Cricket 1882

J u n e i , lass. CRICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OE THE GAME. 53 They are the abstracts and brief chronicles of our time.— Hamlet. “ Have another!” * No Shakespearian mottoes this week! My readers will possibly be inclined to pay me back in my own coin with another quotation from the melancholy Prince of Denmark— “ -For this relief much thanks.” Well, my most noble and approved good masters, perhaps you are right. “ A pprobation from Sir Hubert Stanley.” It is pleasant to reproduce a kindly notice of C ricket sent by no less important a personage in the newspaper world than the Manager of the Daily Chronicle. The extract is from that journal of Thursday last— “ The world-wide interest which now attaches to the noble game affords ample warrant for the issue of a weekly journal devoted to records of the principal matches. A copy of the second number has been sent us, and it appears well got up, while the editorial notes and comments display good taste linked with sound judgemnt. C r ic k e t deserves success.” I need hardly say how grateful I am for encouraging words from the head of an enterprise which has played such an impor­ tant part in journalism as the management of Lloyd's and the Daily Chronicle. It will be gratifying to them, as it is, I am proud to think, to the many hundreds who have shown such cordial approval of the work I really undertook with no small feeling of anxiety, to know that C ricket has far—very far— surpassed the most sanguine expecta­ tions that could have been formed of its progress. W hat a funny little paper the Echo is to be sure. I cannot imagine anything more tacetious than the comments on the play in the match between Surrey and Australia which appeared in that journal of Friday ana Saturday last. The description of the preliminaries on Thursday is a little ingenious—• Just before two o’clock the wickets were un­ covered, but nearly half-an-hour’s dela / was caused y ? u^tn9 the machine over the bowling ground ! passing a heavy roller over it.” Goodness gracious, gracious goodness ! If * By permission of the Australian Sketcher. I mistake not this is quite a new use for roller. Rather hard luck on the machine. T he Echo critic too gives us a graphic account of the “ peculiar yorkers ” of Palmer and other little eccentricities of the play on the first day which is most interesting and entertaining reading. But on Friday he takes a much higher flight, and this is where he lands— “ A. C. Bannerman took the place of S. Jones, and after making 4, tipped the ball bowled by Barrett, and expecting it to travel ran about four yards from his wicket, when Pooley (the wicket­ keeper) appeared to stump him, but the umpire gave it as run out. ” Cricket reporters generally, it must be admitted, have a mysterious method of reproducing the details of a game which is not always comprehensible to the outside public. But, I must confess, the narration of this particular incident has positively floored me. What does it all mean ? If it is a conundrum I give it up. I shall be glad though to publish the answer next week. I t is rather surprising that none of the many papers which gave full details of the Australian match against Surrey last week have made mention of the marked improve­ ment in the appearance of the Oval since last year. On Friday when the sun was out the scene presented was exceedingly pretty, and I do not know now any ground more attractive to the eye. The terrace, all round give a freshness which has been hitherto wanting, and there is every prospect that 111 a short time the Oval will be inferior to no cricket enclosure either in its appearance or in its appointments. In its general aspect, so the Australians say, it is now much like the Albert ground at Sydney. T he Editor of a Sunday paper wjio does not often comment on so unimportant a subject as “ Cricket” finds a congenial topic in sneering at the action of Lord Harris in asking for a complete refutation of the charges made against two members of Shaw’s Australian Eleven. Whether it is only the mention of C ricket in the matter that has evoked his displeasure is best known to himself; it would certainly seem as if this were the chief cause for his latest departure in the way of “ sporting notions.” “ I am Sir Oracle, and when I ope my lips let no dog bark.” The writer in question says that he “ has a right to express an opinion on the subject.” No one will dispute that. It is the right common to every paper. It seems to me though that, like James Lillywhite, he ignores the main issue of Lord Harris’s letter. It is a fact, whatever may be said to the contrary, that the rumour has been revived since the arrival in England of Shaw’s team, and that it has never been officially denied until the publication of James Lillywhite’s letter, which appears in another part of this paper. I t is also beyond dispute that the report has been circulated by men whose opinions 011 any matter in connection with the trip are entitled to considerable weight. That it still gains credence among even a small section of the outside public is certain, and if it only serves to produce a full denial of the charge which has been allowed to remain officially unchallenged until the last few days the correspondence will have done good. It is in the interests of the men them­ selves to clear away the doubts that do exist outside the cricket circle to the detriment of the game that we have advocated a public and official denial of the report. The rumour may be, and no doubt is, a non­ sensical one, but it has been thoroughly public, and the refutation should be as public. So much interest is just at present at­ tached to Australian cricket and cricketers that an item in connection with the Cleeland Challenge Cup Competition in Melbourne may be of interest. The Leader says that the splendid prize for the best bat has been won by G. W . Stokes, of the Richmond Club, with the fine average of 77-l for seven innings with three not outs. His scores were against South Melbourne 0 and 71 not out, against Williamstown 179 not out, against Fitzroy 1 and 6 not out, against Carlton 4 and 48. His 71 not out against the full strength of South Melbourne and 48 against Carlton were first-class perfor­ mances, and even if he had not had the benefit of a not out his average would have been 44-1. Subsequently he confirmed hia elevation to the Inter-Colonial ranks by carrying off the batting trophy for Victoria v. South Australia at Adelaide, so that there is every chance of his coming still further to the front. S ome old cricketers too may be glad to learn that B. B. Cooper, who was at one time the Griffiths (the safe man) among amateur batsmen, still flourishes among Australian cricketers. I am tolu that his wicket is sti'l a difficult one to get, and I can quite believe it. When was it that W. G. and he made 228 for the first wicket of the Gentlemen of the South v. the Players of the South at the Oval ? Why in 1869 on July 15. T hat reminds me. A young friend of mine (a walking encyclopcedia of cricket figures) calls me to task for some misstatements last week. W . G. Grace’ s score against Kent in 1876 was 344 and not 344 not out, and George Anderson’s smite for eight was not for Yorkshire but for the North of England, and in 1862. Apologise ? Why cert’nly. I u n d e r s t a n d that the Australian mana­ ger has had innumerable applications for the only vacant dates in their programme— June 15, 16, and 17. At present the feeling is that the team should have a rest on those