Cricket 1893

826 CRICKET: A WEEKLY BECOBD OE THE GAME. AUG. 10, 1893 As this is the day of cheap literature, it might be well for the publisher to consider the desirability of a shilling issue of the “ Cricket Field,” though my sympathies are entirely with Mr. Ruskin in his antipathy to anything cheap. And here :I take the opportunity of thanking two unknown readers, who, through a printer’s error in my references to Nyren’s Guide a fortnight ago, have most kindly offered to make me a present of the first edition of the same. I possess it already; what I meant to say was not that I had eight editions of Nyren, with the exception of the first, but that with the exception of the edition princeps all the various editions were bound alike, in green embossed cloth. At certain cricket sports the other day one old stock item was missing, viz., throwing the cricket ball. Time was when it always had a plaoe on the sports* programme. I am told it is almost universally overthrown. W hy is this? Can’t men throw to-day? Have boundaries to a large extent made throwing obsolete ? If so, they have much to answer for. One recalls some fine throwers ; the hardest, I should say, was W. H. Game, of Oxford and Surrey fame : he used to startle even Pooley at times. Bonnor had a won­ derful throw, keeping the ball very low, but at a great paoe, reaching wicket on an extra­ ordinary long bound. It used to be very funny to see Oscroft at leg, he bowled the ball just as old Bill Lillywhite did: in the latter case the muscles of arm and shoulder had become so adapted to bowling that he could not throw. I have noticed, as in the case of poor Fred. Grace, that after years of out-fielaing and consequent hard throwing, many a fielder in that position varied the throw with a jerk. The week’s cricket has been brimful of incident, and on Monday next we enter on the penultimate stage of County Com­ petition. Let’s hope this ugly crack in the weather will soon dose up. The Australians have made history with their marvellous score (843) at Portsmouth. Of course their opponents were short of bowlers, and the bowlers playing were an indifferent lot. Yes, Yes—but make whatever deduction you like, and there still remains enough to make us wonder and applaud. Bad oowlers often have the knack of getting good wickets. W hy even against young schoolboys such a score would be wonderfully great. The field­ ing doesn’t seem to have been much at fault. I am afraid, had I been playing, I should have been too lame to turn up after lunch on the second day. An old friend, and one of the soundest judges of the game, has taken excep­ tion to my pronouncement on the present Australian band as the strongest in batting we have ever seen. He has gone to the trouble o f taking man by man and measuring his bat­ ting prowess with that of the individual mem­ bers of the 1882 and 1884 team3, with the result that he gives the palm in batting to either of the latter. And he makes out a thoroughly strong case. But opinions differ. I trust, in view of their tremendous batting o f late, that we shall put our full bowling strength into the field on Monday next; Briggs certainly must play this time ; it is a fact that if there has been any weakness in Australian batting, left-hand bowling has brought it into prominence. Touching this record soore, another friend has just sent me a complete list of every innings over 700 scored in any match at home or abroad. There have been eighteen of them, or if we include a somewhat apocryphal innings of 1250 played by Ulster v. Marquis at Sydney in 1879, nine­ teen such innings. Five have passed into the ni -th hundred—here they are 920 Orleans Club v. Rickling Green in 1882 853 Harrismith v. Newcastle (Cape Colony) in 1890 843 Australians v. Oxford aDd Cambridge in 1893 813 Hampstead v. Stoics in 1*86 806 M elb ou rre v. E ssendon in 1892 8)3 Non-smokers v. Smokers in 1887 This last is always reckoned first-class on account of the men taking part in it, but it was only a scratch game got up at the close of the Englishmen’ s tour in Australia, and although this score (803) was made against sach bowlers as Lohmann and Briggs, Palmer and Boyle, it is hard to believe they regarded it as a serious affair, and so put out all their resources. It’s a pity, in order to the symmetry of this latest score, that every bats­ man did not reach double figures; to the best of my knowledge that has happened only twice in first-class oricket, viz., when Oxford scored 613 v. Middlesex in 1876, and by Lord Londesborough’s eleven (558) v. Australia in 1886. It is worthy of remark that W . Bruce figured boldly in both these innings of 800, scoring 131 for the Non-smokers in 1887, and 191 in the match of this week. Glostershire will take leave of the North with a sigh of relief. Everything has been against them, even the toss and the weather. But that will scarcely atone for all their shortcomings. In six innings their largest effort was 106, and no batsman throughout the tour scored 50 runs in one hands. I hope the luck will change both for them and Surrey to-day. Might it not be well for Glostershire to naturalise one or two good pros, from other counties, if they can be had, and then exercise patience towards them? They must do something before long. Two defeats in a week, and in each case by a single innings, constitute a dismal sequel to the splendid successes which in 1873, 1876, and 1877 landed the Western county at the head of the poll. Their matches against Notts and Lancashire had several features in common : pass by the efforts of Glostershire bothwith bat and ball. A century scorer turned up in both matches in the persons of the Notts captain and the ex-Derbyshire-Torkshire professional. A. J. Dixon (105) splendidly backed up his 139 against Kent only the week before. Strange that he should repeat this feat within so short a period, seeing that he had only once before—v. Lancashire in 1890— been equal to it. And Gunn ^50), as against Kent, when their partnership yielded 175, here helped his skipper to add 101 to the tally. No county can show such batting part­ nerships as Notts—two over 300, six over 200, and 47 over 100, not to mention a few that were not chronicled at the time. Attewell proved that he only