Out-door Games: Cricket and Golf/Chapter 6
CHAPTER VI
Reform—(continued)
The alteration of the rule respecting leg before wicket will not, as has been said before, alone suffice to bring down the scoring to a proper level, but it will nevertheless have a far-reaching effect on the game. Mr. Shuter's fear that when players play forward to balls that break from the off and miss them, a large crop of l.b.w.'s will be the result, is not an unreasoning one. I have said before that if batsmen do play forward, they should smother the ball; if they cannot reach far enough forward to do this, it is, speaking theoretically, a proof that they ought to have played back, in which case there is no reason why the legs, or any part of them, should be in a straight line between wicket and wicket, and if
CHARLES GEORGE TAYLOR, ESQ
this is the case they cannot be l.b.w. The rule of l.b.w., as at present interpreted, has perhaps been the cause of more forward play than was the case in the days of our forefathers. A bowler with an off-break pitches a ball outside the off-stump, the batsman plays forward, does not smother it at its pitch, misses it, and the ball hits his leg; the batsman is not out because the ball pitched outside the wicket. Again the bowler pitches the ball straight on the middle stump, and again the batsman misses it and is hit on the leg; but the umpire thinks the ball is breaking away so much that it will miss the leg stump, and again the batsman is not out. Whichever way the rule is interpreted it will not affect the second case, but I can't help thinking that the first case, where the ball pitches outside the off stump and breaks past the bat and goes straight to the wicket till intercepted by the batsman's leg, may alter the matter very materially. If the ball with the off break cannot be smothered the batsman will run a great risk of l.b.w.: this will make back play to such bowling the proper game; and it was by such play that Robert Carpenter, the father of the present Essex professional, made himself famous.
Critics of the game have argued with some truth that too much time is wasted. Matches ought to begin at 10.30 and go on to 7, with only an interval of three-quarters of an hour. Without going into the question too minutely, whilst admitting some time is wasted, it must be remembered that there is a limit to the powers or endurance of the human frame. Bowlers, especially on these hot days and on perfect, hard wickets, cannot and ought not to be called upon to bowl more than thirty overs a day, and if you began at 10.30, got three hours' play before luncheon and four hours and a half after, you may not be able to get the side out, and your fast bowlers will have far too hard a day. All of us who have ever played know the feeling of lassitude that comes over us half-an-hour before luncheon and an hour before drawing the stumps. The Eton and Harrow match is hardly ever finished in two days, and several times there has been nearly eight hours' play on the second day; and though boys' pluck may carry them through and enable them to play up to the end, it would be too much even for full-grown men if they had to do it day after day. I think that, taking everything into consideration, if play begins at 11, luncheon ought to be at 1.30, and play should begin again at 2.30 and go on to 6.30; thus you would get six and a half hours' cricket, and taking the whole season through, this is all that the cricketers can do without wearing themselves out.[1] I suppose it is with a view to stopping waste of time that the M.C.C. have altered the number of balls from five to six per over. Time has been saved, and to slow or medium pace bowlers there has been no great difference, and even to bowlers like Kortright and Richardson the change has not apparently done them harm. It is probable that the extra labour involved has been counterbalanced by the longer rest when the bowling is at the other end. There are many other methods of reform, and putting aside all fantastic proposals such as only batting in sections of three or four batsmen, we may consider the other proposals, and these may be divided roughly into two classes, those which deal with the weapons and paraphernalia of the game and those that affect the laws.
