Cricket 1887

APRIL. 21, 1887. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME* 77 MARYLEBONE CLUB. F ix tu r e s f o r 1887. M atches at L ord ’ s . May 4—Anniversary Dinner and Annual Meeting ♦May 5—M.C.C. and G. v. Middlesex Colts May 9—Colts of N orth v. Colts of South May 12—M.C.C. and G. v. Derbyshire May 16—M.C.C. and G. v. Kent May 19—M.C.C. and G. v. Sussex ♦May 23—M.C.C. and G. v. Yorkshire May 26—Middlesex v. Surrey May 30—(W hit-M onday) North v. South June 2—Middlesex v. Gloucestershire June 6—Middlesex v. Yorkshire June 9—Middlesex v. Nottinghamshire *June 13—M.C.C. and G. v. England June 16—Veterans’ Match June 20—M iddlesex v. Kent June 23—M.C.C. and G. v. N ottinghamshire June 27—M.C.C. and G. v. Cambridge University *June 30—M.C.C. and G. v. Oxford University July 4—Oxford v. Cambridge *July 8 —Eton v. Harrow July 11—Gentlem en v. Players July 14—M.C.C. and G. v. Leicestershire July 18—M.C.C. and G. v. Lancashire July 21—M.C.C. and G. v. North Riding Club ♦July 27—Rugby v. M arlborough ♦July 30—M.C.C. and G. v. Rugby School ♦Aug. 1—Gentlem en o f M.C.C. v. Gentlemen of Canada ♦Aug. 3—M C.C. and G. v. Lincolnshire ♦Aug. 5—M.C.C. and G. v. Scarborough ♦Aug. 8 —M.C.C. and G. v. Somersetshire *Aug. 10—M.C.C. and G. v. Cheshire ♦Aug. 12—M.C.C. and G. v. N otts Castle Club ♦Aug. 15—M.C.C. and G. v. Cumberland ♦Aug. 17—M.C.C. and G. v. Northern Wanderers ♦Aug. 19—M.C.C. and G. v. N orfolk ♦Aug. 22—M.C.C and G. v. Northamptonshire ♦Aug. 24—M.C.C. and G. v. Hertfordshire ♦Aug. 26—M.C.C. and G. v. Wiltshire ♦ 2 Day Matches. O ut -M atches . May 14—Leyton, M.C.C. and G. v Insurance Club May 18—W ormwood Scrubbs, M.C.C. and G. v, King’s College H ospital May 21—Oxford, M.C.C. and G. v Royal Mil. Coll. May 21—Vincent Square, M.C.C. and G. v. W est­ m inster School May 28—Farnborough, M.C.C. and G. v. Royal Millitary College May 28 Kensington, M.C.C. and G.,v. St. Paul’s College J u n e l—Luton, M.C.C. and G. v. Luton Tow n Club June 1—Battersea, M.C.C. and G. v. Battersea Club June 2— Harrow, M.C.C. and G. v. The School June 2—Oxford, M C.C. and G. v. The University June 4—M itcham , M.C.C. and G. v. M itcham Club June 4—Hendon, M.C.C. and G. v. Mill Hill School June 6 -C am bridge, M.C.C. and G. v. The Univ. June 6—Ardingly, M.C.C. and G. v. The College June 7—Lancing, M.C.C and G. v. The College June 7—Bedford, M.C.C. and G. v. The School June 8 —Bedford, M.C.C. and G. v. Bedford Town Club June 8—Eastbourne, M.C.C. and G. v. South Lynn Club June 9—Brighton, M.C.C. and G. v. The College June 9—N orwich, M.C.C. and G. v. Norfolk June 10—Hurstpierpoint, M.C.C. and G. v. St. John’s College. June 11—Eastbourne, M C.C. and G. v. East­ bourne Club June 11—Crystal Palace, M.C.C. and G. v. Crystal Palace June 11— W oolwich, M.C.C. and G. v. Royal M ilitary Academ y June 11 —Elstree, M.C.C. and G. v. Elstree School Masters June 15—Leatherhead, M.C.C. and G. v. St.John’s College June 15—Godalming, M.C.C. and G. v. Charter­ house School June 15—Berkhampstead, M.C.C. and G. v. The School June 18—Carshalton Park, M.C.C. and G. v. Carshalton Park June 18—W illesden Green, M.C.C. and G. v. Law Club June 20—W inchester, M.C.C. and G. v. The College June 21—Eton, M.C.C and G. v. The College June 21—Bishop’s Stortford, M.C.C. and G. v. Stortford June 21—W altham stow, M.C.C. and G. Forest School June 21—Reigate, M.C.C. and G. v. Reigate Hill Club June 21—Eastbourne, M.C.C. and G. v. East­ bourne Club June 22—Maidenhead, M.C.C. and G. v. Philberd Club June 22 Blackheath, M.C.C. and G. v. Proprietary School June 23—Epsom, M.C.C. and G. v. The College June 24—Hornsey, M.C.C. and G. v. Hornsey June 24—Shepherd’s Bush, M.C.C. and G. v. Pallingswick June 25—Felstead, M.C.C. and G. v. The