Cricket 1883

No. 41. VOL. 2. Registered for Transmission Abroad. CRICKET CHAT. By th e A uthor op “ T h e C r ic k e t F ie l d .” Though afraid of old stories, a generation, yes! and two, have cropped up [in my time, to whom old things are really new. I am apt to forget the lapse of time. In my last match, in 1860, talking of old times, I had said, “ In that Purton match we missed our friend Charley Sainsbury, his son and heir being just born.” “ Allow me to introduce the baby,” was the reply, andbehold our friend Boh, who had just represented Cambridge at tennis. The match was at Col. Kingscote’s in Gloucestershire. This reminds me of the spread of cricket. Kingscote was one of the earliest opponents of the Lansdowne (Bath) Club, in 1828. At that time, besides Clifton, Teignbridge, and Halbridge, there was hardly a club in the West of England. I attended at the jubilee meeting of Teignbridge in 1873, and instituted a similar commemoration of the Lansdowne in 1875. Of this old club, the Lansdowne, I am proud to tell the history. It rose, like Rome, from little things. Though a small boy in 1824, I was not the least excited in forming a school club—which formed by gentlemeE in the place, and continued by them in the holidays, origi­ nated the Lansdowne club, playing first on Lansdowne, beyondBeckford’s Tower, admitting all of us as non-paying members. And, after nearly 60 years, where are my co-founders ? Yet there live a late Chief Secretary at Madras, a professor of Botany at Cambridge, a Canon of Norwich, andmy old friendFortescue,justretired from practice in Chancery Lane, and Major Nicholas, late of Her Majesty’s service. AU this was before the railway days, it was steam that set cricket going. For before, all matches involvedposting with expense of time and money; and B in cem ost young |players are still on theirlong-suffering parents’ hands, and are expected to be doing something, these two commodities did not always concur with good play. Usually some countyman had pity on the poor parson’s son, and filled his carriage with needy youngsters as if with voters for the poll. And sometimes feats of endurace were done. Mr. H. Grace has walked about a dozen miles to a match, played, andwalked home again. THURSDAY , AUGUST 1G, But where was I ? Talking of transition days when the old underhandbowling was going out, and the overhand or round-arm, was spoken of as a novelty. I never saw the new bowling till I sawMr. Harenc at Oxfordin 1832, an excellent specimen. “ I bowl the best kail of any man in England,” saidold Lillywhite, “ andMr. Harenc the next.’ But to have beentrained on the under­ hand was no slight advantage. It made such straight players—players like Tom Hearne, and very similar was Pilch’s style, only with more freedom and better wrist play. Still, do not thinkold days were all days of “ slows.” Osbald- eston, Brown, of Brighton, Kirwan and H. Fel- lowes, were the swiftest I have ever seen and Marcon swiftest of all Still less must you sup­ pose that all the old bowling, slow especially, was to be despised. Walter Humphreys is a very poor edition of slows, yet he was on the way to make Sussex beat Australia in 1880, and helped Sussex no little to beat Yorkshire last month. Mr. Budd has bowled to me true to the wicket and the spot through awhole innings,andClarke of the game old School, was never beaten till the last, and he named to me two old slow bowlers, as good, or better thanhimself. And how good was Clark? Why too good for G. Parr when ill his prime, too good for Felix, Mynn, Caffyn and Pilch too. All had to treat him with respect, and to answer how good Pilch was, Hillyer said of Pilch in his later days was.more afraid than of G. Parr at his best. But as to the new bowling, strange to say, we had the best specimens at the very first. Look at the old scores, and you will see Lillywhite credited with his full share of wickets till the last—the age of fifty-five, and Box said Broad- bridge was the moredangerous of thetwo. Socn after we had Bedgate, for two years the most killing of all, and thenHillyer, the main support of Kent for many years. Still in these early days (before 1840 about) few indeedwere the men who hadfull command of the ball. “ Wides” were common. Remember, then, the handmust be level with or under the shoulder, and few indeed has nature qualified to use the arm with this delivery. To this difficulty I ascribe the mischief that we have, more than the Australians, got into a bad habit of leaving bowling to professionals, and batting at the nets. PRICE 2d. But what was the play of Oxford in my day, fifty years since ? The late Chief Justice Giffard scored 105 in one innings inl835, against the M.C.C. at Lord’s, wh enthe ground was bad, and Harenc and Sir F. Bathurst among the bowlers, proof enough of a player. And there were six in my time (in the same eleven) as likely, and more so to do this same thing, but bowlers among the gentle­ men were very scarce while the low delivery was the law. The old scoresshow many wides. Caldecourt, the old umpire, said of Lillywhite, that, good as he was, if you only let him howl as high as he desired, he was ahundred times better than any man; it was “ cruel to see him with a rustic umpire rattle away among tho stumps.” Truly, he would have been irresistible in the present style. But the low style, with the few who could command it, producedmany shooters, and these with swift bowlers like Jackson or Redgate would have caused a revolution in this present style of batsmen. No doubt they would learn to play them; all I say is they would have to do it. The old Kent Eleven played England twenty years, and for ten years held their own. That eleven, with about four from the other side, would have played any eleven, before or since, barring, perhaps, W. G. But deductingthesemen we should have found other elevens tail off and very different: though now, you could choose a dozen elevens of superiorstrength. Remember, menplayedwithoutleggingsthen,aridhadto keep their legs cleanof the wicket. As some criterion of the be3t play then, you rarely saw any man placed at long field. In later years I asked Charles Taylor, when still playing with the new order of things, how it was men hit so much more, or drove, to long field than we used to do. He said at once, “ Because there is nothing like the spin and abrupt rise of the ball as there was with Lillywhite, Hillyer, and a few others.” In these days we have rarely any shooters, and the higher the delivery the less the spin ; it is hard to believe that the best of our present bowling can be as difficult as the best of this select old school. No doubt we now have dozens of bowlers for one, because the action of the arm is now natural, though before unnatural, and most men couldhardly hope to excel unless they made a life of it. When the law was altered the