Cricket 1894

226 0KXCKE1?8 A WEEKLY BECORD OP THE QkMM0 JtJLY5, 1894 known twenty-five minutes wasted, and in an important match. Perhaps this law runs all-fours with the limit of age in railway travelling—" Children under two years.” As a guard informed me one day, “ It says two, but we don’t stick to i t ; you see we must put down some age.” The same letter con­ tains a curious match played in Tasmania last season; “ Sandfly District made 39, Lonpley District 41; the former’s second innings reached 2, one of which was a bye. They at once left for home without taking further part in the match.” I am sorry that, through a slip either on my part or the printer’s, a correspondent at Brockley should have been put to much un­ necessary trouble. “ I have just looked through ‘ Scores and Biographies’ and ‘Fred Lillywhite ’ for 1862 and 1863, but can find no reference to any benefit match for Daniel Day. I was anxious to know who were the professionals who gave their services.” .The date wa3 August 22, 1864, the match Surrey v. South of England ; the total expenses were £23 6s. 6d .; the pros., who made no charge, were Lockyer, Julius Cffisar, H. H. Stephenson, Mort- lock, Griffith, Sewell, Pooley, Jupp, Tom Humphrey, and James Lillywhite. That match was the first time I saw Jupp and Humphrey after they had become the most famous batsmen of their day. Just before, they had scored 129 for the first wicket against England, but in this match they did nothing; Mortlock, however, scored an innings of 105. Here’s a curious order from Hampstead— “ W ill you kindly tell one when \V. B. Money caught old Ben Griffith from his own bowling? As a lad, I saw the catch, which was from a terrific hit.” Strangely enough, bo did I, and it was a catch never to be forgotten. It was made in the Gentlemen and Players’ match at Lord’s in 1869, and was truly the catch of the season, just as TJlyett’s was in 1884, when he caught Bonnor Off his own bowling from a hit which every­ body thought had landed the ba'l over the old Lord’s pavilion. On Saturday last, in a West Biding League match, I saw a batsman run out through no fault of his ow n ; a fielder collided with him— accidentally, no d o u b t - knocked bat out of his hand, he scampering home as best he could. Umpire gave him not out. Ought he ? There was no doubt he was outside the crease more than a foot when the wicket was put down. Of course no batsman should be made the scapegoat of a fielder’s carelessness, but the Laws make no provision of this sort. In the Revised Laws, it may be remembered, I undertook to penalize any wilful obstruction of batsman on the part of fieldsman to the tune of four runs, and as in sport we have nothing to do with motives, any instance of obstruc­ tion shou'd fill into the same category ; ia that case the batsman mentioned above was not out. The older generation of cricketers will have noted with regret the announcement of the death of Lord Charles Russell at the goodly old age of eighty-seven years Another honored figure gone out of the famous brotherhood which Mason immortalized in his Kent v . Sussex picture. Ofthe 61 figures,there is only one left to-day—Lord Bessborough, then the Hon. F. Ponsonby. I had the privi­ lege of listening to Lord Charles’ graceful and thoughtful speech on the occasion of the presentation to W .G. in 1879, in which he told us that he was on? of the oldest members of the M.C.C. A nobleman of the highest scholarship and an enthusiast in cricket,I have often regretted that he could not be prevailed upon to give us his reminiscences of cricket. I have before me three small books bearing his name— “ Soim Recollec­ tions of Cricket,’’ “ Some Recollections of the Chase,” and “ Cricket, 1757-1889.” The last his Lordship sent me, and in it I have pasted the note which accompanied i t ; it runs thus : “ Dear sir.— At my age disposal often occupies my thoughts, and I feel thankful that m y puny effort for cricket may pass into the hands of one who appreciates the game. I beg your acceptance of it. I printed only twelve copies, one for myself, and eleven for the village club (Woburn). My own reserved copy is now yours.— Truly yours, Charlei J.P. Russell.” On the fly-leaf, under his own initia’ s, he wrote, “ To Rev. R. S. Holmes, 2 April, 1890.” It will he long before one will forget this worthy representative of one of our most noble English families. Royal weather at la st! Cricketers have already forgotten the miseries of the merry month of May. Wickets hard as nails, ba*smen jubilant, bowlers in despair, spec­ tators supremely happy. That is the summary of last week from the all-important standpoint of sport and its devotees. It’s long since batsmen up and down the country had such a succession of triumphs. Each of the Sussex matches yielded more than 1,000 runs—1101 at Brighton when Oxford were their opponents, and 1064 at Kennington in their first match against the men of Surrey. 