Cricket 1892

260 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. JUNE 30, 1892 CRICKET NOTCHES. By t h e K e y . R. S. H o lm e s . W h e n Notts beat Surrey at Whitsuntide, some of us were disposed to regard the result as a fluke; possibly by this time we think otherwise. For the Lace County have been piling up the agony to suoh an extent as to compel us all to recognize more skill than luck in their recent cricket. Last week witnessed a further confirmation of the Notts’ best form in the shape of successive victories over Middlesex and Somersetshire. That over the Westerners was commonplace enough, but the Metropolitans were well-nigh extinguished. Yet Middlesex can point to their 523 against Gloucestershire as a set-off against Notts’ 46G at their expense, and Stanley Scott’s 221 out­ numbers by 12 Shrewsbury’s latest. It seems to be getting a fashion among the critics to depreciate Shrewsbury’ s style of play. Well, it is somewhat slow, but then it is his game, a id it’s a game, I feel sure, most batsmen would only be too eager to adopt if they could count upon equal success. He always plays perfect cricket, and that’ s what we old fogies like to see. Barlow and Scotton were tedious, if you like; they had no variety of resource. When in 1886 the latter scored 34 in the match England v. Australia, in about the same time as W.G. scored about a hundred more, our old friend Punch spoke in the name of us all when he declared that an hour of W.G. or W .W . was worth more than a week of Scotton. “ Block, block, block,” thus ran the rhyme. Shrewsbury is buiU on a very different model. Anyhow, I am going all the way to Sheffield to-day, and though I hope Yorkshire will win, I shall feel that I have got thoroughly good value should Shrewsbury take it into his head to keep Peel and Co. pound­ ing at him all the day through. Without being statistic-mad, it is worth a passing notice—if not something more—that this is the seventh time Shrewsbury has run into the third century for Notts—the third time against Middlesex. His previous double-hundreds sim up thus: 1882, 207 v. Surrey; 1884, 209 v. Sussex ; 1885, 224 (not out) v. Middlesex ; 1836, 227 (not out) v. Gloucester3hire ; 1887, 267 v. Middlesex; and 1890, 267 v. Sussex. A County record no other cricketer has so much as approached. Thus, so far as I can rccolleet, \V.G. has only twice exceeded 200 for h is County, though in other first-class matches he has scored more big innings than even the Notts man. We have been constant- 1/, of late, startled by fresh records in cricket as well as in all other sports; but just now, with Stanley Scott’s wonderful three weekb’ work for Middlesex fresh in our minds — viz • 598 runs for ten innings - it may be well to be reminded of a performance that never has been—and probably never will be—rivalled, certainly not beaten. It was only last week that reference was made to the Canterbury Festival of 1876, and to W .G.’s 344 on the Friday and Saturday of that week. The Monday following Notts caught a Tartar in him to the tune of 177 runs, and the succeed­ ing Thursday and Friday that 318 (not out) of his may be said to have knocked the first nail into the coffin of more than one York- shireman. Thus, in seven days, W .G . put together 839 runs in two completed innings ! Shrewsbury is now in his eighteenth season of first-class cricket, and, up to this match, had done as badly as he opened the season of 1891. Then he waited for the Gents, v. Players match at Lord’s before he came out of his shell, and yet he was an easy first at the finish. Whether he repeats this in 1892 or not, the fact cannot be gainsaid that by his last great innings he has given his average the very useful lift of 18 points. May not room be found for J. S. Robinson’s 72 and Attewell’s 59 in the same match ; and surely one innings on the Middlesex side deserves a line all to itself. A. E. Stoddart was at his very best— and there is no better than that—in the second hands with 130. That, coupled with O’Brien’s hitting and the captain’s stolid defence, nearly, very nearly, saved the match. There was a margin of only four minutes. What a happy inspiration—I don’t know on whom to father it—to let old “ Mordecai” take off the pads and have a shy at the batsmen. Two wickets for nine runs would make him more festive than usual, and should prove to the Notts skipper that he has at any rate a useful change in his good-tempered, jovial stumper. One is thankful Notts were not robbed of a well-earned victory, though they have been chief offenders for many years in playing for a draw. It is only too certain that, had they been in the place of their opponents, they would have been at their old game, and would have succeeded where Middlesex just failed. And here let me air a grievance or tw o— call them “ Notches,” if you like. The above match was all but drawn. Need it have been ? Yes, so long as Law 54 stands in its present form. The closure can only be applied on the “ last day of a match.” Surely a most un­ necessary condition or limitation. Why not on the second day, or at any time that seems fittest for the purpose of bringing a match to a definite conclusion. Anything rather than a draw. Here’s an example; a side scores 500 runs, say, or 400,whilst the wicket is sound, for the loss of, say, six men. Rain falls heavily for, say, a couple of hours or more : wicket is saturated, a fierce sun soon cakes it on the surface : a bowler’s wicket then. Why in the name of commonsense should not the innings be “ declared ” forthwith, no matter whether it be the second or third day, so that a win may be secured. If a batsman like Shrewsbury happens to be still in, he won’t throw away his wicket so that his team may as soon as possible get out into the field ; nor ought we to expect him to do so. A slight alteration in tho Law would remove the necessity. One doesn’t like assumed names in cricket. Middlesex in their last match welcomed back a prodigal son in a new name, but with the old nature both for bowling and batting. It is no business of mine to inquire into the reason for this change of identity. It is an old Middlesex trick. As long ago as 1866 they had acapital stumper—an amateur—R.Bissett: by an ingenious reversal of his