Cricket 1894

242 (OBlCREfs A W EEKLY BE CORD OF THE ®AME0 JULY 12, 1894 opposite of this ? Let us get rid of “ option ’ ’ ia sport, and have one broad em­ phatic law which compels each side to take alternate innings, and allows every captain to declare the innings closed whenever he may choose. No follow-on, by your leave, under any circumstances ; the first side in to take its second innings always before its opponents go in a second time. One of the worst instances of the injustice of the present law was furnished by the Australia v. South of England match in 1886. I forget the exact scores, and have not a solitary book on cricket with me, but I remember that, in the follow-on, for the South, Maurice Bead and Frank Hearne each scored more than a hun dred, their side’s total being over 400, and that the Australians were out in the field from about luncheon time on the Tues­ day until stump3 were drawn on the Wednes­ day. 1 saw them at Scarborough on the following diy, where they lost the toss, and were fielding another day and a half, whilst England were running up an inning3 of 558 runs. Had the present pen been enlisted in the service of cricket at that time, it would certainly have recommended the abolition of the follow-on. I have to thank two correspondents for pointing out that Ulyett’s catch—referred to last week—was made at the Nursery end of Lord’s. One cannot be too accurate in statements of fact. I have more than once purposely made a mis-statement just for the sake of seeing whether it would be noticed. Never again. Any future errors will ba the result of ignorance, or carelessness, not of fooling. Cricket writing ought to be serious business. I saw Notts at Leeds, and certainly ex­ pected they would make a better light; though the places of su3h absentees as Shrewsbury and the captain co.ild not be filled. His chums were delighted with the century—-109 not out—that Shrewsbury had scored in his first an I only match of the season two days before. And here he is laid up again. Everybody is sorry, although I* don’t imagine that, under any circumstances, we should have seen him in the Notts’ colours this year. Will he ever play again ? Gunn, I thought, looked better than ever,and in bat­ ting and fielding was, as usual, a model for all cricketers. For once, the weather was fine for a county match at Leeds, and a gate of more than £700 proved that Sheffield no longer absorbs the sporting enthusiasm of Yorkshire. The result was dis ippointing after Notts’ recent one-innings defeat of Lancashire and Yorkshire’s reverse down at the Oval. Attewell (61) and C. W. Wright (59) played the best innings that have come from their bats for many a long day. It was no mean performance to add 107 to the score sheet after five wickets were down for 59 runs. Attewell only wanted somebody to stop with him in the second hands to have averted a defeat by the wide margin of 201 runs. All the honours went to Yorkshire, especially to Jackson and Brown. The former has never been a pronounced success for his County ; indeed in a purely county match, I fancy 58 is hitherto his biggest score (against Notts at Trent Bridge last year). His 111 (not out) at Scarborough in 1893 was for Yorkshire v. M.C.C. In every previous match of this season he seemed to me to possess but little of his old confidence end brilliance; and even on the first day at Leeds he never seemed thoroughly at home. But the next day all was changed. A finer in n in g 3 could not have been played tban Jackson’s 136 (not out) in two and a half hours; not one bad stroke, whilst for all­ round hitting it left nothing to be desired. Brown and he pot on 170 runs for the wicket. I was delighted with the former’s batting—72 a n d 77 ; he has at last come back into finer form than ever. Nearly all his strokes are on the off-side, and he is one of the few bats­ men who can cut a ball off the bails. On a hard wicket Brown is one of the best batters in Yorkshire, and I think he should have had a place in the Players’ team. In the present weather he is a much more useful man than Wainwright, although on soddened wicke s the latter is perhaps our deadliest bowler. Jackson did a capital piece of bowling on Wednesday— the best of the match, five wickets for 37 runs— but by that time 1 was sailing through the Kyles of Bute. I have just got a morning paper, and con­ gratulate the Players on their decisive victory — an innings and 27 runs. All day Thurs­ day last I kept speculating as to what was being done at the Oval, and thought linger- ingly of many a Gentlemen v. Players match that took place ages ago. The con­ tending teams might have been stronger, especially as there was no other match of im­ portance Was not Stoddarb invited ? If so, why didn’ t he turn up ? And the same of certain others one could mention. I see it stated that the Players were without Richard­ son and Peel: but no more bowlers were wanted ; it was in batting they were short- handed. Peel can’t get runs to day, Ward and Baker were doubtful quantities ; Lanca­ shire, on this year’s form, cannot claim four men in any representative eleven ; if they could, they would certainly not be last but one on the list of the Counties. Four first-class men would be the making of any team. Here’s an instance: here in Yorkshire we have a team called the Skipton C.C.; hitherto very third-rate; they engage Peate to bowl in their matches, and at once they become first-class. Might not Sussex experience the same thing with one or two really top-class bowlers ? But for the match just