Cricket 1882

222 CRICKET; A "WEEKLY RECORD OP THE GAME. a u g u s t 1?, 1882. his best form, we have never seen his equal. He has of course a great advantage, ashe stands 6 ft. 2 in. high. He makes the full use of his height, bringing the ball well down from over the shoulder. His delivery is right-handed, and from its very nature causes the ball to get up quickly from the pitch. His mechanical precision is extraordinary, but his success is due even more to the mental influence he brings to bear on his work. It is not exaggeration to say that he has made bowling a perfect study, and we have heard many amusing anecdotes of how he labours to solve what appears to him a difficult problem in the art of out­ manoeuvring a batsman. He has completely learned perhaps the greatest secret of bowling, to vary his pitch without giving the batsman the slightest clue to his intentions. On his first appearance in England he used to bowl very fast, with an occasional slow for a head hall. Latterly though he has reduced his pace, and it is the occasional fast one that a batsman has to watch. It is evident that he is now hardly quite as good as he was two years ago, but he still has no superiors, and one of his performances up country last year is almost unique, as he clean bowled twenty wickets in a match. Unfortunately he is at the present time just recovering from a severe strain, and his bowling was undoubtedly very much missed by the Australians at the Oval last week. As a bats­ man he is not so reliable as he used to be. He can hit freely if he gets set, but during this tour his successes have been few. He is a good field, par ticularly at point, and generally a sure catch. SU S S E X C R IC K E T—P A S T AND P R E S E N T . B y an O ld S ussex C bicketeb . Published by permission o f the Author. (Concluded.) A few of the past “ curiosities” and “ glorious uncertainties” of Sussex cricket remain to be told. On May 13, 1787, a match was played at Alfriston by four men, whose age 3 together amounted to 297 years. “ The game,” weare told, “ was played with great spirit and activity, in the presence of a great number of spectators.” This was double­ distilled Archaeology of cricket with a vengeance ! In June, 1783, a game was played between Netheriield and Brightling, in which one Nether- field man fetched as many notches at one stroke (viz., six) as all the Brightling eleven did in their lirst_innings. In June, 1796, the married women beat the single women of Bury Common by 80 runs, the Bury women offering to play any eleven in Sussex for any sum. In 1799, on Storrington Common, Storrington and Pulborough beat Arundel and Shoreham (with Bridgen and Watson) by two runs, though in tiie first innings they only made nine. In North Sussex v. South Sussex, at Eastebourne Park, in 1S02, all the runs were single ones, except three byBattcock. In Sussex (with Osbaldiston and Lambert) v. Epsom, at Lord’s, July 2-6, 1817, Sussex’s second inuings was 445, and she won by 427 ; Lambert scoring respectively 107, “ not out,” and 157 “ b .budd," and Osbaldiston making 106 in his first innings. in 1.619, in Petworth Park, in Storrington v Petworth (with Hooker), Storrington scored only 12 in their first innings, and yet won. No one scored double figures on the Petworth side either innings 1 In Godalming v. Midhurst, in 1823, Wm. Mat thews got more runs in one innings than Mid hurst did with its 22 wickets. In a match at Ticehurst, in 1823, the ball from the bat of Mr. Thos. Cowper was caught on the point of a knife, which a woman named Stapley, who kept aginger-beer stall on the ground, was usiug. Her hand was much cut, and the ball 80 deeply perforated, that some little force was neces­ sary to draw the knife from it. In a single wicket match played at Newenden, between five of Kent (so-called) and five of Sussex, no runs were scored on either side in either innings. In England v. Sussex in 1824, five of the England side went out without a run ; and the total in the first innings averaged only three runs per wicket. An extraordinary match was played at Petworth not many years ago, Petworth v. Wimbledon, when Petworth scored 233, with the loss of one wicket. Of these David Dean got 101 not out. Old Mellersh, of Slindon, should not be forgotten. He was a gamekeeper, and notorious 1 ‘ sticker.” He would stop in for hours for a dozen or fifteen runs, and a man who had played with him for years told Mr. King that he had never seen him get more than two at a hit. Morley, of the Sussex eleven, was just such another; at Lovell Common, near Crawley, he was once in for two hours, and got one run ! In another match at Lord’s, he was in three hours for nine! In the Chichester Priory Club v. All England, at Chichester, my informant saw the wicket-keeper knocked down by a ball, and a man sitting beside him remarked that it was “ as well to be careful.” Perhaps he was not regarding the game sufficiently, but the next ball but one, hit hard, knocked him completely over the seat, and surprised him con­ siderably I It would be anew “ curiosity” in cricket, and probably make a very good game, to match the Smokers v. Non-Smokers, and (as baldness is now no sign of old age!) the Bald Heads v. Not-Bald Heads. I commend this to the notice of the M.C.C. A few concluding words on comparative cricket— cricket, that is of the present day as compared with the past. That it has, like all other arts, been developed by modem improvements, and matured by modern refinements, cannot be doubted; fielding has been brought to a perfection which it is im­ possible to surpass, especially in our public school matches. Batting has .also improved; witness the huge scores, whether of an individual or an innings, which have come to be a positive nuisance and bore, and seem to defy the best bowling ; so much so that, with many good judges of the game, it is a question whether the wickets should not be heightened or