Cricket 1894

220 (OBICKES’ s 1 WEEKLY BECOKD OS' f H l GAME0 JUNE 28, 1894 It is proposed to substitute 120 runs for 80> the present limit of the follow-on. Personally I hope the proposal will be rejected by a crushing majority. What possible good will it do? The last University match is respon­ sible for the present agitation, but will this alteration prevent similar tactics baing resorted to should like emergency arise. It might stiJl be to the advantage of the inside < throw away wickets, and equa'ly to the advantage of the ou‘ -side to prevent them by bowling wides and no­ balls. Spite of the ill-luck which has this year attende 1 the tide that has won the toss in the first-class county matches, I have always held that every coaapensa ion should be found for the side that loses the toss. Consequently, for one thing, I would abolish the follow-on altogether, and, in order to pre­ vent drawn games, would allow the closure 1a be applied at any time on the s:coni and third days. It would be well if we could have the M.O.O. suggestion thoroughly dis­ cussed in the public press: Such discussion would expedite matters at the special meet­ ing. I was very sorry to see th 3 announcement of W . Mycroft’s death : a martyr to rheu­ matism— the special fatality of the pro­ fessional cricketer. Lord Harris some time since mentioned this in a Very sympathetic magazine aiticle in which kind iest references were made to a worthy class of men. As hi said, professional cricket is a poor liveli­ hood. I have the article somewhere, but cannot at this moment put my hand on it, (lse I would quote freely from it. The pro fession is very uneerta'n every way; even those who attain to fame are expos 3d to various ailments which at any time may unfit them for further active service; And the pay is wholly inadequa'e. I daresay it s as much as the average county or ciub ex­ chequer will bear, butthat does not exonerate cricket from being the worst paid profession I know of Fancy £5 for a three days’ match in London for Yorkshire cricketers; with an extra sovereign if they win. I should rejoice were expenses always pai 1 by the club, and a fixed amount allowed for 'services. Cricket lasts only five months of the year; what of the remaining seven ? Yet some men do manage to save money— to their honor be it said, but only when they have belonged to a County with a long list of matches, and when a very handsome “ benefit ” has fallen to their lot. Poor Mycroft’s bowl ng used to remind me of J. C. Shaw’s. True, tie latter had a delivery that was unique as to ungainli- ness, but about both there was—what shall I call it?—an overbearing force in their mode of sending the ball down, enough to inspire feir into most batsmen. I remember twitting Myeroft about the action of his arm many years ago; “ I do chuck one occa­ sionally” was his naive reply, ‘ -but why don’t they no-ball iae ? ’ Barnes’ match was one of the even's of last week. Hewanted it to last thr^e days, andit did. OnewisnesNotts could affordto give their best men their best match on their list, and not put them off with a nondescript match which excites little or no interest. Lanca­ shire and Yorkshire, I believe, allow any match to be chosen. All Counties might in the case of their ablest professional. Barnes may get a second match at Lord’s, hough it is scarcely to be looked for. Alfred Shaw lia.1 two benefits at Lord's in 1879—the second by courtesy of W .G .— and then another at Trent Bridge in 1892. I one day advised a cricketer who was to take bis benefit whilst he was scarcely beyond his prime as a cricketer, just to invest the entire proceeds in Consols until snch time as he had decided what to turn to w nn he had done playing. I hopa that in a m itch bearing title “ Notts V. Gentlemen of England,” the expanses were unusually light; but one never knows what amateurs’ expenses may not run to. They should give their services gra'is ; perhaps they did last week. And should not proa play for love in such matches ? I can well remember Daniel Day’s benefit nt the Oval in 1862— the expenses were only £23, because most of the players chag.'d nothing. There is another side to this matter ; if a man netts a very large sum, can ho not afford to remuner­ ate those whose presence has brought about so happy a re.-ult? Perhaps the most interesting fea ure of Barnes’ match—and indeed of the week’s crioket—was the improvement shown by the Notts batsmen. Up to date their show at the wickets has been so uniformly poor that a large score was hardly looked for. The Gentlemen’s first total— 340—was formidab e, especially after Dixon went for a single ; but Notts had their war paint on ; first Daft (47), then Flowers (50), and lastly C. W. Wright (93) played up splendidly, showing just the kind of cricket one likes to see, confident and not tedious. Wright’s score was made in two hours and twenty minutes, a marked contrast to h s one run an hour up at Lord’s a fortnight since. Never sines 18S2 when he scored 99 against Sussex, has ths old Light Blue done so well for his couoty; and yet at Cambri Ig ■, 1882 to 1835, he had the distinction of the largest aggregat i and highest average of any batsman "that had, up to 1885, ever plajed on either side in the ’ Varsity match. A ll cricketers will rejoice at this latest success of ss genial a man and as ke n a sportsman as we Lave to day. Sod- dart(l48 and 42jwas immense; he hasa weak­ ness for Notts bowling, witness his splendid doubleagainst it last year. In the first hands he and the