Cricket 1892

148 CKICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. MAY 26, 1892 CRICKET NOTCHES. B y the R ev . It. S . H olmes . R eading an old Cricket Guide—my special delight: there is a flavour about a “ Fred L illy” one misses in “ Wisden ” and the “ Red Lilly” of to-day—I stumbled across a match played in honour of a veteran Surrey bowler. It was Surrey v. the South of Eng­ land, the name of the benefieiare being Daniel Day. The expenses were A'23 6s. 8d. only: and all because nearly all the players gave their services to an old chum. I was delighted to see this; it is as it should be. Why shouldn’t this precedent be foliovved in all similar matches? Bare “ ex’s,” if you like, but no more ; for £100 in fees knocks the gilt off the ginger-bread. I was reminded of this incident by Alfred Shaw’s match of last week, and especially by “ W.G.’s ” magnanimity towards this Grand Past Master. Giving your services, and enclosing a “ fiver,” is verily heaping coals of lir6 on an old (sporting) foe. One likes to record such graceful deeds, they make the world a bit brighter to some of us. And Shaw is so “ worthy,” though his County seems to have taken a long time in setting the official seal to his character. For twenty-nine years constitute a somewhat lengthy interval between a debut and a benefit. Yorkshire never keep their sons waiting so long; they are rewarded in this way long before their cricketing history draws to aclose. M.C.C., thirteen years ago, testified to their appreciation of Shaw’s worth, both as a man and a cricketer, by set­ ting aside the Whitsuntide match for his sake. Rain killed it. And did not the Cham­ pion a few weeks later forego his match at Lord’s in order that Shaw might have a second look in ? But again the fates were ugly. And this week, too, they have once more spited Shaw, and one of the most inter­ esting matches of the season had the bot­ tom knocked out of it, and Shaw wanted no “ lurry ” to carry the spoils home in. We are all heartily sorry, for we old fossils—and we alone ought to have a voice in these matters—are pretty well agreed that a greater bowler than “ Alfred” has not appeared within our memory—if one so great. The dailies have, as usual, been busy over his biggest feats, and many of them have described as a record his 7 wickets for 7 runs for Notts v. M.C.C. in .1875 : it may have been up to date: but the old “ Tyke” Peate beat it in 1883 by nobbling 8 Surrey wickets for 5 runs, when play­ ing for Yorkshire at Hunslet, near Leeds. Some years ago Shaw turned a Boniface up in the Kilburn district—Cambridge or Oxford lload was the exact spot. I called to see him one day, and he very kindly showed me the ball (mounted and under a glass shade) with which he took all the ten wickets of the North in 1874. That spec, was not a suc3ess, and Kilburn soon missed him. Since then his way has been much easier, partly through his engagement under Lord Sheffield, and partly through the cricket business in Nottingham, the latter having, doubtless, received a very healthy fillip from the four Australian tours arranged by Shaw and his partner in busi­ ness. For the sake of those who have a turn for statistics, I have spent about half-an-hour over the following summary. In twenty-three years of first-class cricket, Shaw’s ball-work read thus :—1,963 wickets for 22,987, or an average of only 11 runs a wicket. In twenty-seven years “ W. G.” has taken more wickets, but at a much greater cost, his record being 2,435 wickets, costing 39,824 runs, each wicket thus averaging 16 runs. Shaw came out as a bitsman. A bowler was not wanted in the Notts team of 1864, which included such giants as Jackson, Tinley, Grundy, Wootton, Martin, McIntyre, and I. C. Shaw, though “ Bummy ” did not appear regularly till 1865 at the earliest. And when Alfred’s skill as a bowler began to develop, another slow bowler was in the field, Wm. Southerton, the man of three counties, who through many seasons played for both Sussex and Surrey, throwing in his lot with Surrey when the County qualification came into law. So for a few years Shaw found no place in the match against the Gentlemen. His batting, however, he never lost, though his fame and name will never be associated with that branch of the game. To-day, our big bowlers are generally good bats as well. And yet I somehow or other would be quite contented to play a man for bowling only, provided that was top-class, but who was not worth a run with the bat. There used to be such men—“ last men in ” men; such as Slinn and Hodgson, of York­ shire, in the old palmy All England days, when as given men they helped many a Country eighteen and twenty-two to tackle George Parr and his famous troupe. Neither could bat at all: their average throughout their career was something like one run an innings ! One of them, I was told, used always to shut his eyes as soon as the ball left the bowler’s hand. Slinn called himself a bowler—nothing more; hence the moment he had delivered the ball, he had done with it ; it was no part of his work to field it. Notts could match this worthy pair in Fred Morley and I. C. Shaw. I did once see the latter get 15 (not out) at Lord’s, but that was his only “ double-figure ” throughout his career, and nobody was more surprised than the striker. But were they altogether wrong in these tactics ? I think not. Old Bill Lillywhite, who wa5 a very fair bat, would often go to the scoring box and say “ Put Lilly white absent,” and just because he maintained that batting spoiled his bowling. At any rate if a man be great both with ball and bat, he should be sent in as early as possible to enable him to get a good rest before he handles the ball. The Surrey Captain has for the last year or two done so with respect to George Lohmann, and with the happiest results. The other matches of last week were handi­ capped by the weather. Yorkshire played two, and so did Surrey. As usual, Surrey, with an eye to the bigger contests, have led off against the