Cricket 1894

258 CfftlCKETs A WEEKJ.it SECOfiB OB' THE QAMlo JULY 19, 1894 generations of cricketers, the conditions of the game having so materially altered. Felix I never saw, Caffyn I saw often, and made a hero of him more than 30 years ago. I could not rank him with W .W . as a bat, though, as an all round cricketer, he is worthy of comparison evenwithLohmann. If averages have any value—and in cricket they are the final court of appeal—Walter Read stands clear out from all Surrey batsmen, pa-t or pres’ n 1'. Here's a startling statement— “ There have be:n at least twenty be'.tsr bats­ men than ./upp.” Perhips so, but they did not play for Surrey, and so must be classed among tbe unsuspected geniuses of whom probably every department ho'ds a few specimens. 1 must ttill hold by the judg ment of early manho )d, that for two or three years Jupp and Tom Humphrey were the “ best bats in England.” When I said last week that the Players ought to win again, I had not seen the lists of the teams th it were to play the return m itch at Lord's. Somebody asks me indig­ nantly, “ Why was not Abel ch osen ?” I don’t know, no*, being on the Match Com­ mittee. Some one blundered. Granted that he was not originally asked to play, yet after his performance in the Oval match room ought to have been made for him, even though Ohatterlon, Flowers, or Wainwright had to put up with the fee without hiving put in any hard work for it. Nor can one exactly understand why Storer should take piece lence of Hunter? there is no comparison between them. Do the-e selections go by favour as well as by merit ? Abel has the grim satis­ faction of knowing that in his absence tbe Players lost by an innings aud 39 runs, and that the batsman who most likely filled his place did not require a lorry to carry liis runs home in. As this match was played at the same time as the M.C.C. held their special meeting, I could not he’p wondering whether any or all present constituted the Selection Committee for this match. Dispatch of a unique order marked the proceedings of the meeting. Reporters were not present. There was no discussion. Some­ what less tbarn fifte;n minutes were consumed in th? alteration of an important law, and in another matter bearing on the M .C.C.! Somewhat expeditious : chairman proposed, somebody seconded, and at once Ihe vote was taken ; and 120 runs are the lim it now for three-day matches. Where was the opposition? I could name certain members of the M.C.C , who had previously advocated the abolition of the follow-on as the only safe way out of a difficulty? Were they absent or not? And if present, why were they Eilent ? Of course, all cricketers must abide by the new regula­ tion; none the less does it fail to satisfy many of us. I regard it as a temporary ac­ commodation only, that will do no possible good, and at the same time I look forward with confidence to the near future when my proposal will become law. Personally, I have no faith in the collective judgment of a meeting of a ll th? members of a great club; a small, select executive is of real worth. Let us hope that when the entire code comes to be revised, a somewhat more seemly leisureliness will be shown than characterised the proceedings of last week. Well, th? Gentlemen had their revenge, W .G. (56) and Jackson (63) scoring more than the Players did in cither innings; Wain- wright also making a passable show with scores of 34 and 27. Ward did not add to the resources of the Players in either match They had bowlers enough but, like the team now in process of formation for a trip to Australia, were hard up for batsmen. By- the-bye, one cannot approve of the wisdom of putting Briggs, Peel, Attewell, Humphreys, Richardson, and Lockwood into one and the same team, as Stoddart seems to have d ne. An outsider like myself would knock out two or three of these names from an English selection. Humphreys is the oddest ch oice; after being some 22 or 23 years in active cricket, he has never until this year of grace appeared on Australian soil. How often has he been tried for the Players year by year? I hope no Sussex enthusiast will misinterpret this remark; one does try to ba perfectly fair all-round, and to siy nothing but what, in the writer’s judgment, will make for the prosperity of our national game. I don’ t think enough has been made of Jackson’s wonderful bowling against the Players at Lord’s. It would have been con­ sidered worthy of the boldest type had a bowler like Briggs or Richardson scored a similar triumph. When I get home I shill be curious to see how often any bowler has taken in this match twelve wickets at a cost of run3 apiece. Very few. And he and Woods bow’.ed through the match. In the daily that came into my hands it was soberly s‘ ated t> at no amateurs had ever brought off th:s feat since 1853. Well, I may be utterly at sea, hut I was present at the Oval in 1879, and would wager a trifle that A llan Steel and A. H. Evans bowled unchange 1 throughout that match. If I am wronr, I shall be disposed never to trusl my memory again. They were both undergraduates at the time, A.G. being in his second year only, and were in turn captains of their respective university elevens. Jackson and Woods are both ex-Light Blues. In many another year Woods would probably have been taken off, six wickets for 124 runs scarcely represent­ ing any mighty deeds : he has largely to be grateful to the dearth of amateur bowling for this most enviable honour. Steel and Evans could not have been changed, no matter how many other great bowlers had been playing on their side. Special reference should be made to the batting of the Gentle­ men, an innings of 254 on a wicket much damaged by rain being more than creditable. As in more matches than one c a i count, the bowling was broken by our matchless veteran. Yorkshire have put on two more wins, though they will not count, Derbyshire and Essex being th ir opponents. They were short-handed in both matches. