Cricket 1894

APRIL 12, 1894 CRICKET: A WEEKLt RECORD OF TEE GAME, 68 E xcitin g F in ishes . 1793. Surrey beat England by 15 runs ; this match was plajed for 1,000 guineas (?j 1794. England won by 3 runs. 1798. England wonby 13 runs. 1807. England wonbv 10 runs. 1809. Suirey won bv 7 runs. 1815. England won by 1 wicket. S u rrey C ricketers , 1773 to 1845. Of the bowlers we can say nothing by reason of the absence of all analyses. Cer­ tain names may be mentioned : Lumpy (i e ., Edward Steevens) was the greatest of all the early Surrey bowlers. Nyren has immortalized him; he p’ayed in the first match in 1773, an! long before. John Frame was the next bfst. Then follow Richard Francis, said to have jerked the ball; Lamborn, t'e “ little farmer,” who had anextraordinary twist from the off; and *’ Shock” White, who, as we shall mention, caused the introduction of an important law in cricket. Later on, Surrey’s best bowlers were Tom Walker, Beldham, and John Wells; T. Boxall also did more than his share. The great Surrey stumper was Yalden, whom Nyren, however, places leagues behind Sueter, of Hambledon. But Surrey’s chief strength Tay in batting. Tom and Harry Walker, Lambert, Beldham, and Robinson were all playing at the same time, and I have grave doubts whether any county has ever boasted such a quintette of contemporaneous great batsmen. They are household words to-day. What a length of service they rendered. It will be retortedtbat that was a fe iture of early c icket. I know it was, and that in 1810 when the Old played the Young, the limit age of ihe latter was 88 years. But at 38 to day, most cricketers are veterans, or else played out. As longas those men played, they showed nearly their b e9t form. Thus Beldham played for the Players against the Gentlemen in 1821, being 55 years old, and scored 23 (not out). Here’s a summary of the batting of the cracks:— Aver. Runs. Inns, per inns. Tom Walker ................. U83 ... 95 ... 20 8 Harry Walker ................. 1(59 ... 61 ... 37.3 W. Beldham ................. 20-23 ... 93 ... 21 7 W. Lambert ................. 722 ... 40 ... 18.0 JR. Rotinson ................. 1680 ... 73 ... 23.0 Tom Walker played for 23 years 178S to 1810 H. Walker W. Beldham W. Lambert R. Robinson 14 30 17 17 1788 to 1801 1788 to 1817 1801 to 1817 1794 to 18 0 Whilst John Wells bowled from 1789 to 1815— 19 years. It mush be also remembered tbat Surrey ciicket came to an end before most of these men were played out. Five innings of 100 (and more) runs were scored by Surrey batsmen:— SPECTACLES BY SURREY BATSMEN. 1773 Hon. de Burgh, v. Kent 1774 Muggeridge, v. Hambledon 1778 I amborn, v. Hambledon 1788 Lumpy, v. Hamb.'edon 1791 Hon. W . Barbord, v. Hampshire 1792 Hon. H. Fitzroy, v. Hampshire 1793 Lord Milsingtown, v. England 1795 H. Walker, v. England 1795 J. Walker, v. England 1797 W. Beldham, v. England' 1800 Sir H. Marten, v. England 18 0 J. Tanner, v. England 18C0 W. We’ls. v. England 1800 Hon. H. Tuftoo, v. England 18-3 J. Hampton, v. England 1807 J. Hampton, v. Eng'and Among the Surrey cricketers of earlier date there figure an imposing number of men of high social rank. Since 1845 Surrey has played no one above the rank of a plain gentleman, with the exception of the Hon. Spencer Ponsonby. But from 1773 onward we li^ht upon such names as Earl of Tanker- viile, Hon de Burgh, Earl of Winchelsea (who played 14 years for Surrey), Lord JStratharvon, Hon. H. Fitzroy, Hon. Colonel Lennox, Hon. W. Harbord, Hon. H. Tufton, Hon. G. Monson, Hon. E. Bligh, Lord Milsingtown, Hon. Twisleton, Lord F. Beauclerk, Sir H. Martin, Lord Yarmouth, Hon. L. Powis, Hon. D. Kinnaird, Hon. Colonel Lowther, Hon. Fredk. Ponsonby, and Hon. Spencer Ponsonby. Whence the difference between then and now ? In one match alone (v. England, 1793) Surrey played four amateurs of noble rank. They none of them figured in the same match a year later. Why ro t? And lastly, wbat a hearty, sturdy race cricketers were then. Beldham lived to the age of 96, having been the falher of 39 children ; Yalden died at 84; Earl Tankerville at 79; Tom Walker at 68; Crawte (who made bats and balls) at 74 ; John Walker (brother of Tom and Harry) at 67 ; John Wells at 76; Lumpy at 84; John Sherman, aged 74, was still living; in 1862, and had 21 children. The following may fitly close this record:— To Lumpy we owe the introduction of the third stump in 1775. To “ Shock” White the limit in width (4J inches) to the bat, and tbe iron gauge kept at Hambledon, through which all suspected bats had to pass. Tom Walker was the first bowler to discard lobs for round arm, and although his hand was not raised above his hip, he was no-ballf d for “ throwing,” and the - xisting order