initials, he often cropped up as B. Richards. Last year we saw an old friend in the mask of Johnston. Who’s Johnston ? And who’s “ Mathews ” ? The editor of “ Scores and Biographies ” fre­ quently states that, where known, no such names are ever admitted into the Magnum Opus of cricket. And very wisely too. He confesses granting indulgence in two instances —to the old Surrey cricketer of over a century back—Edward Stevens, known then and ever since by the expressive soubriquet , “ Lum py; ” and to the famous “ Felix,” author of “ Felix on the Bat,” musician, schoolmaster, inventor of the *•Catapulta,” and perhaps the most brilliant left-handed bat ever seen, especially at “ the point.” His real name was Wanos- trocht—ugly enough to justify an alias. And there was one other—poor George Tarrant, contemporary of Hayward and Carpenter— “ Dear-away,” as he was nicknamed; his real name was George Tarrant Wood—a circum­ stance nobody seems to have known until it was revealed in the epitaph on his tombstone iu the cemetery at Cambridge. And might one venture to remind all crick­ eters of all ranks that, according to law 43, “ the umpires are the sole judges of fair or unfair play.” There was a bit of a breeze down South the other day. Dictation to a veteran umpire, once the greatest batsman in England. And a terrible threat from some­ body else in the same match to report a cer­ tain bowler to head-quarters if he would take a mean advantage again of the state of the wicket; and I know not what besides. Dear fellow-sinners, if we can’t be great cricketers, let’s resolve to be true sportsmen; and on the one hand, let’s mind our p’s and q’s, i.e., leave the umpire alone; and on the other, not “ peach ” on one another. If cricket cannot be flayed in a generous spirit, better not play it at all. Surrey are not likely to forget their North­ ern trip this year, and they must be glad to return to-day to the more sunny South. Rain for four days out of six last week in these parts. It poured on Monday at Leeds the day through, but a few of the faithful turned up. I knew there would be no cricket before I started my journey oftwelvemiles. “ Nevermind,” said I, “ the cricketers will be there, and sundry chats with them are as good as a match any day.” It all came off just as anticipated—no cricket, but much interesting gossip. And such a lunch in the pavilion! shall I ever get one quite as good on a cricket ground? Yerily there are compensations in every lot. The dice, one begins to think, must be loaded on every side. Only the day after, some discon­ solate Tyke eased his mind thus to me—“ never had such a swindle of a feed in all my life.” Some of us know a trick or two here. I re­ member the “ Old Buffer ” at a very popular match at the Oval, carrying me off nolens volens, when the interval came round, to some out-of-the-way, delicious old pub ” — in which Dr. Johnson would have looked quite at home, where we got the best of chops served in the best manner, and without either scramble or noise. By-the-bye, are there any better follows going than professional cricketers ? How generous and loyal they are to one another; so thoroughly “ jannock,” to use a most ex­ pressive Lancashire word that means every­ thing that is true, straight, and chivalrous. Some of the Surrey men had taken the Notts and Lancashire match en route from Derby, and were loud in their praises of the Notts’ prowess. And how hearty their appreciation of Ulyett’ s great innings at Lord’s. A h ! it was very refreshing; it made the day very bright, spite of the rain. I have been told that parsons pull absent brethren to pieces when they meet in solemn conclave. If they do, they might with advantage rub shoulders against cricketers. Great cricketers are in­ variably fine men; it’ s your fifth-rate club professional, who thinks himself first-rate, that hasn’t a generous word for his more for­ tunate and capable chums. I have no secrets to disclose here, but shall content myself with remarking that a Yorkshireman confidentially whispered that Lohmann would “ just make the ball talk on that wicket.” And so he did, sure enough, aud “ talk” eloquently too—by deeds, not words—fourteen wickets altogether. Tuesday was glorious ; and never before have I seen such a crowd on a Yorkshire cricket ground ; too big perhaps for thorough enjoy­ ment, but scarcely big enough for the County treasurer. When Old Trafford drew about 500 to 1000 persons to a County match, watch­ ing the same was perfect bliss. Now that there aro as many thousands (and more) as there used to be hundreds, the spectator is not quite so well off. More rain on Tuesday night and the wicket reduced to a condition of *•batter-pudding.” Surrey just won on the stroke of “ time.” They won the toss and they won the match. I don’t deal with “ might-have-beens,” but with hard facts. The scoring throughout reigned low, and the bowlers were happy. Teel had a hand in the fall of seven wickets in the first hands; but Lohmann carried off all the honours of the match. Where he got that off break from on the Tuesday, goodness knows 1 Pletclier’s wicket fell to a ball that came in at least fifteen inches. John Shuter’s generalship won unstinted admira­ tion. A stand was being made, so Abel tried an over; he got a wicket, and then at once Lohmann was put on again, and bowled two more with successive balls. And what judg­ ment in applying the closure Ten minutes earlier and Yorkshire might have run home first, ten minutes later aud a draw would have been certain. As Southerners may not yet have been at the Leeds ground, they may be interested in learning that within the enclosure are some twenty-four acres in all, and that up to date the outlay has been £35,000. Something to be proud of. As yet the shareholders have received no dividend, but there was a small balance on the right side last year. Sugg’ s unfinished 107, and Hewett’s double 50 against Kent and 75 against Notts, all made in his own inimitable brilliant style, along with the Notts captain’s not out 74— which certainly;,had a big hand in the six wickets’ victory over Somersetshire—all deserve a more than passing notice. So does the finish of the final trial match of the Light Blues; it was a “ near thing,” but, like their