widened. But everything on the amateur’s part has been sacrified to it, and their bowling is consequently at a discount. With the exception of W. G. Grace, whose bowling seems to improve, as his batting is on the wane, there is no one fit to do service in the Gentlemen v. Players, now that Mr. Appleby confines himself to his county, and Mr. Buchanan has retired. It seems ridiculous, in first-class matches like that, to put on amateurs in their first season at Lord’s, who may have “ trundled” tolerable under-hand overs in their college elevens, but whose names are hardly known oat of their University, and who have no­ thing telling or killing in their style. Alfred Lowth, who in 1836, while still a boy at Winchester, bowled down the Players, was a wonderful exception. Has not cricket, too, lost many of its manlier attributes? Spartan simplicity has departed before the idol of nineteenth century luxury. Millinery did not then exhaust all its powers in decking out pretty girls in costumes of light and dark blue; carriages, pouring all day long through wide-flung gates, did not as yet stand locked in serried ranks for two or three days together. Lordly drags did not monopolize their pet “ corner.” Aristocratic pic-nics, and pic­ nics which would be aristocratic, were not then spread, in extravagant rivalry, under avenues of limes and chesnuts. Turnstiles, where ‘ ‘ no change is given,” did not, with ingenious mechanism, check off each passenger’s entrance fee. Pedestrians were not yet taxed their half-crown, and unfortunate seatholders their guinea a day, often to see their favourite match of the season “ drawn ” by wet. because obstinate Head-Masters will always fix it on a Friday. We used to hear nothing of fans rosettes, tassels, and bouquets of the favourite colours. A plain notched stick was the cricketer’s register. Now printing presses, telegraphs, postal telegraphs, pigeons, and scoring cards publish the news. Perhaps, however, one of the chief improve­ ments in the telegraph system, is the fourth “ not out’’ plate recently introduced at Lord’s and other principal clubs. A “ not o u t” is often the best man, who not only carries hisbat out, but may have gone in first, and seen all his side out. “ How many runs has he got ?” was in such a case the universal cry. No one could tell. The unfortunate scorers were besieged with inquiries, and no official information was given. Look, too, at the old cricketer’s dress: a flannel jacket, a pair of white duck trousers or moleskins, and a green-baize cricket bag, or perhaps the more ancient and orthodox nankeen tights, with a couple of pair of stockiugs (the outer rolled down to the ankle to protect it), were all that he required. Noone bowled faster than George Brown, yet batsmen did not go ingreaved and gloved to him. Now, there must needs be pads, and gauntlets, and india-rubber gloves. Cricket grounds are not larger now than then, and yet the batsmen ran their hits. There were no “ roped” grounds, nor “ counted” runs. How much this added to the prowess of a good innings is obvious. It moreover con­ tributed greatly to the chances of the batsman being run out, and the interest of the game. Elevens did not mind a little wetting ; now they leave off for a single shower. A plain “ give me the guard, umpire,"’ was all that the incoming bats­ man modestly required, and he went straight to his work. His eye was his best guard; now a great “ star” must needs come in, with a flourish of trumpets, as real as if it were a literal one, whirling his bat-hand]e in his hands almost as often as a housemaid does her mop-stick, and smearing it with mother earth (I suppose to overcome its cen­ trifugal tendencies): thereis a leisurely reconnoitring of all the field, and a studied and anxious pause; a guard taken and retaken, and marked and re­ marked half-a-dozen times—in fact the betting has become now eminently sensational and conceited. There is also growing up a practice, alien, I think, to good cricket, and very productive of delay. I mean that of a batsman “ refusing ” balls. Some­ times he will refuse three successively out of an over. If it used not to be illegal—which I am not sure it was not—for the batsman to take no notice whatever of them, it was certainly not the custom; one sees no limit to the refusal, and if none, when will a game end ? If he refuses three, why may he not refuse four? and if four, then “ over” after over ” might be wasted (for the refused balls all count in it), the field changing their watches, W the game standing absolutely still. We also objed to playing under feigned names, noms de guerre 3 s it were. It is worse than anonymous journalism, and as bad as a firm of solicitors calling themselves by their father’s name after his death ; it is simplj an untruth. Moreover, a man should do nothinS which he is ashamed of being known. If it is wrong for a Eevd. cricketer to appear on a public crick ®1 ground, or if he will have less influence for goo 1 with his parishioners by doing so, he should let > alone and abstain altoeether. Why should the Ke« Obadiah Smith, for instance, suddenly becoffl 1 Jeremiah Coverpoint, Esquire, or Mr. Hardcastle •> transformed into Mr. Hardcatch, Mr. Butterwort into Mr. Butterfinger; or Mr. Slater into M' Slasher ? The professionals set amateurs a go° example in this, they always play under their rei names. It is questionable, too, we think, whether a fiv ball “ over” would not be better than a fourba one, which consumes so much more time ; thouj in modern first-class matches, where one fieldsms often takes two watches to save time and to avo long distances, it is incredible in how few secom a change of fields is accomplished. Again, lei handed hitting is a great nuisance, though the does not seem the same objection to left-handi bowling, because it undoubtedly is more difficu and teasing to play to, and therefore adds tc the a of the_batsman. Should not every man!