Cricket 1882

JULY 20,1882. CEICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. early life he met with an accident to his right arm which rendered under-hand bowling, and even throwing, irksome or impossible to him ; but neither he nor Broadbridge can be regarded as the absolute inventor of the style. Although upon the whole it would appear that that “ crafty genius, Tom Walker,” originated it, yet as he was put down by a solemn resolution of the Hambledon Club, a re-discovery of it forty years afterwards by other persons may be regarded as the actual beginning of it. This, we are told by Mr. Bolland, was through a young lady, a Miss Willes, bowling some balls to her brother, a Kentish yeoman, in 1820, on his re­ covery from illness ; yet this was again put down by the M.C.C. It was owing to the wonderful skill displayed by Lillywhite and Broadbridge in this new method of attack (which puzzled the best batsmen in England for a time), supported by the energetic aid of Mr. G-. T. Knight, that they succeeded at length in getting it countenanced by the M.C.C., and Sussex took up a position in the cricketing world which she has never lost, even although she may be fast losing it. Lillywhite’s own account of it, written in 1844, was that “ Willes and Lambert were about the first to introduce it in a match played in G-oodwood Park thirty-three years ago, when Mr. Aislabie, Mr. Ward, Beld'ham, Robertson, the Walkers, and Broadbridges were in their prime. ” The little man must, however, be somewhat mistaken in his dates, and have placed the introduction too early, for Willes, as we have seen, began his bowling a few years later ; and he has jumbled together cricketers of different ages, for Ward was hardly then “ out.” The Broadbridges were quite unknown to fame; H. Walker was dead, aud T. Walker, Beldhftm, and Robertson (by whom he probably meant “ Robinson ” ) were near the end of their careers. But round-hand bowling was still subjected to rigid rules, and the art was not left to “ run riot ”—the hand or wrist in the act of delivery must not be above the elbow. Yet when, some thirty years later, the celebrated and much canvassed judgment of Umpire Willsher had established that no limit need be placed to the free action of the hand, but that it might go as high as the shoulder, all bounds of moderation were at once removed, and over-hand bowling in all its latitude was and has ever since been accepted as as lawful as the original—anything, in fact, save a throw or a jerk. (To be continued.) •siP^IlVCIP^ItvFIXTa^EglKO^-: TpEvWEBK J U L Y . 20 At Lord’s, Middlesex V Surrey „ Liverpool, Lancashire v Notts „ Middlesborough, Yorkshire v Australians „ Hampstead, M.C.C. and Ground v Hampstead „ Maidston*. M C.C. and Ground v Mote Park „ Kendal, United v 18 of Kendal „ Eastbourne, Incogniti v Devonshire Park „ Wanstead, Clapton v Wanstead „ Champion Hill, Trafalgar v Champion Hill „ Edenbridge, Buxton v Edenbridge „ Catford. Granville v Barclay, Bevan, and Co.’s Second Eleven „ Kennington Oval, London and County Bank v Commercial Union Assurance Company „ Kennington Oval, South of the Thames Licensed Victual­ lers v Kennington 21 Oval, Surrey Club and Ground v Putney „ Longwood, I Zingari v Lord Northesk’BEleven „ Aslilord, Tunbridg j Wells v Ashford „ Chatham, Jtioyal JiiUgineers v Shomcliffe Camp „ Eastbourne, Assyrians v Devonshire Park „ Guildford, Guildford v Brixton „ Lewes, Old Brucians v Lewes Priory „ Shoeburyness, Royal Artillery v I Zingari „ Windmill Hill, Incugniti v Windmill Hill „ Wormwood ouruobs, Kensington Park v Ealing „ Yattou, Yatton v >8 Gentlemen of Southampton 2a Bickley, Bioaley Park v Bexley „ Catford Bridge, Stoics v Bank of England „ Clapton, Ciap-on v Upper Clapton „ Edmonton, Edmonton v Highbury „ Finchley, M.C.C. and Ground v Christ’s College „ Goldalmiug, sVestminster v Charterhouse » Henley, Nondescripts v Henley „ Hampstead, Blaokheaih Morden v Hampstead „ Leo, Croydon v Northbrook n Malvern, College v Town 22 At New