Great Cricket Matches 1772-1800

in this game, which is on balance, and not without reservations, excluded from the list. The 1783 game can likewise be excluded because of the opposition, in this case Chertsey. Sussex/Brighton – This team enjoyed a fleeting presence in ‘great’ matches – one game in 1791 and five in 1792 – but the results are good and the matches are included despite the large number of lesser-known players in the Sussex/Brighton team. Essex/Hornchurch – This team was overwhelmed by ‘Berkshire’ in 1785 and also lost in 1787 to Middlesex, itself very marginal at this date. Also in 1787, it played and lost against a combined side of WCC and Moulsey Hurst in three matches (the score of one of which has not survived). From 1789 it played regularly with reasonable results against MCC teams that tended to be weaker than those selected against other opposition on the fringe of ‘great’ status – compare for instance MCC teams v Hornchurch on 13 June 1791 and v Gentlemen of Kent on 2 June 1791. On the credit side, it played home and away against Kent in 1792 (but Kent won comfortably) and its results in 1793, and the standard of MCC opposition, were probably better than at any previous time; but ironically this was its final year (and yet it still (with Hertfordshire) played XXII v Hambledon/England). Essex/ Hornchurch is the most marginal of the new teams but on balance, and with some misgivings, its matches against MCC, Middlesex and Kent are included. Note the exclusion of the two matches against a combined MCC/Hertfordshire team in 1791: the Hertfordshire element in the combined team is significant, especially in the Hornchurch match (where Britcher calls it simply ‘Herts’). Other marginal teams We now turn to teams of more marginal status. The starting point here, as elsewhere, is the approach taken in the ACS Guide. Chertsey, Moulsey Hurst, Hambledon Town – The Guide accepts that in exceptional circumstances matches by club sides may be included. The most instructive precedents (because the closest in time) are Epsom and Godalming. Epsom in 1814-19 was playing county sides (treating Brighton as equivalent to Sussex) and the Guide remarks that at least some of the games were regarded as ‘the great matches of their year’. The Guide could have added that although Surrey did play one match in 1815 and another in 1817, it was not very active and indeed the game generally seems to have been at a low ebb, so there was something of a vacuum for a club like Epsom to fill. In the case of Godalming in 1821-25, the Guide refers to the team as ‘perhaps not quite representative of Surrey as a whole’ but points out that it was ‘reinforced by some non-Godalming men’ and argues that its inclusion is justified by results. Again, it could have added that there were no Surrey matches at all during Godalming’s period as an ‘important’ side. The Guide’s approach to Epsom and Godalming can be applied to 18th-century games. The 1773 Hambledon Town match against Surrey is very clearly on a different footing to Hampshire matches of the period; a number of Hampshire men are missing from the Hambledon side, while Surrey at this period would have included given men against a full Hampshire team. Similarly, Chertsey in 1775 against ‘London’, although full of good players and clearly the leading club in Surrey, is significantly different from the county side. Chertsey's 1778 match against England, however, is a special case: Chertsey fields virtually a Surrey team (T.White (of Reigate) is the only major absentee) and although entitling the opposition as ‘England’ is highly optimistic (even allowing for ‘barring Hants’), it certainly includes some outstanding players along with some lesser lights. 18