Cricket 1892

“ Together joined in cricket’s manly toil.”— Btjron, K egi^e°ed'fo?T rZ.?m iaakin A broad. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1892. P R I O E 2 d . CRICKETJNOTGHES. By th e R e v . R. S. H o l m e s . T h e busiest week of the whole season, and the most remarkable; enough of interest in it to exclude other items from these notches that will more fitly appear later. One great record beaten ; and another, equally great, repeated. Thus the marvels of one generation become the commonplace of the next. Wonders will never cease. One is getting weary of the refer­ ences to the famous match of 1869, and of W .G.’s exclusive right, pre­ vious to last week, to the only cen- tury-doubles in first-class cricket. Every paper I have seen notes all this so faithfully that all the world has good reason by this time to have learned all that can be known. So humble scribblers like myself can find nothing fresh to say. I mnst try, however. I was present at the match of 1869, Gentlemen of the South v. Players of the South, but not on the second day. I saw only the Players’ innings; that was a huge affair, and was not finished on the Thursday. Only Pooley, Silcock, and James Lillywhite are with us to-day, whilst there still remain as many as nine of their opponents. Little Charlwood, the “ pride of Sussex,” and the finest professional batsman Sussex have had during, my time, was the hero of Thursday’ s play, and his 155 made an undeniably big hole in the Players’ mammoth score of 47/>. But here’s an item that will have a strange look to us moderns. In the whole match, wherein only twenty- one wickets fell, and 1,136 runs were scored, there were seven sixes , and fifteen fives. In other words, all the hits were run out in those days. If I remember rightly, there were only one corner of the Oval that was called a “ boundary.” The palings were open on every side: no terraces, and no skating rink then. It was a delightful sound when a square-leg hit thumped against the fence, and to see a cDmpact coterie of on­ lookers suddenly shift when a hot drive came their way was an endless source of amuse­ ment. And six was not always the limit. George Anderson’s famous eight hit, when the North met Surrey at the Oval in 1862, comes into my m ind: that went sailing away in the direction of the well-known Gasometer. And in 1870, W.G. cut old George Wootton for seven (made into eight by an overthrow) past “ the tree,” which used to flourish near the Harleyford Street entrance, but which, for aught I know to the contrary, has had to make way for the builder. But to what purpose this ramble ? Just this. I would be the last to utter one word in depreciation of the Taunton feat of last week; let it be emblazoned in gold, or in any­ thing else worthy of it. It was prodigious, wonderful, and all that sort of thing. But I won’ t have it that that “ 283” in 1869 has been beaten. The conditions were so different M R . A . S E L L E R S , Yorkshire E leven (See p. 399). that comparison is impossible. Say, rather, that W .G. and B. B. Cooper’s partnership was the best under the old regime , and that the Somerset amateurs’ is the best under the new. A difference of 63 runs is more than outweighed by the fact that every run scored in 1869 had to be run out by the batsmen. The “ Old Buffer ” goes with me when I express a desire that we could abolish boundaries once and for all. Do this, and don’t make the wicket too perfect, and give the leg-breaking bowlers a fair chance, and you will soon find that our present-day scores would be no longer possible, and tha would be a gain every way to the game. For one thing, we should have fewer drawn games, which are the bane of modern cricket, and are fast killing public interest. Blame the weather as much as you like (and it does deserve some disrespectful remarks now and again), you have still a considerable balance eft which must be set down against cricket as it is now played. “ Batting made easy,” or, “ small scoring impos­ sible,” might not inaptly form one of the attractions on our cricket grounds all over’ the country. The 1869 partnership lasted an hour longer than that of 1892 : and well it might on a much larger enclosure and when the “ rin g” did not stop and return all the big hits. But comparisons are “ odorous,” and for this diatribe our daily press of last week is responsible. Somer­ setshire have covered themselves with unfading glory. For many a year their match against Yorkshire will be spoken of with pride. To face a total of 299 was no trifle: to top it by 47 before a wicket had fallen was an extraordinary effort. And for three hours and half, the runs were piled on at very nearly 100 an hour, whilst Hewett alone during the same period all but scored a run a minute off his own bat. Along with Palairet, he set the seal on the fame of Somerset­ shire. It is easy enough to speak superlatively on the strength of one’s most recent impression, but, after careful thought, I have come to the conclusion that Hewett is at once the soundest and most powerful batsman I have ever seen, and that for style, finish, defence, and hit neither University has pro­ duced a rival to Palairet since the days of A. G. Steel and C. T. Studd. Certain it is that in the present year of grace, no County can show such a brilliant pair. For many years may they keep their County well in the front rank. After this score (592), their 309 v. Notts (the best against the lacemen), and their easy defeat of Middlesex—all since August 18—one is tempted to call Surrey’s dismissal of the same team for 49 runs on August 15, and on a fairly sound wicket, as almost the very best of the County season. I should like to bracket Lancashire with Surrey, only when Somerset were at Old Trafford, the wioket was in a con­ dition of batter-pudding, and reliable form was wholly out of the question. But Lancashire’s smothering defeat of