Cricket 1886

AUG. 5, 1886. CRICKET:- A WEEKLY RECORG OP THE &AMi!. 825 As I anticipated, Major Wardill has seized the very first opportunity after the reproduction of the disgraceful attack on English Cricketers in the Melbourne Punch of May 20th, into the sporting papers, to repudiate on behalf of the Australian team any sort of sympathy with the contemptible expressions con­ tained in the article referred to. This is what the Major says:— I need hardly say on behalf of myself and the team of Australian Cricketers, and indeed on behalf of all the Australian colonists now in London, I entirely repudiate the statements and sentiments contained in the article. No­ thing could have been more hospitable than Lord Sheffield’s treatment of myself and team and many Australian friends on the occasion referred to, and no match could have been played with amore friendly feeling between the rival teams. I am positively certain that no previous Australian team visiting Lord Sheffield’s Park were ever treated otherwise than in the most hospitable and cricket-like manner, and all those who know the great interest and love which Lord Sheffield enter­ tains for the game, and the pleasure it gives him to see good cricket, would never dream of attributingtohimanyof thevile chargesmade in the issue of the Melbourne Punch. My team have not found in any of the games that they have played that they have met any of the “ Sharpers ” alluded to. We have been met by all classes of cricketers in the most straight­ forward, honourable and pleasant manner. No one has tried to score a point, or tried to “ get at us” (as stated by the Mel­ bourne Punch ), and I trust that English cricketers, and the English people generally, will disassociate Australian crieketers, and all lovers of the game, from any part in the pub­ lication of the contemptible attempt to lower the standard of English players, and especially of trying to impute the most sinister motives to Lord Sheffield, Dr. W. G. Grace and others, who have always been sincere friends of the Australians whenever they have appeared on English cricket fields. The incident which occurred in con nection with the dismissal of Mr. Kitcat, the Marlborough captain, in the second innings of the Rugby match at Lord’s on Friday last, was as curious a one as the cricket experts have had to deal with for a very long time. The case has been represented in different forms in various papers, and it will be best therefore to give it as stated in the Times of Saturday last by Mr. E. L. Bateman, a thoroughly practical and capable critic. Mr. Bate man’s letter to the Times was as under In your account of the above match you refer to the difficulty which arose by reason of a mistake made by one of the Rugby bowlers going on to bowl from an end Srom which he was not, by the laws of cricket, entitled to bowl, he having already changed twice during the Marlborough innings. I would ask per­ mission to state what really happened. One of the Marlborough batsmen was caught off the third ball of the over thus wrongly de­ livered, and the bowler’s error was then—but not till then—discovered. What was to be done ? The bowler had distinctly infringed a law, for breaking which, however, there is no assigned penalty. It was eventually decided that it was obligatory on the bowler to finish his over, but that he had put himself out of court from bowling at either end. The bats­ man retired in accordance with the decision of the umpire. Substantial justice in a case of much difficulty was thus done, and the decision was accepted with good humour by both sides. T h e occurrence is without a parallel certainly within my recollection, and I am inclined to think that the decision was quite the best one under the circum­ stances. As a matter of fact, though, several important issues were involved. The law was broken—in error, of course. The bowler ought never to have bowled the over after his double change of ends, but whose was the fault, and what ought to be the penalty ? Whose duty was it to prevent his bowling, the umpires, or the Captain of the other side, and the mistake having been committed, ought the batsman to suffer ? A great many thoroughly experienced judges argue, and with good reason, that the over ought to have been expunged altogether, and that the bowler ought not to b« allowed to profit by an infringement of the law. That he was allowed to finish an over which had been already admitted to be illegal seems curious, but the ruling was, as it ought to be, received in the best spirit, and as I have said already, under the peculiar circumstances it was as satis­ factory as any could have been. The recurrence of such an incident ought, though, to be prevented, or, at least, the E roper verdict in