Cricket 1883

10 0 CRICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. MAY 17, 1883. UMPIRES OF THE FUTURE . T h e Field says: Assuming that the M.C.C ,’s umpires obey their orders, and that law 10 is altered in conformity with Lord Harris’s amendment, the question as to what constitutes throwing will, at best, be but a matter of opinion ; and it is, therefore, not unlikely that we may see men bowling in the other parts of the country who have been disqualified at Lord’s or vice versa. As the names of Mr. Evans, Crossland, Mycroft have been already freely mentioned, there is no harm in our refering to them now ; but we only do so to say that, while plenty of people assert that all three bowlers are more or less given to throwing, there are not wanting those who maintain that they are all of them fair. What the effect of this divided opinion upon umpires may be is uncertain. Suppose a doubtful bowler to make an unchal­ lenged appearance at some provincial ground before he runs the gauntlet of the officials at Lord’s, the umpires at the latter place may decline to disqualify him on the ground that one as good as tlxemselves passed him on a former occasion ; or, on the other hand, a crotchety um­ pire may no-ball a fair bowler, and others may follow suit, for no better reason than because some other umpire led the way. In the first case the law would not be enforced, and in the second it would be hard lines on the bowler. Then, again, should umpires differ in their opinion concerning the fairness of any particu­ lar bowler, the county claiming him would always throw it in the teeth of the umpire who no-balled him that so-and-so thought him fair. These little matters would be disagreeable, as introducing polemics on to the cricket ground, though they might not be of much moment; but there is one particular in which diversity of opinion amongst umpires might act prejudicially, and that is as to the real strength of a county. Take Crossland for example. Lancashire, with him as one of their bowlers, would be stronger than without him; and, if he played, say, against Surrey, without being no-balled, the home county would feel that they had a grievance if he were subsequently disqualified when bowling against, say, Notts. Surrey would say they had played against a stronger Lancashire than contended against Notts, not owing to the ordinary chances, but because a man was allowed to bowl against them who was not tolerated at the Trent Bridge Ground. In making these remarks we must not be understood as express­ ing an opinion hostile to the course taken by the M.C.C., or to the terms of Lord Harris’s amendment. On the contrary, as far as they go, we approve of them, and shall be only too glad if unfair bowling is put down. C ^ IC K E T ^ H T t C ^M B R ID G E . MARYLEBONE CLUB AND GROUND v. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY—12 A SIDE. The University Eleven were beaten in their first match of the season, concluded at Cam­ bridge on Saturday last. The Marylebone team, which included four Cantabs on their trial, was by no means strong in batting, but the ground was so affected by the rain as to be all in favour of the bowlers, and in this respect the Club had a great advantage. Mr. C. T. Studd made his first appearance since his return from Australia, but, as was to be expected, he was not in form. The University Eleven could do little with the bowling of Flowers, and, except the Hon. M. B. Hawke, who played excellent cricket each time, and C. W. Wright, there was no batting at all noteworthy. For Marylebone, H. W. Bain- bridge, the Eton captain of 188*2, did