Cricket 1892

70 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OP THE GAME. APRIL 21, 1892 CRICKET NOTCHES. By th e R e v . R. S. H o l m e s . A nd a notch means a run—at least, runs were called notches, when the game of cricket was young. That old cricket picture of 1743 will tell you why. In those primitive and Un consequence) delightful times, scoring sheets and books were luxuries unknown; the scorer sat out in the open, on the grass, and not very far from the man “ at the point,” and he held a stick in one hand and a knife in the other, and for every run scored he made a notch in the stick. For these “ notches ” no apology is offered to the readers of C r ic k e t , seeing that no branch of sport has been so completely over­ written as cricket, unless perhaps angling be excepted; one more contribution therefore to cricket literature may certainly be excused. But what a pity it is that our old cricketers have written so little on cricket. My own cricket library totals up more than 650 separate volumes, of all sizes and qualities. At a rough guess, say that 400 of these are of no value whatever to anybody but the enthu­ siastic collector. Of course he welcomes everything that comes to his net; and is as proud of the most trifling pamphlet or guide as a Lancashire boy is when he lands what he calls a “ Jack-sharp ” out of a rank field pond. Now of the more important books on the game, how few have come, directly or in­ directly, from the pen of retired veterans. Why is this ? They know more of the game than any one, and must surely have a lot to tell us, we should only be glad to hear. Perhaps constant batting for twenty or thirty years may have spoiled their handwriting; in that case, let them do what oldNyren did; he couldn’ t write, but he could talk cricket, and he talked it to one Cowden Clarke,a writer well- versed in Shakespearian lore. And the com­ bined result was the most delightful book on cricket the world has ever seen. I often wish some old chatty cricketer would make me his “ B osw ell"; I would do my part cheerfully “ for love,” just as my dear friend the “ Old Buffer ” did, when he passed a Sunday evening ever so many years ago in Fuller Pilch’s back parlour at the “ Saracen’s Head ” in Canterbury, and the old man talked on in the freshest fashion, and so Bciilifs Magazine got enriched by one of many articles from the best living writer on sport generally. Some day I will call and see Caffyn, still living in quiet comfort, thanks to a generous weekly dole from Surrey’s well-lined coffers. He’s getting on in years—being 64—and ought to be “ tapped ” before long. He ought to have some charming recollections of the sport, in which for some years he had no rival for all­ round excellence. At least, I hope he is not like many cricketers I have spoken to, who seem to have no desire whatever to discuss cricket or cricketers. Is it because they have no interest in it as a source of livelihood ? For nearly thirty-five years I have watched front-rank cricket, and have known inti­ mately by sight all our best cricketers during that period. For many years now, both in the South and in the North, I have, at County matches, looked out for retired County players, and have hardly ever seen one. I should have thought they would never miss a county match. Are they like George Parr, of whom Richard Daft writes only this week : “ After his retirement from cricket George took little interest in the game. He was seldom seen even at the matches in the village in which he resided, or at those played at the Trent Bridge at Nottingham.” Strange, is it not ? Now this quotation reminds me that one old cricketer at least has broken silence, having been busy for months on “ Reminiscences and Anecdotes of the Kings of Cricket.” I trust all cricket students have seen the Athletic News of the last two weeks; for there it is that Richard Daft is publishing his Cricket Memoirs in weekly instalments. Get it at once, if you want to b9 refreshed by perfectly new and original stories of the cricketers of thirty and forty years since. I know “ W . G ’ s ” book almost by heart, and would have put in a very strong word for it, had I not enjoyed the honorable distinction of lending a humble hand to our“ Grand Old Man.” Its interest is unique, of course. And comparisons are odious. Besides, only two chapters of Daft’s book are in print, and I have seen no more of it. But, if the rest be up to sample, then I have no hesitation in saying that to an old fogey like myself, nothing could possibly prove more welcome than the tale he has to tell of the giants of the past. I hope the “ Old Buffer” will see it: it will gladden his heart out in the Far West to find many of his most pronounced cricket heresies confirmed by a past-master like Daft. By-the-bye, why shouldn’t some one get at H. H. Stephenson, and persuade him to follow suit ? As a cricketer, he was great both with bat and ball. Who doesn’t recall his famous “ break-backs,” as they were called ? As an understudy to that prince of stumpers, Tom Lockyer, he was also most useful. Since his retirement some twenty years ago, he has been in close touch with cricketers, chiefly from his position as “ coach ” at Uppingham. “ H. H. S.” must be an enthusiast still, and my recollection of as perfect a specimen of an English gentleman as ever donned flannels compels me to conclude that he could run Daft very close indeed as a sporting scribe. So, H. H. S., please to make a note of this hint. To - day Notts and Gloucestershire are putting their colts through the mill. But this Bank Holiday for me is chiefly memorable for the heaviest fall of snow I have seen this