Cricket 1892

“ Together joined in cricket’s manly toil.”— Byron • No. 319 VOL. XI. Registered for Transmission Abroad. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 29, 1892. PRIOE 2d. CRICKET NOTCHES. A ONCE FAMOUS COUNTY. B y t h e E e v . P.. S. H o lm e s . I mean Cambridgeshire, though Hamp­ shire would answer to the same mark. Each county, however, possesses peculiar features, both in its origin, history, and decline, which give it a distinct place in the game of cricket. The ups and downs of counties would make a capital book when cricket shall boast of its Gibbon. Cambridgeshire cricket has had no parallel; for one generation it could hold its own against all comers, and then dis­ appeared altogether. Just now, big efforts are being made to revive the County Club, with what results nobody can at present foresee. The outlook is none too bright; but as one family suddenly raised Gloucestershire out of obscurity into dazzling prominence, so a similar fate may await many another county. Three or four great cricketers would at any time make all the difference between mediocrity and pre-eminence in any county, and their loss result in a re­ version to the original order of things. So no county need despair, and perhaps none should boast. Why cricket should be indigenous to certain counties, and not to others, equally favourably or un­ favourably circumstanced, is asubjectone has often thought about, but with no satisfactory results There has been cricket in Cambridge­ shire during the greater part of the cen­ tury, in part owing to the University and its devotion to sport. Thus, the Cambridge Town Club played the under­ graduates as early as 1825 ; among the iatter was Herbert Jenner, still a familiar name, and for some ten years among the very best, being great as batsman, and probably greater as stumper. The Bury Club was met the same year, and that had in its ranks an even grander cricketer—one Fuller Pilch. In 1829, the Town Club played one man whose name is wen-nigh immortal—Fenner ; who was one of the best bowlers of his day, and a very fair bat, but who is best remembered by the ground he opened in 1846, and to which, following the example of Thomas Lord, he modestly gave his own name. Before that date, “ Parker’s Piece” was the general cricket ground both for Town Club, University, and smaller clubs, and several matches Were continually in pro­ gress at the same tune, to the annoyance of the players contesting in a match of importance, and the danger of both cricketers and paSsers-by. “ Parker’s Piece,” however, did much to foster local cricket ability, especially when the Colleges practised there. A good bowler among the natives got a chance of an en­ gagement then, and the cricket in him, being recognized, was encouraged. Carpenter told me one day that in his opinion, if the Collegeswere again to play on the old “ Piec?,” there would be given an impetus to Cambridge cricket that might: once more make it famous. In 1832, we first come across another distinguished name, Dan Hay­ ward—an old Surreyite, and a showy bat, and the father of the still more celebrated Tom Hayward. In that year M.C.C. played the Town Club, who were assisted bv Pilch and Caldecourt. And thus the game was kept going in Cambridgeshire, Norfolk being in 1845 added to the list of their engagements. And sundry good cricketers appeared from time to time. Charles Arnold was one :his debut was in 1842 : one of the biggest throwers of the day, and a ripping bowler who seemed to be able to send in more than his share of shooters. Buttress I referred to last month; but Caffyn and Carpenter speak of him as almost, if not quite, the best bowler in England, especially on sound wickets. Alfred Diver we have all heard of , he reduced long stopping to a fine art, and was not far removed from the top as batsman, though Mr. Pycroft deplores Ins “ want of invention ; he was formal and mechanical—one of those very correct and proper people whom we always much approve but never want to see again.” Barlow’s prototype evidently. Rugby cricket and cricketers own much, very, much, to his skill n ' coach, and right up to his death in 1876, for just twenty years, Tom Brown’s school profited by his faith­ ful services. Thus Cambridgeshire jogged along for some fifty years, satisfied with its Town Club, and with matches between Players and the University, called sometimes Town v. University. Nothing wonderful had been, done, though men like Diver, Buttress, and others were deemed good enough to play for the All England and United elevens. But in 1857 matters began to look up, and the first big County matchwasplayed. Surrey Were met twice, and Surrey were twioe victorious. But only by narrow margins—36 and 56 runs ; and the next year by only 13 runs A creditable start for the Midlanders, when it is borne in mind that at thattimeSurreywere strong enough to beat a combined England team, not to mention the North of Engand. And Cambridgeshire could not muster full strength. Remember, therewas noCounty Club—that was not formed till 1866. It looks as if the matches depended on private subscriptions, for in 1858 most of the best professionals were absent owing to want of funds, and Cambridgeshire con­ sisted of nine undergraduates, assisted by Reynolds and Bell. Perhaps for the same reason the years 1859 and 1860 were blanks so far as County matches were concerned. But in 1861, in addition to the old local matches, Surrey were faced again (twice) and Kent once. The first fixture with Notts was in 1862, with Yorkshire in 1864, and Middlesex in 1866, this extension of programme leading to the discontinuance of the smaller matches that had through so many years kept cricket alive in the County. 1868 saw the last of the regular county matches, though scratch matches, under the name of “ Cambridgeshire” were played still later, viz., one against Yorkshire in 1869, and one against Surrey in 1871. That was the last of the once-famous County. Between 1857 and 1871, thirty-one first- class County matches were played by Cambridgeshire ; out of these twelve were w o n , fifteen lost, and four drawn. Their largest scores were made against Surrey in 1861—329 and 160 for two wickets ;