1113 runs were scored at Taunton when the Africans were playing, and 1332 at Lord’s in the final trial match of the L :ght Blues. The record aggregate—1402 in 1891— is still safe. But were there ever so many runs notched in a first class match at Lord’s? I can recall nothing higher than the 1,295 of the Middlesex v. Yorkshire fight five years since. Certainly, W .G . never before made so many runs ina tingle inn’ngs on the classic enclosure ; and thea he posts off West to give our visitors from South Africa an object-lesson in all-round cricket. Two innings of 196 and 129 (not out), and nine wi kets for 61 ir. a single innings, con­ stitute a wonderful week’s work. And here’s another oldster upsetting all our prognostica­ tions— Surrey’s Grand Old Man, so slow a goer up to nearly the end of June that we were about to suggfst a dignified retirement; he, too, breaks out in a fresh spot, and by scoring 161, 44 and 42 (not out) in one week, has silenced the whole army of critics and cynics. But there were centuries galore last week. Brockwell put on his third—103 against Yorkshire ; a young man from Sussex—one Guttridge— 114 v. O xford; Cambridge’s captain, 116 in W .G.’s m atch; two Dark Blues, Mordaunt (100)and Pry (1.19), found the Sussex bowlers quite satisfactory ; Mason (102) and Briggs (101), made a charming companion picture in the Kent and Lancashire contest; whilst, to crown all, three of the wise men, from the Sout/jthis time— Sewell (170), Halli­ well (110), and Prank Hearne (104)—proved themselves to te almost, if not altogether, in the same clasj as our very best English batsmen. Again, last week, in every first-class match save one—M.C.C. v. Oxford University— the side that won the toss won the game. This slice of good fortune fell twice each to Surrey (v. Yorkshire and Sussex), and to Kent (v. Middlesex and Lancashire), once to Notts (v. Lancashire), and to M.C.C. (v. Cambridge). These are reckoned first-class. In addition, the same thing happened to Derbyshire v. Warwickshire, when the all-conquering repre­ sentatives of Shakespeare’s county met with their first reverse of the present year of grace. Need I add that bowlers generally have been in difficulties ? Yet in single innings Lockwood managed to secure seven wickets for 94 run s; Alfred Shaw, seven for 63; Abel, six for 56 ; Martin, eight for 45 ; Mold, seven for 61— 13 in the m atch; but Flowers, eight for 21, was the best of the batch, whilst John Hearne, with twenty wickets to his credit in a week of prolific scores, confirmed the reputation he enjoys down South as the best bowler of the year. Richardson we did not s te ; how would he have fared, I wonder ? Perhaps it’s as well for his reputation and analysts that his “ place was empty,” though one hopes the sprain will soon be all right. When Lancashire’s fast bowler was rtsting, Notts beat them by a single innings; no such luck fell to Yorkshire in Richard­ son’s absence. I should dearly like to have seen that over of Lockwood’s, off which Ernest Smith and Mounsey scored 19 runs. A no-ball gave them an extra ball, of which they were not slow to make ample use. Somebody said to me, “ 1 hat must be nearly a record.” Of course be was a York- shireman, and all the records in every branch of sport are attached to the names of York- shiremen. He opened his eyes when from memory I informed him that in 1864 George Griffith made 24 run3 in au over of four balls, Farmer Bennett being the victim ; in 1871 Thornton hit an over of Buchanan’s for 20 ru n s; in 1882 Bonnor did ditto at A. P. Lucas’ expense ; whilst in 1886 tha Austra­ lian skipper won the match against York­ shire by scoring three sixes and one four off Wade in the last over bowled. I mentioned another case in which old Caldecourt is said to have hit six sixers, but as title and date of that match have never been furnished, we must regard that feat of “ honest W ill’s” as apocryphal. Can anyone remember a stumper taking 14 wickets in a week, as Surrey Wood did last week ? He stood back to Lockwood, like the wise little man he is. On iron- bound wickets all stumpers should, except when the bowling is slow or mediu n. Just as many catches will be made four yards back as close in, whilst in the ab enceof longstop—the favourite position of Mortlock, Rowbotham, and others—Mr. Extras will be able to run up a goodly innings. I believe more chances are taken when the stumper falls behind. Old Tom Lockyer, whom Daft, Caffyn, and many more have pronounced the prince of wicket-keepers, once said that a first-class keeper could not be expected to take more than one chance in three. If an \ body dis­ putes the accuracy of my report. I will undertake to find the chapter and v.rse in print in confirmation. Yorkshire’s second defeat at the hands of Surrey caused bitter disappointment in these parts, especially after the hopes raised by Surrey’s poor show against Middlesex the week before. Not that we thought an innings of 401 runs abnormally 1irge on a perfect wicket and from such an array of batsmen. But it was hard lines to have to go in at the close of an exhausting day’s work in the worst of lights. Surrey ought to have stopped in half an hour longer, or got out on hour earlier. It may be mentioned that only once before had two Surrey batsmen scored a century apiece in the same innings against Yorkshire bowlinp, to wit, Key (103) and Maurice Read (109) in 1888. Ephraim Lockwood and Rowbotham in 1S69, and Lockwood and Ulyett in 183J., made their mark in a similar way at the expense of Surrey. W.W. had previously scored 140 in 1877, and 103 in 1888 against Yorkshire; in the first case he and Ju pp—the two greatest batsmen Surrey have ever produced— put on 206 for the first wicket, and yet the whole side was out for less than 300. Finder got Jupp caught: I shall never forget seeing Pinder bowl with the pads on. Tom Armitage was famous for his lob3 in those days, but they were quite harmless in this mat?h. Whenhe substituted medium round-