Cricket 1891

APKIL 23, 1891 CRIOKET: A WEEKLY KECORD OF THE GAME. CRICKET AT OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE. A R etr o spec t . That great master in the art of attack and defence—we had almost said past master, so little do we see of him now— M r . A llan G ibson S t e e l , lifts up his voice in the pages of Wisden, and declaims against the Vandalism of those who have given it forth to the world that the Cambridge Eleven of 1890 was the strongest team that has ever done battle for the Light Blues. Mr. Steel points, with a pardonable pride, to the days when such fine exponents of the game as the Lytteltons, the Studds, the Steels, Ivo Bligla, Ramsay, Morton, A . P. Lucas, the Thorntons, Wilson, and a host of others, rendered the match at Lord’s a dead certainty for Cambridge. It was in this wise. Mr. Steel was staying at a country house for the shoot­ ing, and one evening, whilst resting after a long day in the fields, a member of the party “ tackled ” him (perhaps with malicious intent!)—on the subject of Uni­ versity cricket past and present. In reply, he was able to quote the seasons 1878- 82, when it fell to the lot of Cambridge cricketers to stem the tide of Australian victory three times. In fine, he contended that the Cambridge eleven of ten years ago was one fitted to do battle with any team that could be brought against it. Without going further back than 1869, the year of Mr. W. Yardley’s (“ a splendid batsman . . . pronounced by competent judges to be secondonlyto the Champion” ) first appearance for the Cantabs, we find this University then very powerful, with F. C. Cobden to bowl and U. I. Thornton to hit. Who, by the way, can ever forget how “ the great Cobden himself” cap­ tured the last three Oxford wickets with three consecutive balls, and won the match by 2 runs, in 1870 ? It was on the same occasion that Yardley achieved the distinction of scoring the first hundred ever made in an Inter-University fixture ; and he followed this up, in 1872—his last year at Cambridge—with another brilliant innings of 180 at Lord’s. In 1871, the year that he was captain, Cambridge lost. Coming to the period of Mr. A. G. Steel’s arrival at Cambridge, we see that Messrs. A. and E. Lyttelton, Ivo Bligh, H. Whitfeld, Charles Pigg, Ford, A. G. and D. Q. Steel, Jarvis, and Morton were all together there in ’78,—a combi­ nation well deserving to pass through the season undefeated, which they did. Amongst their triumphs was a single innings’ victory over Gregory’s Australian eleven—a result mainly due to the stand by Mr. Steel and the Hon. Alfred Lyttel­ ton for the third wicket, coupled with the eflective bowling of P. H. Morton. " “ Ward Lyttelton then had the ill-luck to run out before getting set—a stroke of good fortune for the Colonials, against whom at Lord’s he had previously hit at rate of 76 runs in seventy-four minutes! It is somewhat difficult to account for the victory of Oxford in 1881, , 8 although the Lytteltons had gone, they been replaced by the brothers Studd; the fast bowler C. P. Wilson had also been very successful in the match with Surrey, and on other occasions; and a capable wicket-keeper had been unearthed in Mr. Hone of Dublin. But the “ glorious uncertainty ” of the Game of Games was evidenced once again in 1882, when, having lost the Steels but playing several “ Old Bl’ies,” with the addition of Messrs. C. W. Wright, C. A. Smith, Henery, De Paravicini, and May­ nard, they were enabled to turn the tables by a big majority. In that same season, when All England and the Gentle­ men both succumbed to the Third Australian Team, Cambridge cricketers twice routed the invaders. Enthusiasm ran high, and people began to regain confidence, when it was announced that Cambridge University had beaten Mur­ doch’s team by six wickets, and that the three brothers Studd had scored no fewer than 297 runs between them. This was followed up by the great match at Ports­ mouth, wherein the Past and Present of the University defeated the Colonists by 20 runs. The names of the winning side deserve to be recorded:— Hon. A. Lyttelton, C. I. Thornton, A. P. Lucas, C. T. Studd, G. B. Studd, A. G. Steel, Hon. E. Lyttelton, H. Whit­ feld, C. H. Allcock, C. A. Smith, and P. H. Morton. The following season saw Cambridge again successful at Lord’s, by seven wickets, the honours being divided by C.T. Studd and C. A. Smith for their bowling, and C. W. Wright for his brilliant