Cricket 1893

18 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OE THE GAME. FEB. 23, 1893 question awaiting satisfactory answer, then as now. Indeed, simply change the names of the players, and cricket in 1843 would look quite at home in 1893, barring of course the pot-hat and braces. Thus, amateur bowling then was no better than it is now. Denison says the reason was that young amateurs had for years, owing to Mynn’s example, tried to bowl as fast as they could, though urged by such authorities as Grimston and Ponsonby, to bowl within their strength, and bowl slow. Slow bowling was then coming into fashion, thanks to William Clarke and his famous lobs, and much damage it worked. It was tabooed by the Gentlemen, who called it “ stuff,” and talked loudly as to how they would cut it about. Easier said than done. They were all at sea with it, finding out that they could not do anything safely with i t ; it wanted playing, and having once become general, random hitting was abandoned for scientific batting. The laws of cricket in 1843 were nearly identical with those now in vogue, excepting law No. 10, which regulated the height of the bowler’s hand. Not that they gave perfect satisfaction then, any more than they do now. A “ doubtful delivery was to be called,” i.e., no-balled. Wides existed then, but Denison and others urged the M.C.C. again and again to define what constitutes a wide, adding that “ it should not be left to the umpire’s discretion, which generally is favourable to the interests of his own side.” To-day, umpires, in County matches, must not be chosen from the contending counties; so Denison’s objection is in part disposed of. And then he proceeds : “ Alter also the rule in respect of leg before wicket, so as to make it applicable to the present style of bowling.” A law had just been passed which contained these familiar words: “ ball pitched in a straight line from the bowler’s to the batsman’s wicket.” But, as Denison well says, unless the bowler deliver the ball over the wicket, the bats­ man will not be out l.b.w. Hence to round-the-wicket bowling, “ many make a practice of standing before wicket to give them greater facility in hitting round to leg,'observing that should they miss the ball, their legs would save the wicket, but they could not be given out because the ball did not pitch straight.” In the judgment of our best sportsmen to-day, the same abuse is still a disgrace to our king of games. Personally I would have this law read thus: “ That any ball, breaking or not, that would hit the wicket, if stopped by the batsman’s leg, intentionally or unintentionally, that was at the time in front of either stump, should terminate his innings.” It is surely time to stop “ legging ” batting. Denison had another grievance. In those days leg byes were reckoned byes, much to the discredit of longstop and bowler, not to say stumper. That accounts for the extraordinary number of byes that we find then. Thus, in the Gentlemen v. Players match of 1846, 07 byes are recorded, yet there were only tour wides bowled. The fact was, many were scored off the batsman’s pads. When byes were first reckoned, there were no pads, indeed they were introduced only just about 1840, and the bowling then was underhand. Now, says Denison, “ pads make the leg half as big again in circumference, and so many a ball hits the pads, which, without them, would have gone straight to the stumper or long stop; they should be called ‘leg byes.’ ” Do not we all know that leg-byes were scored for the first time in 1850, when the A.E.E. met 22 of Edinburgh in May of that year ? The weather then was as capricious as it is now. Thus 1845 was as bad as it could be, especially in August, when “ thunderstorms had such an effect upon the generality of grounds as constantly to ruin the finer portion of the play, if they did not altogether put an estoppel on the proceedings.” But 1846 was a perfect contrast; “ never before was there so great an equality of fineness of weather for so large a number of days ; dry days and occasional showers at night.” And yet both in 1845 and 1846, the bat beat the ball. Now one always thought that a wet season favoured bowlers, but a dry season, batsmen. Denison thinks otherwise: says he— “ in a wet season the ball won’t get up well, in a dry, it gets up too much ; the bowlers in the last two seasons have had more than usual difficulties to contend with.” Perhaps had Denison lived in these days of perfect wickets he would have changed his opinion respecting this matter. After this last statement concerning the supremacy of batting, one expects to find the averages come out uncommonly well. I have carefully examined the average lists for these four years, and learn, to my surprise, that only thrice during that period did any batsman get an average above 20, viz : Fuller Pilch, 23 in 1843; and N. Felix, 34 in 1843, and 26 *in 1845! But let us have a look at the batting averages. Here are the most prominent for the four years under review :— Pilch ........... ... .. 