The return, or crease, is not limited; because it is against a
batsman’s interest to run wide of his wicket; and a little latitude is
requisite to prevent dangerous collision with the wicket-keeper.
VI. The wickets. Secretaries should provide a rule, or frame,
consisting of two wooden measures, six feet eight inches long, and four
feet apart, and parallel. Then, with a chain of twenty-two yards, the
relative positions of the two wickets may be accurately determined.
IX. The bowler. “One foot on the ground.” No man can deliver a ball
with the foot not touching the ground in the full swing of bowling. So,
if the foot is over the crease, there is no doubt of its being on the
ground.
X. The ball must be bowled: “not thrown or jerked:” here there is not a
word about “touching the side with the arm.” It is left to the umpire
to decide what is a jerk. We once heard an umpire asked, how could you
make that out to be a jerk?
“I say it is a jerk because it is a jerk,” was the sensible reply. “I
know a jerk when I see one, and I have a right to believe my eyes,
though I cannot define wherein a jerk consists.”
In a jerk there is a certain mechanical precision and curl of the ball
wholly unlike fair bowling.
A throw may be made in two ways; one way with an arm nearly straight
from first to last: this throw with straight arm requires the hand to
be raised as high as the head, and brought down in a whirl or circle,
the contrary foot being used as the pivot on which the body moves in
the delivery. But the more common throw, under pretence of bowling,
results from the hand being first bent on the fore-arm, and then power
of delivery being gained by the sudden lash out and straightening of
the elbow. It is a mistake to say that the action of the wrist makes a
throw.
“In delivery” means some action so called: if the mere opening of the
hand is delivery of the ball, then the only question is the height
of the hand the moment it opens. But if, as we think, “delivery”
comprehends the last action of the arm that gives such opening of the
hand effect, then in no part of that action may the hand be above the
shoulder.
Further, in case of doubt as to fair bowling, the umpire is to decide
against the bowler; so the hand must be _clearly_ not above the
shoulder, and the ball as clearly not thrown, nor jerked.
Now, as to high delivery as a source of danger, we never yet witnessed
that kind of high bowling that admitted of a dangerous increase of
speed in an angry moment. The only bowling ever deemed dangerous, has
been clearly below the shoulder, and savouring more of a jerk, or of an
underhand sling, or throw, than of the round-armed or high delivery.
Such bowlers were Mr. Osbaldestone, Browne of Brighton, Mr. Kirwan, Mr.
Fellowes, and Mr. Marcon, neither of whom, except on smooth ground,
should we wish to encounter.
But, we have often been asked, do the law and the practice coincide?
Is it not a fact that few round-armed bowlers are clearly below
the shoulder? Undoubtedly this is the fact. The better the bowler,
as we have already explained, the more horizontal and the fairer
his delivery. Cobbett and Hillyer have eminently exemplified this
principle; but amongst amateurs and all but the most practised bowlers,
allowing, of course, for some exceptions, the law is habitually
infringed. In a country match a strict umpire would often cry “no ball”
to the bowlers on both sides, cramp their action, produce wide balls
and loose bowling, and eventually, not to spoil the day’s sport, the
two parties would come to a compromise. And do such things ever happen?
Not often. Because the umpires exercise a degree of discretion, and
the law in the country is often a dead letter. Practically, the 10th
law enables a fair umpire to prevent an undisguised and dangerous
throw; but, at the same time, it enables an unfair umpire to put aside
some promising player who is as fair as his neighbours, but has not the
same clique to support him.
