Cricket 1884

JAN. 31,1884. CRICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 5 in August, had bad effect upon grounds, and frequently stopped play. Students of quaint phrases may perhaps eare to know that Denison’s expression is—“ put an estoppel upon proceedings.” We are scarcely pre­ pared for what follows—“ Upon the heavy soil the batting overtopped the bowling, and unusually long scores were the result. It was a batting, and not a bowling season.” The railway mania interfered with cricket, and there was a falling off in the number of gentlemen’s matches, but an increase of those ‘ ‘ got up by labourers and respectable trades­ men. ” Bowling was the question of the hour, wild and reckless bowling, Mr. Denison cilled it. He had written to M.C.C. suggesting that something be done to remedy it. Aresolution had been unanimously passed, instructing the committee to enquire whether any regulation could be laid down whereby the limit of bowling might be more easily defined, and acted upon. The committee met, and made several suggestions, and these were adopted at a General Meeting, and became part of the laws of cricket. The hand was not to be above the shoulder when the ball was being delivered, and umpires were to no-ball bowlers about when they were doubtful. The ball tossed over a batsman’s head must count a wide ; and umpires were to change ends after each party had played an innings. Mr. Denison complains that the most im­ portant point had been neglected—a defini­ tion of wides was not given. He says, ‘ ‘ Define a wide ball, and alter the law about leg before wicket, to make it applicable to the present style of bowling.” The introduction is lengthy, and gives a good account of the principal events of the season. Special mention is made of the efforts to revive Surrey cricket. The county club had been formed towards the end of the season, and a ground had been made at Kennington Oval. Mr. Denison hopes to see Surrey strong again. He says, “ The day was, when Surrey could do that which no other county has ever been able to achieve. It could give two of its players to All England and then walk off victors.” In looking through this Companion, one is struck with the small amount of first-class cricket, compared with what we are accus­ tomed to at the present time. County matches were few, and some of the counties which are now in the front rank are not mentioned. The Gentlemen and Players met at Lord’s, and the latter were victors by 67 runs. There was a good deal of no-balling at Lord’s during the year; though it is not evident that the umpires on other grounds were as strict. Perhaps the people who parody a political phrase, and say, “ what Lord’s does to day, all England will do to morrow,” are not as nearly right as they think themselves. In this match, Mr. Alfred Mynn was no-balled eight times, and Mr. Taylor five times. Mr. Mynn also bowled eleven wides. None of the Players were no-balled. In the Oxford and Cambridge match, Cambridge was successful by five wickets. Eton triumphed over Harrow by an innings and 174 runs. So few county matches were played that it is impossible to say which of the counties was champion. The great want of the time was proper organization. Private individuals arranged for matches, and gave high sound­ ing names to them ; and if we are not care­ ful we shall make mistakes in estimating the results. Then players were often “ given,” or “ barred.” Dorset and Somerset had “ given” men on both sides. Two matches were played in Manchester, between York­ shire county and Manchester town. But the best Yorkshire players were absent, and some of the Manchester players were from other parts. The county won both matches easily. Perhaps Sussex, Cambridgeshire, and Nott­ inghamshire, showed about equal strength ; then would come Kent, Leicestershire, and Norfolk. No proper county matches were played that year by Middlesex, Surrey, or Yorkshire, though these counties were strong. Lancashire, Derbyshire, and Gloucestershire were not known as cricketing counties ; and Hampshire seems to have been divided against itself. Sussex played two matches with Kent, and won them both, the first by three wickets, and the second by seven runs. Sussex also played two matches with M.C.C., losing the first by six wickets, and winning the second by the same number. Besides the matches with Sussex, Kent played two with Notts, and won the first by an innings and twenty runs, but lost the return by eight wickets. Kent also played England twice, and lost both matches, by eighty runs and thirty-one runs respectively. Fourteen of Notts played eleven of England, and won by six wickets. Cambridge Town Club beat the University, and also beat Norfolk twice, by an innings and a hundred and thirty-four runs, and by thirty-seven runs. There were two matches between M.C.C. and the Northern counties, which may be compared to the North and South matches with which we are so familiar. The counties won the first by an innings and a run, and lost the return by eighty-five