One form of alteration of the laws which is strongly advocated by many is in respect of the follow-on rule, and declaring the innings at an end. The law up to the end of 1899 provided that the side which goes in second shall follow their innings if they have scored 120 runs less than their opponents in a three days' match, or 80 runs in a two days' match, and may declare the innings at an end any time during the last day of a match, but not before. It is not necessary to say much about the number of runs necessary to compel a follow-on. Some years ago it was 80 runs in a three, and 60 in a one day's match; the run-getting now is so gigantic that 20 and 80 will probably have to be increased, unless some means of checking run-getting is adopted, and in fact there has been a proposal to this effect before the M.C.C. committee. But the principles on which the law of follow-on ought to stand are by no means clear, and have been the subject of acute controversy during the last few years. It is so easy to get runs now that bowlers are over-bowled and tire, while the batsmen, thanks to boundaries, can knock up hundreds with little exertion. The rule as originally made was with the intention of benefiting the side that was 80 runs behind. And if you read the "Scores and Biographies," you will find that Mr. Haygarth thinks it worthy of remark when victory crowned the efforts of the side that followed on. But in three days one side scores 450 and the other 530, the wicket is fast and dead true, and the eleven that batted first have been bowling and fielding for six hours, and are called upon to bowl and field very likely for the remainder of the three days. They can have no hope of winning; all that their opponents have to do is to maintain a dogged defence, and the match loses all interest, and what was intended to be a help turns out to be a stumbling-block. These being the facts, it is perhaps not altogether to be wondered at that the side that scored 450 have had to resort to subterfuges to avoid being placed in the unpleasant dilemma of being handicapped by their batting powers. The question of how far it is justifiable to resort to such strategy is discussed in another chapter; but here all that has to be considered is how can the rule be profitably altered.
The consideration of this must include the question of declaring an innings at an end, which up to quite recently could not be done before the last day of a match. One of our leading cricketers, Mr. F. S. Jackson, suggests that this power of declaring ought to be extended and given to either side after luncheon on the second day; and many others have taken this view, and have even extended it, and urged that the closure may be put in force at any time. The M.C.C. have, however, altered the rule to this extent that an innings can be declared at an end at luncheon on the second day.
My own personal opinion on this question is, that the whole matter is trifling: and whichever rule you make, you will find that very little effect on the high scoring will ensue. To be able to declare an innings at an end at any time would answer the purpose completely if it were a settled principle that captains would run risks. You would not stop individual high scoring, but you would greatly diminish the number of drawn matches, for the simple reason that instead of eleven you would have six men a side batting. But experience has shown over and over again that captains will not run the risk of losing a match, and the consequence is, they will not declare an innings at an end till there is practically no danger of losing; and all that the other side have to do is to keep their wickets up till the end. So common is this, that several instances have occurred when it has been mutually agreed to draw stumps before the fixed time. One, or perhaps both sides have a long journey to make before beginning a match on the following day: there is no chance of finishing before the settled time, the play has utterly lost all interest, and nobody is showing any zest in the game. The Oxford and Cambridge matches of 1899 and 1900 are good instances in point. Oxford on the last day on both occasions were many runs ahead, and wickets in hand, and there were two or three hours to play before stumps were drawn. To lose the University match is a blow to any University captain, so great a blow indeed that he will do anything to avoid it. In 1899 if Mr. Champain had been willing to run risks he would have declared the Oxford innings at an end perhaps an hour before, at 2.30, in which case Cambridge would have had about three hours and three-quarters to get about 240 runs. The wicket, however, was perfect, amateurs were bowling, and the Oxford captain would not run the risk of declaring the innings at an end. He thought that there was more probability of Cambridge getting the runs than of Oxford getting them out, so he went on batting.
The M.C.C. have now passed, or at any rate recommended, that any innings may be declared at an end at luncheon on the second day. When a strong side wins the toss and goes in, and at luncheon on the second day has got 700 runs, this new rule will very likely enable the match to be finished. One side is very strong and the other weak; the weak side may be got out twice in a day and a half and be defeated in one innings; but in one day this may not be possible. But these are exceptional circumstances, and in practice this change will not often be found of any use. As far as the abolition of drawn games is concerned, I do not think that any rule as to declaring innings at an end will do much, because captains will not run any risks. This sentiment of our captains is encouraged by the modern system of calculation. In the county championship draws are ignored. You lose nothing, but a defeat is serious, and everything now is tabulated and published. The only way by which real benefit could accrue by declaring an innings at an end, would be to get established in the cricketer the principle that to lose a match is not so great a calamity as it is now thought to be, and more credit would attach to finishing and losing a match than saving it in the style of 200 runs to make and one wicket to go down. This, however, is too much to expect, and cannot be attained by any change of rule, or indeed any rule at all.
