Cricket 1892

122 CRICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. MAY 12, 1892 CRICKET NOTCHES. B y the E ev . R . S . H olmes . Two questions have been sent me during the past week by unknown correspondents. I will do my level best to answer them, though these “ Notches ” do not pretend to be oracular in any sense, but are simply the outcome of many years’ enthusiastic interest and quiet thought on our national game. One question refers to last week’s“ Notches,” and is as follows : “ Why should overthrows count as extras ? ” Because in a very large number of instances they should no more go down to the credit of a batsman than to the credit of the “ man in the moon.” E x uno (lisce omnia. A batsman, say, plays a ball fairly hard to mid-off, and there is not the possibility of half a run from the stroke. Mid-off fields it cleanly and briskly. But as the other batsman, in backing up, happens to be just outside the crease when the ball comes to hand, mid-off has a shot at his wicket, misses it, and a boundary overthrow is the result. Now if it should count to either batsman, it should, in this particular case, be the non-striker. It no more belongs to the striker than do the wides or byes that happen to be bowled whilst he is facing the bowler. Surely whenever a non-striker risks his wicket for the sake of his partner, and a wild overthrow results, that should go down the former’s score, if it is to appear against the batsmen’s names at all. Better much call it an extra. The other question is roomy, and comes from a gentleman who, hailing from the North, and ‘’ North” in his sympathies, is now living in London. He writes : “ Will you be good enough to explain why Lancashire produces no first-class professional talent ? ” A schoolboy would of course answer “ because they don’t.” But why don’t they ? It is a most suggestive fact that Lancashire has been a recognized cri 3ket county siace 1865, and et up to date, not one big bowler, if Barlow e excepted, has been a native. In the earlier years there were Hickton (Derbyshire), and William McIntyre (Notts) ; whilst later, Crossland aud Briggs hailed from Notts, Watson from Scotland, and Mold from Northamptonshire. With this fact before us it might be urged that there has been hitherto no necessity for Lancashire to bother about local talent. Naturalized foreigners have filled up every vacancy in the ranks ; so why shouldn’t they continue to meet the demand ? It is a question very largely of finance, pro­ vided no change is made in the laws affect­ ing County qualification. Yet it is not exactly satisfactory. It is an abuse of privilege. The County laws were never framed for this purpose. The aim and ambition of all the Counties should be to play only home-born men, if possible, aod not depend on the resources of their neighbours. At the Surrey Annual Meeting of last week, Lord Oxenbridge, I was very glad to read, spoke very forcibly on this matter. He would not be satisfied until the Surrey Eleven were composed exclusively of bona-fide Surrey men. At one time it looked as if the “ two years” clause alone prevented cricket from falling as low as present day Association football. Hence that clause must be enforced in every case, for to make an exception in favour, say, of an Australian cricketer settling in the old country, would be the insertion of the thin end of the wedge. But I haven’t yet done with Lancashire cricket. I happened to live in that county for many years, and so know a little about the local cricket. In my opinion the lack of native professional talent may be discovered here. Both Liverpool and Manchester abound in first-rate clubs, where the best cricket is often played. Take as samples the Sefton, Huyton, Northern, Dingle, and Birkenhead Park Clubs—though the latter is in Cheshire. These, with the Liverpool C.C., are the chief clubs in the Northern feeaport. Manchester follows hard with such clubs as Broughton, Sale, Rusholme, Longsight, Manchester, and others. One would say that there must be a lot of cricket in both these cities. So there is, but it is not professional. Why not ? That is imported in the shape of club bowlers, many of whom deservedly feather their nest well during years of honourable service; and they are played in the matches, as well as bowl at the nets. There’s where a mistake is made. I would bar “ ground ” men from club matches. Their exclusion might result in the discovery of many a decent bowler, and from the ranks of the amateurs. The latter won’t practise bowliug so long as their services can be dispensed with in matches. “ But don’t these clubs produce native professional cricketers of mark ? ” How can they, when the subscription is so prohibitive ? Working men cannot afford two guineas a year for the privilege of being snubbed by their social betters, and that is the condition of things in the best clubs arouud Liverpool. Iu Yorkshire I know several clubs every whit as good every way as those just referred to, where the “ sub.” is only half a guinea and even less, and where the banker, lawyer, parson, and mechanic stand on precisely the same level. That’s why Yorkshire has very seldom needed to go beyond their own borders for county players. Promising cricketers get known there. How can they in Lancashire, when they are debarred from all clubs of recognised position ? Notts have set all other counties a noble example in this direction. Thus, most of the Yorkshire clubs have paid pros., and many come from the lace county; but I am told you would have to hunt diligently before you came across a club in auy Notts town or village that did ditto. They have no paid cricketers, though