Cricket 1884

6 0 CEICKET; A "WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME, a p r i l 17, ism . C U R IO S IT IE S OF C R IC K E T . (Continued from page 29.) 1844, August 19, 20, 21.—Brighton. Sussex v. M.C.C. Won by Sussex by 86 runs. Mr. C. G. Taylor, an extra­ ordinarily fine bat, scored 100 in the second innings of Sussex, and is saiil in Lillywhite’s book to have made 42 of them in a quarter of an hour, a statement which is hard to believe, at all events if the hits were run out. When there is no hard hitting going on 8, or possibly 9, overs may be bowled in a quarter of an hour, but not more than six if the time is taken up in running and getting breath afterwards; and it is wonderful work for anyone to make 42 runs out of his share of 24 balls. However, Mr. Taylor told the writer that he had done it, and no one could possibly doubt his word. August 25, 27.—Leicester. North v. M.C.C. Won in an innings by the former. S. Dakin, who was just now at his best, bowled in the first innings of M.C. C. 12 overs for three runs and two wickets. He was a very fine bowler, especially in prac­ tice, when he could take a twenty yards’ length instead of the right one. Hardly any one could play him for long, under these condi­ tions. 1843. June 23, 24. — Lord’s. M.C.C. v. North. Won by the latter by an in­ nings and one run. George Parr’s first match at Lord’s when he was just 19. July 7,8,9.—L ords. M. C.C. v. Hamp­ shire. Won by M.C.C. by 63 runs. No less than 36 wickets clean bowled, and four caught. The bowling was very fine about this time, and for five or six years after- July 14, 15. Manchester. Two Regiments v. Manchester. Won by the latter by 99. John Sherman clean bowled 15 wickets out of 20 by slow underhand balls. He was nearly 55, and had played in good matches for 35 years. July 25, 26.—Petworth. M.C.C. v. Petworth. Unfinished. Petworth scored 150 in the first innings, and 35 with five wickets down in the second, without a single extra in either case. A very rare event. Atlgttst 4, 5,—Lord’s. Winchester v. Eton. A tie match, the last Eton man being run out as he tried to make the winning run. August 25, 26.—Newport Pagnell. I Zingari v. Newport Pagnell. Won by the latter by i9. First I Zingari match. 1846. August 31 and September 1 and 2.— Sheffield. A. E. Eleven v. 20 of Sheffield. Won by Sheffield by five wickets. First match played by a travelling eleven. 1847. July 1, 2, 3.—Oval. Surrey v. Kent. A tie match ; Mr. Whit­ taker and Martin were well in with 13 and 20 respectively when the tie was made, but thay were both out, and another batsman as well, with­ out another run. July 9,10.—Bramshill. I Zingari v. Bramshill. Won by I Zingari by six wickets. Mr. W. Ward’s last match, when he was within a few days of 60 years old. He ended a grand career well, scoring 13 and 20 after 38 years of cricket playing, in the course of which the system of bowling was completely changed. July 22, 23, 24.—Oval. Surrey v. M.C.C. Won by the latter by nine runs. M.C.C. followed their in­ nings and won, under the old rule of following when 100 runs behind. This is said by Lillywhite to be the only case on record where a match was ever won under such circum­ stances. August 2, 3, 4.—Canterbury. Kent v. England. Kent won by three wickets. Mr. Felix, nearly 43 years old, caught seven men out of 20 at point. 1848. June 26, 27.—Lord’s. Sussex v. M.C.C. Won by Sussex by 24. First match in which the printed card, showing the state of the game, was issued. July 10, 11.—Lord’s.' England v.' Kent. Won by England by 55. E. Hinkly’s first match at Lord’s. He took six England wickets in the first innings and ail in the second, bowling eight, and having the other eight caught and stumped off him. He also caught one of the four re­ maining wickets. Considering that Hillyer, the “ best of all bowlers ” as he was called, was bowling at the other end, this was a great feather in his cap. Kent was veiy strong in bowling at this time. Mr. Mynn, Mr. C. Harenc (a cele­ brated bowler in his time, and very highly esteemed by old Lillywhite), and Martingell all played in this match, and not one of the three bowled a single ball, though the last two were mainly played for their bowling. July 17.