Cricket 1887

JULY 21, 1887. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. Preston. It will be satisfactory to the players, too, to know that Bobert Thoms has been engaged as one of the umpires; T he Hastings Regatta is fixed for Sept. 6th, and that at St. Leonards for the 7th, the two days preceding the Cricket Week, and as arrangements are in progress for a Lawn Tennis Tournament, it will be seen that there will be almost a continuous round of amusement. Special perform­ ances, too, will take place every evening in the Theatre, and Messrs. J. L. Toole’s and D ’Oyly Carte’s Companies have been ScaREY cricket has lost a keen sup­ porter by the death of Mr, M. C. Clarke, one o f the well-known brotherhood so many years prominently identified with the Esher Club. Mr. Clarke played on a few occasions for Surrey, and latterly figured in the Northamptonshire eleven with fair success. It was my good for­ tune to see a good deal of him at one time, and I can vouch that no keener or more genuine cricketer ever went to the wickets. He was very popular with all classes of players, and all who knew “ (. hunk ” Clarke will hear with deep regret of his early death. bridge Eleven, Was one of the last to bear testimony to his exceptional ability, and the Cantab, in a conversation I had with him recently, spoke in the highest terms of the success of Mr. Hutton’s treatment in his own case. T h e sudden death of Mr. W . Batty at the conclusion of the match between the Clapton and St. John’s Clubs at Clapton on Saturday has created, as was only natural, quite a gloom over local cricket­ ing circles, where the deceased was well- known and much liked. Clapton, after dismissing their opponents for 175, went in at 5.50, having an hour and forty minutes in which to get 176 runs. When Mr. Batty went in 20 runs were still wanted to win, and though only twelve minutes were left in which to get them, by dint of hard running he was able to win the game, though run out himself with the last ball of the match. He had a great reception on his return to the Pavilion, which was the more hearty as he had not been playing for the last year or sO. From the pavilion he went into the refreshment tent, and had hardly reached the latter before he dropped down dead. The deceased, who was in the General Post Office, had been actively connected with metropolitan cricket for many years, though more particularly associated with the Clapton and Civil Service Clubs. I AM indebted to a well-known Kentish cricketer for the following :—- In the match between Blackheath and Bickley Park on Saturday, two rather carious incidents occurred. P. G. Parr, bowling right hand over tho wicket, having taken his usual run, was about to deliver the ball, when his hand struck against the wicket. The umpire called *•no ball ” for going over the crease, but Parr did not deliver the ball at all, and was in the act of pulling himself up when he was no­ balled. The Umpire (Bickley Park) at the end of the over called out to the scorer not to score the no-ball. Probably he was right!! Later on in the match, one of the Blackheath batsmen (C. L. Hemmerde) played a ball into the top of his pad, where it stuck. The wicket-keeper (W. B. Pattisson) dodged round to try and get a catch, but the exertions of the batsman in trying to get rid of the ball nearly damaged the wicket-keeper’s front teeth, and the ball at last fell to theground. The appeal of the wicket-keeper to the umpire for “ obstructing the field” did not receive a favourable reply T h e terrible death of Mr. B. H. Hutton, the great bone setter, demands a special mention in C h ic k e t , if only for the fact that many o f our most prominent players have at one time or other been largely indebted to his anatomical skill for their recovery from injuries received on the cricket-field. Last year F. B. Spofforth, the Australian bowler, was successfully treated b y him when his finger was badly hurt in the match between the Gentlemen and the Australians at Lord’s, and it would not be difficult to name many cricketers who had equal reason to be grateful for his services. Mr. G. Kemp, of the Cam­ M y remarks in last week’s issue on the practice of pitching the wickets a yard under the regulation distance for boys have produced a rejoinder from Mr. B. A. H . Mitchell, a cricketer for whose opinion I have the highest respect. I am bound to admit that Mr. Mitchell, in some respects, has the best of the argument. But apart from the merits o f the case C r ic k e t readers will generally, I am in­ clined to think, be grateful to me for pro­ voking Mr. Mitchell to wield his pen, if only for the information that he has four sons all undergoing different stages of cricket tuition, and all of whom I sincerely hope will uphold the parental reputa­ tion :— S ib , —In your notes last week, you comment on the practice of young boys pitching their wickets at a distance of 21 yards apart instead of 22 in the following words. “ The innovation is not only contrary to the rules of cricket, but should be discountenanced as most injurious to young