winter. A man cannot discuss the coming season in such weather. At the fireside, memory is ever busy, so here goes for another “ notch.” Lord Sheffield’s Australian tour is now a part of history, and already much has been written both in its favour and disfavour. It has not been so successful as we should like, but perhaps it has been quite as successful as it deserved. The team was good, but not great; it might have been stronger. But then it was the strongest that could be got together. In my judgment the batting was not much at fault, though, with the exception of the last three matches, it was more remarkable for individual pre-eminence than for general all- the-way-through excellence. Bean was dis­ appointing. I question very strongly the wisdom of selecting a player for such a com­ bination solely on the strength of one season’s performances ; for, on this principle of selec­ tion, “ W. G.” scarcely deserved his place. Last year he was quite off coloui, yet in Australia he quickly recovered form, and to the delight of us all, tops the averages in the best matches, whilst in all matches, if he is not first, he will be a capital second to Peel. And that, be it remembered, is the latest achievement of a cricketer who has been playing for twenty-seven years in the match of the season—Gentlemen v. Players ! Of course, Shrewsbury and Gunn would have proved welcome accessions to England’sbatting forces, but it is arrant folly to say, as one writer has, that with the Notts batsmen in the team, men like Maurice Read and Lohmann would have scored double the runs they registered. As a fact, the Surrey men never batted so well in Australia, not even with Gunn and Shrewsbury present. The bowling was our vulnerable point, spite of the inclusion of such trundlers as Attewell, Peel, Briggs, Sharpe, and Lohmann. And for this reason: with the exception of Sharpe, none of the other bowlers are fast; and on the perfect Australian wickets slow medium bowling loses all its “ devil,” especially to such smiters as Lyons. Sharpe is very fast, I know, and on his day most deadly. But he has always seemed to me to have one charac­ teristic in common with poor Fred M orley; he must get a wicket to bowl his best. Morley soon lost heart, especially when an unortho­ doxbatlike the “ little doctor” pulled him unmercifully : but allow him to hit the stumps, and he bowled like a veritable glutton. Mold should have gone, as well as Sharpe. For, unlike previous English teams in Aus­ tralia, we had no such “ fast change ” as Barnes or Ulyett—men who, played chiefly for their batting, could bowl at a pinch, and often with deadliest effect, when better men had been knocked off. I see it announced that Notts have arranged a benefit match for Alfred Shaw. Better late than never. And that Lord Sheffield’s XI. will be pitted against the Rest of England. Why not against Walter Read’s African team ? They could reader a good account of themselves. And then let the winners play a third team, chosen from cricketers who have not been touring this winter. For a third first-class eleven could easily be found. Take A. G. Steel, A. Ward, and Mold from Lai;- cashire ; Ulyett and Hunter from Yorkshire ; T. C. O’Brien, E. Nepean, and Rawlin from Middlesex; with Lockwood (Surrey) S. M. J. Woods (Somerset), and W. H. Patterson (Kent) ; and such a team would hold its own against either of our “ starring ” elevens. HAMPSTEAD CLUB. M atch es for 1892. May 7—Hampstead, Secretary v. Treasurer May 11—Wormwood Scrubby v. Kensington Park May 14—Hendon, v. Hendon May 18—Hampstead, v. Mill Hill School May 21—Hampstead, v. South Hampstead May 21—Finchley, v. Christ’s College May 25—Wiilesden, v. Willesden May 28—Eltham, v. Elfcham May 28—Hampstead, v. Hornsey June 1—Uxbridge, v. Uxbridge June 4—Hampstead, v. Marlow June 4—Highgate, v. Highgate School June 6—Hampstead, Over v. Under 30 Juue 8—Hampstead, v. Mr. C. Johnston’s XI. June 11—Mill Hill, v. Mill Hill School June 11—Hampstead, v. Granville June 15—Acton, v. Pallingswick June 18—Hampstead, v. London Scotttsh June 18—Alexandra Palace, v. Islington Albion Jnne 22—Hornsey, v. Hornsev June 25—Hampstead, v. Uxbridge June 25—Lee, v. Granville June 27—Hampstead, v. Emeriti June 29—Hampstead, v. Charlton Park July 1, 2—Easttourne, v. Eastbourne July 2—Hampstead, v. Christ’s College Finchley July 6—Surbiton, v. Surbiton July 9—Chiswick Park, v. Chiswick Park July 9—Hampstead, v. Ealing July 13—Charlton Park, v. Charlton Park July 16—Marlow, v. Marlow July 16—Hampstead, v. Pallingswick July 18—Hampstead, v. M C.C. July 19—Hampstead, v. Ne’er-do-wecis July 23—Hampstead, v. Clapham Wanderers July 21—Hampstead, v. Crystal Palace July 22—Hampstead, v. Hendon July 23—Hampstead, v. Surbiton July 23—Brondesbury, v. London Scottish July 27—Richmond, v. Richmond July 30—Hampstead, v. Woodford Wells Angust 1—Hampstead, Married v. Single August 3—Hampstead, v. Chiswick Park August 6—EaliDg, v. Ealing August 6—Hampstead, v. South Hampstead August 10—Hampstead, v. Willesden August T3—Hampstead, v. Islington Albion August 13—Woodford, v. Woodford Wells August 17—Hampstead, v. Slough August 20—Sydenham, v. Crystal Palace August 20—Hampstead, v. C. Johnston’s XI. August 24—Hampstead, v. Stoics Augu8t27—Hampstead, v. Eltham September 3—Hampstead, v. Malden September 10—Hampstead, v. Hampstead Nonde* scripts T h e T our . July 25, 26—Bournemouth, v. Bournemouth July 27, 28—Southampton, v. Hampshire Hog July 29, 30—Salisbury, v. South Wilts CRICKETERS.-Prizes value £100 offered for competition during 1892. Special Score Forms 2d. per dozen.—Geo. G. Bussey & Co., Peckham Rye. Winners published weekly iu C kicket .—Advt.