Great Cricket Matches 1772-1800

Surrey v Hampshire (page 131): 30 July 1789 Altogether this is a strange game with big names on both sides but also some notable absentees and a large number of fringe players. A number of participants (Carpenter, Flint, Freemantle, Smith, Talbot, Vincent, J.Walker, Winchilsea) also appeared in the colts match between these counties in June (SB p90), in which several of them did well. Flint apparently bowled H.Walker in Surrey (2) and he has therefore been shown as a full substitute, although he does not appear to have batted in Hampshire (2). He had appeared for Surrey in the colts match so maybe he was a local man brought into the Hampshire side in emergency. All sources have James Wells rather than John and this is accepted, although the score of 80 might suggest otherwise. England v Surrey and Sussex (page 186): 12 June 1793 Sporting Magazine lists the Surrey and Sussex team as follows: Winchilsea, Wells, Dehaney, T.Walker, Tufton, Nicoll, Crawte, J.Walker, H.Walker, Hammond, Beldham. With such prominent professionals listed last, this appears at first sight to make little sense either as a batting order or as the order of dismissal. The likely explanation is that the scoring at the top of the order was so heavy that the remaining professionals were held back to allow the amateurs more opportunity to bat. In 2010 an original Britcher was offered for sale which included a handwritten annotation to this game: ‘An astonishing Match. I saw T.Walker and Ld. Winchilsea went in first & J.Wells went in when Ld. Winchilsea was bowled out.’ This eyewitness account provides the first three to go in for Surrey and Sussex (and incidentally implies very large stands for the first two wickets). It also tends to confirm that the order in Bentley (Winchilsea, Tufton, Dehaney, Nicoll, T.Walker, Wells, J.Walker, J.Crawte, W.Beldham, H.Walker, Hammond) is that of going in but with amateurs listed first. Although it involves combining sources, this allows a recontruction of this unusually high-scoring innings that is consistent with the apparent dismissal order in Sporting Magazine : 1. T.Walker (4th out); 2. Winchilsea (1st); 3. Wells (2nd); 4. Dehaney (3rd); 5. Tufton (5th); 6. Nicoll (6th); 7. J.Walker (8th); 8. Crawte (7th); 9. Beldham (10th); 10. H.Walker (9th); 11. Hammond (not out). If correct, this suggests that Beldham may have hit his wicket deliberately to give his side time to bowl England out again without extending the match into a fourth day. (Many thanks to Keith Warsop for his suggestions about the reconstruction of the innings and Beldham’s dismissal.) Earl of Winchilsea’s XI v R Leigh’s XI (page 224): 23 July 1795 Frederick Reynolds, who was a well-known dramatist, made his first appearance in ‘great’ matches, apparently as a last-minute replacement for a player taken ill. In his memoirs, published 1827, he recalled the game. ‘I, for the first and last time, played against the celebrated formidable, Harris. In taking my place at the wicket, I almost felt as if I was taking my ground in a duel, and my terrors were so much increased by the mock sympathy of Hammond, Beldham and others round the wicket that when this mighty bowler, this Jupiter tonans , hurled his bolt at me, I shut my eyes in the intensity of my panic, and mechnically gave a random desperate blow, which, to my utter astonishment, was followed by a loud cry all over the ring of “ Run, run ”. I did run; and with all my force; and getting three notches.’ This vivid account, the details of which are supported by the score, tells us that Hammond was still batting when Reynolds arrived at the crease; also, that ‘sledging’ is no new phenomenon. 277