younger Palairet(£6) put on 208 runs a wicket. A.N. Hornby (44) wasin evidence in the second total of 203, How many benefit match s his he missed during the last quarter of a century ? And how much has he been out of pocket by the sime ? The Lancashire team will be delighted to be led this week again by perhaps the most popular captain the present generation has known. Attewell (ten wickets for 136) bowled capitally throughout, and Notts might have caught the judge’s eye first had the match been played to a conclusion. They have still to score their maiden victory of 1894. It may interest the Notts publie to learn that Shacklock is bowling and batting well for his new club—Nelson ; on Saturday last he took six wickets, and scored an innings of 44 runs. Warwickshire have yet to be beaten ; who wi l enjoy this distinction ? Their match with Yorkshire simply confirmed their all-round prowess. There is no end of them with bat in hand; here’s their lat?st sample, Bainbridge, 52 and 51 ; Docker, 33 and 85 (not out); Devey, 50; Li.ley, 71. Prodigious! It was refreshing t) finl Wainwright himself at last: an innings of 1 7 came as a surprise even to the Yorkshire- men, who have no mean opinion of the capabilities of their own county men in any depattment of life. What a Tyke cannot do, cannot be done, is one article in our creed in these parts. St 11, one is not cock­ sure that Yoikshire would have got 239 runs in the fourth innings of this match. Foster had ten wickets, and his place in the team ought to be secure for the rest of the season, though he is a Lancashire man by birth, and Yorksh re pride themselves on their putism in this mitter. But Conscience is generally an indefinite quantity in individuals and committees. Yorkshire, would never play a foreigner until he came along. We are all the creatures of circumstances. At a Church Congress a friend of mine was host to a parson ; in anticipation of this visit the former laid in a case of very choice cham­ pagne. When his guest arrived, he expressed a hops that he was not an abstainer, mentioning the .precious store down in the cellar. Tiie answer was, “ We’l, I am, but then I am not bigoted 1” I hoped to score off Richardson's ten wickets agunst Essex, and then I find my list of similar feats, which I sent to this journal in July, 1838, reproduced last week without acknowledgment. Two additions may be made to that list; Slinn, the York­ shire bowler, playing for 22 of Scarborough in 1862, had all the A. E. E. wicket-; and W . B. Money, who was one of our finest bats­ men twenty-five years ago (witness his two in­ nings of 70 and 109, not out, fur the Gentn. v. Players in 1870), but who s> signally failed in the 'Varsity miteh—he had a 1the United South wickets when he played for 19 of Godalming in 1867. But perhaps these don't count. Su:e'y V. E. Walkers ten wickets against Gentlemen of Kent in 1864 should; else we must exclude E. M. Grace’s ten wickets against the same team in 1862. By-the-bye, in this last match—M.C.C. v. Gent). of Keat, thay p’a ed twelve a side ; in the second innings ona Keat man was absent, so E.M. dil not take all Ihe wickets, though he got ten. Richardson's success last Vie k will n it compare with many others, inasmuch as he was the o ily first- class bowler on the .Sun ey side. But when Wisden took all the ten wickets, old Clarke bowled at the other end. Hillyer played in the same match with Hinkly; and John Jackson, Bickley, and W slen all pla'ed for England in the match when V . E. Walker with his lobs (Money also lobbed) got rid of Surrey. Wisden clean bowled all the ten; in Barratt's case, not one was bowled. Barratt was presented with the ba'l wrappad up in a ‘‘ fiver” by the Austra'iao manager in 1878 ; le.’s hope the Surrey captain did not forget the wrapper in Richardson's cas\ I once saw the ball that immortalized Alfred Shaw’s triumph in 1874 ; duly inscribe 1and mounted under a pla-s shade ; and would have paid handsomely for it, but it was not in the market in those days. The Surrey defeat at Lord’s came as no surprise. Only last week I wrote :— “•Surrey have not yet beaten Middlesex at Lord’s,” which plainly meant that I expected Middle­ sex to whop them. Another instance of the ill-luck which this year dogs the footsteps of the captain who calls for choice of inniDgs. A heavy storm on Wednesday spoiled the wicket on Thursday; but what about Friday? Oh, Surrey, 131 and 126 were inglorious shows. One thought of jour 300 and 188 (5 wickets) on May 24 at your own enclosure. Abel's 0 forms a pretty appendag) to his 136 (not out) in the first m atch. I ses it stated that Richardson ricked his side on Thursday: I hope not; but tbat has nothing to do with liis mates’ batting. Only Brockwell —35 and 22—did respectably both times. On the other hand, O’Brien, 53 and 10 (not out), and Stoddart, 38, proved once more a thorn in Surrey’s side. It was by far the best thing T. C. has done this ye r. As in the first match, Stoddart was ducked the second innings. Hearne’s seven wickets were com pletely dwarfed by Phillips’ ten, which cost about seven and a half runs a wicket. The Aus­ tralians fairly won this match. The excite' ment is getting fast and fuiious, with Middlesex, Yorkshire and Suirey all level. There should be a thumping g ite at the Oval to-day. Sussex’ magnificent victory over Cam­ bridge on Saturday, when they notched 20-5 for two wickets, deserves a line all to itself I am anxious to pay a very s ncere tribute to their skill, inasmuch as I fear I was wanting