Cricket 1894

52 CRICKET g is evidence of a certain amount of intelligence, but should not the umpire have called four for the overthrow in addition to the runs already made? We have all seen an excited fielder actually miskick or otherwise send a ball to the boundary, much to his own disgust. It may not be unfair, but it is open to question. Knotty points may be multiplied indefin­ itely, and it is impossible to make laws so clear as to do away with them altogether. That is why an authoritative compendium of cases and correct decisions would be valuable. Above all, it is altogether inadvisable that the interpretation of doubtful points of law should be left in the hands of professional umpires They are undoubtedly trained observers, but not trained reasoners. They correspond to a jury, who decide questions of fa ct: points of law are decided by judges. Passing from the sublime to the ridiculous, why do Sutton, Elliman, and Bartlett use such excruciating woodcuts? They “ make a vessel’s heart bleed.” I don’t think Bart­ lett ever made such a bat as his advertise­ ment shows, wh le the illustrations of the other two firms are simply glanders on the game —Yours faithfully, I.A.C. HAMPSTEAD CLUB. May 5—Teddington, v. Teddington May 9—Hampstead, v. Charlton Park May 12—Hampstead, v. London Scottish May 14—Hampstead, Over v. Under 80 May 16—Chiswick, v. Chiswick Paik May 19—Hampstead, v. South Hampstead May 23—Wille&den, v. v\illesden May 26—Eltham, v. Eltham May 26—Hampstead, v. Paliingswick May 30—Uxbridge, v. Uxbridge June 2—Hampstead, v. Beckenham June 2 —U} per Clapton, v. Upper Clapton June 6—Hampstead, v. Hornsey June 9—Surbiton, v. Surbiton June 9—Hampstead, v. Granville June 13—Bishops Stonford, v. Bishops Stortford June 16—Hampstead, v. Ealing June 19—Hampstead, v. Chiswick Park June 20—Clapton, v. Clapton June 23—Hampstead, v. Mr. C. Johnston’s XI. June 23—Lee, v. Granville June 25—Hampstead, v. M.C.C. June 26—Hampste id, v. Wanderers June 27—Hampstead, v. Bishops Stortford June 28—Hampstead, v. Crystal Palace June 29—Hampstead, v. Hendon June 30—Hampfetead, v. Surbiton June 30—Brondesbury, v. London Scottish July 4—Hornsey, v. Hornsey July 7—Hampstead, v. Emeriti July 11—Hampstead, v. Stoics July 14—Hampstead, v. Uxbridge July H—Highgate. v. Highgate school July 18—Acton, v. Pallingswick July 21-Marlow, v. Marlow July 21—bampstead, v. Woodford Wells July 25—Hampstead, v. Clapton July 28-Hampstead, v. Nondescripts July 28--Alexandra Palace, v. Islington Albion August 1—Hampstead, v. Willesden August 4—Ealing, v. EaliDg August 4—Hampstead, v. South Hampstead August 6—Hampstead, Married v. Single August 8—Charlton, v. Charlton P; rk August 9,10—Kenilworth, v. Kenilworth August 11—Hampstead, v. Eltham August 11—Woodford, v. Woodford * ells August 13-Hamp8tead, v. Gentlemen of Holland August 15-Ley ton. v. Stoics August 18-Crystal Palace, v. Crystal Palace August 18—Hampstead, v. Upper Clapton August 25—Bampstead, v. Hamstead Football Club August 29—Beckenham, v. Beckenham September 1—Hampstead, v. Malden Wanderers September 5—Hampstead, v. Teddington September 8—Catford, v. Rushey Green T he T ouk . August 20, 21—Eastbourne, v. Eastbourne August 22, 23—Willingdon, v. Wiilingdon August 24, 25—Tunbiidge Wells, v. Blue Mantles T h e Prospect Reserve were dismissed by Darriman for 0 and 7, in Gippsland, in the middle of February. Of the second total 3 were extras. A WEEKLY RECORD OP Tfrffi CRICKET NOTCHES. B y th e E ev . R. S. H o lm e s . SURREY CRICKET AND CRICKETERS. No. 1.— 1773 to 1845. The complete history of Surrey cricket has yet to be written. It is a source both of regret and surprise that the doings of the most famous county club in the entire history of the game have not been gathered together into one volume; no more valuable contii- bution to cricket literature could be imagined. Not that the subject has been wholly neglected—far from it. Mr. Pycroft, both in “ Cricketana ” and the “ Cricket Field,” has much to say about Surrey in the olden time ; so has the present Bishop of Tasmania in ‘ ‘ Old Cricket and Cricketers.” There is also an admirable chapter in the “ English Game of Cricket ” on the same subject. Nyren, again, in “ Cricketers of my Time,” gives us many a realistic picture of the Surrey giants of long ago; whilst in “ Scores and Biographies,” of course, we have Surrey’s scores in full from the earliest days. Coming dowo to our own time, we find that since 1884 the Surrey County Club has issued to its members a yearly record, in full, of all matches played undei its auspices. Whilst in 1888 there appeared “ Surrey at the Wicket,” compiled and published (for gratuitous circulation) by my esteemed friend Mr. A. Benitez de Lugo ; the book—an octavo volume of 159 pages— « as printed in Madrid, and is ceitainly the most conscientious and laborious work on cricket that has ever been compiled. Unfortunately, owing to limits