Cricket 1892

“ Together joined in cricket’s manly toil.”— Byron . THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1892. PBI0E 2d. No. 316. VOL. X I. Registered for Transmission Abroad. CRICKET NOTCHES. B y t h e E e v . R . S . H o lm e s , T h e Hastings Festival is by this time so far away that a hasty reference to it may excite a smile. As usual, the weather and the cricket made it a huge success, and thus a fitting wind-up of another glorious season. In these days of “ record-hunting,” just note two facts : the very last innings played by Abel was his highest of the Beason, indeed the only century scored off his bat; and the very last innings Sam Woods bowled in, more runs (201) were made off his bowling than I can recall appearing against any bowler past or present in one innings. As I have no commonplace book, I always have to trust to memory; so I may be wrong; but I feel pretty confident that the Somersetshire amateur is entitled to “ the cake.” When Lancashire met Yorkshire five years ago at Bradford, the Tykes ran up a score of 590, and Briggs’ bowling was thumped about to the tune of 194 runs. I don’t suppose S.M.J.’s heart was broken by this want of respect for his expresses; anyhow he had the satisfaction of getting eight of the Players’ wickets for 46 runs in the first innings of the same match. What other sport yields as much fun as cricket ? The complete averages appeared in all the dailies the day after the curtain fell at Hastings. It is not so very long ago that we had to wait some three or four weeks for the full return, which appeared first, I fancy, in old “ Bell’s Life.” And it was keenly anticipated, inasmuch as there were no weekly up-to-date lists then as now. Some years ago, my late friend, Charles Box, author of the “ English Game of Cricket,” and many another capital book, handed over to me every book, picture, etc., in his possession that related to cricket. He was an old man, and was most anxious that his treasures should not be dispersed. Among them was a folio sheet mounted, containing the averages and analyses for 1848. At the foot of the same is a note in his writing—“ The preparation of this sheet cost £15.” He attachedmore value to it than to five copies of Denison’s “ Sketches of the Players.” I daresay he was the compiler of it, though he never told me. If so, I can easily understand his pride in it. Such tables, that are scanned so quickly, do represent a prodigious amount of accurate work. And it is done anonymously too. Any­ body could write an article on cricket: there’s nothing easier. There are few, if any, of us who would care to change places with the conscientious statisticians to whom we are under repeated obligations. But why will they give separate lists for “ Amateurs” and “ Professionals?” To me this is an invidious distinction. Time was when there were several Gentlemen matches of a first-class order; to-day, with the solitary exception of about two matches played by each University, there isn’t a single front-rank match in which both the paid and unpaid do not take part. All players stand on the same broad level at cricket. Besides, we are put to unnecessary trouble in comparing these lists. Lump all cricketers together, and you can see at a glance how the Gentlemen stand with respect to the Players. The summary is satisfactory for many reasons, two of which stand out pro­ minently. The first is, the supremacy of , the Amateurs with the bat; it’s many years since they were stronger than the t Players. Thus, they have six “ one- |thousand scorers” to the Players’ three ; Jwhilst in the average per innings of the IGents there are seven above thirty, and thirty-two above twenty runs ; the pros, having only two and twenty in the same columns. Of course the latter still have the call in bawling, as theyhave had from time immemorial. Another feature about the summary is this : the remarkable all-round strength of the old country in her chief national game. Indeed I question whether we have ever had a better year, both in batting and bowling combined. When did nine batsmen score more than 1,000 runs apiece, the same number come out with an average of thirty runs and up­ wards, and as many as ten bowlers take more than ahundred wickets each ? And there have been no more matches than usual this year. Why, in 1887, essentially a batsman’s year, only seven men reached 1000 runs : and only four bowlers took more than a hundred wickets. But I append the results since 1886 : they are worth looking at. Take the bowlers first: a hundred wickets were taken in 1886, by five bowlers; 1887, four; 1888, three; 1889,; seven; 1890, seven ; 1891, eight; 1892, ten. Of 1000 scorers there were in 1886, eight; 1887, seven; 1888, three; 1889, five; 1890, four; 1891, four; 1892, nine. Again, averages above thirty runs an innings : 1886, nine ; 1887, nineteen ; 1888, three ; 1889, ten; 1890, five ; 1891, six ; 1892, nine. So that all-round, 1892 shows up better than any of the years immediately preceding. No one batsman or bowler stands head-and-shoulders above all comers: but it may be questioned whether in one and the same season batsmen and bowlers alike ever did so well. That ought to silence the croakers, who want us to believe that cricket is on the down-line, when probably it has not yet reached its zenith. Just one more remark on the past. There’s no space here to single out individual performances, either with bat or ball, pleasant though such a task would be. New reputations have been made; and some old reputations have been confirmed. But one is simply voicing the sentiments of the entire cricket community, at home and abroad, when we offer heaps of heartiest con­ gratulations to our honored Champion on the splendid results of his twenty-ninth year in first-class cricket. W. G. is still among the leaders, and we all devoutly hope that he will pass the fiftieth mile­ stone before he ceases to be the first choice in a representative English team. He’s about the only cricketer of the year who seems to have benefitted by a winter abroad. I see some anonymous scribe has been advocating another test for bowlers. It is really too ingenious. Gauge bowling