another good performance and his 26 were well got. For the University, C. A. Smith and C. J. Willock were the most successful bowlers. For M.C.C. Flowers took fourteen wickets for 61 runs. A wonderful analysis against a good batting eleven. M.C.C. won by nine wickets. Score and analysis:— C ambridge . Second Innings. THURSDAY, MAY 17. At Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Herts (two days) Clifton, Liverpool v. Clifton Manchester, Lancashire v. Derbyshire (three days) Leicester, Leicestershire v. Surrey (three days) Rattersea, Casuals v. Rattersea Club Crystal Palace, C.P. v. Chatham House Wanderers Oundle, Oundle School v. Rushden Oxford, Stygians v. Lincoln Coll. Rugby, Rugby School v. Oriel Coll. Oxford Wanstead, Incogniti v. Wanstead Winchester, College v. Now Coll. Oxon Windsor, M.C.C. & G. v. Roaumont College Worthy Park, Worthy Park v. Southampton York, Yorkshire Gent. v. Shibden Hall First Innings. Mr. C. T. Studd, hit wicket, b Flowers..................................... 4 Mr. J. E. K. Studd, b Rylott 0 Hon. M. R. Hawke, b Ryl.tt 29 Mr. C. W . Wright,b I'.ylott.. 26 Mr. W. N. Roe, b Flowers.. 0 Mr. P. J. do Paravicini, o Rainbridge, b Flowers .. 0 1b w, b Rylott Mr. M. T. Raines, c Pilling, b R y lo tt......................................18 b Ry’ott ....................12 c Rames, b Flowers .. 1 c Pilling, b Flowers.. 20 c Rather, b Rylott .. 5 b F lo w e rs....................0 FRIDAY, MAY 18. At Cheltenham, L’pool v. Cheltenham Coll. (two days) Gravesend,Kent v. 22 Colt'* (two days) Rryn-y-Neuadd, Rryn-y-Neuadd v. Werneth (two days) Horley, Horley v. Ilfield Oxford, Stygians v. Pembroke College Oxford, Christ Church v. Oriel (two days) Portsmouth, S. Hant Rovers v. Un. Ser. (two d»ys) Penge, Penge v. Casuals York, Yorkshire Gent. v. Castleton (two diys) Mr. E. O. Powell, b Flowers 1 Mr. J. A. Turner, b Flowers 9 Mr. C. A. Smith, b Rylott .. 2 Mr. C. E. Chapman, not out 5 Mr. C. J. Willock, b Flowers 0 R ......................................6 st Pilling, b Flowers.. 0 1b w, b Flowers .. 1 notout.............................13 c Rarnes, b Flowers ..1 c Rarnes, b Flowers ..6 b F lo w ers..................0 L b ................... 1 Total.............................100 Total .. ..6 5 M.C.C. and G round . First Innings. M. W . H. Rather, c and b Paravicini .. .. 19 Mr. H. W. Rainbridge, c Powell, b Chapmau .. 2(5 Pilling, b Roe................20 Parnham,not ou t.. .. 17 Rylott, c Wright, b Tur­ ner.........................................7 R 9, n b 1 .. ..1 0 AN SW ER S TO CORRESPONDENTS . W. J. I sn er , 18, Lorraine Place, Holloway. — Vol. II. began with No. 22, published on Feb. 16. C o v e r P o in t. —Nos. 22 and 23 can still be had. Send fivepence, in stamps, to Manager, W . R. Wright. G. E. D u ff ie l d . —Photographs of cricketers can be had of C ricket P ress , 17, Paternoster Square, London, E .C . The three numbers you require can only be had in Volume I., of which only a very few copies are now to be obtained, price 7s. 6d. Mr. E. A. J. Maynard, b S m ith ..........................22 Rarnco, b Smith .. .. 2 Flowers, b C. T. Studd.. 9 Hon. J. W. Mansfield, run out ...............0 Mr. A. E. Payne, 1 b w, b Smith ...............0 Gunn, c Wright, b Wil­ lock ..........................23 Mr. H. F. do P.iravicini, Total .. .. 159 c Smith, bWillock .. 4 Second Innings.— Mr. A. E. Payne (not out) 1, Gunn (c Wright, b Willook)2, Pilling (not out) 0, Parnham (c J. E. K. Studd, b Smith) 4, Total—7. ROWLING ANALYSIS. C ambridge . Fi -st Innings. Second Innings. O. M. R.W . O. M. R.W. Flowers .. .. 54.2 33 36 6 .................... 