wanted a favourable wicket to do as well as ever—eleven for 83, while Shacklock (eight for 50) did quite his share on the result. Lancashire have had a great week, and with four points to the good are not going to let Yorkshire have it all their own way. Should they prove victorious to day (and my tip is “ Lancashire ” ) they may stand where they did in 1881, 1882 and 1889. It is delightful to see them led to viotory by their old captain, who, though he has played ever since 1867, has a lot of good cricket still left. A nine wickets defeat of Surrey was certainly no surprise to followers of form. A. N. (3S and 17), and Albert Ward as usual (39 and 34 not out), were both conspicuous. But Briggs was the hero of the match, and indeed of the week. An innings of 112 made in 110 minutes, followed by 11 wickets for 10 runs apiece, stamp him as still A 1 among tue County cracks. Surrey are not likely to over­ look his claims to represent England at the Pval. Briggs has always had the knack of bringing off a brilliant double, witness the match against Sussex in 1890, where he scored 127 (notout) and took 10 wickets for 41. On the side of Surrey Walter Read (18 and 61) and Lockwood (10 and 51 not out) did well enough to save their county the indignity of a com plete upset. It surprises me that the Surrey stumper (Wood) gets so few runs now-a-days, at one time he was generally good for a respectable innings; bad health may be the cause. Once again—this time at home— Briggs was in evidence, not so much with the bat (34) as with the ball. Glostershire found his left hand all too cunning, witness 13 wickets (8 in tho first hands) for 76 runs. But Sugg (127) was Lancashire’ s trump card, and helped himself very liberally to the Glouces­ tershire bowling. Sugg travels slowly enough at times, but on certain wickets he is as useful andbrilliant as Bates and McDonnell used to be. Wanted a man to rise superior to weather and wicket, and you can’ t find a better. Five years ago he represented England both at the Oval and at Manchester, but he can scarcely aspire bo high this year. And what of Yorkshire’s runaway matoh with Kent ? It must be classed among the “ big ” County’s finest efforts to dismiss the Hopmen for 77 and 132, and find themselves with 11 runs on the right side after only one innings’ batting. Brown (81) and Wainwright (51) certainly acquited themselves nobly on a wicket dead against run-getting. F. S. Jack­ son has up to date failed to repeat his double- barrelled sucoess against Notts, and it looks as if his long absence from first-class cricket had robbed Ernest Smith of muoh of his old skill both with bat and ball. Were Ulyett and his Lordship more reliable, the old Oxonian might at this junoture prove a risky experiment. It is deserving of a line all to itself that in the midst of so many failures the veteran of the Kentish eleven—George Hearne (a regular for now 19 seasons) should have done so gallantly—twice not out in his aggregate of 81 runs. These old ’ uns have a way of breaking out in a fresh spot just when everybody thinks they were qualifying for the shelf. What makes Yorkshire’s victory the more creditable is that they lost the toss—a very big item indeed in this present dirty weather. Kent rallied when they faced Surrey at the Oval, where the crack bowler of both counties was having a rest from some cause or other. It was a pity this match could not be played out. The scores were even enough—276 and 282. For Kent, Alec Hearne (74), L. Fleming (59), and Walter Wright (60) were the handy men. Is Wright coming back to form ? Just ten years ago he notched 127 (not out) against Glostershire ; but then he was a Notts man. Did he leave some of his genius in the county of his birth ? Surrey’s best men were Walter Read (84), Shuter (41 not out), and young Hayward (112). A five hours affair this last, slow but sure then, so much the better. That good old customer, patience, ought to be well looked after by all our youngsters. Tout vient a qui sait attendre, was the great Napoleon’s maxim. 1 spoke of the Surrey colt only last week, and in terms of such confident antici­ pation that I shall begin to look upon myself as a tipster worth trusting. Just at the moment I can recall only two other batsmen who, in their first season, have registered an innings of three figures—A. L. MaoLaren and Marlow. This Bank Holiday fight in London should be worth seeing; anyhow, I am just off by the 1.45 a.m. train on the same day. I suppose Briggs got £2 for his 112 against Surrey. What about his great bowling in the same match ? Did that go unrewarded ? It ought not. For years I have agitated for a similar prize in both departments of the game. No wonder we are all so much more eager to bat than to bowl. As W, L. Murdooh remarks in his recent book, “ it is the ex­ ception to hear anyone say, I am going out to have a bowl; it is always, I am going out to have a knook.” But give talent- money for bowling a3 well. It would be no harder to fix a standard here than it was in batting. The conditions of the wicket may be ignored in both cases. Give jfil, say, for six wickets in either innings at the cost of 42 runs, £2 for eight wickets at a cost of 25, and nothing short of a note for all the wickets in an innings. Bowling is certainly quite as useful in winning a match as batting. I saw a Leeds olub play on Satur­ day. All the men (save one) are pros., but none are paid. Their rule is to give 7s. 6d. for every innings of 35, but not a red cont for bowling. N.B.—The minor counties—Essex, Derby­ shire, and Hampshire—are minor no longer. For proof, see the matches they played at the end of last week against Australia, Yorkshire, and Sussex. Only one was played out. Had they all been, it i3 next to certain all the second-raters would have taken the shine out of their big opponents. Storer was foolish enough to soore a century, for it doesn’t count. He should have waited till he represented M.C.C. against the very same Yorkshire bowling. So should Mead with his 17 wickets against Australia. This is an idiotic distinc­ tion which makes one almost break a com ­ mandment. Another definition from Webster’s dic­ tionary : “ Wicket is a sort of little gate used in the game of cricket.” Original, very 1