Cricket 1893

862 CBICKETs A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME, AUG. 24, 1893 CRICKET NOTCHES. B y t h e R e v . R. S. H o lm e s . I am requested to settle a dispute between a Lancastrian and Surrevite which arose after the Lancashire v. Yorkshire match at Old Trafford on Bank Holiday : “ Which are the beet grounds as regards quality of turf, light, and quick recovery from rain ? ” If the ques­ tion had been as to the worst county ground or grounds, the answer had been easy, and one need not have travelled far out of Yorkshire for it. I am tempted to say of grounds what a dear old friend of mine always says of whiskies, “ There is no such thing as bad whisky, all whiskies are good, though some are better than others.” I am a stranger to the Taunton ground and to the new County ground at Bristol, and am not certain of having visited the many enclosures on which Kent matches are played. It may be of in­ terest to repeat the opinion of Turner, the Australian, given to me some six weeks ago: “ The best grounds I have seen in England are at Bradford and Brighton.” Of course, a batsman’ s idea of a good wicket will differ widely from a bowler’s. When Yorkshire met Lancashire at Bradford in 1887, 1,210 runs were scored for the loss of only 28 wickets, and A. N. Hornby, the best of good fellows, was so delighted with the wicket that he gave the ground-keeper a sovereign after the match. Did ever the captain of a visiting team display similar generosity ? On the old Brighton ground whioh was” on the sea-front, the light was often very bothering at first, especially if the wind were from the sea. Having visited their new ground only three times I cannot say whether it is sometimes overspread by a filmy haze of this sort, to which W.G. has directed attention in describing the variation in his scores in one and the same match on that ground, Only last week Lord Hawke, sitting just behind me, was talking to Ernest Smith on this very matter, curiously enough, and he cited Old Trafford, Bradford, Trent Bridge, the Oval, Lord’ s, Brighton, Taunton, and Bristol, as beiog all of them very good. Certainly the light at Trent Bridge is wonder­ fully clear, as you might expect in so smoke­ less a town as Nottingham, and the turf there cannot be beaten. Lord’s this year has been at its best, though like the Oval there may be too many buildings on the ground, or just outside it, to make it a perfect ground as regards light; being a clayey soil, it does not recover as quickly after rain as the Oval or Old Trafford, which are sandy soils. The Oval must be quickly coming back to its old, normal condition when it used to enjoy the reputation of being tbe finest scoring ground in England, judging by such aggregates as 1,001 v. Sussex, 944 v. Australians, made in one week, and by last Monday’s great match ; but the high terraces are a great drawback to batsmen. Old Trafford, is a model ground ; there is nothing to obstruct the batsman’ s view, and it’s far enough out of Manchester to escape factory smoke. But there, chacun d son gout ; there can be no consensus of opinion on so wide a topic. Before I pass on, may I request correspondents to write legibly; one gentle­ man (anonymous, he hails from Hampstead evidently from the post mark) occasionally favours me with a post-card which I cannot possibly read. Life is not long enough to bother to decipher difficult or faulty penman­ ship. I have seen no notice of the death of a once- famous cricketer, W. P. Lockhart of Liverpool, who was at one time the best amateur stumper in the North of England, and who in that capacity appeared for the Gentlemen v. the Players at the Oval in 1859. The claims of business kept him out of first-class crioket, but for many years he was a prominent cricketer in the old Birkenhead Park Club. A fine, well-built man, some six feet high, born in the same year as Richard Daft, he ought to have continued playing right up to the end. But from some cause or other he dropped out of active cricket very early on, and, what is stranger, seemed to lose all interest in the game, seldom or never witness­ ing a gam e; in this respect, he closely resembled old George Parr in his post-cricket days. W. P. Lockhart had, in addition to business, made himself famous in Liverpool religious circles as a preacher of some note, and week by week ministered (without emolu­ ment) to a large congregation that had built for him the “ Toxteth Tabernacle.” I re­ member saying to him jocularly one day that I was grieved he had given up cricket, adding, “ there are thousands who can preach as well as you, and perhaps a deal better, but there are only a very few indeed who could give you a start at stumping.” Bequiescat in pace. “ Obstructing the field.” Say, batsman hits ball straight up, and that, in order to give stumper a chance of catching it, batsman must shift his position; would he be “ out ” if he did not ? Or say, batsman hits a catch to exact spot where his partner is standing, and which, if he moved, bowler could easily take ; ought he to move, and what if he did not ? I remember a case in point: match, Gentle­ men v Players, at “ Princes,” in 1874, the two Grace’ s batting ; G. F. hit a ball straight to W. G., who did not stir ; Umpire said “ not out.” Players, spectators, and press indignant, complained that umpire was too young for such a match and was afraid to give a decision adverse to the amateurs, espe­ cially W.G. Lillywhite appealed to the other umpire, a young man too, who also said “ not o u t ;” yet Wisden adds that “ W.G. was palpably in the way.” But why should a batsman stir? In doing so, he might very easily get out of the crease and so put his own wicket in danger. Obstruction wants defining in the Laws. By-the-bye, I shall be greatly obliged for any suggestions, corrections, addi­ tions, etc , in view of the article I purpose writing on the Laws, though I do not pledge myself to adopt anybody’s hints; they shall, however, receive very serious attention, and, where deemed important enough, shall be recorded, no matter whether I endorse them or not. The match of last week was an unqualified success from start to finish; everything came off just as one hoped. Perfect weather (though a trifle too hot), perfect wicket, monster crowds, and, above