Cricket 1882

142 CRICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. j U ly is, 1882. But in 1827 all this was changed ; although no county club was formed till thirty years afterwards, yet county matches became regular parts of the season’s diversion. Still, as they were got up by individuals merely, and regarded as objects of spe­ culation, the best players were not always chosen, either on account of prejudice or economy. These matches, however, did a great deal of good, and caused much more interest to be taken in the game, and gradually paved the way for the introduction of anothea system—that of round hand bowling, and eventually for the establishment of tbe present County Club, which is destined, we hope, to produce by and by a stronger 4 ‘ cast ” than the county can boast of at present. Six, then (I take it all will agree), of these Sus­ sex “ heroes ” stand out pre-eminent in the phalanx of our old county players— J ohn H a m m o n d , J a m e s B r o a d b r id g e , F r e d e r ic k W il l ia m L il l y w h it e , C h a r l e s G e o r g e T aylo r , G e o r g e B r o w n , T h om as Box, to which we must add, earliest of all, the names of N oah M a n n , and of R ic h a r d N e w l a n d , the parent and preceptor of our county game. To these succeed severally— Longo sed proximus infcervaUo— , the Slaters, Morley, William Broadbridge, Hooker- Daniel King, Meads, Lanaway, Millyard aud Haw kins. While as to the rest, who have more recently been, or are still famous, in their generation, we propose to classify them chronologically according to the years in which they “ came out.” B ich ard N ew land , a small farmer'at Slindon, in the churchyard of which are monuments to several of the name is the earltest Sussex cricketer we read of. Of Richard Nyren (himself a well-known ancient “ hero,” and the head and right arm of the celebrated Hambledon Club, and whose father, John, wrote the “ Cricketer’s Tutor ” ) we are told that he "owed all the skilled judgment he possessed to nis old uncle, Richard Newland, under whom he was brought up.” Now, asNyren was born in 1735, he was probably at Slindon about 1750 or 1755, so there must have been plenty of cricket in Sussex then. The name of Newland occurs twice in the first recorded match in 1746; and in another match in 1765 is found “ Nyland” (probably a mistake for Newland) “ of Sussex.” In fact, three Newlands played in the 1746 match, but it is probably Richard, who chiefly distinguished himself, getting eighteen (nearly one.third of the runs scored by his side), bowling three wiokets in the first inning3, and four in the second, and catching one. (To be continued.) ‘SCei^EgPGpENCE-f:* ; We are not responsible for the opinions expressed by our cor- I respondents. No communications can be inserted unless they bear the name aud address of the writer, as a proof of good faith, not necessarily for publication. ' ENGLISH AND AUSTRALIAN CRICKET. TO THE EDITOR OF “ CRICKET.” 1 S ir , —With your permission I would take the fpresent favourable opportunity, when public ‘interest is specially aroused in the doings of the Australian Eleven, to rectify, as far as possible, ’ several serious errors of judgment which prevail 1only tco extensively upon the aspect of cricket in the colonies, and I would thus venture somewhat i at length upon your valuable space not only from a ‘love of the noble gameitself—a game second to none, t and which I honour secpnd to none—but from a firm conviction that it may prove the means of much mutual good to the mother country and colonies and kindle much mutual esteem and good- twill, which misrepresentation such as at present (:exists may utterly destroy. The points I would refer to, with all the influence of your wide circulation, are the presumed prevalence ^of betting, and the status in quo our team visit Eng­ land,and I would claim to speak with some authority, for I have known cricket, Sir, in the colonies for 20 years, from the time when Cosstick and Caffyn taught ns to bowl and bat up to the time that Shaw’s team met their match, and more than their match, in the combined colonies last year; having seen the game played between clubs, between colonies, and against English visitors, on the finest of turf, and on the worst of cocoa-nut matting. Regarding then, firstly, the prevalence of betting, there is no doubt the grossest exaggeration, and though many cricketers know better “ the gentle public ” most woefully misjudge us. I venture to assert most confidently that betting in club matches scarcely exists, in Inter-Colonial matches even it remains fractional, and it is only when the extra excitement of an English visit is present that its existence is even perceptible, whilst to say that it ever extended to influencing a single man in a single match is to grossly libel Australian cricket. The late scandal, indeed, was a scandal only to those that believed it against their own men on the mere word of rumour. True, we had the Lord Harris affair—it seems as though we must be ever ready to have mother England throw that iu our face, but it was the excited crowd and not our cricketers that were to blame. It is hard to be driven to the “ tu quoque ” argument, but are English crowds never unreason­ able? are even Euglish cricketers and secretaries always too cool headed to go wrong ? Surely, we “ could a tale unfold” if we wished to deal with recrimination. May I simply add what a member of the three Australian teams, and perhaps the best living judge of Australian cricket, told me very recently, “ There is more betting in one match between Lancashire and Yorkshire than in all Australia, in one season.” I hope, in future, that before chattering about the prevalence of betting in Australia, calumniators will remember these fact^. Equally misrepresenting is popular opinion as to the so-called “ pecuniary aspect of the colonial’s visit.” True it is that they take