Part 15

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.

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, &c.

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.

LONDON: A. and G. A. SPOTTISWOODE, New-street-Square.