Cricket 1884

9 2 CRICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. m a y i , i884. C R IC K E T P A S T AND P R E S E N T . [From Sydney Mail.] B y W , J. H a m m e b sle y . It so happens that the first player of any note that 1 saw when at home was one who approached as near as possible my “ idea” of the perfection of what a batsman can or should be, and that was George Parr. I saw him play first as a beardless boy, at Nottingham, in the year 1844 (I think), and I have played in many matches with him. I can contrast, in my mind of course, Parr’s play, his style, his defence, his hitting, with the similar qualities of nearly every great player that has succeeded him, with W. G. Grace, Murdoch, and others, and yet I like him better. Grace for deeds stands alone I know, and Murdoch for style was better than Parr as Grace wan inferior, and yet take him all round as a batsman I prefer Parr to either. I know that cricket, as re­ gards the excellence of the game, or the standard of play rather, depends of course on the bowling, and the question would arise, Had Parr anything like the good bowling to play that Grace and Murdoch have had? Well, that is a question of importance and difficult to answer. I merely say now that great as is the fame acquired by Grace and Murdoch I bracket George Parr with them, and that there is only one other batsman I would feel inclined to name with them, and that is Charles Bannerman. As I intended to remark of him in a previous notice it was the breakdown of his health which in my opinion alone prevented him rivalling the great deeds of the two famous batsmen I have coupled with Parr. Mr. Charles George Taylor had the prettiest style I think I ever saw—a style for ladies to fall in love with if they ever do fall in love with cricketers ; but for deeds (although he did get some big scores) he is behind Parr, or Grace, or Murdoch. With reference to the deeds of these players the important question crops up : Is the bowling of the present day superior to that of thirty years ago, when Parr played— when Redgate, Lillywhite, Hillyer, Martingell, Mynn, and such giants were in their prime ? My opinion is that it is not. There are a few good bowlers now, but as a rule the bowling of the present day I consider much inferior to that of the past, and I attribute much of this inferiority to the alteration of Law 10. I affirm that I have seen such stuff bowled in seme of the international matches as should make a schoolboy blush—bowling that should have been hooted off the ground; and the fielding at times most indifferent, chances to no end being missed. And, with the exception of Blackham, who is the best wicket-keeper I ever saw, superior to Box, Wenman, and Lockyer, I do not see any de­ cided improvement in the fielding of the present day as compared with the past. I do not suppose that the equal of Mr. Bobert Turner King at point (whom I knew when a schoolboy at Oakham School and also at Enmanuel College, Cambridge, long before he became so famous at Lord’s and the Oval) has ever been seen, or where could one find a fieldsman now the equal of F. P. Miller ? Caffyn and H. H. Stephenson I knew before they were heard of ; and Hay­ ward I knew when he was a boy at Cam­ bridge. His father was a good cricketer and a most worthy man. Well, will anyone tell me that any batsman of the present day. excepting of course those above mentioned, are better than Hayward and Caffyn? Name the man, ye colonial critics, if you can. One of the best all-round men I ever saw is Evans, and as a bowler he comes nearer to my standard of first class compared with the old school than any man I have seen in Australia, for he is so consistent. Not like some of “ the cracks ” who can only bowl on certain days and in certain weather, he is always there, always on jthe spot and of a length ; but then I can pick out a man who was in his prime long ago, and who, in my opinion (it is only an opinion, mind), was as good as any man who ever took a ball in hand. That is Alfred Mynn. To quote the words of the old song :— Jackson's pace is very fearful j Willsher’s hand is very high; William Caffyn; has good judgment and an admirable eye; Jemmy Grundy’s cool and clever, almost always on the spot; Tinley’ s slows are very telling, though they sometimes catch it hot. But, however good their trundling, pitch orfpace, or break, or spin; Still the monarch of all bowlers, to my mind, was Alfred Mynn. . When we remember such bowlers as Tar­ rant, Wisden, Jackson, Willsher, and But­ tress, and compare the present school with some of them, I fail to see any improvement. The best England Eleven that I have seen in the Colonies was undoubtedly Parr’s Eleven. It is a curious coincidence that two men, one who was in Parr’s team, Dr. E. M. Grace, and one who, although British and was in his prime then, may be regarded almost as a Colonial player, Mr. T. J. D. Kelly, have during the past season been in great form. What does this tell us ? Any­ how, I think Parr’s team was the best, a long way, we have seen in Australia. Of course, a man like W. G. Grace, in his prime, as he was when here, may turn the scales in any match he plays in. He is the one batsman that stands alone unapproach­ able. When