Cricket 1893

FEB, 23, 1893 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OP THE GAME. 19 What of the other Counties ? Yorkshire and Middlesex don’t figure as Counties, though there was abundance of good cricket in them then. In those days Sheffield bulks big, and Sheffield meant Yorkshire, just as Manchester and Liverpool between them fairly represented Lancashire. Gloucestershire and Somersetshire are also wanting, although there was [a decent Gloucester City Club. Surrey, as already seen, was revived in 1845, and at once made a mark. In 1846, Kent, then at their best, were met and beaten by 10 wickets, “ though Kent had all the talents.” The return match was drawn. In the same year Surrey lost two matches with the M.C.C. Cambridgeshire were contented with their Town Club, but Nottinghamshire were busy. Thus, in 1843, they won and lost to Sheffield, beat Hampshire twice, won and lost to M.C.C., and beat Sussex in a single innings. In 1844, matters were very quiet with the lace county. But in 1845 they woke up, and tackled Kent twice, winning and losing one match. George Parr made his first appearance in this return match. They also beat Leicestershire twice, and by the help of 14 men gained a splendid victory over All England. But the chief counties then were Sussex and Kent, especially the latter. These were verily the palmy days for the Southern counties; would these “ good old times ” would return. Kent were all-conquering. “ And with five such mighty giants, ’twas but natural to win, As Felix, Wenman, Hillyer, Fuller Pilch, and Alfred Mynn.” In each year Kent faced England, Sussex did in 1843 and 1846, but the “ lion of Kent,” Alfred Mynn, helped them both times. Kent relied on her own sons, and with capital results. Thus in the four years Kent and Sussex met eight times, Kent winning 4, Sussex 4 ; England eight times also, Kent winning 4, England 4. M.C.C. was not on the Kentish programme then, but on that of Sussex, though on each occasion—eight in all—M.C.C. borrowed the services of either Wenman, Mynn, or Pilch from Kent, and even then succeeded in winning only three matches, whilst they lost five. M.C.C. v. the Northern Counties was a regular fixture, two matches being played each year. It was virtually a North v. South contest. Whilst M.C.C. v. Midland Counties appears more than once. To sum up, there is very much profit­ able reading in these earliest annuals. We grumble now-a-days at any delay in the publication of “ Lillywhite ” and “ Wisden.” “ Denison’s Companion” seems to have come out about May, though, owing to an accident—the MS. having been lent to a friend who was involved in the “ Railway Mania”—that of 1846 did not appear before July. In every issue the following note appears, signed “ W. D .” ; it is scarcely an adver­ tisement from the position it occupies, and from the fact that Denison himself is responsible for it. At this distance it is worth reproducing:— “ The change which has come to pass in the bowling, and the severe punishment to which the batsman has of late years been in consequence liable, have given rise to various inven­ tions for the protection of tbe hands and legs ; of these the best that have come under my notice are the Tubular Rubber Gloves, of which Robert Dark, of “ Lord's,” is the inventor and manufac­ turer, and the Cork and India Rubber Guards for the legs; without these articles the cricketer at the present day is incomplete. “ W.D.” Had “ W .D .” some solatium for this generous “ puff?” P.S.—To save my own knuckles, I humbly confess one or two faults in my last “ Notch.” 1. Highest innings against Notts was 483 by Gloucestershire in 1881. This will require certain alterations in the facts to note ” which followed. 2. W. E. Roller scored 204 in 1885 ; so his name must be introduced into middle paragraph under Table No. 5. And in the next paragraph “ Sussex ” should be erased, inasmuch as F. M. Lucas’ name appears among the “ two- hundred ” scorers. There may be other blemishes in the “ Notch ” ; these I have myself discovered. (With apologies to W.G., Surrey, and Sussex). EMERITI CLUB. May 20—v. Henley C.C. May 23—v. Baylis House May 27—v. Caterham C.C. June 3— y . Chiswick C.C. June 10— y . Chelm sford C.C. June 17—v. Charlton Park C.C. June 20—v. St. Charles College June 24—v. Ham pton W ick C.C. June 29—v. Beaumont College July 1—v. Oatlands Park C.C. July 6—v. St. Edmunds College July 8—v. Brentwood C.C. July 14, 15—v. Littlehampton C.C. July 22—H om e Park C.C. T he Clapton Club holds a subscription dance at the Amherst