Cricket 1882

8 6 CRICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. jt jn e is, issa. So, after all, the match between England tod Australians will not come off at Lord’s ?n July 10,11, and 12, as was hoped. The Surrey authorities had readily agreed to ;hange the date of their match with York­ shire at Sheffield on the same days, to assist ;he premier club in bringing off the pro­ posed fixture. The Yorkshire executive, ;hough, could not see its way to alter the arrangements made at the conference of secretaries to the certain inconvenience of he large number of clubs who make their programmes in accordance with the ori­ ginal list. In consequence, the match will >e M.C.C. and Ground v. Australians, as irst settled. L ast week I called attention to an extra- irdinary performance of Mr. A . F. J. Ford, n clean bowling five wickets in an over of ive balls. This was only in a minor match, aid in quality it is hardly as good as that if Nash last Friday, in the first innings of jomei setshire at Manchester. He got four latsmen in an over of four balls. Is here any similar record in a county natch ? H. E . H. sends us the following aesthetic ingle :— An M.C.C. young man, A Varsity young man, A scarlet and yallery, Hit for the gallery, Cut her for three young man! An I Zingari young man, Big bound’ry hit young man, Black, scarlet, and goldery, As gorg’ous as soldiery, Upper Ten’ry young man ! A county crack young man, A never slack young man, A Lucasy, Studdery, Gracery, Buddery, Forward and back young man! An Antipodes young man, From over the seas young man, First-rate all roundery, Out of the groundery, Hit her with ease young man! E d in b u r g h v . G lasgow . —This, the leventh Inter- ity match, was played at Edinburgh on Friday and iturday last. The result was a draw entirely in vour of Edinburgh. Scores :—Edinbrugh, 161 ,R. Anderson 45) and 337 (R. P. Horsburgli 69, F. . Sanderson 64, and H. Hay-Brown 60); Glas- >w, 129 (W. R. McCormick 40) and 15 for five ickets. Edinburgh have won all the matches— ose in 1874, ’75, ’77, ’79, ’80, and 81. Those in 72, ’73, ’76, ’78, and ’82 were drawn. E ssex v . H e b t f o b d s h ir e . —Played at Brentwood i Monday dnd Tuesday. Essex won by six wiekets. fbre :—Essex, 123 (Roberts 33) and 51 for four ckets ; Hertfordshire 77 (H. A. Taylor 26) and; .(Pearce 25). C b ic k e t . —Want to join a good respectable club the N. or N.W. of London. Age 20. Send .rticulars to F. C. A. P., the Cricket Press, Pater- ister-square, E.C.—Advt. TH E O XFORD AND CAM BR IDG E E L E V E N S . ( b y ONE WHO HAS rLATED AGAINST BOTH.) Judging by the form displayed by the Oxford and Cambridge elevens during the present season, the University match of 1882 promises to be more than usually interesting. Before the defeat of the Aus­ tralians by Cambridge, the general opinionwas that the odds were decidedly in favour of Oxford. With the exception of C. T. Studd, the Cambridge men then appeared to have no dependable bowler ; but since then things have changed. The performances of Ramsay in both innings of the Australian match prove that he is also a most dangerous bowler, and, in addition to possessing a very considerable twist from leg, he has gained much more command of pitch than we generally find in a similar style of bowling. I should, therefore, fancy that Cambridge are the stronger in bowling, though they must mainly depend on the two I have mentioned, for their changes can hardly be termed even moderate. Smith I consider the next best bowler, though he was not played against the Australians, Watson being tried instead. Paravicini occasionally gets a wicket, but his bowling is very expensive, and the same may be said of Spencer. On the other hand, Robinson, who is certainly the best bowler at Oxford, cannot last, but he is very likely to bowl two or three of the best Cambridge batsmen before he gets tired. Shaw, who has bowled well on one or two occasions, is considered the next best bowler, and is said to get a good break on the ball, Harrison seems to have almost lost his bowling, and Peake, though he bowls a good ball, is very expensive. Thornton, too, has not improved, and though useful as a change, he is very plain indeed. McLachlan, the Captain, requires some luck in his bowling as in his batting ; but he frequently manages to separate the batsmen, when the others have tried in vain. With regard to the batting, Oxford has a con­ siderable advantage ; if we pit the three best bats on each side against one another, viz., Leslie, Walker, and Shaw, against the three brothers Studd, there is not much to choose, but Cambridge have a decided tail, while Oxford are good the whole way through. Whiting, Thornton, Kemp, and Hamilton are all likely to make a large score, and Peake is a dan­ gerous hitter. Cambridge, on the other hand, has hardly a dangerous batsman after the three I have men­ tioned, though Bather showed in the Australian match