23 . . i4 i . . 16A ... 12 C. G. Taylor ... .. 17 . . 16:1 •. I6j ... 14 Alfred M ynn ... .. 16 . . . . 15l ... 13* Box ................... .. 11 . . 17 . • 14-\ ... 18* Adam ? ........... .. 10 . . 12£ . . 173 ... 17| Felix ................... .. 34 . . 14 . 26* ... 16 Other batsmen did not play all through these years, who deserve a passing men­ tion, Thus, George Parr, l l i and 17}, and Wisden, 15} and 10, made their debut in 1845. Innings of ICO runs scored. 1843. 1814. Felix................... 105 C. G. Taylor ... 100 C. B row n........... 107 P r io r ................... 103 1815. 18 16. Pilch................... 117 O. Randolph ... 116 Day ................... 132 S a m p son ........... 118 F. Ponsonby ... 1'3 Tho bowling comes out well, spite of weather. In those days, however, no mention is made of the cost in runs of each wicket taken, but only of the number of wickets taken in each match, and then at the end of the season the bowler’s average per match alone is recorded. Maiden overs very sensibly are ignored. Here follow the leading bowlers, and wickets taken by them. 1843. 1844. 1845. 1846’ Hillyer ............... 75 ... 199 ... 210 ... 269 T<illywhite.............. 75 ... 179 ... 142 ... 202 Dean ..................... 47 ... 1C6... 130 ... 140 Mynn..................... 86 ... 143 ... 00 ... 145 Clarke..................... 36 ... 34 ... 106 ... 63 SirF. Bathurst ... 31 ... 28 ... 33 ... 59 Martingell ......... — ... 39 ... 47 ... 81 Day ...................... — ... 72 ... I l l ... 123 Wides were plentiful in those days. Thus, take the three years 1844,1845 and 1846. Mynn bowled altogether 142 wides in three years; Hillyer, 14; Lillywhite, 4 ; Dean, 59 : Clark, 2 ; Sir F. Bathurst, 16; Martingell, 20; Day, 46. But then, overhand bowling was not allowed, and nearly all bowling was very fast. Slows were only just coming into fashion. In justice to several of the players named above, it should be mentioned that they were no longer in their early manhood. Thus, in the year 1843, Lillywhite’s age was 51, Clarke’s 45, Pilch’s 40, Wenman’s 40, Felix's 39, Mynn’s 36. Yet most of them continued playing for many years, Clarke, e.g. until 1856, when he was 57 years old, and up to a month of his death. The public liked to see their old favorites, and the supply of young cricketers was but limited. Another feature worth noting in the cricket of the fifties is this : no difference seems to have been recognised between what may be called first-class and second- class matches. I remarked earlier on that there was not as much cricket played then as now— I meant first-class cricket. There was no dearth ofmatches, and they were generally eleven a-side ; the All England Eleven did not begin its career until 1846. But “ given men” appear in nearly all second-class matches—-and they were often the very best men either in batting or bowling or both, so that after all there is nothing anomalous in bracketing all matches and estimating averages and analyses without invidious distinction. It is curious to note how uniformly matches were played with “ given men 1” even the M.C.C. and the Counties had recourse to them, only, however, when the latter met England. Perhaps in the case ofthe M.C.C.the players engagedmay have been “ Ground Men,” though this is open to doubt. But how oddly this reads: M.C.C.with Caldecourt v. Harrow School, M.C.C. with Dean and Hillyer v. Clapton! Berkshire with Lillywhite, Dorrinton and Martingell v. Bucks with Hillyer, Dean and Pilch. Alfred Mynn was the handy man of those times, and distributed his favours with refreshing impartiality, and Pilch, Hillyer, and others followed suit. Private clubs were strong, some of them survive to our day. Clapton is given above. Then we come across Islington Albion, Blackheath and St. John’s Wood (now Hampstead), Audley End, Petworth, Montpelier, Beverley, Leeds Park, etc, The minor counties are also in evidence, witness Suffolk, Shropshire, Worcester­ shire, Monmouthshire, Leicestershire, Berks, Bucks, Herts, and Huntingdon­ shire.