School June 25—Derby, M C.C. and G. v. The School June 25—Haileybury, M.C.C. and G. v. The College June 29—Finchley, M.C.C. and G. v. Christ’s Coll. J une 29—Blackheath, M.C.C. and G. v. W est Kent July 2—Tonbridge, M.C.C. and G. v. The School July 2—Richmond,M .C.C and G.v.Richm ond Club July 2—Nutfield, M.C.C. and G. v. Nutfield Club July 6—Highgate, M.C.C. and G. v. The School July 11—Hertford, M.C.C. and G. v. Hertfordshire July 13—Clapton, M.C.C. and G. v. Clapton Club July 13—Radley, M.C.C. and G. v. The College July 16—Kensington Park, M.C.C. and G. v. Kensington Park July 16—Brentwood, M.C.C. and G, v. Brentwood Club July 16—W ellington College, M.C.C. and G. v. The College July 20—Tottenham, M.C.C. and G. v. Bruce Castle July 20—Uxbridge, M.C.C. and G. v. Uxbridge Club July 21—Bury St. Edm und’s, M.C.C. and G. v. Bury and W est Suffolk July 22—Brookwood, M.C.C. and G. v. Brookwood Club July 22—Charterhouse Square, M.C.C. and G. v. M erchant Taylors’ School July 23—Blackheath, M.C.C. and G. v. Blackheath Club July 23—Chiswick Park, M.C.C. and G. v. Chiswick July 21—Cheltenham, M.C.C. and C. v. East Gloucestershire July 25—Brighton, M.C.C. and G. v. Sussex C. & G. July 25—Hampstead, M.C.C. andG. v. Hampstead Club July 26—Isleworth, M C.C. and G. v. International College July 27—Catford Bridge, M.C.C. and G. v. Private Banks Club July 29—Hintlesham, M.C.C. and G. v. Hintlesham Hall Aug. 1—Nottingham, M.C.C. and G. v. Notts Castle Aug. 1—Bath, M.C.C. and G. v. The College Aug. 1—Leyton, M.C.C. and G. v Essex Aug. 8—Nottingham, M.C.C. v. Notts Gentlemen Aug. 5—Swindon, M.C.C. and G. v. W ilts Aug. 5—Leatherhead, M.C.C. and G. v. Leather­ head Club Aug. 6—Guildford, M.C.C. and G. v. Guildford Club Aug. 8—Ryde, M.C.C. and G. v. Isle of W ight Aug. 8—Tonbridge W ells, M.C.C. and G. v. Ton­ bridge W ells Club Aug. 8—Glossop, M.C.C. and G. v. Glossop Club Aug. 12—Stam ford, M.C.C. and G. v. Burleigh Park Club Aug. 12—Stoke, M.C.C. and G. v. Staffordshire Aug. 15—Eastbourne, M.C.C. and G. v. Eastbourne Aug. 15—M ote Park, M.C.O. and G. v. M ote Park Aug. 15—Bath, M.C.C. and G. v. Somersetshire Aug. 17—Bath, M.C.C. and G. v. Lansdown Club Aug. 17—Hastings, M.C.C. and G. v. Hastings Aug. 18—Brightling Park, M.C.C. and G. v. Bright- ling Park Aug. 19—Eastbourne, M.C.C. and G. v. D evon­ shire Park Aug. 22—Exmouth, M.C.C. and G. v. Devonshire Aug. 2 1—Sidmouth, M.C.<’. and G. v. Sidm outh Aug. 24—Portsm outh, M.C.C. and G. v. United Service Aug. 26—Seaton, M.C.C. and G. v. Seaton Aug. 26—Llanfairfechan, M.C.C. and G. v. Mr. Platt’s XI. Aug. 27—South End, M.C.C. and G. v. Rochford Hundred Aug. 29 -P lym outh, M C.C. and G. v. The Garrison Y o r k sh ir e C o lt s ’ M a tc h .— The following are the teams for this match at Sheffield on May 16 and 17:— T h e C o lt s : J. T. Brown (Driffield), H. Carlisle (Bradley), E. Creighton (Hemsworth), W. Cuttell(Sheffield), J. Denton (Wakefield), T. Dixon (Scarborough), J, U. Duthoit (Holbeck), J. E. Ellis (Shiregreen), H. Hirst (Armitage Bridge), H. Jubb (Chickenley), G. S. Massey (Sheffield), J. S. Proctor (York), J. Redfem (Lascelles Hall), E . Robinson (Honley), W- Shepherd (Dewsbury),E. Southall (Leeds), H J. Tinsley (Malton), A. Tinsley (Malton), J. Tuncliffe, jun. (Pudsey), W. A. Usher (Yeadon), Londesborough (Yeadon), and T . E. Shepherd (captain). T h e E le v e n : Hon. M. B. Hawke, L. Hall, T . Emmett, G. Ulyett, W. Bates, J. M . Preston, R. Peel, I. Grimshaw, S. Wade, Harris, and Oldfield. The umpires nominated for the year by York­ shire are J. Rowbotham and Allan Hill. C R IC K E T CUR IOS. From the Daily News , F rom —in a cricketing sense—time imme­ morial, the incapacity of cricket umpires has been an ever present source of annoyance