Cricket 1894

338 SBIClEfs A WKEKL! BECOED OB' THE GAMEC AUG. 23, 1894 judgment at the time, and I am of the same opinion s’ill. It had nothing to do with batsman's hitting ball twice, the over­ throw was a distinct act, the result of a fielder’s indiscretion. Batsman would have been out had tall hit wicket; then surely the overthrow should be penaMzd. Yet in fir;t- class cricket, fielders of sharp practi:e have in this way got an unwary batsman out. A long and very pleasant letter has b;ea overlookei by me. It comes all the way from Calgary, Alberta, Canada, " 5,000 miles removed from the old country by fea and prairie,” and from one of the Surrey Colts of 1887. Crioket out there does not flourish ; “ there is a club, and also a ground in Cal­ gary ; but the latter is so abomiuably bad that it is a misery to play on it. I am looking forward to return to England in about a year, and for one season at least I purpose to live on cricket.” The writer— like all my correspondents, a stranger to me—then aski about a c icketer mmed Hudson, who “ placed for Lancashire about ten years ago; what became of him?” Well, Hudson, like many another member of the Lancashire County team— e. <j . Ward, Tinsley, and Balt r—was a Yorkshireman, hailing from Sheffield. An engagement with tbe Longsight Club, Manchester, gave him his Lancashire qualiticat'on. He appeared in 1886, rocket-like: in his first match, against Sussex, scored an inninps of 98, 85 in his second against Oxford University, and three insignificant scorts. I taw him against Surrey that year at Aigburth, Liverpool, when he got a duck. Then his name disappeared from cricket; why, I have never heard. An average of 37 for five inningspromised uncommonly well. I should like to know what became of him. Was it accident, or death, or emigration that so suddenly put an end to his first-class cricket ? Up in Yorkshire, where there are at least half a dozen grounds used for County matches, it is a rule that, for the use of the ground, one-tenth of the gate money is given to the club that owns the ground. Now, to understand what follows, onemust remember that there is no love lost between Sheffield, Bradford, and Leeds. Even though the list two are jealous enough of each other, they are prepared to sink all differences in united action against the cutlery town. Well, Peel had his benefit the other day, and some £1,600 were taken at the gate. Immediately certain folks rushed into print, and on the principle that it is very easy to be generous with other persons’ money, read Bradford a homily on benevolence ; they should not take a penny of their share of £160. Brad­ ford, however, took a different view of the matter; besides, did they not lose the Kent match altogether through rain ? They have to meet their liabilities, and must be just rather than generous. The County Club very rightly s epped in and dfcided that neither Bradford nor Peel should suffer in pocket. But anoth r matter I will, by special request, refer to : it is an illustration of the friction in Yorkshire cricket circles. Ihe other day the County Committee met to decide on the eleven that should represent the County during the rest of the season. When their decision was made public it was seen that Sellers’ name was missing. As to whether it ought to have been is a matter of opinion. The Committee voted against him, as it was perfectly right of them if in their judgment he is not worth playing. But it would seem that somebody on the committee told tales out of school, and divulged the details of the voting, and that it was only the chairman’s casting vote that settled the matter. Forthwith all this appeared in two newspapers, one published at Leeds, the other in Manchester. I have not seen them myself, but I would like to ask what con­ ceivable good purpose such an announce­ ment can render to cricket ? It was a breach of honour for any member of the committee to publish anything done in committee. The Secretary alone should do that. I cannot help feei ng that the exposure—which was calculated to give Sellers needless pain—was prompted by the old animus to Sheffield; it was a stab at Sheffield through tbe honoured President of the Club, himself a Shef­ fielder. If so, it was cowardly and despic­ able. I hatemonopolies of all kinds, but one cannot shut one’s eyes to the fac‘j that to Sheffield Yorkshire owes a’l the County cricket of the last 33 years. Sheffield kept cricket alive when no other town could or would. And the County Club President has done infinitely more for the game than any other twenty individuals. He has grown old in the service of cricket, and we are all his debtors. There is a freedom of the press that is honourable, and we (jloiy in it, but there is a point where such freedom degener­ ates into flagrant licence, and of this the above matter seems to me to be a con­ spicuous example. Justin pissing. A eonrthing that has been inmy mind for many we:ks. We ar j told that bowling was never so good as at the present day. At least, so speaks oracular young England. Well, this yearAlfred Shaw, after having laid on the shelf for seven years, has been bowling again in County cricket, and with mrrked success on every occasion, so much so that he has hardly a superior at 51 years of age. Now put the clock back 20 years when Shaw was at his best, and when Morley, Hill, Emmett, Sou^herton, and a few others were almost, if not quite, as good as Shaw, and suppose that generation of bowlers, as they were then, could all be play­ ing to-day, what would happen to our present leading batsmen ? Is not Shaw’s rec nt fuccess sufficient to remind us (to saynothing more) that bowling is no better than it was ? I put it thus mildly, because I have no wish to raise a hornet’s nest about my ears. I don’t dare to say exactly what I think on this matter. On my list of tbe matches for this year, cut out of one of the dailies, there is this item. “ August 13, in Kent, Kent v. Essex (perennial).” What does the last word mean? A larger portion of the interest in last week’s cricket centres in tbe famous tie match between Surrey and Lancashire. The excitement at the Oval did not exceed that felt all over Yorkshire. 