continued for many years. Robinson enjoys the honour of initiating leg-guards and spikes; rude enough contrivances in his hands, which public ridicule caused him to abandon. Whilst T Boxall wrote in 1800 the first book on cricket; and in 1816 W.Lambert published his “ Cricketers’ Guide,” which ran through 15 or 20 editions, 6 of which I am proud to possess. Thus Surrey, in the long ago, played no mean part in the development of our national game. years—Surrey played no matches at a ll; why, I cannot learn. Ferhaps for the same reason that the club practically disappeared in 1810, not from a dearth of cricketers, though the best men were, as we shall see, getting past their prime then; but the want of a central county ground doubtless accounts for the decadence of Surrey cricket. There were any number of strong clubs up and down the county. “ Scores and Biographies” record matches played by such club3 as Montpelier and Richmond in 1798, Godalming, Farn- ham, Frimley (all exi ting in 1820); Godal­ ming was strong enough to play Sussex twice in 1824, winning one and drawing tbe other. In 1825, the same club encountered Hamp­ shire and M.C.C. Mitcham met M.C.C. 1811, 1822, and 1823. Besides, we come across powerful clubs, as Epsom (1823), Dorking (1826), East Surrey, Camberwell, Kennington, Clarence (all in 1828); Beehive (1831), Reigate (1832), Montpelier (1837). Chertsey (1838), Dulwich (1841), Vauxhall Clarence (1841), South London and We*t Surrey (1842) ; and perhaps a few more. There was plenty of cricket in the county. Thus as late as 1808, Surrey met England four times in one season, and won every match. Two years later, when, as I have mentioned, Surrey practically dropped out of cricket for 35 years, they were strong enough to win one of two matches against the full strength of England. Those England matches are the most interesting of all the early Surrey contests. The results are given above ; but it should be mentioned that in some years Surrey were considered too strong for England, in others too weak ; and so either one or the other side had odds, or else “ given men.’ The greatest compliment ever paid to the supremacy of a county eleven was when Surrey lent England their crack player, Beldham, in 1800, and yet won. In 1796, Tom Walker was also lent to England. But here’s a list of the=e matches in which the regulation eleven-a-side was departed from. Bear in mind that this match was played without one break from 1792 to 1810, one, two, three, and even four match s coming off in one year. 1792. Surrey had the assistance of Sussex. 1793. Aylward, of Hampshire, helped Surrey. 1794. England had 13 men in both the matches. 1795. England had 13 men in each of the hree matches. 1796. Kent helped Surrey. 1797. Middlesex helped Surrey. 1799. Robinson (Surrey) helped England in both matches. 1800. Beldham (Surrey) helped England. 1800. In the second match England had 14men. 1800. Third match, 12 of Surrey v. 14 of England. 1805. In both matches each side played 12men. 1808. England had Lambert (Surrey), and then played 16 of Surrey. 1809. England had Beidham, and lo st; though with Beldham’s aid England won other two matches that year. 1815. Beldham played for England, when they won by one wicket. After 1817 Surrey did rot play England evenhanded until 1852. 1829. Lillywhite andBroadbridge (Sussex) helped Surrey to beat England twice. 1831. Pilch (Kent) and Broadbridge helped Surrey. Tnat was the last of this series. 1792. Tom Walker 138 (not out) v. England 1793. W. Pe'dham 103 (not out) v. Hampshire 1794. W. Beldham 102 v. England 1794. B. Walker 115 (not out) v. England 1797. Tom Walker 101 v. England Against Suirey, only two centuries were scored:— 1775. J. Small aenr. 1S6 foj: Hamb edon 1805. Lord Fredk.Beauc’erk 105. not out for Eng’d A l l t h r o u g h a n I n n in g s b y S u r r e y B a t s m e n . 1789. Tom Walker 93 v. Kent 1798. „ 44 v. England 1799. „ 83 v. 18 6. „ 49 v. „ W. Hooker, playing for Sussex v. Surrey in 1830, carried bis bat through, for 8 runs only; Sussex total was 19. ALLAN BROS. & Co. May 19—Walthamstow, v. Canadian Pacific Bly. Co June 9—Wood Oreen, v. Atlantic Transport Line June 16—Hornsey, v. Castle Line June 23—Wood Green, v. Houlder Bros. & Co. July 14—Wood Green, v. Mr. Pouleom’s XI. of R. Albert Dock July 21—W ood Green, v. Canadian Pacific Ryl. Co. July 28—Denmark Hill.v. Atlantic Transport Line August 11—Wood Greer, v. Mr. Pou’som’s XI. of R. Albert Dock August 18—Wood Green, v. Castle Line C . W. R ock , the old Cantab, scored 144 out of a total of 310 for Derwent v. Fifteen of New Town, at Hobart Town, on February 24. The same cricketer made 124 out of 236 for Esk v. Tamar, at Launceston, on March 3.