of space, it starts no earlier than 1844, and the full scores are not given. But what a monument of painstaking industry it is ; a veritable labor of love. I shall have occasion, in the subsequent Notches on Surrey cricket—f r this subject will extend to three or more papers—to acknowledge my obligations to this generous, earnest worker in the good cause. Still, for a'l this, Ihe full, detailed story of Surrey cricket is waiting for the coming his­ torian. I purpose, first of all, to give a summary of Surrey Cricket from 1773 up to the forma­ tion of the pres nt club in 1«45. Strictly speaking, the first chapter of Surrey cricket may be said to end with the year 1810, that being the last year in which the County played systematically. After that there seems to ha' e been no regularly constituted eleven. Indeed, in the course of the following 34 years—down to 1844—only 11 Surrey matches were played. Between 1773 and 1810 there was scarcely a break, although, as may be imagined, in those pre­ railway t m<a matches of all kinds were few and far between. Includirg all matches down to 1844, Surrey played 79 ; of these41 were won, 37 lost, and 1 drawn. Not a very imposing summary, certainly, but worthy of careful study in that those matches intro­ duced some of the greatest cricketers that adorn the pages of cricket history. But who were Surrey’s opponents ? 1. Kent— 1773 to 1789; and two matches in 1828. Matches p'ayed 10, won 5, lost 5. Runs scored by Surrey, 2013 for 180 wickets; by Kent, 2057 for 176 wickets. Highest score:— by Surrey, 256 in 1789; by Kent, 177 in 1828. Lowest score: by Surrey, 41 in 1828 ; by Kent, 51 in 1788. 2. Hambledon—1773 to 1778. Matches played 6, won 3, lost 3. Runs by Surrey, (JAMB, APRIL 12, 1894 1363 for 112 wickets; Hambledon, 1649 for 113 wickets. Highest score:— by Surrey, 238 in 1778; by Hambledon, 3-57 in 1775. Lowest score:—by Surrey, 61 in 1774; by Hambledon, 38 in 1773. 3. Hampshire— 1788 to 1793. Matches played 7, won 4, lost 3. liuns by Surrey, 1,580 for 131 wickets. Runs by Hampshire, 1,429 for 132 wickets. Highest score—by Surrey, 203 in 1788; by Hampshire, 158 in 1792. Lowest s c o r e -b y Surrey, 44 in 1788; by Hampshire, 59 in 1788. 4. England— 1792 to 1831. Matches played 51, won 25, lost 26. Runs by Surrey, 10,897 for 887 wickets. Runs by England, 9,825 f r 901 wick ts. Highest score—by Surrey 453 in 1792 ; by England, 212 in 1797. Lowest s c o r e -b y Surrey, 31 in 1800; by England, 26 in 1793. 5. Middlesex —1796. Only one match, which Surrey won, scoring 169 for 12 wickets, Middlesex 168 for 20. 6. Sussex—1830, 2 matches, Surrey win­ ning one, the other b-ing drawn. Surrey scored 410 for 31 wickets, Sussex 182 for 30. 7. M.C.C.— 1839andl844. Twomatches, Surrey winning both. Surrey Fcored 304 runs for 27 wickets ; M.C.C., 215 for 40. In 1839, M.C C. scored an innings of 15 runs only, Surrey’s lowest being 19. General Summary —Total runs by Surrey, 16,766 for 1380 wickets; average 12 1 runs per wicket. Total runs by opponents, 15,525 for 1412 wickets ; average, 10.9 runs per wicket. Compared with to day’s batting, what can we say ? Was their batting inferior to ours ? or their bowling superior ? Or, is the difference between averages, ancient and modern, to be found in the general improve, ment in cricket grounds? Opinions will differ here. The above summary bristles with points of interest, a few only of which can be noted here. No bowling analysis has been preserved of any of these matches. In tbe first match with Kent, in 1773, no bowler or fielder is mentioned. The bow’ er’s name, unless he clean bowled a wieket, is not found before 1835. In the earliest recorded match, Kent v. England in 1746, “ st. Kips ” appears: strangely enough, I cannot light upon another record of a batsman being stumped until October 1778, when in the Surrey v. flam - bledon match we read, “ H. Bonham, st. Yalden, 9 : ” and then not again until 1782. In Surrey’s first match (1773) there were but two stumps ; it was a Surrey bowler who was the cause o f a third stump being introduced in 1775, when the wickets measured 22 inches by 6, and the bail was of one piece. The only extras that were reckoned in 1773 were byes; though in 1775, lbw figures; but wides were not recorded before 1810. Kent and Hambledon were Surrey’s great opponents in the earlier years. Yet, accord­ ing to old Nyren, the leading cricketers in the Hambledon Club were Surrey m en : e g , John Wells, William Beldham, Harry and Tom Walker, and R. Robinson— a fairly good proportion of an eleven ; but in those days “ given m en” were a feature of the game, several men p'aying for different clubs, and moreover Hambledon, though in Hampshire, was almost on the borders of Surrey. The break-up of this famous old club in 1791 gave Surrey an opportunity, and the next year Surrey v. England was played for the first time. Between 1779 and 1788— i.e. for eight