Club, Amherst Road, Hackney, on Saturday, March 11. F. G u tterid g e , of the Sussex eleven, was married recently to Miss Ada Alice Charles- worth, of Old Basford, Nottingham. T he new Secretary of the South West Ham Club is Mr. Frederick C. Sturton. All com­ munications should be addressed to him, at 59, Balaam Street, Plaistow, London, E. T he following bowlers have been engaged for the ensuing season at the University ground at Cambridge: W . Lockwood, J. Sharpe, G. Watts, T. Hayward, and T. Richardson (Surrey), H. Carpenter, W . Mead, and H. Pickett (Essex), A. Millward (Wor­ cestershire), J. Hansell and J. Tolman (Norfolk), H. Smith (Kent), J. E. West and A. Bowler (Middlesex), G. Davidson, T. Selby, and J. O’ Connor (Derbyshire), G. Hurry, H. Edwards, and H. Cream (Cambridgeshire). T he S eventh A ustralian T eam in E ngland a budget of biographical sketches. By Clarence P. M oody. W ith a photographic group of the team. Price 6d. W right & Co., 41, St. Andrew’s H ill, E.C, THE AUSTRALIANS IN ENGLAND. A CHAPTER OF CRICKET H ISTORY By J. N. P entelow . V.— T he T eam of 1886. There was one respect in which the Fifth Australian Team compared favourably with its predecessors. Instead of being, as was each of them, purely a private speculation, it was organized and backed up by the Melbourne Club—a verymuch more satisfactory arrange­ ment. But, with regard to the actual play, it may as well be confessed that the traditions of Australian cricket suffered woefully at the hands of the Melbourne Club Team. It was not that they lost many matches—they were only defeated eight times out of thirty-nine, while the excellent combination which pre­ ceded them sustained seven defeats out of thirty-two—it was the number of drawn games that spoiled the record of the tour. It must be conceded that the team was especially unlucky in the matter of accidents to its members, Spofforth and Bonnor, two of the most useful men on the side, being kept out of matches from which they could ill be spared. But, allowing for this, and for the bad weather in the early part of the tour, it is evident that bad fielding and weak bowling must have had something to do with the numerous big scores that were run up against the team ; and it must also be admitted that the team did not show that capacity for playing a plucky uphill game that had distinguished its precursors. Previously to 1386, it had been said, and with truth, that the Australians were never so formidable as against a thoroughly strong team, that they never played so well as when playing an uphill game. If anyone had said this of the Melbourne Club team he would scarcely have avoided some suspicion of sarcasm. The members of the combination were G* Giffen and A. H. Jarvis, of South Australia; E, Evans, F. R . Spofforth, S. P. Jones and T. W. Garrett,of New South Wales; and H. J. H. Scott, G. J. Bonnor, G. E. Palmer, J. M. Blackham, W. Bruce, J. W. Trumble and J. M‘Ilwraith, of Victoria. The team was heralded with agreat flourish of trumpets ; but when it was known in England that neither Murdoch nor Massie, M‘Donnell nor Bannerman, Horan nor Boyle was coming, tbe opinion that those ardent admirers of the Melbourne Club Team who prophesied for it a record more brilliant than that of any of the combinations which pre­ ceded it were somewhat out began rapidly to gain ground. How well-founded that opinion was the sequel will show. The men came over in the Austral , and had some days’ practice at Chiswick Park before entering on their match-list. Major Wardill was the manager; and, in Murdoch’s absence, Scott was made captain. In that capacity he undoubtedly did his best, and a worse leader might easily have been chosen ; but he had not Murdoch’s tact, judgment, and experience, and the cares of his office told upon him so much that his own play undoubtedly suffered by it. Like the team of 1884, they began with a match against Lord Sheffield’s eleven at Sheffield Park. There the resemblance ended however. The 1884 team had won easily ; their successors had to put up with a decisive beating by eight wickets, in spite of the fact that Garrett’ s bowling had six wickets for only 22 runs in the first innings of the English eleven. A match of few runs against Notts, in which the highest score was Garrett’s 30, then resulted, after a wasted first day on account of rain, in a fairly even draw, Following this another defeat was received, this time from Surrey, by three wickets. Lohmann, who has go often proved a thorn in the side of the Australians since, appeared for