Cricket 1886

18 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. j^*. 28, 18 SK ankle when playing for Se«tland against Wales. Mr. Walker, who is reading for the English bar, will be qualified next summer to play for Middlesex, by residence. Our portrait is from a photograph by Messrs. Hill and Saunders, of Oxford. We have to thank an “ Old Harrovian,” in whom we recognise one of the greatest authorities on cricket lore, for the following correction. To tub E ditor op “ C ricket .” StR,—In your Interesting biography of the late Mr. W. Blackman you give as the first match he played for Sussex, that between Sussex and Kent, on July 17, 1881. Now I find on reference to my collection, that Mr. W. Blackman first assisted Sussex in the match that county played against Hampshire, on July 4, 1881, when he scored 14 and not out 41. Mr. W. Newham also first assisted Sus­ sex in the same match. Thinking that per­ haps you would like to correct this error in your next number I now write as above. I wish to add and point out that in Wisden’s Almanac (1882), of the 1881 matehes, the two matches that were played that year (1881) between Sussex ana Hampshire were not recorded. Hence the error I presume has originated in the biography.—Yours, (fee., A n O ld H arrovian . CRICKET PRACTICE. To the E ditor op “ C rick et .” S ir , —I will drop the “ fossil” now. Un­ questionably it is pretty much the concensus of opinion of the majority of heart and soul cricketers that amateurs, though very strong in batting, are most of them very deficient in bowling, and too many in good certain fielding. I have worked the matter out as carefully as I could with diagrams of a cricket ground, and am quite convinced that the old-fashioned habit of short middle-off standing at right angles to both wickets at a distance of from twelve to fifteen yards from the centre of an imaginary straight Une drawn from middle stump to middle stump, covered by a man some twenty or twenty-five yards behind him, a few yards on his right or left according to circumstances, but so as to leave short middle- off without any fear that the consequences of his missing a ball will produce a fourer boundary, is the greatest bar to a batsman of Any match in the fielding to the off. Of course the short mid-off is not a fixed sentry, as he must watch the batsman’s eye, shoulder, and especially the face of his bat, and be ready to make a dash at anything. A good man will know by instinct almost where the ball is coming and will be all there. Moreover, he is the man to go for a “ pocketer” between the wickets, whicn so often leads to “ clubbing” of point, bowler, and possiblv wioket-keeper, which ends in all three baulking one another and a dropped catch. We know how the Australians practise when they came over here. Why cannot we some­ times in Clubs imitate them—the practice would only last two hours. The first requisite is a well pitched wicket, with creases marked and plenty of room; the second requisite is six or eight amateurs with one good profes­ sional bowler, who will bowl alternate five-ball overs with an amateur-—each man batting a quarter of an lipur fyyjbhe watch, each bowling a quarter of an hpur, each keeping wicket, or rtfther finding four or five yards behind wicket with pads ana gloves for a quarter of an hour, pacli long-stopping, or rather backing up wicket-keeper so-called, and saving boundary some forty yards behind wicket for a quarter pi an hour. The batsman should run his runs as at single­ wicket, and this practice should be real work with sharp fielding, good throwing, backing- up, <fcc. None but real cricketers would go through this grind, and those real cricketers would become better, and men who could not be put out of their place in a match. I need hardly add that at single-wicket, with five or more in the field, everything behind wicket scores a3 at double-wicket. This practice should be a fair test for a vacancy in a first-class match, and all aspirants hould go through the mill. Xours, <fcc., Thh O ld B uffer . CRICKET NEARLY SIXTY YEARS AGO To th e E ditor of “ C ricket .” S ir , —I have been much interested in the “ Cricket Incident of Sixty Years Ago,” re­ corded in your issue of December 24, sent to me by a friend who knevr I was acquainted with all the men mentioned. I had played, when in the Eton Eleven, against Ward, and I had stood up against Browne at Brighton. Bentley I remember as one of the eleven of B’s,* who played against, and I think beat, the world. Cobbett and Lillywhite were the bowlers against us when I played for the Gentlemen v. Players in 1834, ana the latter little beast, as I called him, stuck me up the first innings, when I blocked three maiden overs from him, pitched to an inch; and the second innings, when I stepped forward and got a fourer, he drew m e out the next ball ana got me stumped. You mention Lillywhite’s great day against Browne “ as in the days of underhand bowling and before the time of pads, and gloves. This is not quite clear to those who cannot remember cricket sixty years ago*, and it might lead readers