that he possesses a strong defence, and will probably get his “ blue.” Maynard, Boe, Wright, and Paravicini of the remaining batsmen are the most likely to get runs. Henery, too, at times hits well, but it is uncertain whether he will gain a place in the eleven. In wicket-keeping Wright is as good as, if not superior to, Kemp, and the fielding on both sides is quite up to the average. I do not think that too much stress ought to be laid on the fact of Cambridge having beaten the Australians. It was undoubtedly a fine perform­ ance, but it must be remembered that Oxford were defeated mainly by the brilliant score of Massie, and yet they did very creditably in both their innings. With fine weather there ought to be some very large scores made in the match this year, for there are good batsmen on each side, and the bowling strength is inferior to that of the last few years. One piece of advice the Oxford Captain might take with advantage, and that is to take more pains with the placing of his field, I heard an experi­ enced cricketer remark that the other day in the jinatch between Oxford and the Gentlemen of England, when Oxford were in the field there were only two men in their right places, and they were the umpires. However, he has plenty of time to correct this, and there is no reason why on June 26 he should not manage his side quite as well as his more experienced rival, G. B. Studd. * S -C 0 I ^ E $ P 0 P E ]< J C E > We are not 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. SURREY COUNTY CRICKET. TO THE EDITOR OF “ CRICKET.” S ib , —I have read theletterof a “ Surrey Veteran ” with regret, because I think it must have been penned at the spur of the moment, and without his having given much attention to the subject about which he wrote. Surely, sir, the committee may safely be left to themselves to choose the best eleven they can get, and I am certain that if the services of Messrs. Game and Co. could be obtained (and there were none better to be had) the committee would play them, but the “ Surrey Veteran ” should remember that most of the amateurs of the South are gentle­ men engaged in commercial pursuits in the City, and that, although they can often take a day for a small match, it is but seldom they can have three days in succession (as required for a county contest). As regards Mr. A. P. Lucas, the “ Surrey Veteran” had better have left him out of his com­ plaints. He is a right-down good fellow, and is perfectly justified in playing for whom he pleases, —so much the better for Surrey when they get him 11 The committee deserve infinite credit for the manner in which they have brought out within the last few years such cnlts as Morris Read (who, I hope, will be in the Player’s Eleven soon), Abel, Jones, Haden. and others, and that the committee may be left to choose the best available eleven is the opinion of Yours obediently, A FREQUENTER OF THE OVAL TO THE EDITOR OF “ CRICKET.” S ir , —I am preaching on patriotism, taking my text from “ Surrey Veteran’s ” letter, and quoting the words which he applies to Mr. Lucas for not always playing, and italicising the words which he underscored in his letter. The words are, “ But doubtless he has some good reason for so unpatriotic a performance." I wish Mr. Lucas would always play ; but you cannot command a gentleman’s ser­ vices, and he has a right to do as he pleases, and no man worked harder and better than he did in the Middlesex match or the Gloucestershire match. Now I ask “ Surrey Veteran” this question," namely—How much patriotism do amateurs show who don’t even take the trouble to come to the general meetings, don’t move a little finger towards promoting good matches at the Oval in the season never train or encourage a colt, don’t do the hard work of the club ever, though some of their names are on the list of the committee ? Now I will tell “ Surrey Veteran” something Nine years ago this July I went off the Match Committee in utter disgust at the apathy of the ama­ teurs towards young professionals, and worse than apathy, their running them down, and putting themselves and their friends in all matches when there was easy bowling, and at their great disincli­ nation to go out and appear before a Yorkshire or Nottingham ring. I have no hesitation in saying that the reign of the amateurs ruined the county and I feel sure that Mr. John Shuter, with the men which the Match Committee send him, will restore it, and I have no hesitation that playing Abel and Haden all through the season will strengthen that eleven more than the aid of all the butterfly cricketers who get runs against unknown men, and would, if they could, just play in one or two county matches, and shut out young professionals who are better than they are. I do trust the Match Committee will stand as firm as adamant, and will be stone deaf against appeals from amateurs who want to pick and choose their matches. If amateurs can play