and disputes, while their blunders have afforded a never-ending fund of amusement. Some malignant jokers have, for instance, rendered Town Mailing for ever famous on this score. True it is that some fearsome specimens of the genus “ umpire” are to be met with both on village greens and in metropolitan parks and enclosed grounds. But as a rule the cricket umpire is a conscientious individual, with a thorough knowledge of a very intricate game, and one on which it is often difficult indeed to give an exact and correct decision off-hand, and without a moment’s time for reflection or for reference to the rules. At the worthy pro­ fessionals Thoms, Farrands, Street, and others equally capable, who umpire in our county, M.C.C., and other important matches, no one with any knowledge of the game would ever venture to cavil; and although on some matters of late years there has been some un- leasantness with respect to Crossland’s owling or throwing, io has been more a difference of opinion than anything else; cer­ tainly, no one has ever ventured to even hint a suspicion of their integrity. If doubtful and incompetent umpires are occasionally, or even frequently, allowed—not to umpire, but to officiate, in minor matches, it is certainly not the fault of the individual but of the players who put him there. Some clubs will not, if possibly they can escape it, even defray the expenses of an umpire, let alone pay him for his services. Consequently, they have to fall back upon the gratis services of a member or a member’s friend, who may or may not be competent to act as umpire, but who usually is only willing to do so because of either his being disabled from play, or because his club do not consider him good enough. Some seem to act on what Marryat makes one of his characters in “ Peter Simple ” say was the custom in his day with reference to the younger sons of the younger sons of the aris­ tocracy. Then, “ the biggest fool of the family was sent into the Navy or the Church,” now some clubs reckon that “ any duffer can um­ pire.” In no way is this more shown than by the fact that even clubs with regular volunteer or paid umpires never insert the umpire’s name in their list of officers on the club match list, although the umpire is the most important, official on the field. Consequenl ly the umpire is always slighted. If a match goes off with­ out any dispute he obtains no credit, if there is any faux pas he secures all the blame. Every thickhead who can slog up a few runs or shut his eyes and sling a ball in at a reckless pace, utterly regardless of pitch or accuracy, reckons himself a judge of the game, and com­ petent to pass a not-to-be-for-one-momei.t questioned verdict on the umpire; very often emphasised by strong language, and now and then by blows, or threats of them. Thus, in 1879, in a match at Putney between a local club and one from St. John’s-wood, the um­ pire for the latter club had occasion to re­ peatedly “ no-ball” one of the Putney bowlers for going over the crease. At last the Putney- ite—a powerful young fellow, big enough to make two of the umpire —addressing the latter, said, “ How dare you no-ball me ? Don’t you know I played in the Surrey colts ? ” “ Can’t help that,” was the reply, “ if you will go over I shall call’em.” “ Well,” rejoined the irate bowler, or rather “ chucker,” “ if you call ‘ no-ball’ again I’ll punch your head.” The umpire did call “ nc-ball” again, and the Putneyite did punch his head. Then again, an umpire may in certain cir­ cumstances risk his livelihood by doing liis duty. Only this last summer a club consisting of the employes of a large city firm were playing another firm at Nunhead. The captain of the first team was also son of the managing