to the idea that round bowling had not been introduced, and that Cobbett and Lillywhite were then underhand bowlerB. I write under correction, but I think that was not the case. The round bowling was just at that time coming in, and the two champions of this single-wic&et match w ere, if my memory serves me, the successful practisers of the new style. I should like some one who remembers, or who has access to the records at Lord’s, to tell us in your columns, who was the first round bowler in any match. I remember the first of the sort at Eton was the Captain under whom I played against the Winchester in 1830 —poor Bob Hibbert, a strong wiry athlete, in the shooting-fields, at the wall, and on the gymnastic pole, who went to Madeira shortly afterwards, and died of rapid decline. I should think the round bowling had been introduced at Lord’s about the year 1828. I will not trespass further on your space, but with your permission will make a few more remarks upon “ pads and pace” in your next issue. \ am, *ir, your obedient servant, S eptuagen arian . Eton Pleven, 1830-1-2. Cambridge, 1833-4-5. Gentlemen r. Players, 1834. * If my recollection is correct, the B’s were five gentlemen: Lord P. Beauclerc, J. Barnard, C. Barnett, Brandand Budd; and six players, Bentley, H. and F. Beagley, Broadbridge, Browne and Bowyer. C rioihct C alendar for 1886.—The compiler requests that all fixtures, notifications, &c., be sent i:q to hinj (care of Wright & Co., 41, St. Andrew’s Hil|, lectors’ Qommons, E.C-) at the tqiesj by March 20. CITY OF LONDON SCHOOL. Matches played 21, won 8, drawn 7, tie 1, ltf&t’Su KESULTS OF MATCHES. May 9—v. St. Olaves Grammar School. Won by 3 wickets and 46 runs. City of London School, 70 for 7 wickets; St. Olaves, 21. May 13—v. Mill Hill School, 2nd XI. Won by 5 wickets and 49 runs. City of London, 84 for 5 wickets; Mill Hill School, 33. May 16—v. Highgate Grammar School, 2nd XI. Lost by 6 runs. City of London, 55; Highgate Grammar School, 61. May 20—v. Emmanuel School. Tie. City of London, 7 5 Emmanuel Sehool, 75. May 23—v. Kings College School. Drawn. Cityr of London, 55 for 1 wickets; Kings College School.. 67. May 27—v. Mill Hill School. 2nd XI. Lost by 1 wicket and 17 runs. City of London, 21; Mill Hill School, 38 for 9 wickets. May 30—v. Brunswick. W on by 4 wickets and 107 runs. City of London, 158 for 6 wickets; Brunswick, 51. June 3—v. Christ's Hospital. W on by 117 runs. City of London, 160; Christ’s Hospital, 43 andL 48 for 3 wickets. June 6—v. Godolphin School. Lost by 4 runs;. City of London, 32; Godolphin School, 36 and 70: June 10—v. University Coll. School. W on by 1’ run. City of London, 46; Univ. Coll. Sehool, 4 B» and 58 for 5 wickets. June 13~v. Christ’s Hospital. Lost by 14 runs.. Qity of London, 93; Christ’s Hospital, 107. June 17—v. Highgate Grammar School, 2nd XI.. Drawn. City of London, 74 for 8 wickets; High-:- gate Grammar School, 86. June 24—v. Dulwich College, 2nd XI. Drawn.. City of London, 32 for 3 wickets; Dulwich Coll. 182. July 1—v. Second Sixteen. Won by 74runs. City of London, 140; Second Sixteen, 66. July 4—v. Emmanuel School. Lost by 27 runa. City of London, 34; Emmanuel School, 61. July 8—v. Kings Coll. School. Drawn. City of London, 97; Kings Coll. School, 73 for 7 wickets. July 15—v. Dulwich Coll, 2nd XI. Drawn. July 18—v. Godolphin School. Won by 79 runs. City of London, 114; Godolphin School, 35 and 66 for 8 wickets. July 21—v. Finsbury Technical Institute. Won. by one innings and 20 runs. City of London, 156.^ Finsbury Technical Institute, 82 and 54. July 22—y. University Coll. School. Drawn. July 23-v . Hon. Artillery Company. Drawn.. City of London, 54 for 8 wickets; Hon. Artillery Company, 89. BATTING AVERAGES. Times Most in Inns, not out. Runs, an Inns. Aver E. W. Adams ... 17 ... 0 . .. 137 .... 26 ... 8.1 T. H. Barnett... 10 ... 1 . .. 19 .,.. 6 ... 2.1 E. T. Bartlett... 14 ... 3 ... 69 ... 13 ... 6.3 A. C. Comyns ... 5 ... 1 . .. 42 ... 20 ... 10.2 A. M. Fraser ... 15 ... 1 . .. 109 ... 27 ... 7.11 E. W. Garnett... 11 ... 1 . .. 17 ... 4 ... 1.7 Mr.T.W.Haddon 5 ... 2 ... 87 ... 50* ... 29 H. R. Johnson... 16 ... 2 ... 204 ... 38 ... 14.8 L. B. Meredith 11 ... 6 ... 65 ... 22* ... 8.1 F. T. Miller ... 18 ... 2 ... 273 .,. 50 ... 17.1 Mr. A. G. Munro 11 ... 2 ... 128 , 47* .... * Signifies not out. BOWLING AVERAGES. Overs. Mdns. Runs. Wkbs. Aver E. W. Adams ... 42 ... . 8 ... 80 ... 7 ... 11.3 T. H. Barnett... 183 ... 27 ... 351 ... 33 ... 10.11 E. W. Garnett... 105 ... 18 ... 185 ... 16 ... 11.9 Mr.T.W.Haddon 13 ... 6 ... 46 ... 10 ... 4.6 H. R. Johnson... 366.3... 88 ... 584 ... 121 ... 4.1 F. T. Miller ... 118 ,.. 24 ... 227 ., • 17 •v 13.6 T he A ustralians in E ngland . —A com­ plete Account of the Fourth Australian T eam in Eagland, with full scores of the forty-two matches played by them, both here and in the Colonies. Also Portrait and Biography of each member, Batting and Bowling Averages, Scores of Three-Figures against the Aus­ tralians, and Scores of Three-Figures by the Australians, &c., &c. §tiff Boards. Price Is. Office of this paper. N e x t