The rule as to following on has seen some curious developments. It was passed originally to help the weaker side. In the days of low scoring it was considered that when a side was 80 runs behind, its chance of winning was absolutely nil. If there had been no follow-on the leading side would go in again, and scoring as the average side then did about 150, would put their opponents in to make more than 200 to win the match; and in those days the odds would have been reckoned at fully 3 to 1 against this being done. The great increase in scoring, however, has worked a complete change in this respect. Innings of 300 and 400 runs are now played, and to be 80 runs behind is nothing. Whereas, formerly, to follow on meant practically to lose the match, now the side that follows on finds itself in the proud position of not only keeping its opponents out in the field for a day and a half, but also possibly by declaring their innings at an end when the wicket began to show signs of wear, to put the other side in on a broken wicket for two and a half hours' batting, and 200 runs to get to win. To give such an advantage was never contemplated. The M.C.C. now recommend that when one side is 150 runs ahead it should have the option of making its opponents follow on. Instead of the side which has followed on placing the other in the awkward predicament just described, the leaders, that is the eleven that is ahead, now have this power, and the advantage will and must be tremendous. Let us suppose the side that has won the toss gets 280 runs, and dismisses the other eleven for 130, by luncheon time on the second day. The eleven with this advantage of 150 runs has now the power of going in again. It does so when the wicket is fast and good, and hitting away for some five or six hours finds itself at luncheon time on the third day 500 runs ahead. Of course under these circumstances the weaker side is in a hopeless position, and can only avert defeat by sticking, and playing the dullest of games, so that the last two hours' play is probably burlesque. What the effect of this rule may be it is impossible to say, but one objection I have to it is that the advantage of winning the toss is great enough in all conscience as it is; to give the side that is 150 runs ahead the option of making its opponents follow on will increase this advantage to a still greater extent, and whether this is right or wrong seems doubtful.
When we who are now middle-aged first played, thirty-five years ago, we had to run out our hits whether they were singles or fourers. Now for the last twenty years there are boundaries, and Mr. Jessop and Mr. Ford, in an innings of 50, will very likely only run about 10 of their own runs. The consequence of this is that the batsman never becomes fatigued or out of breath. The idea lately has been promulgated that this is all wrong, and that there is no reason why he should be spared this exertion. Why should bowlers toil and moil and have all the hard work and not half so much of the fun. This change was thoroughly tried in the M.C.C. club matches of 1900, it being provided that if the ball hit the net, which was about two feet high, two more runs should be scored in addition to what had already been run out. This plan was found not to answer, so hits were run out unless they went over the net, in which case four runs were scored. Several improvements were hoped for by this change, but, on the whole, it has not been a success.
