Cricket 1893

290 CEICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. JULY 20, 1893 REMINISCENCES OF CRICKET. B y RICHARD DAFT. S amuel R edgate . When round-arm bowling was first intro­ duced, Nyren, of the famous old Hambledon Cricket Club, denounced it in the strongest terms. In his interesting book on Cricket he devotes a whole chapter to the subject under the following heading, “ Protest against the modern innovation of throwing instead of bowling the balls.” First he tells us that before taking leave of his readers he wishes to place on record his opinion respecting this new style of bowling (or throwing, as he puts it as he goes on), and that as he himself has retired from the field some years since, hig motive for offering the following observations can arise solely from a wish to preclude the possibility that his favourite amusement, while it changes in feature, should deteriorate in character. He conceives that all the fine kind of hitting which he has recorded in his book must in a very great degree cease “ if the modern innovation of ‘ throwing * be not discontinued.” One of Nyren’ s greatest objections to the new system is, he says, that it reduces the strikers too much to an equality, “ since the indifferent batsman possesses as fair a chance of success as the most refined players, and the reason is obvious, because from the random manner of delivering the ball, it is impossible for the fine batsman to have time for that finesse and delicate management which so distinguished the elegant manoeuvering of the chief players, who occupied the field in the days of underhand bowling ten or a dozen years before the new style was countenanced.” He tells us that he freely confesses that he can never hope to witness such exquisite finish as distinguished the play of old Small and Aylward, the two Walkers and Beldham, or of Lord Frederick Beauclerc. The last named, the old author believes, retired as soon as the “ present system ” was tolerated. I myself confess to feeling the greatest sympathy with Old Nyren on this question; although we now see that he was wrong in his predictions. But I sympathise with him by putting myself in his place. What a change it must have seemed to the old hero of so many cricket matches, to see the old under­ hand bowling with all its trickiness and lodges, its in niceies of curve, pitch, and spin superseded by a harum - scarum kind of bowling, which appeared to him to be nothing less than throwing pure and simple. No doubt the first of these new bowlers would go in for pace, and pace only, and having to re­ strict the height of the hand and arm when delivering to the level of the shoulder they would not, and could not at that time have bowled many balls in the middle stump. In the early part of his interesting book, Nyren informs us that the bowlers always selected their own wicketB to suit their bowl­ ing. If this was the custom when round-arm bowling-first was allowed, we can well imagine what lovely things in the way of wickets would be prepared by these gentlemen. Then, too, no doubt the batsmen would play funky (and no wonder), and would be com ­ pelled to slog more than under the old rules; accidents would more frequently happen; the tall hats be more frequently falling off; and, indeed, I think we may safely say that round-arm bowling was the principal factor in doing away with this article of apparel in the cricket field, although it took sometime to do so. The long stop would now have ten times more work to do than formerly. In fact he became the chief man of the eleven, and even I can recollect when a boy that in choosing a team the first man to elect was the one to take this position. The wicket-keeper's hands would be terribly knocked about, and point would have to stand considerably further from the batsman than formerly or would be in danger of getting knocked over with the ball. To an old veteran like Nyren, crieket played under these conditions would seem as different from the old regime as billiards is from skittles. Old players, no doubt, would be more ready to retire than they would otherwise have done, especially if they were at all inclined to corpulency. Well might Nyren decry this state of things, who of us cricketers would not had we been in his place ? But after a whil) things began to improve. The new bowlers by practice obtained greater commard over the ball, some improvement was made, no doubt, as regards the wickets, and the batsmen would discover that the new bowling could be played by a system as well as the old. It was urged it appears at the time, in defence of round arm bowling, that it tended to shorten the innings, but old Nyren declared that if it were only the curtailment of the game that was desired, why not have multiplied the difficulties in other directions, such as by giving more room for the display of skill in the batter, or why not have four stumps instead of three, and increase the length of the bails by a couple of inches. He then declares that the Mary- lebone Club have the power to order these changes to ba made, and hopes they will consider his proposal, “ seeing that the fair character of the game is at stake,” and he feels confident that if the present system of bowling or “ throwing ” is continued “ the elegant and scientific game of cricket will decline into a mere exhibition of coarse horse play.” Nyren concludes this chapter in his book by assuring his readers that be does not speak from prejudice as one educated in the old school, but that he can use his eyes and can compare notes and points in the two styles of playing ; and declares that none of the players who had risen under the new system could compare for a moment with the great players of his own time. I must now introduce to the readers one of the first and the greatest round arm bowler of ancient time. In a match played in 1829 between Nottingham and Leicester we find on the side of the former the name of Samuel Redgate. This man afterwards rose to the position of the finest bowler in England. In build he was a perfect model of a