Cricket 1893

Together joined in cricket’s manly toil.”— Byron . Registered lor Transm ission A broad. THURSDAY, MAY 25, l«fc3 CRICKET NOTCHES. B y the R e y . R. S. H olm es . It is hard to speak of Richard Daft’s “ Kings of Cricket ” (as he has happily called his book) without laying oneself open to the charge of wilful exaggeration; fascinatingly delightful, fairly well describes the impression left on the reader. For one thing, it just covers an important period in cricket history, about which little or nothing has been written, the period associated with the name of George Parr and his younger contempora­ ries, and thus an ugly blank has been failed. The charm of the book is what Carlyle once called “ stubborn realism.” Daft shows him­ self to be a born story-teller—the mark of the genuine historian, and the result is a real, living book, filled with heroes of a byegone age, now seen and known once and for all. How they live again in these pages ; no stilted puppets mechanically set in motion, but actual men clothed in flesh and blood, and once more playing their parts on the tented field. The book is alive from the first page to the last. Mynn, Clarke, Parr and the rest are in our midst once more ; to have looked on these portraits of them is to have seen the men themselves. A hero-worshipper of course Daft is; as we advance in years, this is inevitable, especially in the case of those who appealed most powerfully to the youthful imagination. But every now and then Daft’s heroes, on his showing, did not hesitate to drive a Coach-and-Six through some of the Commandments; he knows no foolish reti­ cence, wishing us to see with our eyes the men of his time as he himself beheld them. There is a moral breadth of temperament in him, which proclaims the genuine historian. I shall never see an indented leather.hat-box, and not think of George Parr; or be disturbed at night by noises which at first “ sound like the roll of thunder,” and not believe Alfred Mynn is close at hand. An extra shiny pot hat on Sunday will recall Caffjn, whilst an exuberance of shirt collar will at once suggest “ Bones.” What a cheery lot those old cricketers were, B trong in practical jokes. And what jolly times they had, especially as members of the All England and United Elevens. Daft tells us how they travelled (very queerly often), how they dined and dressed (grotesquely enough), and talked and slept, and above all, how they bowled and ba,tted and fielded. His portraits are as realistic and life-like as those Nyren painted for us of Beldham and Harris; all pic­ turesquely concrete. One somewhat adverse criticism must be passed—he is much too reserved and modest in reference to himself. “ The greater part of the game I learnt when a boy from George Butler and Harry Hall, both of whom were engaged as professional bowlerswith the old Notts Commercial Club.” Tantalizingly brief. One would have liked more. In vV.G.’s “ Cricket,” out-and-away the most refreshing chapter is that headed “ My Family, Home, and early Cricket Days.” How did Daft acquire that inimitable fctyle ? For those of us who have seen every promi­ nent cricketer of the past forty years, who recall A. P. Lucas, C. T. Studd, and others, do not hesitate for a moment to say emphati­ cally that Daft has ever been our ideal of the accomplished and graceful batsman. But silence on this topic is, after all, a merit and a virtue. I trust everybody will get the book so well got up and so profusely illustrated. In my honest judgment it is the very best book on cricket since Nyren wrote about “ The Cricketers of My Time.” It is not a long enough story : we hope there will be a sequel at no very distant date, and as innocent of statistical tables and similar dull padding as “ Kings of Cricket.” When the sequel comes, may it be its good fortune to carry as graceful and harmonious a porch as Mr. Andrew Lang has added to this modern masterpiece of painstaking art. Every coming historian of cricket and cricketers from the year 1846 will have to remembtr that Richard Daft has been there before him. The last week’s cricket has, I fancy, established a record. I cannot recollect such rapid scoring in first-class cricket: it is worthy of a careful analysis. ComiDg imme­ diately after so many batting failures, it was a welcome surprise. Here is Sussex, for instance, doing what neither Notts, Yorkshire, or Lancashire could—run up a loeg innings against the M.C.C. Notts could not get beyond 199 runs in their venture at Lord’s Yorkshire totalled 149, Lancashire 138 : yet Sussex (the despised) were good for no less than 317, and against equally as strong bowling as theNorthern Counties had to face. Well played, Sussex ! True, they could not keep the runs down when M.C.C. had a turn with the bat. In the matches just noticed, M.C.C. never once got beyond 184 (against Notts), against Sussex they reached 345, which should convince us that both wickets and batsmen are playing better. It was a trifle rough on Sussex to meet Gunn so soon after their venture at Trent Bridge. There he notched 104, at Lord’s 124. Sussex know him of old, and may very naturally wish him at Jerioho : he ought to be barred from all matches in which they take part. A. E. Stoddart (62) began a very productive week’s work, and C. P. Foley (69) proved that his unfinished 62 v. Lancashire was the result of sterling cricket. Heavy scoring and broken weather prevented this and most other matches during the week leing played out to a finish. G. Brann’ s innings will more fitly be noticed later on. The Australians have carried off high honours : it was a great week for them. It would be an abuse of words to call that a “ match ” at Bristol: it was a game only, and provided for the sole benefit and enjoyment of our distinguished guests. They scored 503, the Westerners-----We prefer to be silent for once : the oontrast is too painful to be repro­ duced. Anyhow, W. G. was not out when Gloucester’s innings closed. It was George Giffen’s match from start to finish ; his countrymen delight to hail him as “ the finest all-round cricket.r in the world.” Who can throw down the gauntlet to him ? Never, perhaps, since W. G.’s palmiest days did one man bring off such a double first : an innings of 180 runs, followed by a bit of bowling that Alfred Shaw or Peate might be proud to claim. Let’s give it a line all to itself;— Overs. Maidens. Runs. W ickets. 6.3 3 11 7 Prodigious! We should exhaust our voca­ bulary if we said half we feel. Bannerman made his bow; just his dear, old, real self ; 11 runs an hour for three hours and a half. One is thankful Dr. Barrett did not come this year. It doesn’t so much matter when Lyons is turning out the runs wholesale, as he did at Lord’son Thursday : he can score fast enough for himself and partner ; it is useful to have another man in, if only for the purpose of running one’s hits. I don’t know which would be more trying to the nerves of an English crowd—watching two Lyons’ or two Bannermans in at one and the same time. It is not half so wearing when the hard smiters happen to be playing on our side. A s was the case at Lord’s, when the Colonials tried conclusions with a strongish M.C.C. team, and the latter had first shot through the mistaken generosity of their opponents. At cricket virtue is certainly not its own reward, whatever it maybe elsewhere. Still, all’s well that ends well, and Blaekham may look back on his decision with perfect composure. M.C.C.’s innings recalled the same match nine years’ since ; but there all resemblance between the two matohes ends. In 1884, an innings of 481 was a winning score, and with more than an innings in hand. In 1893, 424 was scarcely enough to bring about any sort of a victory : a dra\*n match, and in anybody’sfavour. Australiar s’ response (243 and 347) was wonderful. We know now that our visitors can play a glorious uphill game, such as set the seal on the fame of the second and third teams, and which deprived their successors in 1886, 1888, and 1890 of any claim to earthly immortality. What would have happened had Turner been playing we dare not conjecture. With him in the field, it is safe enough to predict that England will have 1omake a supreme effort to win the rubber. Giffen’s earliest contribu­ tions in this match must be given, as a relief