Cross, M.C.C. and Ground v Rcyal Naval School Nottingham, Notts Castle v Pickwick Club (Birmingham) Richmond, Will of the Wisps v Richmond Tooting, Tooting v Wimbledon Twickenham, Esher v Orleans Club Upper Tooting, Anchorites v Ciapham Wandsworth Common, One and All v Brunswick Willesden Green, Upton Park v Law Club Wellington, College v M.C.C. and Ground Charlton Park, Charlton Park v Granville Eton and Middlesex, Maida Yale v St. Thomas's Hospital Harrow, Greville v Wealdstone Reigate, Reigate Hill v Beddington Kennington Oval, Kennington Vine v Mortlake Belle Vue Kennington Oval, Highgate v Kenninerton Streatham, Strcatham v Marlboro’ Blues Southgate, Mr. Hilliard’s Eleven v Junior Southgate Walthamstow, Fore Street v Ravensboume 24 At Lord’s, M.C.C. and Ground v Clifton College Gosforth Park, Australians v Northumberland Nottingham, Notts v Gloucestershire Southampton, Hampshire v. Somersetshire Maidstone, Kent v Surrey Sheffield, Yorkshire v Lancashire Derby, Gentlemen of Derbyshire (with three Players) v Harrow Wanderers Brentwood, Suffolk v Essex Brighton, Incogniti v Gentlemen of Sussex Hastings, Eastbourne v Hastings and St. Leonards Henley, M.C.C. and Ground v Henley Wormwood Scrubbs, Kensington Park v Uxbridge Catford, Granville v Private Banks Kennington Oval, London and County Bank v London Joint Stock Bank 25 At Highclere Park, Bradfield College v Highclere Park 26 At Lord’s, Rugby v Marlborough Brighton, Brunswick v Holborn Blackheath, Morden v Stygians Kingston Hill, Incogniti v Kingston Hill Richmond, Surrey C. and G. v Richmond Town Richmond, Richmond v. Beckenham Stamford, Leicester v Burghley Park Shomcliffe, I Zingari v Camp Uxbridge, M.C.C. and G. v Uxbridge Croydon, Beddington v Whitgift School Kennington Oval, Pimlico Tradesmen v South of Thames Licensed Victuallers T p E v g c e ^ E v B e e K . Scores o f Matches with a postal order fo r one shilling must be sent in to reach us by First Delivery on Tuesday morning at the latest, or they will have to wait until the issue o f follow ing week I f payment has not been made fo r the season's scores in advance, each score, to ensure insertion , must be accom­ panied with a Postal Orderfo r One Shilling. The Matches o f the following Clubs will appear in “ C r ic k e t ” every w eek : — M arylebon e C lub . C lare C o lle g e , C a m b r id g e . S u r r e y C ou nty . S t . J ohn ’ s C o lle g e , C am - H arro w S chool . b r id g e . I n cogniti G ryphons ♦N on descripts B ick ley P ark R ich m ond H am pstead B la c k h e a th M orden ♦P allin g sw ick R e v e lle r s P utney ‘•‘E sh e r E alin g C iv il S e r v ic e C it y R am blers S toics U ppe r T ooting ♦L aw C lub B roxbourne K ensington P a r k O a k fie ld ♦C lapton P reston H all C h e lten h am C olleg e B . B. A ssyrians E lth am S u rbito n A ddiscom be R e ig a te H il l N e ’ e r - do -W e e ls R e ig a t e P r iory B ro ad w ater . B e x le y H ig h b u r y C lu b . S h orn cliffe O& m p C h arlton P a r k . R oyal N aval S chool G r e v il l e . U ppin g h am R overs . j E olian . U pton P a r k . R oss . R oyal M il ita r y A cadem y . B ed din g to n . R oyal M il it a r y C o l le g e ,C laph a m . S an dh urst S pen cer . ♦C rystal P alace M a rlbo rou g h C o lle g e . G r a n v ill e . W est K e n t . P e n g e . H ornsey . S t r e a th a m . M id d le se x H o spita l . E m e r it i . C arsh alton P a r k . R ugby C lu b . H ig h g a te S ch ool . E astbo u rn e .L ondon I n tern atio n al C ol - H ig h g a t e . le g e . S outh S axons . M il l H il l S chool . A sh fo r d . N orth bro ok . W im bled o n . L ondon an d C ounty B ank . ♦ Scores o f these Clubs w ill appear only in “ C r ic k e t.” AUSTRALIANS v. YORKSHIRE. Rain prevented littlemore than one innings to each side in this match, played on the ground of the Savile Club at Dewsbury on Thursday last and two following days. It was the third meeting between the same sides, the first at Bradford being drawn on account of the weather, and tho