cricketer. Standing 6ft. 8£iu. high and weighing nearly twelve stone. He is described in an old book which I have nov before me as the “ first bowler England has produced. Although he possessed great pace he combined with it great accuracy, he caused a spin upon the ball while in the air, giving it ‘at one time increased, and at another decreased speed. He was a very difficult bowler to judge, and when he suddenly lessened the pace of the ball, giving it the curl above mentioned, was most fatal. He was likewise a model in regard to fairness in his delivery.” The above descrip­ tion if accurate, as I for one am convinced it is, gives the lie to those people who now-a days are good enough to tell us that the old bowlers bowled like machines aud never used their heads. The account of Redgate I have quoted above v as not written recently but as far back as 1864, or earlier perhaps even than then. It certainly describes a kind of bowling which would be first rate in any age. From what I have heard I believe there have been few, if any, better bowlers than Samuel Redgate, and like old Nyren, I can speak without prejudice, for he was not a contemporary of mine. I cannot remember ever seeing him bowl. I well, how­ ever, remember once seeing him brought on to the ground in his latter days in a bath chair to see a match. They had the highest opinien of his bowling at Lord’s, and I often heard old members of the M.C.C. declare that there never had been so good a bowler up at Lord’s. This was what was said when such men as Willsher and Tarrant were in their prime. Redgate was born in 1810 at Arnold, Notts, (the home of the Oscrofts) and died in 1851. Unfortunately, as Mr. Pycroft tells us, his reign was a short one. His health was com­ pletely broken before he reached middle age. He once performed a great feat when playing for England v. Kent, when he bowled the three greatest batsmen of England—Pilch, Nyren, and Stearman—in one over. Pilch’s, I believe, was the first wicket he took,with his second ball, having, however, almost grazed his off stump with his first. This was indeed a great feat and worthy to be remembered. Redgate was remarkably neat in his appear­ ance, always playing in nankeen breeches and white silk stockings. His delivery was peculiarly graceful and easy. One could wish that we had such a bowler as he in Notting­ hamshire to-day. HORNSEY RISE v. BE AU MONT.—Played at Crouch End on Ju’y 8. E ornsey R ise . J. G. Davies, c and b Reeves J. Burke, not out Extras ........... J. B. Davies, b Cuver W . Burke, retired h u r t ..........................£9 A. Oxley, b Jones ... G G. Childs, not o u t ... 20 T o t a l........... Innings declared closed. B eaumont . Whitaker, n otou t ... 10 i McLure, not out Sanderson, c Childs, I Extras ........... b M alins.................. 14 Wallace, b J. B. ITotal Davies ................... 5 • ... 15 ... 7 ...12 37 RICHMOND v. SUTTON.—Played at Richm ond on July 1. R ichmond . Dr. Elliott, b Paice 11 J. F . Wood, b Paice 63 C. Netbleton, not out 1 BcO. lb l,w 2, nb 1 84 Total ...262 G. W . Beldam c Paice, b Morley ... £9 A. S. Bull, not oub ...10 J. W . Trum ble. lbw, b Paice ................... 2 E. A. Bu9h, c Hunt, b Cotton ................... 0 E.P. Jumes, c Cotton, b Paice .................. 12 W. Furze, E .D . C. Cecil and P. T. W rigley did not bat. Im in g s declared closed. S utton . E. B. Cotton, c Nett’c- G. W. Hunt, not out 8 ton, b Trum ble ... 19 T. R . Hallam c Bush, b Trumble ........... 0 E. Morley, c Beldam, b Elliott....................15 A. H3s!op, b E lliott 6 S.Chambers,b E lliott 0 F. Abrahams, c Bel­ dam, b Trumble .. 8 E. \Vinan8, c Elliott, b Truim ie ........... 0 L. J. Paice, c and b E liott ................... C. E. Haines, c Cecil, b Elliott ... W . D alzell,c Elliott, b Trum ble ........... B 3, lb 2 ........... Total ... 65 LONDON AND COUNTY BANK v. UNION BANK.—Played at Tufnell Park, cn July 13 and 14. L. & C. B. C. E . Blomfield, c Robertson, b Lan- gridge ................... 0 W . R. Pattinson, not out .......................... 58 F. H. 1 hirlwall, c Beckett, b Rot ert- son ........... ........... 3 W . Bentley, b Robert son .......................... 8 G. F. Wells, c Robert­ son, b Bruff ...........25 A. Jackson, b Chris- tiso n .......................... 10 S. H. Sargant, b L loyd ................... 7 G. P. Blizard, b Christison ...........£8 F. J. Finlinson, b Christison ........... 0 H. W. Walrond, not out ........................... 1 B 1, nb 1 ........... v T o ta l...........137 T. Bifchop did not bat. Innings declared closed. U nion B ank . A. G. Lloyd, c Jack­ son, b Bargant ... 19 R. Beckett, b Blizard 9 S. T. Christiaon, c Bishop, b Sargant 0 H. E.Rootrts, b B liz­ ard .......................... 4 H. Westoby, b Bliz­ ard............................. 0 J. H. Warren, not out .......................... 1 S. G. Bruff, not out 8 B 2 nb 3 ........... 5 Total ... 46 D. Langridge, P. Turner, and G. C. Robertson did not tat. LONDON R IF L E BRIGADE v. WOODFORD WELLS (?).—Played at W oodford W ells on July 15. L R B . Pte. F. Chamberlain, Pte. P. L. Lancaster, b bunt ................... 7 Pte. A. L. Ryder, b V ign e.......................... 4 Pte. L. A. Lancaster, b V ig n e... ................... 0 Pte.F. M. Gill, cB ond, b Hunt ................... 46 Ite. F. H. W hittow, c Bond, b H u n t........... 8 Corp. L. Canning, ft V igne..........................43 ibw, b Kemsley Pte. W. H. Farrell, run o u t ...................21 Pte. R. O. Jone3, not out ..............................17 Pte. W . P. Coffin, b Hunt .................... O Pte. W . C, Tacey, c and b Kemsley ... 5 B 18, lb 5 ..............23 F. C. B. Hunt, c Far­ rell, b Canning ... 6 T. A. Morris, c Tacey, b Canning.................. 8 E. Coud, c Canning, b Chamberlain ........... 6 J. Fox, c W hittow, b P. L. Lancaster ... 18 Total W oodford W ells . ...18 A. H. Tozer, not out 19 H. G. Morris, c Can­ ning, b P. L. Lancaster ........... 5 A. Vigne, not out ... 1 B 5, lb 2 ........... 7 Total ... 70 C. Glanfield, W. Kemaley, W. T. TowlC., enJap. Mead did not bat.