runs. So there was not much county cricket in the year 1845; and as county qualifications had not been defined, there was not always satisfactory representation in the matches which were played. Averages were carefully tabulated then as they are now, except that smaller matches counted. The distinction between first-class matches and others was not pointed out in the tables, but all the matches in the book were reckoned in ; and the figures to a man’s name may show his performance for his county, or only for his parish. The batting averages strike us as being low. Alfred Mynn played fifteen innings, and his average per innings was fifteen and a half. Fuller Pilch played forty innings, and his average was sixteen and a half. N. Felix played twenty-five innings, and his average was twenty-six and a half. The men who played many innings averaged lower than these. Few good batsmen aver­ aged more than twelve. Yet Mr. Denison says it was a batsman’s year, and that the batting overtopped the bowling. It is not possible to give the bowling aver­ ages as we give them now ; the tables do not tell how many runs were made off a bowler, but how many wickets he took, and the average number per match. Hillyer took 210 wickets during the season ; Lillywhite took 142 ; Dean 130, and Day 106. Nobody else took 100 wickets. In the Gentlemen and Players’ match, the following are the bowlers’ figures for both innings. Overs, Bans. Wickets. Mr. Mynn . . 109 .. 133 .. 8 Sir F. Bathurst 41 .. 33 .. 5 Mr. Taylor .. 72 .. 101 .. 6 Mr. Napper .. 3 .. 9 0 Lillywhite .. 75 .. 96 .. 12 Hillyer .. 38 .. 86 .. 3 Dean .. 24 .. 26 3 Martingell .. 4 1 . . 0 There are many interesting particulars in this old Cricketers’ Companion, but these must suffice. Most of the names mentioned have passed from the notice and memory of men. Generation treads upon the heels of generation, and in a very short time the heroes of a people are almost forgotten. Of course, we applauded the paper, and then we criticised it. Robert, one of our members, is a Londoner, and though born in Middlesex, is full of Surrey sympathies. He is our score book, and knows all the runs which have been made at the Oval since it was formed. He paid as much money at the entrance gate there in his youth as would have purchased him a small annuity, if it had been put out at compound interest. He reminded us that on July 15th, 1845, the first match ever played at the Oval took place, between the Clapham and Montpelier Clubs. The Oval had been a market garden until 1844, and then made into a cricket ground. He began telling about the matches he had seen there, when our chairman called us back to the subject. Matthew, another of the fraternity, is a Nottinghamshire man, and takes Yorkshire under his protection as well as his own county. He has a hole-and- corner memory—forgets what other people remember, and remembers what other people forget. He said George Parr made his first appearance at Lord’s during 1845, for the Northern Counties against M.C.C., and was bowled by Hillyer for 1. As Matthew saga­ ciously remarked, “ Coming events oftener cast their shadows behind than before.” Many other facts were mentioned, but it is not necessary to repeat them here. It was agreed on all sides that a pleasant evening had been spent by the h . c . g . I have looked the book through for my­ self since the meeting, and certainly think the art of making cricket annuals has im­ proved since 1846, whether cricket itself has improved or not. But the book is very interesting, and brings to mind many famous cricketers who have passed away. David said nothing in his paper about the advertisements at the en d; but I always find the advertisements in an old newspaper, or magazine, or annual to be of interest. They show us what people were being tempted and attracted by at the time of publication. There we have “ the golden flax cravat collar,” “ the new comprino brace,” “ an essential spirit of aromatic herbs, for producing whiskers in a few weeks,” “ the Albata plate, by which silver is to be superseded,” and “ Professor Hol­ loway's pills and ointment.” But I think these last articles have been advertised even in our own time. Then there is one note, half advertise­ ment and half editorial paragraph, which I will quote because it shows that cricket was undergoing a change. “ The change which has come to pass in bowling, and the severe punishment to which the batsman has of late years been liable in consequence, have given rise to various inventions for the protection of the hands and legs; of these, the best which have come under my notice are the tubular India-rubber gloves, of which Robert Dark is the inventor and maker, and the cork and India-rubber guards for the legs. Without these the cricketer of the present day is in­ complete.” The paragraph is signed with the initials of William Denison. What was coming to pass has come to pass, and a cricketer without pads and glove is now a rarity. Next Issue of CRICKET will be published Thursday, February 28.