1 am thankful not to have been an eye-witness, for to watch ordinary County matches intelligently and sympathetically takes a lot out of me. I have often said tomy friends,1 six days shalt thou play and discuss cricket,” but yesterday the latte.- half of this prohibition had to be cancelled. I have seen nothing like it since I tcok root iu Yorkshire ; every boy of ten bad heard the news. The evening papers kept us all agog : I had to get no less than three each night. Here are some of the “Latest Scores,” printed in one line and in a separate c lumn; Friday—Lancashire, 6 for 46. “ liojd tbat for f urre.v,” thought I. Satur­ day—Lancashire, 5 for iO; Lancashire, 7 for 54. A vast crowd awaited the arrival of the “ Cricket Edition ” at the station. A tie. That Yorkshire folks were bitterly dis­ appointed, goes without saying, though they would like to canonize Brockwell for that trifling accident in the last over. Person­ ally I am quite sati-fi. a with the result. Lancashire did not deserve to lose after the most plucky fight by their fag-end men. Tinsley and Smith (C.) surpassed themselves: nor ought Surrey’s magnifi­ cent up-hill game to have been spoiled through a most excusable blemish when one run was still wanted. If Surrey had kept under the extras as Lancashire did, they would have left off with' seven ruDS in hand. I do hope the M.C.C. will at once tell us whether this match should count or not. It was not a draw, nor was it a win or a loss. No provision was made for ties in the scoring of points. I should say it cannot reckon. Half-points are stupid. It was the fifth tie Surrey have played, but Lancashire’s first. No such match has been played by Yorkshire, by Gloucestershire, nor by Not's, though in 1863 Notts played a tie match against fourteen of the Free Foresters. I cannot recall a Sussex match that ended in this way. All these five matches of Surrey’s took place at the Ova1. I mentioned four of them in my Summary of County Cricket that appeared in this journal early in the pressnt ^ell'. As many readers may not have access to all these matches, they are reproduced, along with the full rcores. In the first of them Surrey won the toss, as against Lancashire last week ; in the other three Surrey lost the toss. Two of these matches were played in the same year. Year 1st Inns 2nd Inns T otal 112 ... 160 ... 272 IV7 ... 145 ... 272 £01 ... 93 ... 297 175 ... 323 ... 297 93 ... 186 ... 279 112 ... 167 ... 279 215 ... 215 ... 460 I f 8 ... 322 ... 460 97 ... 124 ... 221 147 ... 74 ... 231 1817— >‘ uly 1, 2, 3 .. Furrey ... K ent .. 1868-Ju n e 4, 5, 6 Surrey li.C .C . & u. 18S8— July 35, 3 1... Surrey M iddlesex 1876—Aug. 10,1J, 12 Surrey M iddlesex 1894—Aug. 17,18 ... Surrey L ancashire Four were thus matches of small scores. Jupp and Pooley played in both the matches in 1868, and ia that of 1876. Walter Read figur. d in that of 1876, and scored 94and 41, whilst last week his batting was also in evidence after an interval of eighteen years. But Street, a youngster, batted as finely as any, if not more so; witness his 48outof Surrey's first total (97). Ayres (23), another Colt, deserves mention. It is curious that Lancashire’s best men all failed, that is, if any such distinction is allowable. Tindall (4s and 11) impressed me at Bradford, not only by his wonderful fielding, but by his stylish batting. But Smith (20 and 21), and Tinsley (19 and 19 not out), were Lanca­ shire’s heroes. Barely have younger men shown such splendid nerve in so severe an ordeal. Wood’s stumping must have been all right—seven wickets in all. And the bowling throughout was as effective as one might expect when able trundlers get a wieket exactly to their liking. Please note that Briggs and Mold did not take all the wickets; o n e goes to Bardswell’s credit. They did in the early part of last week at Brighton. They play the see-saw game famously ; against Sussex Mold took fifteen wickets, Brigrs five ; against Surrey, Briggs thirteen. Mold six. Mold and Bicbatdson each added twenty-one wickets in tbe week to thdr respective tallies, Mold’s costing 182 runs, the Surreyite’s 139 runs. Lockwood and his mate had the same number of runs scored off them in the Lancashire match, though the ex-Notts man took one more wicket—nine to eight. Brockwell, as in the previous week, scored one splendid innings, and two that were not splendid—72 against Gloucestershire, 1 and 5 against Lancathire. But a batsman cannot come off every time, especially in such a summer as the present. But there were other matches during the week. One at Sheffi Id. An indifferent wicket under any conditions; throw in heavy rains, and the secret of the ball beating the bat is mastered. I have heard so much about the improved condition of the Bramall Lane wioktts; as good as any in England now, and other like commendations. Say I to Bradford folks: abuse Sheffield about its ground to your heart's content, but youmust