Cricket 1882

l 8 CRICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OP THE GAME. J U N E 29j 1882. not out. Allowing for luncheon and j: rval, the scoring throughout the day was he rate of 93 runs an hour. . CORRESPONDENT w llO S a w M l-. W . G. | !,ce's eleven in the field at Chichester sug- ;s that the Vntied would be a better title ,! !n the United. He foresees the necessity j1 an explanation by the suggestion that it he noticed of their fielding was very I e. j C a m b r id g e won the forty-eighth InteBrUni- jisity match at Lord's yesterday easily by en wickets. Ofcourse everyone knew what result would be, and everyone will con­ sulate himself on his shrewdness. It was weakness of the Oxford bowling as much |anything else that contributed to their eat. Many of us who saw the play .terday were wondering whether the two ford fast bowlers were the only ones on ;i si le. The play all-round certainly ifirmed the opinion I expressed some |j|ae ago, that the bowling of both teams uld be on the whole below the average Inter-University matches. < -C 0 IW K S P O j\D K N C E -> are uot responsible for the opinions expressed by our cor­ respondents. No communications can be inserted unless they bear the name and address of the writer, as a proof of good faith, not necessarily for publication. (I SURREY COUNTY CRICKET. TO THE EDITOR OF “ CRICKET.” S ib ,— I am at a loss to conceive how the letter o f 3A Surrey Veteran ” cau merit even the slightest noulit of censure, which, however, has been award- $1 by some of your correspondents To my mind - js a very sensible production, and the views tpressed in it worthy of being commended ^ y all who have the interest of Surrey county ^ -icket at heart. “ A Surrey Veteran " simply mits himself to expressing his regret that rtaiu amateurs (whose names he mentions) \ mnot find it convenient to play oftener : >rtheir county. Both of your other correspondents kibour to impress the fact that they are at liberty or lease themselves in the matter. Of course this is c acognised without the aid of much “ persuasive |loquence,” but this does not preclude others from >ommenting on and expressing regret at the aanner in which their will is exercised. “ A Surrey Veteran ” is accredited with complaining of i dr. A. 1* Lucas. On the contrary he is evidently (, great admirer of him, judging from his opinion | .hat he is the best “ all-round cricketer in the !vorld.” I myself regard Mr. Lucas as the finest Ijatsman of the present day, and it is this very fact .vhich prompts me (and which should prompt all ivho profess to support him) to join with “ A Surrey Veteran” in wishing fervently for his more frequent appearance on behalf of his county. “ An Old Buffer ” has no hesitation in saying “ that the reign of the amateur3 ruined the county.” This is scarcely the most happy remark to make, seeing that no less than seven of these “ enormities ” are playing against Oxford, six played against Cam­ bridge, and five against the Australians, Middlesex and G lou cestersh ire. —Yours faithfully, June 20. A SURREY JUNIOR. GENTLEMEN OF ENGLAND v. AUSTRALIA, s., . TO THE EDITOR OF “ CRICKET.’’ S i r , —I am sure that every cricket-loving Englishman must have perused the score of the late match against the Australians with feelings of shame and disgust. This disaster is, in my opinion, attributable to two reasons. 1st, the madness of playipg a team like the Australians without a fast bowler. I suppose they looked for them in the usual groove, but I have now, in my mind’s eye, three large Metropolitan Clubs of over 200 members each, one in the North of London, one in the West, and one in the S.W., who could have supplied two each, if required to do s o ; but then they possibly may not have learnt their bowl­ ing at Eton or Harrow, and Oxford and Cambridge. 2nd, I consider the composition of the Gentle­ men’s team as most unwise. My idea of a Gentlemeu of England Eleven is that of mature cricketers with great experience, men of 28 or 30 possibly, with oue or two at the most of the most distinguished University men to fill up. This Eleven was literally swamped with unripe players from Oxford and Cambridge, when such men as Dr. E. M. Grace, Messrs. I. D. Walker, Vernon, Thornton, Iteimy Tailyou", J. Shuter, and last, not least, Lord Harris were standing out. The public, by the way they fall down and worship University cricket have prepared for themselves this disgraceful defeat. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, HERBERT CHADS. 122, Edgware-road, June 25, 1882. LONG-STOPPING. TO THE EDITOR OF “ CRICKET.” S ir ,— I believe it is one of the greatest boasts of old cricketers that two or three of their most famous players, Mortlock, Sewell, and others, were mo3t brilliant fieldsmen at long-stop, and that perhaps out of some thousands of deliveries only two or three byes would be scored. May I ask if you or any of your readers can ex­ plain the modern freak of doing without a long- atop ? Often have I noticed that. after most excel­ lent close fielding ill all positions, and causing maiden after maiden, away goes a ball past the wicket-keeper for three or four, and so doing away with the good fielding. A case in point was at the Oval yesterday, Oxford scoring 12 byes and 6 leg-byes out of 78 runs, so that a long-stop would have certainly reduced the score by 12, and possibly by 1 8 ! ! ! Such figures speak for themselves, and be a wicket-keeper as good as he possibly can, it is im possible to stop some of the balls that he thinks will hit the wicket, but which, in fact, just misses it. Will Mr. J. Shuter take a hint from this and pro vide a long-stop?