CRICKETERS-PAST AND PRESENT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LVII, Issue 6505, 2 January 1882, Page 5

CRICKETERS-PAST AND PRESENT.

The following interesting letter, signed by “ A Member of the M. 0.0.” appeared in the Argus during the progress of the match between the English players and the Victorian Eleven : I frequently overhear remarks on the oriokefrgronnds as to the immense superiority of the play of the present day as compared with that of 10 or 20 years ago, and Colonial judges of the game point to their Murdoch, Massie, Bannerman, &0., as batsmen, and Allan, Spofforth, <&o.,as bowlers, as something the world never witnessed before. Old players are told in a sneering way that they never knew what cricket was in their time, and that an Australian Eleven of the present day could have played 22 of the best English cricketers of 30 years past. Possibly this may be the case. Old orioketers, like myself, are no doubt quite content to allow Colonial players to fancy what they please, and after all it does not much matter, I suppose. What I wish to draw attention to is the fact that the cricket of the present day is an entirely new game, and is not the cricket played 20 years ago. Since the alteration of the rule regarding the delivery of the ball, whereby the bowler was permitted to deliver with the arm at any height he Uked, the whole system of cricket has been altered. I have heard men who thought they knew something, say : “ Why, we can dispense with a long-stop now: our wiokot-keeper (Blaokham) is such a wonder, and our bowlers deliver with such precision." Quite true; so you can; but you forget, my friend, that, with the present delivery, a shooter is scarcely ever given. The most dangerous and fatal bail that can be delivered to a batsman is now rarely seen. Let anyone watoh half a dozen overs to-day, and see if he can note down one shooter or go through an innings, and he will be clever if he can make out half-a-dozen. Even a Blaokham, with his marvellous skill, could not have dispensed with a long-stop to some of the fast bowlers of 16 or . 20 years ago, under the old system. I should like to have seen him try it on with Mr Harvey Fellows (the brother of the Hev Walter Fellows), when in bis prime, when he used to have two long-stops and long-slip very deep, and then the ball would often pass all, and sound like the crook of a rifle against the little picket fence in front of Lord's pavilion. It was positively dangerous to stand up to him. Even with Tarrant, whom most cricketers will remember, neither Mr Blaokham nor Pilling could dispense with a long-stop in case of shooters. Byes would tot up at an alarming rate. Now, on our billiard-table wickets, and with the altered delivery of the ball, the game reminds me more of old Oiarke with his high homo and oasv delivery, and with his field out for catches. Bowlers know that the ground is now so tru? that it is bettor to bowl for the field than to try to bowl a man out. They go for spin and break, and they plane their field accordingly. Hence in a great measure the big scores, and the rapid scoring too, of the present day. Percy M'Donnell's innings was grand hitting, but was it good cricket? I prefer Blaokham’s. Almost every boll now may bo played for runs, either by hard drives or slogging. Batsmen now never have to play a dozen or two dozen overs in succession, every ball dead on, and threefourths of them shooters. But it suits the public. The crowd like big hits, and vote scientific play slow. Bonnor is u hero. He may spoil the face of the new clock in the pavilion some day. Barlow never will, and if it were known that Bonnor has taken a thousand to five that bo would spoil that clock's beauty some day the public would flock to the ground in thousands on the off chance of seeing it done. And It might come off, for he is the most wonderful hitter I ever saw, and I have seen a good many But I am running off the track. It is only those who, like myself, have watched cricket for years, and have practical experience as well, who can appreciate, or perhaps even notice, the difference between the cricket of the past and the present. *lt is very interesting, I own, to watoh a field well placed, and to see a brilliant hit cleverly fielded, or a good catch made. But I must say there ore too many chances muffed to suit my fancy, and in my day men would have been put out of an eleven for such bad fielding as I now see. I have not counted

Sydney match, but I counted a good many on Friday, and with the present system of bowling for » field, the main pleasures to spectators is to see the bowling backed up by good fielding. Without it the game degenerates into child’s play. I never felt so wretched in my life os when I once missed holding George Parr at long-leg. It was a Jtcrriflo hit, low and skimming, and it oamo like a cannon-shot. “ Yah, butterfingers," sang out several voices in the crowd. But nowadays orioketers think nothing of missing a catch j it comes sort of natural to them, and as with the present system of bowling there are five catches given to one in the old time, bj fielding should bo more strictly practised and insisted on.