cricketers.” You have thus disposed of the whole question in sweeping and uncom­ promising terms, but I ask you to allow me a few words in self-defence, as you have placed me in the position of a law-breaker, an encourager of law-breaking, an approver of law-breaking, and an upholder of a practice “ most injurious to young cricketers.” You will not think that I am understating the case when I tell you that I broke the law myself last Saturday, for I was playing against the School, where my eldest boy, a lad of nearly 13years of age, was injuring his future chanoes of bowling and batting with the wickets only 20 yards apart. You will call me an unnatural parent. But alas 1this is not all. I have three other sons : all are law-breakers at the instiga­ tion of their deluded father, not excluding the youngest, who is now 2£ years old, and who was actually playing with his nurse in my garden a few days ago and bowling—I shudder to relate it—a distance of not more than 4 or 5 yards. Criminal conduct! why does he not at once comply with the laws of cricket and bowl at the same distance as Mr. \V. G. Grace and Mr. F. K. Spofforth? If his muscles are not as strong as theirs that must be his fault, I fear. But enough of my own family misfortunes. I have to plead guilty to more widespread mischief. In my attempts to instruot the rising generation at Eton in the art of cricket, I am constantly advocating a shorter distance for you n g er boys— n ay m ore, w ith sucoess, for ou r you n ger b oys here all play a shorter distance, and in our opinion, since this system was in trod u ced n o t so very lon g ago, the bow lin g has greatly im proved,so that w e should like to hear som e argum ents before w e give up w hat w e believe to be an advantage. To us it seem s that if 22 yards is th e rig h t distanoe for a m an w ith M r. G race’s pow ers, 20 yards can n ot be too short fo r ordinary boys, of a<*es ranging from 10 to 14. I am even o f opinion that it w ould be a fu rth er advantage if boys of this age w ere to bow l w ith a ligh ter ball, though this I fear w ould be a terrible sh ock to you, for it w ould break another law o f cricket, and w ou ld be b rin g in g up you n g bow lers to pitch th e ball a good length and possibly w ith som e spin, and thus get w ickets in a lawless and reprehensible m anner. B. A. H. M it c h have also had a letter from the Bev. G. T. Oldham, stating that the shorter pitch is strongly advocated by such dis­ tinguished cricketers as the Hon. E . Lyttelton, Mr. A. S. Tabor, and the Bev. Vernon Boyle, and has been adopted at such w ell-k n ow n schools as Cheam, Temple Grove, East Sheen, St. David’s (Reigate), and to some extent at Elstree. T h e fo llo w in g a re th e a v e ra g e s o f o v e r 26 r u n s fo r n o t le ss th a n fo u rte e n c o m ­ p le te d in n in g s , in th e n in e p r in c ip a l c o u n t y a n d o th e r first-cla ss m a tc h e s u p to la st S a tu rd a y . Com pleted Highest Name. Inns. Euns. Score. Aver. W. W .B ead ... 16 ...1031 ... 247 ... 61.7 W. a . Grace ... 17 ... 1058 ... 183* ... 62.4 W . E . Boiler ... 12 ... 490 ... 120 ... 40.10 J. Shuter ........... 12 ... 446 ... I ll 37 2 K. J. Key ........... 21 ... 712 ... 281 ... 33.19 U lyett................... 20 ... 654 ... Ill* ... 32.14 F. Marchant ... 13 ... 406 ... 49 ... 31.S Lohm ann ... ... 15 ... 467 ... 79 . . 31 2 B riggs................... 16 ... 493 ... 63 ... 30.13 G u n n .................. 14 ... 415 ... 78 ... 29.9 S. W . Scott ... 12 ... 354 ... 99 ... 29.6 A. E. Stoddart... 17 ... 437 ... 151 ... 29.4 W . Bashleigh ... 18 ... 526 ... 105 ... 29.4 J. Hide ........... 14 ... 407 ... 115 ... 29.1 Q uaife................... 15 ... 433 ... 91 ... 28.13 Peel ................... 15 ... 420 ... 91 ... 28 B a te s ................... 2J ... 560 ... 113 ... 28 Flowers ............. 14 ... 387 ... 63* ... 27.9 W o o d ........... ... 13 ... 359 ... 75 ... 27.8 G .G . Hearne ... 26 ... 690 ... 91 ... 26.1 A. J. W ebbe ... 21 ... 552 ... 63 ... 26.61 A. N. H ornby ... 14 ... 365 ... 105 ... 26.1 Shrewsbury has m ade 617 for eight com pleted innings, giving an average o f 77.1, and has scored four centuries out of eight perform ances. W h e n doctors disagree what is to be­ come of the patient ? The Sportsman has decided that the authorities at the Oval are not acting rightly in charging a shilling for admission to see the match between the Gentlemen and Players, or, as I understand its remarks, for any other match, and the Echo is of the same mind. On the other hand the Sporting L ife and the Evening News are of the opposite opinion, as is the Referee, or at least they consider the action of the Surrey execu­ tive justifiable. The Athletic News, too, goes with the latter party, so this difference among those who profess to represent public opinion is a little perplexing. I n this discussion, though, which seems to resolve itself mostly into a comparison betweeen Lord’s and the Oval, it seems to me not a little singular that the critics who take exception to the shilling at Kennington ignore the fact o f the