ended : it was about the 130th of Ihe series (I cannot be certain of the exact number.) First played in 1806, then dropped until 1819; since then an annual at Lord’s, or nearly so. In 1857 Surrey Club started a second match under the same title ; and from about 1873 to 1877 there was a similar match at Prince’s. Nine days of continuous cricket between virtually the same teams was a big order even for cricket gluttons like myself, and nobody regretted the abandonment of the third match when the handsome Belgra- vian enclosure fell into the maw of the builders. Somehow I fancy the interest in this match has been slightly on the wane for some few years. It seems far more difficult than it was to prevail on certain amateurs to lend their servic38 for it. Conservatives like myself still swear by it, and pronounce it the grandest match that has ever been played; but then we see, alas ! how fashions change even in sport, and in the present fascination of county cricket it is just possible that this time-honoured match will lose some of its charms. Outside London, comparatively few cricketers feel much interest either in it or in the ’Varsity match, probably because they don’t believe in class distinctions on the cricket field. If I had not been a Cockney, and a spectator at this match through ever so many years, I feel certain it would scarcely be worth writing about. As it i J, “ Auld lang syne” makes me honour and love it above all other matches. It was W .G .’s thirtieth year in the match, and how did he shape ? Betler than all his confreres ; top-scorer for his side, with an aggregate of 91. Isn’t it wonderful? Richard Daft is the only other player that appeared for twenty years in' this match, and Daft missed several matches. W .G. has never been absent from the Lord’s match, and only twice from that at the Oval, in 1867 from illness, and in 1883 (the ti 3 match) through business. From a capital summary in this journal in April last by J. N. Pentelow, I learned that >*,.G. has now scored 4,667 runs, with an average of 42 runs per innings, whilst as many as 241 wickets have fallen to his right hand. No other man has scored half as many runs, Ulyett’s aggregate of 1,781 being the only one that comes to one-third of W .G .’s. The finest innings in this match I have seen was W .G.’s 134 (not out) in 1868; there was ODly one other double-figure—28 by B. B. Cooper—and the total of the Gentlemen was only 201, if I remember rightly. What a strange’y unfamiliar look there was about the Gentlemen’s eleven 1 All new names but W .G .’s and W .W .’s. W .G. played in this match before the majority of his side were born. W hen he began to play, George Parr was still in active cricket: then came the generation led by Carpenter, Hayward and D aft; then a third generation, of which Ulyett is perhaps the best represen­ tative ; and lastly the modern batch with Jackson as their leader. Thus W .G. has played in this match with at least four or five suc­ cessive generations of batsmen and bowlers, and there is every likelihood that he will be in at the death of at least one more race. But let us hasten to congratulate Abel on his record score. Only last week some would-be authority informed me that Abel was not worth his place. I replied that he knew nothing about it. I can recall only three previous instances of an all-through- the-innings score—Lucas’ 47 in 1883, and Shrewsbury’s 81 an l 151 some two years ago or so. Abel’s 168 (not out) is the highest innings ever scored by a professional in this match. (I do not here include matches under this title played at Scarborough, Hastings, Brighton, else we should have to place Gunn before him ). W .G. scored 215 in 1870, 169 in 1876; after these come3 Abel’s glorious inning3. Briggs (62), J. T. Hearne (50), and Brockwell (42) may be mentioned. But what can we say by way of apology for the Gentlemen’s second exhibition? Light or no light, 82 was little short of disgraceful. Briggs and Mold, with four and six wickets respec­ tively, made amends for their failure in the first hands. Walter Read (60) did capitally, but Mason and Mordaunt were completely out of form, whilst Bathurst failed to sustain his University fame with the ball. Indeed but for Walker (seven wickets for 108 runs) the Players’ aggregate— 363—would have been much larger. Y ork­ shire’s representatives in the professional eleven got a duck each : but surely it was time Hunter was chosen for this match. He has no equal behind the stumps to day. The M.C.C. always have given the preference to their ground men for this match, and Surrey very naturally have given W ood a chance of earning double fees ; for all that, on their respective merits, Hunter should have played for at least three years in the place of either Shefwinor Wood, and would probably have done had he not been weighted with a superabundant store of modesty. The Lord’s match has begun whilst I am writing these columns. The Players ought to win again. W ill the Amateurs ever have another long spell of success, such as W .G. introduced in 1865, an l which lasted until 1881? From 1854 to 1865 the Players, I remember, did not lose a single match, and then, in about 14 years, they won only three, and all of them by narrow margins. For the past ten years they have shown superior skill at every point of the game, whilst the Gen­ tlemen have declined in batting and they cefctainly have not improved in bowling. Hunter may console himself with the fact that old William Clarke was not elected to play in this match before he was 47 years of