What, then, would we suggest? The difficulty is in the nature of
the case. To leave all to the umpire’s discretion would, as to fair
bowling, increase those evils of partiality, and, instead of an
uncertain standard, we should have no standard at all. With fair
umpires the law does as well as many other laws as it is; with unfair
umpires no form of words would mend the matter. I can never forget
the remark of the late Mr. Ward:--“Cricketers are a very peaceably
disposed set of men. We play for the love of play; the fairer the
play the better we like it. Otherwise, so indefinite is the nature
of round-arm bowling, that I never yet saw a match about which the
discontented might not find a pretext for a wrangle.” I am happy to
add, in the year 1850, the M.C.C. passed a _resolution_ to enforce the
law of fair delivery. The violation of this law had, we know, become
almost conventional; this convention the M.C.C. have now ignored in
the strongest terms; they have cautioned their umpires, promised to
support them in an independent judgment, and daily encourage them in
the performance of their unpleasant duty. This is beginning at the
right end. To expect a judge to do that which he believes will be the
signal for his own dismissal is too much.
The absurdity of having a law and breaking it, is obvious; so let
me insist on a newer argument, namely, that “to indulge a bowler in
an unfair delivery is mistaken kindness, for the fairest horizontal
delivery, like Cobbett’s and Redgate’s, tends most to that spin, twist,
quick rise, shooting and cutting, and that variety after the pitch in
which effective bowling consists.” A throw is very easy to play--as it
comes down, so it bounds up: the batsman feels little credit due, and
the spectator feels as little interest. The ball leaves the hand at
once without any rotatory motion, and one ball of the same pitch and
pace is like another. Very different is that life and vitality in the
ball as it spins away from the skimming and low delivery of a hand like
Cobbett’s. The angle of reflection is not to be calculated by the angle
of incidence one in ten times, with such spinning balls. That rotatory
motion which makes a bullet glance instead of penetrating--that causes
the slowly-moving top to fly off with increased speed when rubbing
against the wall--that determines the angle from the cushion, and
either the “following” or the “draw back” of a billiard ball--that
same rotation round its own axis, or the same spin, which a cricket
ball receives in proportion as the hand is horizontal and the bowling
lawful, determines the variety of every ball of a similar pace and
pitch, at least when the ground is true.
Whether precision and accuracy are as easily attained with a low
as with a high delivery, is another question; neither should I be
surprised nor sorry if fair delivery necessitated a wider wicket.
A higher wicket would favour rather rough ground than scientific
bowling; but a wider wicket would do justice to that spin and twist,
which often is the means of missing the wicket which with better luck
might have been levelled. Amateurs play cricket for recreation--as a
pleasure, not a business--and experience shows that any alteration
which would encourage the practice of bowling would greatly improve
cricket. In country matches, bowlers stipulate for four balls or six;
why not make matches to play with a wicket of eight inches, or even
twelve? I had rather see a ball go anywhere than into the long-stop’s
hands, or into the batsman’s face. So, give us fair bowling and a wider
wicket, and let amateurs have the gratification of seeing the bowlers,
on whom the science of the game and the honour of victory chiefly
depends, no longer “given” men to play the game for them, but the fair
representatives of their own club or their own county.
XI. “He may require the striker at the wicket from which he is bowling,
to stand on that side of it which he may direct.”
Query. Can a bowler give guard for one side of the wicket and bowl the
other? No law (though law XXXVI. may apply) plainly forbids it; still,
no gentleman would ever play with such a bowler another time.
XII. “If the bowler shall toss the ball over the striker’s head.” As
to wide balls, some think there should be a mark, making the same ball
wide to a man of six feet and to a man of five. With good umpires, the
law is better as it is. Still, any parties can agree on a mark for wide
balls, if they please, before they begin the game.
“Bowl it so wide.” These words say nothing about the ball pitching more
or less straight and turning off afterwards: the distance of the ball
when it passes the batsman is the point at issue.
XVI. Or if the “ball be held before it touch the ground.” Query; is
it Out, if a ball is caught rolling back off the tent? If the ball
striking the tent is, by agreement, so many runs, then the ball is dead
and a man cannot therefore be out. Otherwise, I should reason that the
tent, being on the ground, is as part of the ground. By the spirit
of the law it is _not out_, by the letter _out_. But, to avoid the
question, the better plan would be not to catch the ball, and disdain
to win a match except by good play.