less important Counties; we call them “ Second Class,” though that arch­ heretic the “ Old Buffer” would have no distinction, and many a straight-from-the- shoulder homily has he delivered from his “ arm-chair ” on this special fad of his. Well, we won’t quarrel about names : facts are facts. Surrey’ s matches have just one point of interest, in that they have shown us a new bowler, built evidently on right lines, if his first week’s work for the County of his birth (please make a note of this) be any criterion. Eighteen wickets for 137 runs is good enough form. I presume to give no advice—parsons never do—but Richardson should be well looked after. The Surrey experiment in relying exclusively on two bowlers has for the past five years paid well enough; but it is risky. Lockwood startled everybody at the fall of last season; but another relief to Lohmann and Sharpe should be welcomed with acclamation by the Oval authorities. And “ good old Yorkshire,” as the poet Craik hath it, must look tenderly after two at least of their colts. Both Fletcher and Hirst have a likely look about them: the former especially with the bat. Innings of 31 (not out), 27, and 31 (not out) in one week promise well. And he bowls as well—fast right, whilst Hirst is fast left. Who knows but what in one or the other Yorkshire may not at last have found a worthy successor to Freeman, Emmett and Allan Hill. Again I strike my old string. Give them athoroughly good trial, and don’t pass Mounsey and Cuttill by. Louis Hall has started on the small side—one run in three innings; but Shrewsbury has not done much better, with 21 runs for the same number of innings. Last year, however, he was very late in getting off, till we began to wonder when he would answer to the fall of the flag; when once he moved there was no holding him back, and he caught the judge’s eye long before any of his rivals. It is Barnes that is full of running this year. How tremendously strong he is going thus early. He may fairly have tbe credit of the Yorkshire reverse at Lord’s, with a splendid double (61 and 71), for M.C.C.'s double effort only reached 341. It was well he was “ all there,” seeing that the premier club, owing to Shaw’s match at Nottingham, put into the field the poorest team that has so far done duty for the “ yellow and red.” And if Notts against the same M.C.C.—this time worthily represented, though minus Barnes—followed in the foot­ steps of Sussex, Lancashire, and Yorkshire, Barnes was not at fault, as 80 runs in all testify. Young Hearne pulled the match out of the fire, and by flooring nine Notts wickets for 41 in the second “ hands,” not only won the match hand over hand, but proved that his startling first season was no mere “ flash in the pan.” Both Oxford and Cambridge have gone down before the Gentlemen of England, or might we not more accurately call them an amateur eleven ? If the light blues can point to a four wickets defeat only, on the other hand the dark blues can flatter themselves that their opponents were about half as strong again, and that their one-innings thrashing was largely the handiwork of one man. AtCam- bridge the England honours were easy, Hewett with 100 all told, and Webbe with a second score of 56, with Leatham and others help, all having a hand in the result. Weigall was practically the only man in it for Cambridge, with 30 and 69. At Oxford, Sam. Woods had a day out, his first this year. Not con­ tent with knocking up 73 in an hour, he found his spot later on, and ten Oxford men fell before his right-hand for just 12 runs apiece. On his day Woods is truly tremen­ dous ; he is every inch the l orn rricketer. I like him if only because of his supreme contempt for maiden overs. He bowls to get wickets, and doesn’t mind being clouted a bit. I wish all bowlers did ditto: cricket would never then lose its interest for the “ ring.” The first County match of 1892, at Man­ chester, was a bowlers’ match from start to finish. It can rain in Manchester. After many a dozen visits to Old Trafford, I begin to wonder whether it can do aught else. Winning the toss meant victory for Lan­ cashire. So pluck up, Sussex. You have a likely youngster in Gutteridge, though w'e had rather not say where he comes from. Don’t forget you have Love as well. And Parris must be kept too. Your “ old-un ” is still going gamely, with his eight wickets for 89 runs in Lancashire’s second. And Tate’s first show of six for 21 was more than respectable. Watson—the Lancashire “ Colt,” spite of 47 summers, is a terror still on certain wickets, as ten wickets for 57 do testify; and Ward and Sugg were evidently out on the spree when they banged up 97 runs under the hour. Better luck this week at Sheffield or at Trent Bridge; either, or both. N.B.— My postscript thi3 week shall be brief. W.G. scored 63 runs in just about as many minutes at Nottingham on Wednesday last. “ Prodigious,” as Dominie Sampson would have said. More power still to your elbow, friend W.G., and as many more innings as you like that contain boundaries and singles in the proportion of 10 to 2, or 5 to 1. RTCHMOND v. ST. THOMAS’ HOSPITAL.— Played at Richmond on May 18. R ic h m o n d . E. A. Bush, bYearsley 10 P. W. Bush, c sub, b Isaais ...............43 A. Holt, b Isaais ... 22 R S. Lucas, bIsaais 4 E. B. Hfll, c Morrice, b Isaais ..............26 W. Furze, b Isaais .. 22 N. Roberts, b Isaais 87 C. Nettleton, not out 33 W. Dell, not out ... 10 B 14, w 2 .................16 Total ...2-22 W. J. Wilson and A. A. Dealtry did not bat. Innings declared closed. S t . T h o m a s ’ H o s p ita l. E. M. Hodges, c Lucas, b E. A. Bush J. H. Yearsley, c Lucas,b F.W. Hush 38 F. A. Thompson, b F. \V. Buwh ......... 4 J. M. Morrice, b Holt 16 E. P. Isaais, c Dell, bP. W. Bush.......... 0 P. A. Browning, J. H. Ashton, and A N. Other did not bat. H. Knight, c Hill, b E. A. Bush ......... 9 W. Ashford, d o ; out 12 S. C. Rousseau, not out ....................... 17 B 11, lb 1 ............ 12 T o ta l...........108