38.2 27 25 Rylott .. . . 56 38 36 5 .................... 38 19 39 3 Rarnes .. . . 6 1 17 0 Parnham. . . . 5 2 5 0 First Innings. M.C.C. C. T. Studd Smith Paravicini Willock .. Chapman.. Turner .. Roe .. M. R.W. 13 9.2 5 15 37 17 38 10 24 22 18 7 16 6 7 1 9 Second Innings. O. M. R.W, 2.2 1 5 1 2 2 1 C ricket.—A song written and composed by J H. Smith and dedicated to A. N. Hornby, Esq. « It will be welcomed heartily by all lovers of the national Rritish game .” —Era Post free, 18 stamps of author, 22, Clifton-street, Wolver­ hampton.—Advt, O n Saturday last, at Haddington, the Had­ dington County eleven, in their two innings against the Brunswick only scored eighteen and four. In the second innings there were four singles, and, in the first out of sixteen from the bat, two batsmen contributed fourteen. Bruns wick, with a total of 78, won by an iunings and 56 runs. SATURDAY, MAY 19. At Addiscombe, Addiscombe v. Casuals Acton, Pallingswick v. Oakfield Rrentwood, Guy’s Hospital v. Rrentwood School Redford, Rjdford Gram. Schl. v. Mr. E. Hocklifla’a XI. Rrondesbury, Marl. Rlues v. Merchant Taylor’s School Rlackheath, Rlackheath Morden v.Ruckhurst Hill Rickley, Rickley Park v. Esher Rromley, Rromley v. Lausanno Rattersoa, Rattersea v. JEolians Rrixton, Mostyn v. Norwood Park Castle HilJ,Relgrave v. G.W.R. Clapton, Rruce Castle v. Clapton Carshalton Park, Ne’er-do-Weels v. Carshalton Fark Crystal Palace, C.P. v. Will-o’-Wisps Chislehurst, West Kent v. Reckenham Crookham, Aldershot Divisional Club v. The Moors Dulwich, Dulwich Coll. v. Forest School Dulwich, Commercial Union Assurance v. Royal Eltham, Nondescripts v. Eltham Ey nham Field, Pallingswick v. Kensington Eton and Middlesex. Hampstead Non. v. Univ. Col. Sch. Forest Gate, Row & Rromley In. v. Rrockwell Park 3 p.m. Finchley, Christ Church College v. Epsom College Glasgow, W. of Scotland v. Royal High School Edinburgh Hampstead, Rlackheath Morden v. Hampstead 2 p.m. Haileybury, College v. Incogniti Hendon, M.C.C. & G. v. Hendon Highbury, Woodford Wells v. Highbury Quadrant Horsham, Summers v. Horsham Ipswich, East v. West Suffolk Kingston Hill, Kingstou Hill v. Highgate Wanderers Lee, Croydon v. Granville 3 p.m. Lee, Charlton Park v. Northbrook Leatherhead, St. John’s School v. St. Lawrence Rovers Lockwood, Huddersfiold v. Lockwood Liverpool, Liverpool v. Dingle Ladywell, Ravensbourne v. Caldecotts Malvern, Malvern Coll. v. Magdalen Coll. Oxford Mill Hill, M.C.C. & G. v. Mill Hill School Mount Wise, Plymouth v. 82nd Regt. Nunhead, Lorne v. Rrunel New Malden, New Malden v. Esher Village Neasdon, Greville v. Finsbury New Cross, Stoics v. Royal Naval School Nunhead, Harringay v. Commercial Travellers Oxford, Wadham v. Oxford Military College Oundle, Oundle School v. Oundle Town Oxford, Stygians v. Worcester Coll. Putney, Hampstead v. Putney 2 p.m. Penge, Penge v. Rurlington Richmond, Richmond v. Rexlev Reading, Royal Military Coll. v. Reading Southgate, Southgate v. Mr. Davis’ XI. Sidcup, City Ramblers v. Sidcup Springhill, Springhill v. Mercantile Marino Selhurst, Remstead v. Morland Road Sutton, Croydon v. Sutton Surbiton, M.C.C. & G. v. Surbiton Club South Norwood, South Norwood v. Clapham Sandhurst, Royal Mil. Coll. v. M.C.C. & G. Streatham, Old Rrucians v. Streatham Tooting, Rrixton Wanderers v. Lower Tooting Tufnell Park, Dartmouth Park v. Alert Tufnell Park, Rees v. Tufnell Park Twickenham, Revellers v. Orleans Club Upper Clapton, Granville v. Upper Clapton Vincent Square, Dartmouth Park v. Old Friends Waterloo, Liverpool v. Northern .y West Ham Park, Clapton Ramblers v. Gt. East. Woodford, Woodford Wells v. Edmonton