batting display (102 and 29 not out). Hon. M. B. Hawke, Hon. J. W. Mansfield, W. N. Roe, J. A. Turner, and H.G. Topham, the left-hand bowler, were all “ Freshmen ” in this match. J. E. K. Studd succeeded to the captaincy in 18S4, and we well re­ member how, on the second morning of their match with the Fourth Australian Team, the sporting papers—commenting upon the fact that the University had scored 204, and had dismissed McDonnell and Bannerman for a few runs—prognosticated another win for Cambridge. But on Tuesday Murdoch and Palmer defied for a long time Topham’s curl and Rock’s pace, and on Wednesday obliged the Cantabs to retire vanquished by an innings and 81 runs!— their first defeat at the hands of an Aus­ tralian team. Nor were the Past and Present of Cambridge more successful, whilst that year’s Inter-’Varsity ended in a somewhat easy victory for Oxford. Scott’s combination, coming to England in '86, and playing this University in June, would probably have found them a still easier prey, had the “ closure rule ” been in operation; as it was, the Aus­ tralians were in the position of having scored too many runs to give them the victory. Cricket at Cambridge undoubtedly deteriorated during the period between the departure ot the Lytteltons, Steels, and others, and the arrival of such players as S. M. J. Woods, McGregor, Foley, Jackson, F. G. J. Ford, Mordaunt, Streatfeild, Thomas, and Gosling. The questions suggested to our mind by what Mr. Steel has written are (1) Was the Cambridge University Eleve of 1890 more powerful all round than that of 1880, and (2) Which of our two Universities can claim to have produced the larger number of fine players since the institution of this annual match in 1827. The first of these queries has already been considered at some length, with the result that we emphatically answer, No. The second question requires more consideration. During part of the time that Thornton and Yardley were main­ stays of the Cambridge-batting, S. E. Butler was in residence at Oxford; and it was to his great bowling performance, in securing fifteen wickets at an average cost of just over 6 runs each, that the Dark Blues owed their eight wickets’ vic­ tory in 1871. Duringthe next decade, Lord Harris, A. J. Webbe, T. S. Pearson, C. F. H. Leslie, W. H. Patterson, A. H. Evans, W. Foord-Kelcey, E. F. S. Tyle- cote, and Manley Kemp were a few of the notabilities who blossomed forth as Oxonians. In the two latter, indeed, were two of the best amateur wicket­ keepers of the day—worthy rivals of Lyttelton and Wright on the opposite side. Too much could not be written of the three Kentish men, Lord Harris, Mr. W. H. Patterson, and Mr. Tylecote— especially as to the plucky manner in which the last-named “ kept” both for Oxford and for the Gentlemen, besides scoring well against the bowling of the Demon Spofforth and of the terrible Crossland in some of the most exciting matches ever witnessed in the Weald of Kent. And we venture to think that few will dispute the assertion that it was the splendid defence of Mr. Patterson, in carrying his bat right through the innings for 107, combined with the free hitting of the old Rugby boy, C. F. H. Leslie, that gave their side, in ’81, what many had regarded as a dead certainty for the Cantabs. The first match between Oxford Uni­ versity and an Australian Eleven was decided in the Parks in May, 1882, and was memorable for the feat of Hugh Massie, in his first innings on an English ground, scoring 206 out of 265 while in. Although there was no doubt about the nature of the visitors’ victory, E. D Shaw did an uncommon thing in going right through the innings. They were able to reverse this decision, though, two years later, in the memorable encounter when O’Brien hit Spoft'orth out of the ground, and Nicholls at short slip brought off no less than seven catches. But Oxford were now much stronger, with A. R. Cobb, H. Y. Page, Whitby, Brain, and Key; and with Cambridge correspond­ ingly weakened, this fact told when they got up to Lord’s. Again in 1886, we find them, strengthened by the acquisi­ tion of Messrs. Rashleigh, Buckland, and Arnall-Thompson, almost succeeding in lowering the Australians’ colours a second time, and winning at Lord’s by the hand­ some sum of 133 runs. We are now approaching the time alluded to by Mr. Steel. The Cambridge Eleven of 1890 have been ably summed up elsewhere as “ an exceptionallydangerous|lot of run-getters.’