Cricket 1892

“ Together joined in cricket’s m an ly toil.5’— Byron . Hegistered^or^Tranan^ssionAbroaa. T H U R S D A Y , J U L Y 1 4 , 1 8 9 2 . PR IOE 2d. CRICKET NOTCHES. B y t h e R ey . R. S. H o lm e s . As in past years—since 1857, indeed—the Gen­ tlemen and Players have met twice in friendly rivalry. This is out and away the greatest match in the whole history of the game, and even at this date it occupies a unique position. A place in either eleven in the Lord’s match is the summit of every young oricketer’s ambition, as it sets the official seal on his individual skill with bat or ball, or both. Scarcely one name of note is missing. It may be that the interest in the match is not quite so keen as it once was, owing perhaps to the fact that county cricket now takes pre­ cedence over all other cricket, and to this other fact that by means of the extended county cricket pro­ gramme in which both the Univer­ sities occupy a prominent rank, tlie same cricketers meet so frequently as, in a measure, to take the bloom off the historic match between the picked amateurs and professionals. There is never a “ dark horse ” to­ day in either team to upset calcu­ lations. Every genuine lover of cricket will devoutly pray that this may long continue to De i h e match of each recurring season. As everybody knows, the Lord’s contest ranks first, if only because it was the first in the field. 1806 marks the inauguration of the long and noble series. Then came a lapse of thirteen years; but from that year onward—if we except the years 1826 and 1828—the match has been an annual fixture on the M.O.C. programme. In 1867, the Surrey Club, which had been formed in 1845 at the Oval (hitherto a huge kitchen garden), set afoot a second match under the same title: in 1873 a third oontest was started at “ Prince’ s,” a ground opened by two brothers who very sensibly gave their own distinguished name to their lordly venture in Belgravia; whilst such towns as Brighton, Scarborough and Hastings have in more re­ cent years followed suit. “ Prince’s ” has long since disappeared, the builders wanted it and got i t : still for five years Londoners had the satisfaction (?) of seeing nine con­ secutive da?s of high class orioket between virtually the same elevens. It was too much of a good thing, and a general sigh of relief was indulged when Prince’s ceased to be the venue. I wish it were possible for me here to write a full history of this match: it will be done some day, I hope. A cursory review now must suffice. For many years there was but one side in it, and that not the Gentlemen. And to set matters straight, various experi­ ments were tried. Thus, sometimes we find one, and even two, of the best Professionals on the other side as “ given men ” ; in 1S38—since which year no similar concession has been made—as many as three lent a helping hand. Then again, in other years the number of the Gentlemen was increased to 16, and 17, and even 18; whilst one year the Players’ team comprised only 9 men. The last expedient tried was the alteration of the size of the wickets. Twenty-seven inches by eight was then'as now, the orthodox size: but in 1832 the Gentle­ men’s wickets were only twenty-two by s i x - even then the Players won in an innings; whilst in 1837 the Players’ wickets were thirty- six by twelve, but another single inning? victory showed only too plainly that the sides could not be equalized by mechanical contri­ vances of this sort. These giant stumps are most religiously preserved in the pavilion at Lord’s among the curiosities of the game; the match in which they figured being known as the “ Barn-Door Maton,” or “ Ward’s Folly,” the famous William Ward, then M.P. for the City of London, and the hero of the biggest innings ever scored in a first-class match at Lord’s, being their sponsor. Since 1838, the match has been fought out on precisely equal terms, as it ought to be if it is played at all. Up to 1864 the pre-eminence of the professionals was unques­ tioned. Year after year, with scarcely one break, showed the same monotonous result — the Players first, the Gentlemen nowhere; the results up to then being, Players, won 39, lost 14; though it should be borne in mind that between 1849 and 1864 only one defeat was re­ gistered against them But 1865 dawned, and with it a new order of things began which lasted for twenty years. Never shall I forget the Lord’s match of that year; all the leading incidents are as fresh as ever, and one loves to recall them at this distance. Both sides were splendidly represented, the North “ schism” affecting the Oval match only. The veterans were there, George Parr and (was he an “ old ’un” then?) V. E. Walker. But there was a youngster also, not quite seventeen years old, who be­ fore long was destined to make his­ tory. I can see him so distinctly— as tall as he is now, but nearer 11 stone in weight than 17£, as thin as a lath, though even then his face was flanked by the most pronounced “ mutton chops” in place of the black, massy beard all the world has come to know so well. Yes, it was W. G. Grace’s debut. And thanks to his genius both with bat and ball—for with the bat he has scored nearly three times as many runs as any other batsman ever did, whilst he has captured a lot more wickets than any bowler, past or present— thanks to “ W. G V the tables were turned with a vengeance. In the next twenty years, i.e., in forty matches, or, if we include five played at Prince’s, forty-five in all, the Gentlemen won thirty, and lost only seven. And here we are in the twenty- eighth year since then, and that same name has appeared every year in the Lord’s match, missing but two of the Oval matches—in 1867 through illness, in 1883 through business. And he is chosen first as a matter of course, O § JOHN BOARD . THE GLOUCESTERSHIRE WICKET-KEEPER.— [Sec p. 293)