half the gate money ; one might ask, who takes the other half, or the whole as at Orleans, the stronghold of English amateur cricket? but let us keep to one side of the question. The visit costs money, and so must be conducted on ordinary commercial principles ; men cannot come 15,009 miles and play county aftei county for four months, without expense. But people say, *‘ Look at our amateur teams that went to Australia, there was nothing pecuniary about their visit.” This is just the point I want to impress upon your notice. Take Lord Harris’s team. They were invited out, had their passages there and back paid for them, their hotel bills, railway fares, &c., all paid, a courier sent with them to make all comfortable, the ric;ht of cntrei every­ where, and indeed, such lavish hospitality extended to them, that despite a most successful season, their kind entertainers were some hundreds of pounds on the wrong side. Now turn to our team. No such invitation has been extended to them, they have had to come through muchmisrepresentation, and their coming as they do is the outcome of circumstances, not their choice. Had such a proposal been made, I am sure it would have been accepted. May I make a proposal. Now that the colonials have shown themselves worthy antagonists of the best English elevens, have in all points been a pattern for any team to adopt, have proved a pecuniary success, and what we all rejoice in, have given a very great impetus to the noble game throughout the length and breadth of England, why should not the M.C.C., the mother of cricket, invite a team of such antagonists over as we have already done more than one English team, take all the gate money and its insinuations out of unwilling hands, relieve the game from the suspicion of reproach, and at the end of the season divide what­ ever profits may accrue proportionately in some fund for worn-out cricketers, Or the advancement of the game in England and in Australia. Till such a proposal has been made, and rejected, let us, in the name of ordinary fairness, hear no more about the pecuniary aspect of Australian cricket, for if any­ thing I believe we Australians think less of “ the root of all evil ” than you Englishmen. I must thank you for permitting me such length, the importance of the subject is my only apology. I am, &c., SOUTHERN CROSS. AMATEUR BOWLING. TO THE EDITOR OP “ CRICKET.” D ear S ir , —I am very glad that you have, in your editorial this week, called attention to the paucity of good amateur bowlers, because I think that some steps might well be taken to improve matters in this respect. There may be objections to what I am about to suggest which I am not aware of, but I cannot help thinking that if the M.C.C. would dispense with the aid of “ the ground ” in many of the multitudinous matches they play against metropolitan and county clubs, it would give a great impetus to the amateur bowling department. It is a fact that unless a man is a good bat, or has distinguished himself at a public school or one of the Universities in bowling, he has at present but little chance of making his mark, whereas if the M.C.C. and Surrey Club would arrange matches in which they would have to rely upon their amateurs for batting, bowling, and wiiket-keeping , I think they would soon unearth talent which, at present, lies dormant. The same remark applies to the counties. Surely Gentlemen of Kent v. Gentlemen of Surrey would be a match likely to prove as interesting as one between the hybrid elevens of the two counties. When it was known that A. H. Evans could not play against the Australians at the Oval, there only appeared to be two or three men who anyone could suggest as being competent to replace him, and if this is really so, the land must be naked indeed. At present nothing is done to encourage amateur bowling. The man who makes his century obtains for himself a place in the list of three figure innings, and it would be a step in the right direction if good bowling analyses were made equally public. R. P. Hampstead Cricket Club, 2, Netherhall-terrace, Fitzjohns Avenue, Hampstead. AMATEURS AND PROFESSIONALS. TO THE EDITOR OP “ CRICKET.” S ir , —The following is a statement of the innings of Mr. W. G. Grace in the matches between the Gentle­ men and Players at Lord’s and the Oval. A con­ sideration of these innings and of the amounts of the great batsman’s averages in these matches, which are I apprehend quite unparalleled in cricket annals, confirms most completely your observations last week as to the great share Mr; G.Grace has had in the victories of the Gentlemen. Y o u r s , A c ., L . L o rd ’ s M a tc h e s . O val M a tc h e s . 1865 . . . . 3 — 34 ...................... 28 — 12* 186(5 . . . . 25 — 11 ...................... 7 — 84 1887 .. *. 18 — 37* ...................... (did n ot plav) 1858 .. .. 134* — — ...................... 19 — '— 1889 . . . . 2 — 80 ...................... 48 — 83 1870 . . . . 109 — 11 ...................... 6 — 215 1871 . . . . 50 — 37 ...................... 16 — 43 1872 . . . . 77 — 112 ...................... 117 — — 1873 . . . . 163 — — ...................... 158 — — 1874 . . . . 48 — 12 ...................... 22 — 14 1875 . . . . 7 — 152 ...................... 82 — 17 1876 . . . . 169 — — ...................... 0 — 90 1877 . . .. 18 — 41 ...................... 29 — — 1878 . . . . 90 — 2 ...................... 40 — 68 1879 . . . . 3 — — ...................... 26 — — 1880 . . . . 49 — 12 ...................... 6 — 8 1881 . . . . 29 — 2 ...................... 100 — 9 1882 . . . . 4 — 7 . . . . .. 21 — 1 * n ot out R on s at L ord's .. . . 1493 R uns at Oval .. . . 1249 T otal r u n s ...................... 2747 Average each innings 4914.15 Average each innings 44 17.18 Average each in nin gs 47 21.58 S core Sheets for forwarding matches to C ricket can be had at the Office, 17, Paternoster-square, London, E .C ., price 9d. a dozen.— A dvt .