I daresay many a Notts man gets something more than his expenses when doing service for his club. With a 21., 4d., or 6d. “ gate,” it should be possible for all clubs to keep down the “ sub ” to a few shillings, and then we may expect e v e r y county to unearth first-rate professional talent —a luxury at present confined to about two of them. The county that can boast of suoh amateurs as A, N. Hornby, Arthur Appleby, and A. G. Steel, and that, through its manu­ factures and by means of its bracing air, raises the sturdiest type of physical manhood, ought certainly to be able to supply its own wants in tho cricket world. Sussex have started the season well, even though they lost the match with M.C.C. That match does not count. Seeing that they have beaten the premier club more frequently than any other county of late years—not having lost this match since 1885—it would look as if so promising a start year by year were a bad omen, followed as it has been by an almost unbroken series of losses during the last septennate. But it is something for a county to have stumbled across a likely bowler. Parris may prove to be the bowler Sussex have long waited for. At any rate, twelve wickets for 48 runs, and most of the **wickets ” front rank ones too, is a record to boast about. He has the build of a man that suggests that he has come to stop, being put together very much on the same lines as Briggs. Alfred Shaw has looked well after him, and as he has an almost perfect delivery and bowls well within his strength, I came to the conclusion that he was not on a “ Saturday to Monday visit.” Let him discard maiden overs, which are all moonshine, and not be afraid of giving his outfields plenty to do, and we may hear further from him. For it is a long time since Sussex found a big bowler. James “ Lilly ” was the last, and that is exactly 30 years ago. Wisden, “ the little wonder,” was his predecessor, and that was in 1846. So their turn has come round again. But most other Counties have fared no better. Let us look round a moment. Willsher appeared for Kent in 1847 ; we had to wait forty years before they had his successor in the person of Martin. As already noted, Lancashire had never had a first-class pro­ fessional bowler, unless we put Barlow in that company. How have] Surrey fared? No better. Caffyn played first in 1849: but since his day, Surrey have raised no great bowler. Southerton, Barratt, Beaumont, Bowley, Lohmann, and Sharpe are all foreigners. We must go North for an im­ provement. Great bowlers seem to grow in Notts and Yorkshire. There must bo some­ thing in the soil or the air, I know not which. It’s certainly no exaggeration to say that they can show at least five bowleis apiece to every one from other Counties. It was a genuine pleasure to be at Lord’s again this week. The old spot, quite sacred to many of us, was looking its best thus early though cracks all over the turf showed how badly rain is wanted. But how different from the old ground. Every building and stand new duringthe lastthirty years, with the exception of the tennis-court. That is the only relic of old Lord’s. There were no stands in those days, either for members or the public; simply pavilion and a single row of benches round the enclosure. One misses some favourite “ bits.” Of course, the new pavilion is perfeot every way, though it has always looked to me to be too big in propor­ tion to that end of the ground. The hotel is right enough, but give me the dear old “ pub.” it supplanted. When “ W.G.” played first for the ‘ Gentlemen” in 1865, I sat in the balcony of the “ pub.” “ K.M.” was in, and startled us not a little by landing a ball clean through the window behind us. I told the proprietor—Day—he should cut out that hole, and make an heirloom of it. A friend recently asked where he could get the most thorough enjoyment at the cheapest rate. I answered, “ Everything depends on taste; but let me urge you to try sixpenny- worth at Lord’s.” Chatterton’s splendid 109 not out will certainly “ keep ” till next week. SPENCER v. IBIS. Played at Wandsworth on May 7. S p e n c e r , H. Latham, c Farqu- S. Anderson, c Dor- harson, b C. HorsringtoD, b Legg... 15 ley ........................ 0 B. Lawford, b C. H. Mogg, c Farquhar- H orsley................. 1 son, b C. Horsley ... 8 A. Vickery, not out 2 D. Langridge, c Far- S. Stevens, b C. quharson, b C. H orsley................. 0 Horsley ................. 17 H. Iz*nt, c Legg, b C. Anderson, c Farqu- C. Horsley .......... 0 harson, b C. HorsB 5, lb 1 .......... 6 ley ........................ 0 — R. Watts, b Simmons 2 Total .......... 53 A. Gadadon, b C. Horsley ................. 2 I bis . C. Horsley, c Gads- S. Lazell.b Gadsdon 0 don b Latham 10 H.Simmon8,b Gads­ J. Horsley, b Latham 7 don ........................ 0 P. Dorrington.bLang- M. Thorne, b Gads­ rid g e ....................... 2 don ........................ 1 C. Perkins,b Latham 3 S.Dewey.b Gadsdon 3 H. Farquharson, b E. Dewey, not out... 10 Gadsdon ................. 12 B 9, lb 3 .......... 12 G. Legg, b Gadsdon 0 — Total .......... 60 O n the 6th May, at Wimbledon, the wife of Edgar Oliver of a daughter. A C ricket League for Bradford and District was founded on Thursday last. M r . S. S. S chultz won the monthly Handicap Challenge Medal of the Royal Wimbledon Golf Club on April 30. S. J. C hing did the hat trick for Croydon on May 7, taking three Mitcham wickets with consecutive balls. T he match between Lancashire and Sixteen of Werneth for Seaton’s benefit ended on Saturday in a draw. The Eleven scored 59 and 100 for seven wickets (A. Ward 10 and 52 not out), and the Sixteen 95 and 80.