—Lord’s. M.C.C. v. Surrey Club. Won by M.C.C. by seven wickets. Lillywhite, who was fifty- six years old, scored, against very good bowling, 32 in his only innings, took 13 wickets, and caught another off W. Clarke’s bowling. Considering his age this performance was, perhaps, never surpassed. August 24, 25, 26.—Manchester. Sixteen of Manchester v. A.E.E. England won by three wickets. John Sherman, of Mitcham, played for Manchester, where he lived, in this match. He was within two months of sixty, and took ten good wickets out of the 17 which fell, bowling 63 overs, slow underhand, for 77 runs. 1819. June 1?.—Knaresborough. Leeds v. Knaresborough. Won by the latter in an innings by 82. Out of the 20 Leeds’ wickets 15 fell without a run, five men failing to score in either innings. In their first rttempt the Leefs’ total was made up by nine runs from the bat and ten byes. June 28, 29, 30. — Southampton. A.E.E. v. Fourteen of Hampshire. Won by A.E.E. by two wickets. No change of bowling in this match, Hillyer and Clarke doing all the work for England, and Sir F. Bat­ hurst and D. Day, an excellent bowler, fast, straight and true, for Hampshire. This is a rare event in a good match, but it is not the only case in which Sir Frederick helped to accomplish it, for he and Mr. M. Kempson bowled right through, and won, the Gentlemen and Players’ match in 1853. He was forty-six at the time, which is a good age for a fast bowler, and yet ! he took 11 wickets for 50 runs in 68 overs, 44 of them maidens, cer­ tainly on heavy ground. July 18.—Woolwich. I Zingari v. Royal Artillery, with Adams. Won by I Z. by 49. Two I Z. men were absent, and one was run out. The other 17 all fell to Adams, who bowled eight, caught 4, got one to hit his wicket, and had four caught for him. July 23, 24.—Lord’s. Gentlemen v. Players. Won by the Gentlemen in an innings and 40 runs. Ten out of the eleven Gentlemen scored double figures, and the highest in­ dividual score was 21, though tbe total was 192. The scores were 21, 20, 19 (not out), 19, 18, 18, 18, 14, 13, 11, 7, and extras 14. It was in this match that old Lilly- white refused to face Mr. H- W. Fellows’ bowling a second time. He was fifty-seven years old, and too fat to get out of the way of the ball, andjthe "wicket was avery bad one, so he was allowed to have his own way. Mr. Fellows’ bowling was terribly swift in 1848 and 1849, about equal to what G. Freeman’s was. August 13, 14.—Gravesend. ^Gentle­ men of Surrey v. Gentlemen of Kent. Unfinished. The late Mr. C. H. Hoare bowled a four-ball over, off which 19 runs were scored. This is almost unexampled in a fairly-good match, but it has linen exceeded now and then. Griffith, in a twenty-two match, hit the ball out of the ground four times in succession, scoiing 24 from the over. This is not likely to be beaten though Mr. Longe, some years ago, ran nearly thirty runs for one single hit into a horse-pond at Harrow, if I remember the story rightly. 1850. May 9, II.—Manchester A.E.E. v. 18 of Manchester. Won by the latter by three wickets. Five Manchester wickets went down after a tie was made. Mr. J. Earle, 61 years of age, went in first for Manchester, and made 15 against some of the best bowlers of the day. July 4, 5.—Attleborough. Swaffham v. Attleborough. Won by Swaffham by nine wickets. Mr. Walter Mar- con, of Eton fame, bowled four Attleborough wickets in one fo-ir- ball over. Strange and impossible as it may seem, Mr. A. Cazenove trumped Mr. Marcon’sfeat in 1853, as we shall see when we come to that year. July 15.—Lord’s. North v. South. North won in an innings by 19. Wisden bowled down the whole 10 Southern wickets, ol which at least