—I am, Sir, T. EDWARDS. Blackheath, Kent, June 20. TO THE SURREY AND OXFORD. ELEVENS. TO THE EDITOR OF “ CRICKET.” G e n ts a ll . —I see on an Oval card of this County and University match, that Surrey gave away 18 extras in Oxfprd’s first innings, and O xford gave away 21 extras in Surrey’s second innings. Gents all, this is skittles, not cricket. It is most unfair to wicket-keepers to abolish long-stop to fast bowling, and the byes travelling into space cause a qualm like sea sickness to the spectators.—I am, Sir, AN OLD BUFFER. ASSUMED NAMES. TO THE EDITOR OF “ CRICKET.” S ir , —I shall be pleased if you will kindly inform me whether gentlemen cricketers are getting ashamed of the noble game in which they partici­ pate, for I find during the past two weeks the following “ assumed” names, viz., Messrs. “ A Francklin,” “ H. Kay,” “ A. Fryer,” “ E. Grrty,” and E. Hughes.” If the said cricketers are m i<ashameiT of our beautiful national game, surely their business vocations are not so aristocratic or “ fishy ” that they dare not play in their ordinary names. As your paper is devoted to the interest and honour of cricket, I trust you will give publicity to this growing affectation. I am, Sir, yours truly, H. M. STEWART (Major). Waterloo Crescent, Dover. « T P E : - 3 C 0 ^ E : B 0 0 K > (Continued.) AUSTRALIANS v. GENTLEMEN OF ENG­ LAND. .. The unusual interest shown in this match, played at Kennington Oval on Thursday last and two fol­ lowing days, was shown by an attendance far in excess of anything ever recorded on the Surrey ground, with the one exception of the match be­ tween England and Australia in 1880. The heavy rain just after luncheon on Thursday reduced the numbers considerably on the first day, but still 10,028 paid for admission, and on Friday and Saturday the numbers were 18,540 and 11,030 re­ spectively, so that in all 30,598 persons paid the entrance fee of a shilling. Financially the match was a great success, but in its equally important object, the display of English cricket, it was a con­ spicuous failure. The sudden indisposition of Mr. A. H. Evans left the eleven without a fast bowler, but the comparative weakness of the eleven in bowling was thought to be fully compensated for by their general excellence in batting and fielding. Murdoch, in winning the toss, gained a decided advantage in the wicket, and the out-cricket of the Gentlemen was so weak that the Australians were able to make a very creditable total of 334. The want of a fast bowler was evident, but at the same time what changes there were had not a fair chance. Mr. Steel was kept on far too long, con­ sidering how plain his delivery was. Mr. Ramsay might fairly have been tried a great deal more, and it was a matter for general surprise that Mr. W. G. Grace should hardly have been allowed a ball until a long innings was nearly over. The field­ ing, too, fell decidedly below expectations. Mr. Lu­ cas made two fine catches, one, that which disposed of Bonnor, as good as has ever been seen, but generally the display was not up to the mark, and Mr. Leslie's misjudgment of the chance Bonnor gave when he had got only seven cost the Gentle • men quite a hundred runs. A3 to the batting of the English eleven, the mildest that can be said is that it was altogether unworthy of the individual reputations of many of the players engaged, aud that collectively it was much below the ordinary standard of English amateur cricket. Messrs. Grace, Patterson, Hornby, and Steel played with pluck, but otherwise there was a noticeable lack of confidence, and several of the team were conspi­ cuous failures. That it was their right form no one believes, but that the batting was a woful disap­ pointment everyone will admit. Giffen on Friday night was difficult to see, but the wicket, though certainly worn, did not play so badly as lias been stated, and it was want of nerve more than any­ thing else that lost the game. The Australians won by an innings and one run, and on the form of this match they were the better team at every point. In 1878 the Gentlemen beat the Australians by an innings and one run. A ustralians . A. C. Bannerraan, e Hornby, b Steel .. .. 50 H. H. Massio, c Hoad, b R a m sa y ........................82 W. L. Murdoch, c Grace, b C. T. S t u d d ................57 P. S. M‘Donuell, c G. B. Studd, b Ramsay .. .. 19 G. Giff» n, 1 b w, bGrace . 48 G. J. Bonnor, eLucas, b Ramsay .. . . . . .. 74 J. M. Blackham, c Lucas, b G r a c e ..........................G S. P. Jones, 1b w, b Graoo 4 G. E. Palmer, b Grace .. 8 T. W. Garrett, c Homby, b Steel ..........................20 F. R. Spofforth, not out .. 10 B 8, 1-b 2 ..................G Total ..834