I propose now to conclude this question of reform by a brief consideration of the proposed change in the direction of what some hostile critics call tampering with the weapons of the game, and this takes two forms—one the enlargement of the wicket either by adding a fourth stump or else raising by one or two inches the height of the existing wickets, or diminishing the size of the bat. To take the enlargement of the wicket first, at present the wickets are 8 inches in breadth and 27 inches high. Mr. Dixon, of Notts County, proposes no change in the law except the simple method of adding a fourth stump; this would give all but 212 inches greater width. Other reformers suggest raising the wickets 1 inch or 112 inch higher, making them 28 or 2812 inches above ground instead of 27. Of course, there can be no doubt that it must be an easier task to defend a wicket of three stumps than one of four, a wicket of 27 inches than one of 2812; and if it were impossible to bring about a diminution of scoring by any other means, I should certainly suggest adding this fourth stump, or raising the height of the three. What would, however, be the effect of this on batting, considered either on its scientific or attractive side? One of the curses of the present day is the stick who, by restraining every impulse to hit, cannot be got out on these perfect modern wickets. If the Scotton, Noble, and Quaife cannot be persuaded to hit when they are defending wickets of the present size, why should they when the wicket is enlarged, whether by widening or heightening it? The tendency will be to make them greater sticks than ever, and to me it is doubtful if the greater size of the wicket will by itself be sufficient to curtail their innings to an adequate extent. On the present perfect wickets an entirely defensive attitude and policy, unless accompanied by a change in the size of the bat or the l.b.w. rule, will in dry summer weather be sufficient to prolong the game to an undue extent.
I have my doubts also as to whether the widening of the wicket may not make it impossible or very difficult for the short-in-stature player to play with a straight bat to balls on the off stump, unless he moves his right foot, which is against all the canons of sound batting. This objection is not applicable to the reusing of the height of the wicket, and if the wicket is to be enlarged I should prefer it in this form, though "sticking" would be even greater than it is now.
It is on this account that I venture to think that experimenting with the weapons had better take the form of reducing the width of the bat, say a quarter or half an inch, to 4 or 334 inches instead of 414. At the same time the bat would probably be made thicker, and the weight would not be diminished.
Of the suggested reforms, I should anticipate more satisfactory results from this and the change in the l.b.w. rule than from any other. The narrower bat would not tempt men not to hit, but would rather have the contrary effect. It would undoubtedly give the bowlers' good balls a better chance of hitting the wicket or being snicked into short-slip's hands. A really good batsman possessed of a good eye and quick power of wrist would still be able to get runs, though not to the same extent, but the smaller bat would, however, undoubtedly cripple the inferior batsmen—a consummation I humbly think ought to be desired by everybody who has the true interests of the game at heart.
At the risk of repetition it may be well to give a summary of the reasons why reform of the laws and etiquette of the game is absolutely necessary. The easy wicket has made batting so easy that the proper proportion and balance of the game are lost. It is not only the good batsmen who make hundreds and two hundreds: the inferior batsman, who ought never on his merits to score above 50 runs in an innings, going in ninth or tenth, on perfect wickets, and against fatigued bowlers, finds it easy to hit away all over the place, and the runs come in numbers. The result of such run-getting is in every way pernicious. Drawn games mount up to nearly 50 per cent. of the total number of matches begun, and cricket, the finest game that ever was invented, stands in the inglorious position of being the one game in which such a state of things exists.
Bowling, however the ignorant spectator may regard it, when well done, is one of the finest sights in cricket to the skilled spectator. Yet it is crippled, because on the perfect wickets the shooter is abolished, and the ball cannot be got to turn, which, by causing such a number of runs to be made, throws on bowlers work that has greatly reduced the length of their lives as cricketers.