such an event ought to e determined. C k ic k e t will as usual be well repre­ sented in the new Administration. In the Cabinet itself there are two players at least who have taken honours at Lord’s. I need hardly say that I refer to Lord George Hamilton and the Hon. Edward Stanhope, who both figured in their day in the Harrow Eleven. In the minor posts outside the Cabinet cricketers are in great force. The Lord Chamberlain, the Earl of Lathom, will be better known to the cricketing public under his old title of Lord Skelmersdale. Mr. Akers- Douglas, the Patronage Secretary, was President of the Kent County Club last year, and the Hon. Sidney Herbert- and Col. Walrond, the two Junior Lords of the Treasury, are both cricketers. T h e latter, indeed, promised to act as captain of the team of English amateurs to sail on the 19th of this month for America, though I much fear the Autumn Session may disarrange his plans. Hon. W. St. John Brodrick, the Surveyor General of Ordnance, is also a player, and among the other appointments of interest to C r ic k e t readers I may mention those of Lord Harris as Under Secretary for War, and Mr. Walter Long, Secretary of the Local Government Board, though the last-named has not yet, it is said, been definitely fixed. A r e c e n t announcement also stated that letters patent had been issued by the Queen creating Lord Monson a Viscount. The new Viscount, it is hardly necessary for me to say, has been for the last few years President of the Surrey County Club. T h e instances o f a batsman being at the wickets for a part o f each of the three days of an important match are so rare that Abel’s feat at the Oval for Surrey against the Australians last week deserves special notice. Three years ago Walter Wright went in for Notts against Glouces­ tershire at Trent Bridge and was not out till the third morning. In 1880 Jupp, if I remember rightly, performed a precisely similar feat for Surrey against Yorkshire at Sheffield. In the latter case, unless I am mistaken, rain considerably re­ duced the period of actual play, and in this respect Abel’s was much the better performance. The above are the only cases that I can call to mind of late years, that is, be it understood, in eleven a-side matches of public interest. The most notable achievement of the kind within my recollection is that of Mr. W. G. Grace for the United South of England Eleven against Twenty-two of Grimsby, at Grimsby, in July, 1876. On this occa­ sion Mr. Grace, who went in first, was in all the first two days and a part of the third. He was batting thirteen and a-half hours and carried his bat through the in­ nings for 400 in a total of 681. By the way, it is worthy of remark in connection with the extraordinary achievement of Abel and Maurice Bead that the two professionals in the one innings they had beat the Australians off their own bat. As a matter of fact they scored together 330, while the Australian aggregate of the two innings was only 292. 3 T h e Surrey eleven, it may be noted, have several records this year. To them belongs the highest innings as well as the best individual score against, and also the most decisive victory over any of the Aus­ tralian teams. They also boasted the small­ est innings (Oh ! Pougher !) in a county match, though Staffordshire’s second score of 18 against Norfolk at Norwich on Tuesday has robbed them of this distinc­ tion. Their total of 440 against Kent at Beckenham is, too, the largest of this season in an important county match. T h e following are the averages of the principal batsmen in important matches up to Saturday last. No one is included who has not played eleven innings or got an average of twenty-five. Cmplted Innings. Shrewsbury ... 25 ... W. G. Grace ... 28 ... M. Bead ... ... 25 ... W. W. Read ... 29 ... S. VV. Scott ... 16 ... G. Kemp ... 16 ... Spillman... ... 12 ... Barnes ... 18 ... F. Marchant ... 13 ... Abel ......... ... ‘ G ... Gunn ... 20 ... O. G. Itadcliffe ... 14 .. A. N. Homfcy ... 21 ... Lord Harris ... 15 ... G. G. Hearne ... 25 ... Scotton ... ... 25 ... H. W. Baiubridge 18 .. G. F. Vernon ... 21 .. Hon.M.B. Hawke 20 ... Humphreys ... 18 ... W. E. Boiler ... 20 ... J. A. Turner ... 18 .. Lohmann ... 19 .. Buns. Biqhest Score. Aver. 1049 ... 227* ... 41.24 1078 ... 148 .. . 38.14 875 ... 186 .. . 85 1011 ... 114 .. . 31.25 523 ... 94* ... 32.11 497 ... 125 ... 31.1 371 ... 87 ... 30.11 550 ... 156 .. . 30.10 394 ... 96 ... 30.4 766 ... 144 ... 29.12 5 6 ... 83 ... 27.16 396 ... 104* .. . 28 4 611 ... 161 .. . 2(5.17 403 ... 73 .. . 26.13 658 ... 75 .. . 26.8 657 ... 110* .. • 26.7 472 ... 79 ... 26.4 549 ... 160 .. . 26.3 521 ... 76 ... 26.1 465 ... 63* ... 25.15 514 ... 102* .. . 25.14 4GI ... 174 .. . 25.11 476 ... 107 ... 25.1