against, had a lovely free action, though he did not raise his arm much above the shoulder. He did not appear so fast as he really was; but he made the ball come quickly off the pitch, and he took many wickets with balls that kept low. John Jackson was slightly before my time, but his arm action delighted me the little I saw of it. Tarrant, with his long run all over the place, was another: then there was Allen Hill, whose beautiful delivery was a model for all time. Martin Mclntyre, with his head-over-heels action, though not in the same bowling class as Freeman and Jackson, got up his pace entirely owing to his freedom of arm; and Mold and Sharpe, of the present time, are worthy of being watched. And amongst the amateurs may be mentioned, Messrs. C. D. Marsham, Foord-Kelcey, Christopherson, A. H. Evans, R. Lipscomb, and S. M. J. Woods.
The young bowler must not think because he can bowl straight that he is worthy of taking his place amongst good bowlers. He is still in the very elementary stage and not out of the alphabet of the game. A good length is the next thing to be studied, and though I have put it second on the list, it is really the key-note to all good bowling. Delivery, break, and pace are much to be desired, but without length they are utterly useless. There are some bowlers who, by their wonderful accuracy of length, stick up the batsmen and get wickets on the most perfect grounds, and I need only mention Attewell, who is without a superior to-day, as a fine example of what I refer to. Good wickets reduce most bowlers to a level, and it is only the goodlength and head bowlers who can do anything on them. Willsher was past his best when I met him; but though he had lost much of his break and pace, he still kept a grand length, and was successful up to the last day he played. Break and pace may go, and very often do go
