CHAP. XI.
CHAPTER OF ACCIDENTS.—MISCELLANEOUS.
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 Oeorge 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 Desnoyers, 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.[1]
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 be 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 Koom 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 under-hand 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 under-hand 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 bowl 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. 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 50l. 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 groved, 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 Pilchy 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 gun, 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 longstop: 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 Middlewicket 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 eatch, 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 Longstop, 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. Cobett 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 Bedgate'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.
XVIII. "Or, if in striking at the ball, he hit down his wicket."—
"In striking," not in running a notch, however awkwardly.
XIX. "Or, if under pretence of running, or otherwise."
"Or otherwise;" as, for instance, by calling out, purposely to baulk the catcher.
XX. "Or, if the ball be struck, and he wilfully strike it again."
"Wilfully strike it again." This obviously means, when a man blocks a ball, and afterwards hits it away to make runs. A man may hit a ball out of his wicket, or block it hard. The umpire is sole judge of the striker's intention, whether to score or to guard.
This law was, in one memorable instance, applied to the case of T. Warsop, a fine Nottingham player, who, in a match at Sheffield in 1822, as he was running a notch, hit the ball to prevent it coming home to the wicket-keeper's hands. Clarke, who was then playing, thinks the player was properly given out. Certainly he deserved to be out; but old laws do not always fit new offences, however flagrant.
XXI. "With ball in hand." The same hand.
"Bat (in hand);" that is, not thrown.
XXIII. "If the striker touch." This applies to the Nottingham case better than Law XX.; but neither of these laws contemplated the exact offence. A ball once ran up a man's bat, and spun into the pocket of his jacket; and as he "touched" the ball to get it out of his pocket, he was given out. The reply of Mr. Bell on the subject was, the player was out for touching the ball—he might have shaken it out of his pocket. This we mention for the curiosity of the occurrence.
XXIV. Or, if with any part of his person, 8c.
A man has been properly given out by stopping a ball with his arm below the elbow. Also a short man, who stooped to let the ball pass over his head, and was hit in the face, was once given out, as before wicket.
"From it;" that is, the ball must pitch in a line, not from the hand, but from wicket to wicket.
Much has been said on the Leg-before-Wicket law.
Clarke and others say that a round-arm bowler can rarely hit the wicket at all with a ball not over-pitched, unless it pitch out of the line of the wickets. If this is true, a ball that has been pitched straight "would not have hit it;" and a ball that "would have hit it," could not have been "pitched straight;" and therefore, it is argued the condition "in a straight line from it (the wicket)" should be altered to "in a straight line from the bowler's hand."
And what do we say?
Bring the question to an issue thus: stretch a thin white string from the leg-stump of the striker's wicket to the off-stump of the bowler's wicket; and let any round-armed bowler (who does not bowl "over the wicket") try whether good length balls, which do not pitch outside of the said string, will hit the wicket regularly, that is, of their common tendency and not as "a break."
My firm belief is, that this experiment (with a bowler and a string) will convince any one that the two conditions of being out leg-before-wicket ("straight pitch," and "would have hit") cannot, except by accident, be fulfilled by an ordinary round-armed bowler; and if so, the law of leg-before-wicket should require that the ball pitch straight not from the bowler's wicket, but straight from the bowler's hand.
Objection. "This would make the umpire's task too difficult: you would thus make him guess what was straight from the hand, but he can actually see what is straight from the wicket.
Answer. This difficulty is an imaginary one. An umpire must be blind indeed, not to discern when the ball keeps its natural line from the hand to the wicket, and when it pitches out of that line, and then abruptly turns into it. Besides, as the law now stands, the umpire has the same difficulty and the same discretion, for how can he decide the condition, "would have hit," without making allowance for the wide arm, and the "working" of the ball, and bringing the said objectionable guessing into requisition? The judgment now proposed for the umpire, is no difficulty at all, but the judgment he has already to exercise is a great difficulty indeed. How often is a batsman convinced, that the ball that hit him before wicket was making so abrupt a turn, that it must have missed the wicket, and, but for that abrupt turn, would never have hit him at all. I do not believe that of the men given out "leg before wicket," one in three are deservedly out. But, often do we see a wicket saved by the leg and pads, when both the skill of the bowler and the blunder of the batsman deserved falling stumps.
With these observations, I must leave my friends to the free exercise of their heads and hands, feet and faculties, patience and perseverance, holding myself up to them as an example in one respect only, that I am not too old to learn, and will thankfully receive any contribution, whether from pen or pencil, that is calculated to enrich or to illustrate a work, which, I am but too happy to acknowledge, the community of cricketers have adopted as their own.
THE END.
London:
A. and G. A. Spottiswoode,
New-street-Square.
- ↑ Hom. Il. ii. 262