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say always that a county's best eleven is the best they can put into the field for any otn m atch; we have to deal in cricket with the actual, not with the possible. Davidson, with an aggregate of 153 runs for one completed innings, has the satisfaction of knowing that it was through no fault of his that his county suffered defeat by three wickets. Bad fielding in the last innings was the prime offender, plus luck—ball pas-ing through Brown’s wicket without disturbing bails. Who pitched those wickets ? Did the umpires, or some irresponsible groundman ? Such a thing ought never to happen. Nor “ bu tterfingers” either? Is a man ever chosen in any match because of his fielding? Who ever hears of a moderately strong bat-- man not being chosen because he muffs catches ? In club cricket the successful slogger to the tune of an occasional 20-runs innings is certain of his place, though he may lose twice as many runs in the field. We used to be told that runs saved were runs made. I was surprised to see that when Yorkshire met Essex, Milligan was captain in the absence of the regular skipper and his “ sub.” Could there be a more offensive snub to tried players like Peel ? Milligan, is a new man this season, but is an amateur. Yet Yorkshiremen boast of being sportsmen and not snobs. When shall we learn that in sport “ a man’s a man ior a’ that.” E x­ perience and proven ability ought to count on the ciicket field. Kent are not out of the running, as their latest victory goes to prove. The luck was on their side, and luck is often as beneficial to a sids as an umpire standing for the club which employs him. Weigall (84), Wilson(53), Atkins (52) proved that in amateur batting Kent are as strong as Middlesex; whilst Walter Hearne (thirteen wickets for 61 runs) is no mean riral of his kinsman and namesake of the Metropolitan county. W .G.— 11 and 17 —just led by a notch in the Gloucestershire bat'ing, whilst Roberts’ bowling—7 for 92 — was good enough to figure on the winning side, not on the losing. The mention of the historic name of Hearne suggests thi* puzzle: W hy is it that certain bowlers—J. T. Hearne is a capital example—do so well for their county, ani so poorly in representative matches ? On county form J.T.H . is as- great a bowler as we have, yet how seldom he plays In the big matches, and when he does he rarely bowls up to his repu­ tation. Is a different sort of nerve required for different matches ? Or does the esprit de corps in county cricket call forth a man’s best energies ? I see t iat Kent have again expressed their dissatisfaction with the present county cricket regulations, and, indeed, have recently held a special general meeting to consider the whole matter, I entirely go with that part of the resolution which affirmed “ that the present system of importing . . . . . cricketers from other counties is opposed to the best interest of county cricket; ” but I don't think the remedy will be found in an extension of the period of residence. Sanc­ tion importation, and a two-years’ residential qualification is ample. It would bo desper­ ately hard to prolong the period of probation in the cas? of many cricketers, say of those for whom their native county had no real county eleven, or those for whom no place could te found in their county tea:n. Make it illegal, and not simply “ undesirable” to bribe men from their own county; let the advance be made by the cricketer in question, and with the full and hearty concurrence of his county; and under no circumstances allow- a man to play against his county, if ever he has played for i t ; and I fancy w e, shall do all that the best interests of the game require. The second resolution passed at the Kent meeting reads to this effect with me— “ We don’t like the present system, but other counties have adopted it, and we must follow suit.” But, on the whole, the present regulations work well enough, and, though one would like to see the birth qualification duly honoured, it seems unnecessary to introduce any fresh provisoes. Nobody can gainsay the fact that in many cases—Surrey and Lancashire, for instance— imported men are as clannish and devoted as the natives of other counties, in a few cases that could be named far more so . Notts just got home first in their match against Somersetshire, I wish we could give them both a prize of equal value. In the present queer weather, to lose a match by only 21 runs after losing the toss deserves some substantial recognition. On» cannot congratulate the winners on their success, seeing that it was entirely the work of one m an: Gunn scored 172 iu u s for only once out, or innings of 51 and 121 (not out), the second highest innings on his side being 32. W ith Shrewsbury back again, Notts might once more make a fight of it with all comers. I thought a century was certain to come from Gann’s bat, and he may not stop at one. Notts are always altering the personnel of their team—playing men, then