Cricket 1886

“ Together joined in cricket’s manly toil.” — Byron . Beglsterea^or^TransmtasUm Ybroad. THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 1886. PRICE 2d. with bat and ball, for while his batting showed a respectable average of eighteen runs per innings, he was credited with an aggregate of over one hundred wickets at an Average cost of five runs—a fine performance. Though he was engaged by the Bishop Auckland Club in 1882, he returned the following summer to his old love, resuming his position on the ground of the Lasswade Club. His bowling during that season was extraordinarily successful, and a succession of noteworthy feats with the ball brought his name very prominently before the cricket public. Several times during the season he was credited with the remarkable feat of taking all ten wickets in an innings, and altogether his bowling summary of the year showed that he had been instrumental in the dismissal of two hundred and fifty batsmen for a very low average. The completion of his engage­ ment at the end of 1883 gave him an opportu­ nity of a trial at the hands of the executive of the Notts County Club. The return match with the Marylebone Club and Ground was not played until after the close of the regular season, and Shacklock made his debut for the County 011 that occasion at Nottingham 01 Sept. 13, 1883. Neither side was representative, and the Notts XI. made a very indifferent show, particularly with the bat, being dismissed in the first innings for twenty-three, the smallest total recorded during the season in a first-class match. The scoring, indeed, all round was below the average, and Shacklock though he only got one wicket at a cost of thirty runs in the first innings of M.C.C., in the second was fortunate enough to secure the downfall of four batsmen at an expense of only eighteen runs. An engagement with the Surrey County Club at Kennington Oval, where he has since remained, left Shacklock free for first-class cricket if required in the following year. Both Notts and Derby, shire were willing to utilise his services, and the choice of the two counties was therefore his. Eeasons of weight at the time, however, induced him to give the preference to the shire of his birth, and his connection with Derbyshire commenced with the opening match of 1884. His first appearance was against Lancashire, at Old Trafford, on May 22 of that year. The Derbyshire eleven were not beaten without ahard struggle, in fact their all-round cricket in this match was of a highly creditable character. Shaeklock himself, too, did quite his fair share of work. Though rather heavily punished, particularly by Briggs and Watson in Lancashire’s first innings, in the second he proved very effective. To him was chiefly due the dismissal of the Lancashire team for a small total of 99, and he was credited .with 5 (4 clean bowled) of the 10 wickets at a cost of but forty-two runs. The Derbyshire executive had previously determined to engage him for the season, so that Shacklock, even had he been less successful on the occasion, was at least certain of a good trial. His second match against Surrey at Derbyshire was not a lucky one for him, at least as a bowler. Still, though he failed to get a wicket, he was useful with the bat, hitting well at the close of th« FRANK SHACKLOCK . T he exercise of the undoubted right of selec­ tion allowed to cricketers by the rules framed in 1873, to ensure the possession of a proper and legitimate qualification for County players, has placed the young professional whose por­ trait we give this week in a conspicuous and, it must be admitted, far from enviable position just at the present time. He has during the last few weeks given rise to an animated controversy. His election this year to represent Notts, the County of his adoption, after hfcvin" for the two preceding summers done duty for Derbyshire, where he was born, has furnished the theme for a brisk newspaper correspondence, em­ bodying the sentiments of the two parties affected by his decision. It would be out of place here to enter into the merits of the question, or even to weigh the advantages or the disad­ vantageslikely to result to him from the change. There is much to be said in sup­ port Of the arguments adduced by each of the rival claimants for his services. Shacklock, though his family had been for a long period connected with Notts, was not born within its boundaries. His parents removed shortly before his birth from Kirkby, where they had long resided, to Derbyshire, and Shacklock. was born at Crich on Sept. 22, 1861. His connection with Derbyshire, though, was not of a very long duration, and he was only six years old when his family returned to Notts, establishing by virtue of his residence at Kirkby a connection which has re­ mained uninterrupted up to the present time. Shacklock’s early cricket was learned on the Forest at Nottingham, and indeed it is only fair to state that to Nottinghamshire he owes the whole of his cricket education. His first en­ gagement was North of the Tweed, in connection with the Drumpeliier Club, v **© w*s attached in 1879, when nottyet eighteen years' of age. A. nex^ summer saw him again 011 the other side of the border, though this time at Glasgow as ground bowler to the popular organisation, the West of Scotland Club, for which he did excellent service with his fast bowling. Another well-known Scotch body had the benefit of his services in 1881, and the Lasswade Club, near Edinburgh, derived material benefit from his help that year. He was very successful, indeed, both