This state of things has driven bowlers to other expedients. They bowl in a great many cases beyond their strength so as to produce fast balls and length, and the science of the art is thereby lost. To bang down long hops for the purpose of terrifying batsmen and in the hope of getting the ball to bump and the batsmen to be caught behind the wicket, is not bowling in the true sense. Yet who can deny, when Jones the Australian, Jessop, and Kortright are bowling that this expedient is frequently, perhaps generally, adopted. The bowler cannot be blamed. You cannot expect them to bowl for hours together for the batsmen. If bumping long hops are the balls most likely to get wickets, bowlers must deliver them: they are no£ to be blamed, but the rules of the game that has produced such a state of things. Similarly, slow bowlers, though they last twice as long as fast, get tired of bowling for hours at Quaife and Noble with no result; so they fall into bad habits, try for impossible leg breaks with a total sacrifice of length and science, and this is not bowling any more than fast long hops. When the skill and science of batting are considered, though nobody wants to run down real scientific correct batting, still it must be remembered that to play in such a way is far easier when every ball comes straight and true half-stump high. The real great innings is played when the bumping ball, the hanging ball, and the shooter may come at any moment: when such an innings was played it remained fixed for ever in the memory. Now, alas, long innings have lost much of their charm because they are so common: they pall and are monotonous. A good instance of the baneful influence on batting produced by the plethora of runs might have been seen in the Australian and England test matches last year. To win a match became by the force of circumstances an object of secondary importance in the eyes of the Australians after they had won the second test match at Lord's. Their object was to win the rubber, and to effect this all they had to do was to draw the remaining three matches. Therefore the brilliant hitter had to abandon his naturally-attractive game and become a stick. In the case of the English team to score quickly was the object, and at the Oval our Maclarens and Frys were told not to play their proper game, but more or less to slog. So much for the disastrous effect on batting; and to this may be added, that often for hours, sometimes for the whole of the last day, it is so obvious that a draw is inevitable that during that period nobody exerts himself, and the grandest of all games degenerates into a burlesque.
There is something at once tragic and pathetic in the case of Richardson, the great Surrey fast bowler. Richardson, in my judgment, as a purely fast bowler—that is a bowler who bowled almost one uniform fast pace—was the finest fast bowler of all cricket history: Jackson, Freeman, Richardson—the greatest of these is Richardson. A short time ago I ventured to prophesy that the amount of work Richardson had to do must produce a premature break-down, and the particular fact I had in my mind was his second visit to Australia. Richardson's grandest work, which no fast bowler has ever equalled, was crowded into four glorious years, but during those four years, when the weather was hot and the wickets hard, he bowled in first-class matches alone something like 6000 overs, and it requires only an elementary knowledge of physiology to see that such work cannot last. The career, therefore, of this grandest of all fast bowlers was a short four years. Lockwood and Jones may perhaps bowl a more difficult ball every now and then, but I say without fear of contradiction that, human nature being what it is, the world cannot possibly turn out a grander fast bowler than Richardson. And yet, in consequence of the undue advantage that the present wickets and rules of the game give to batting, in spite of his magnificent physique, we have the mournful fact to face, that in these days it is impossible for a fast bowler to last longer than the miserably short period of five or at the most six years. I have seen Richardson bowl hundreds of balls in his prime, and I am not prepared to say that I have ever seen a grander sight in cricket. I saw him bowl a few overs after his second visit to Australia, in the spring of 1898, and I felt glad to see him taken off, and nobody will persuade me to see him bowl again unless by some miracle he recovers his old pace and skill. I had far sooner not have my vision of the glory of his bowling when in his prime dimmed by the vision of his bowling in his decay—and he is not yet thirty years old!
Reform must be put in hand. Try experiments in the way of declaring innings at an end, and see if that will answer; it is a small change, and may not do much. But alter at once the law as to leg-before-wicket, and if this is not enough to stop this odious run-getting—and I do not think that it will be—grasp the nettle firmly and cut off a quarter or half an inch from the bat and remove the reproach from the finest of all games, that no decisive results are possible for nearly 50 per cent. of first-class three-day matches. I have heard it said that batsmen will not consent to have their powers of run-getting crippled, that they refuse to allow that any reform is necessary. I refuse to believe that batsmen as a class are so selfish, have so little of the true interests of the game at heart. If true, it is a most melancholy fact. If anybody, of course, is really of opinion that it is immaterial whether a match is finished or not, that person is justified in opposing any reform. The wiser judges must combine and carry out some reforms to enable matches to be finished, or else the great game of cricket will be ruined, and nobody can conceive what a loss this will be to true well-wishers of the game.
- ↑ We quite agree with this. But at Lord's nowadays play rarely begins before 12: then there is a considerable interval for tea, and stumps are generally drawn at 6.30.—Eds.