second at Sheffield won by the Australians. Bates had not yet recovered suf­ ficiently from the sprain he received in the Surrey match at Sheffield to be able to help Yorkshire, but Peel, the colt, proved a very efficient substitute, and; his bowling was the beston the side. Lockwood played a brilliant innings of 61 for the county, but, except Grimshaw, no one else could make any long stay against the Australian bowling, particularly of Gar­ rett, who took seven wickets at a cost of 50 runs. Peel’s bowling was the feature of the Australian innings. At one time he bowled for 25 minutes without a run being scored off him, and in all he took six wickets for 41 runs in 46 overs and two balls, Peate’s 31 overs costing three runs more without a wicket. On the second night the Austra­ lians had scored 111 for five wickets, but the rest of the team only added 30 runs, and the finish found them only 12 runs in advance of the York­ shire total. As there was no possible interest in the match when the Yorkshiremen went in a second time on Saturday afternoon, Murdoch did not try any of his usual bowlers, and Massie, M‘Donnell, and he tried their hands for the first time during the present trip. As a consequence, Ulyett and Mr Hawke had a merry time of it until M‘Donnell found his way to the professional’s wicket with the total at 64. The match was drawn with Yorkshire 52 runs on and one wicket down. Y orksh ire . Ulyett, b Garrett .. .. 4 Hon. M. B.Hawke, b Spof­ forth ................................. 8 Hall, c Palmer, b Garrett. 8 Lockwood, b Garrett .. 61 Emmett, c Boyle,b Garrett 8 Mr. C. W. Landon, c Mas­ sie, b Boyle ..................0 Grimshaw, b Boyle .. ..[27 Hill, e Horan, b Garrett.. 0 Peate, b Garrett .. .. 0 Peel, b G arrett..................1 Hunter, not out .. .. 8 B .................. .. . . 4 Total In the second innings, Ulyett (b M‘Donnell) scored 34, Hawke (not out) 26, Hall (not out) 0 ; b 4; total, 64. A ustralian s . H. H. Massie, c Ulyett, b G. Giffen, b Peel F. R. Spofforth, b Peel . 10 P e e l................................. 0 .. 3 A. C. Banuerman, b Ulyett 34 T. W. Garrett, b Peel .. 12 W. L. Murdoch, b Hill .. 30 G. E. Palmer, b Peel .. 0 P. S. M'Donnell, c Hawke, F. F. Boyle, not out.. . 3 b Hill .......................... 14 B 5 ,1-b 4, w 2 .. .. 11 T. Horan, c Lockwood, b _- H a ll................................. 24 G. J. Bonnor, st Hunter, 0 ANALYSES OF BOWLING. Y o r k sh ir e . First Innings. Second Innings. O. M. R.W. O. M. R.W. Garrett .. .. 40 18 50 7 Massie .. .. 6 1 18 0 Spofforth .. .. 18 5 41 1 Murdoch .. .. 7 1 25 o Palmer .. .. 15 10 21 0 M‘Donnell.. .. 6 3 7 1 B oy le.................. 6.1 2 13 2 Bannerman .. 4 1 10 0 A u stralian s . O. M. R.W. O. M. R.W. P eate.................. 31 13 44 0 H i l l ...................28 19 19 2 P e e l .................. 46 24 41 6 Ulyett .. .. 4 3 2 1 Emmett . . . . 8 5 8 0 H a ll ...................21 11 16 1 LANCASHIRE v. SURREY. Luck a second time last week befriended Surrey on Saturday at Manchester, when they were able to draw their first match of the season with Lan­ cashire. In this respect they were fortunate, but their ill-fortune of the season followed them in two other important ways. Losing the toss, they had each innings all the worst of the wicket, but in addition they were deprived of the services not only of Mr. A. P. Lucas, but of their only two reliable bowlers, Jones and Barratt, both unable to play owing to accidents. Considering their bowl­ ing, the Southerners did extremely well to get rid of the Lancashire eleven, which did not include Mr. A. G. Steel, for 156. But for a useful stand by Watson and Crossland, the ninth and tenth batsmen on the side, who put on 96 runs while together, the whole team would have been out for a very small total. Both these batsmen hit well, but they were lucky in many of their strokes just failing to come to hand. Owing to heavy rain on Thursday, no start was possible on that day, and the game was interrupted more than once after