for them to stand right in front facing the bowler and using the legs as they do, and in consequence bowlers are set an impossible task. With all respect for Hearne, he writes, as too many do, from one point of view only, and that is the batsman's. He approves the little effect that appeals to the M.C.C. to restrict the groundsman's art have had, and does not consider for a moment the hideous blot of innumerable drawn matches. Apparently to him the ideal match is one played on a marled, lifeless wicket, batsmen scoring hundreds and hundreds of runs, bowlers worn out, fieldsmen tired and another wearisome drawn game.
Hearne has expressed the batsman's point of view in an extreme way, and very likely I have erred in the contrary direction. I again repeat that I hate seeing batsmen badly hurt, but I must admit that when I see them cut over while standing right in front of the wicket facing the bowler, and using their legs to protect their wickets, sometimes as a first means of defence when the bat is held high above the head, sometimes as a second, and after the ball has beaten the bat, my sorrow is somewhat alleviated, because it is impossible for me not to think they have deserved their fate. They have taken an unfair advantage of the bowler, who is first called upon to bowl on wickets that are prepared in such a way as to make them practically lifeless on which good batsmen score hundreds and bad batsmen thirties and forties, and then instead of bowling simply to defeat the bat, they find that to the bat are added two well-padded legs. If artificial wickets were not found to be neces sary in the days of Richardson, Kortright, Lockwood and Mold, why should they be allowed now? As I said before,