I run through my mind’s eye all the players I have seen, I consider that George Parr was the equal of any of them; for although some professionals and some amateurs have excelled him in some parti­ cular, Massie for instance for brilliant hit­ ting, and Bonnor for big hitting, yet for a combination of cricket talent, defence, hit­ ting, and style, George Parr is the equal of any player that has followed him, and only Murdoch and C. Bannerman deserve to be bracketed with him. The bowling question is a more difficult one to be decided. For that rapid and high scoring is the one characteristic of the pre­ sent day cannot be disputed. As remarked previously I think, I have seen Parr on Lord’s Ground, one of the most difficult grounds for a batsman, at the wickets, in matches such as Notts v. England, for four or five hours, and not get a hundred runs. Now it may be said that Grace, Murdoch, or Bannerman, would in that time at least double the score of Parr. Granted this much, if we grant also that the bowling of to-day is equal to the bowling of past times, then any further discussion is unnecessary. How can we decide ? I have taken Mynn as my ideal bowler of the past. Let me take Palmer as my ideal bowler of to-day, or Bhall we say Spoffcrth. On my conscience, I think Mynn was as good as either. One thing I can say of Mynn is that he was more consistent, and in all weathers and on all grounds he was generally on the spot. His pace was as great, his delivery high for that time, and there was a great break on his bowling, and I fail to see that either Spofforth or Palmer is superior to him. But in Mynn’s day there were more good bowlers in pro­ portion to the batsmen than now. Take Boyle as a first-class bowler of the present time. I could name a dozen far superior to him of the past, such as Hillyer, Bedgate, and “ Old Lilly,” the wonderful little old man that he was, and be it known one of the most powerful men that ever went into a cricket-field, muscles like iron, standing out in big bosses, and such legs on him—a perfect pocket-Hercules was “ Old Lilly.” But I need not go back so far as those times for bowlers who, in my opinion, were as good, aye, superior to Boyle; and I need only name Gid. Elliott, J. M. Bryant, and Tommy Wills, and I may add Cosstick. I will content myself with these four, although I could easily pick out four other bowlers, also, that I feel confident would have beaten Boyle’s average had any of the above been engaged in the international matches Boyle played in. I am not depreciating Boyle as a cricketer, because he is a first-class man ; but I am only giving my opinion that he is not better than, if so good as, many that have preceded him. Still my critic may reply: There are the facts, old man; they get more runs now. How do you account for it ? My reply is : In the first place grounds are better than they used to be, and tue billiard-table wickets and the absence of shooters, owing to the high delivery, enable a batsman to hit more than of yore. And in another respect cricketers now have a great advan­ tage over the past, in that they are more used to facing large crowds. This may appear trivial to some; but what “ stage fright ” is to an actor, so is nervousness to many a good cricketer. One’s play oozes out of one’s fingers’ ends very often, during that awful two minutes between the pavilion and the wickets, with 15,000 or 20,000 people looking on. That first over is a fear­ ful ordeal. I can speak from personal ex­ perience, and many a time, I know, I have been “ out ” before I went “ in.” But since cricket is now made by “ amateurs ” almost a profession, and so much money hangs to it, men go in for it in a professional style, and they get used to playing before big crowds. How many matches have the Australians played together? How many scores can I say ? Why, they are like Napoleon’s “ Old Guard,” veterans who were so used to the smell of powder that they were never happy except when in the sound of cannon’s roar. I must own that as an “ eleven ” I have never seen the superior of the Australians, and I doubt if we ever shall: and in that “ oneness” that always characterised their play lay the secret of their great success. In the ranks of their opponents there was always “ a flaw ” somewhere; in those of the Aus­ tralians, never. However, I shall be tres­ passing too much if I dilate further on this, to me, interesting subject. I briefly sum up my opinion that, with the exception of W. G. Grace, there were batsmen 30 years ago as good as any of the present day, Parr par­ ticularly comparing with anyone that could now be named; that there were more, many more, good bowlers then than there are now, although, in a few instances, I am pre­ pared to own there are two or three now to equal the past; but that the fielding of the present day is not so good as it was then, and that there are more chances missed. This is only, of course, my opinion, and goes for what it is worth ; but it is an opinion founded on an experience gained by playing in many matches with most of the famous players of 30 years ago and from personal observation of all the best players of the present day in nearly all the good matches played on the Melbourne cricket ground.