all, a glorious triumph for the Old Country. Much as I admire the cricketing genius of our Colonial guests, yet whenever England has to be faced, I confess I do not want to see Australia exceed itself; one is quite too jealous for the reputation of atherland to entertain the contrary opinion or wish. Maurice Bead’s benefit too—the very first, to my knowledge, Surrey have ever granted to a cricketer whilst still actively pursuing the game; let’s hope it will con­ stitute a precedent down South, for it is only too sadly true of all sport that out of sight means out of mind. I wonder if a “ level thousand ” would have tempted Read to forego his pecuniary interest in the matoh before it was played, especially as Southern benefits have never yielded anything like this amount. But the days for speculating in cricket matches are over. When Surrey went to Nottingham (I am not quite certain of the match, but I have a notion it was their first meeting at Trent Bridge in 1852), the Notts executive funked the responsibility. George Parr boldly took it upon himself, gave them £100 (or was it £150 ?) for the gate, and then cleared about the same amount from the match. I have never heard that the experiment was repeated. Read de­ served all he got from his match. When down at the Oval I was simply amazed at the wonderful enthusiasm his benefit was exciting, subscription lists were in several responsible hands, and everybody seemed determined to give him a real bumper. Surrey’ s £50, in ad­ dition to such a match,was a splendid surprise. M.C.C.’s £20 was very suggestive. Now, said I to myself, why all this enthusiasm ? Read is certainly not the greatest cricketer Surrey have boasted; he has always been a great sportsman as well as a most capital bat and field. The man himself explains a ll: refined alike in appearance, manner and speech, he enjoys universal respect, and just because he respects himself. The public mostly takes a man at the value he sets on himself; the “ elbow-lifting” gang is not even respeoted by those who have encouraged them in this fatal habit. I have a suggestion to make, it comes too late in Read’s case. Why not have a large box fixed in a conspicuous place at all oenefit matches ? No one likes to give a “ sub.” of less than ten shillings, but there are hun­ dreds who would cheerfully drop in their half- dollar or crown into a box, if they had a chance of doing so. I purpose putting Peel u to this in view of his match next year. The match itself needs no description, for every cricketer has followed it with eager in­ terest. The final choice left little room for ad­ verse criticism, though it was running a big risk to take the field against such an array of batsmen with only three bowlers. Considering the very useful work he has been d oiD g of late, Surrey would have been guilty of no undue partiality had Brockwell been given the eleventh place, though it was quite in the fitness of things that Walter Read should lend a hand to his old county namesake. Yorkshire were certainly guilty of a breach of confidence in not letting Wainwright off, and Middlesex were justified in a trifling soreness felt by their conduct. They dared not refuse permission to F. S. Jackson, amateurs take “ French leave ” if necessary: in the case of a pro , discharged. Wainwright was surprised to hear from me that he had been chosen, his Committee not having mentioned the matter to him. It is strange, too, that J. T. Hearne’s name has scarcely been heard at all in this connection! He has taken many more wickets than any other bowler this year, and only last week, in spite of being worked to death, he brought off a double of which any man might reasonably be proud. In the third match, at Manchester this week, I hope the Australians will win the toss, though even with this advantage they can scarcely anticipate victory. We have greater batsmen and bowlers, and with the conditions fairly equal, England ought to win four times out of five. At the Oval all our chief bats­ men—Gunn perhaps excepted—did themselves full justice, though the chief credit of E ng­ land’s great'score (488)—by far the largest an England team has ever amassed against Aus­ tralia—belongs to the men, W .G. (68) and °:toddart (83) who set the ball a-rolling. A. lot has been made of Stoddart’ s luck—five or trix chances in all—but it should be remem- l>ered that on most grounds—the Oval more )articularly—heavy dews cause the wicket to lick during the early hours of each day’s play. Shrewsbury (66), Ward (55), W .W . (52), were all there; but the innings—though ihe heart had been previously knocked out of the attack—was r . S. Jackson’s 103, a fitting second or sequel to his 91 in the Lord’s match a month since. It is most tantalizing that he cannot do as well for York­ shire, though since the Notts matoh at Trent Bridge, he may justly retort that all the grounds—Beckenham, Huddersfield and Old Trafford, have been dead against scoring. Australia’s complete bieak-down in the first innings is inexplicable in the light of their second score. Granted that Briggs and Lockwood were at their best, yet on a perfect wicket 91 was a beggarly show. Their second venture was just wonderful considering the depression they must have labored under. 300 on the board, and only five men out, was something like, and a good tough fight seemed imminent. Trott’s (92) downfall soon after was followed by a rot, and 349 was all they could manage. But Bannerman (55), Graham (46), and Giffen (53) put in some very fine work, Giffen’s bowling (7 for 128) being, all things considered, second to none in the whole match. Lyons (31) was getting dangerous, had just tested the outermost limits of the Oval, and guaged the height of the pavilion to a nicety, when W . G., now naturally none too nimble on his pins, brought off a catch of a thousand, and the slogger was done for. Mold was a failure—one wicket for 85 runs—it’s his wont apparently to reserve himself for his county (witness his cannonade against Sussex last Friday), but Briggs (10 for 148), and Lockwood (8 for 133) left nothing to be desired. A great match every way, worthy alike of the players and of the occasion. The struggle for the County Championship is becoming painfully exciting, Yorkshire’s odd point giving them a slight advantage over