Cricket 1894

CRICKET _ NOTCHES. B y t h e R e v . B . S . H o l m e s . If correctly described, the way in which D. J. Jephson was dismissed at the Oval, on '.Saturday last, adds one more to the “ Curiosities ” of the game. Ball splintered bat, and splinter hit wicket. Very rough luck for the batsman; one would have for­ given an umpire foral'owing him to continue his innings. Should an appeal have been made ? Almost the same sort of accident happened in 1860. Surrey were meeting Sussex. “ Tiny ” Wells, playing a ball from Caffyn, broke the handle of his bat, the blade flew over his shoulder, and knocked the bails off. I am not responsible for this descriptive report, which, though somewhat “ tall,” is quite within the bounds of actuality. Batsmen have often been out in an odd way. Thus, in 1862, E. Dowson, a prominent member of the old Surrey Eleven, was hit in mouth by ball, which then brougtt him to grass; in falling he knocked the wicket down. In the England v. Sussex match in 1827, point (Mr. William Ward, the hero of a record innings— 278—until W .G.’s day) caught Jem Broadbridge, who threw his bat at, and hit, a ball that left alone was a wide. It was no uncommon thing in those far­ away days for batsmen to be out through hat (the old “ chimney­ p ot") falling on wicket. Some­ where—match and date forgotten — I remember to have read that the string of bat becoming un­ wound removed a bail, But in first-class cricket all such acci­ dents are necessarily few and far between. The proposal to establish county cricket clubs for ladies fairly takes one’ s breath away. Please don’t. If the game would not suffer by such an innovation, the fair sex would, women’s rights’ champions notwithstanding. I am strongly of opinion that cr'cket as at present played is exclusively a game for men. You would have to reduce the “ pitch ” by at least four yards, knock an ounce or two off the weight of the ball, thus reducing the size of it, and shorten the hat by several inches, before women will be able to play cricket. And even then no public match, by your leave. O h ! it would never do. Some of us have never taken kindly to the inclusion of ladies in tennis tournaments. And when the lady- F . E . S M IT H (S u r r e y ). From a photo by It. W. Thomas, Cheapside. cricketers starred the country a few years since, thorough sportsmen, whilst they smiled at the cricket itself, went away sadder, if wiser. Fancy our champions being nick­ named, or worse still, spoken of, and to, by their Christian names. No, play cricket, if you like, in private, but never before a “ gate.” In my earlier days there was a common rumour concerning one famous cricketing family that ‘ ‘ the girls could play as well asthe boys and later on, a similar report was circulated of the Gracefamily. W.G. has disillusionized us so far as his household is concerned ; and I have no doubt there was no more truth in the other case. I wonder how many are familiar with a some­ what famous picture of a cricket match played at Ball’s Pond, Newington, London, in 1811, batween eleven women of Surrey and eleven women of Hampshire. “ The perfor­ mers were all ages and sizes.” Evidently. Whether a caricature or not, that picture ought to prove a bar to the introduction of County Women’s Cricket. It’s the only picture in a large and varied collection which I dare not hang. I am thinking of devoting a small room in my house entirely to cricket, and made up my mind to paper it with the large, coloured po-ters of the lady cricketers in blue and red, a set of which the printer sent me. The suggestion was received so coldly that I am not likely to carry it into effect. Let our girls get all tbe out- of-door exercise they can at cricket or any other sport, but we must draw the line somewhere. I feel bound to bave justice done to the memory of a great cricketer, of whom a writer in this journal last week said, “ 1is contributions as a rule did not reach two figures.” He referred to poor old Tom Lock- yer. True, his fame rests on his wicket-keeping, but he was certainly above the average as a batsman. I saw him play many a time, and though he had no style, he could play uncom­ monly good cricket with the bat. In eighteen years he scored for Surrey 2,930 runs, with an average of 15J runs an innings. In 1852, he led off in tbe averages, and was not once not o u t; he was second in 1857 and 1861, third in 1859. He could always be depended on for a decent score. One stroke of his used to fetch the ring a back­ hander to a slow off-ball, such as one has seen A. N. Hornby make with effect. The N o. 3 6 0 v o l . x i i i . T F T T T T J R D A Y M A Y S I 1 8 Q 4 B eistered fo r T ransm ission A broad ^ 1 , IV iti X ' t , _LO a 1 . P R IC E 2d. ed in cricket’s manly toil.”— Byron •