Cricket 1894

54 jRIGKET 5 A WEEKLY RECOED THE GAME, APRIL 12, 1894 REMINISCENCES OF CRICKET B y RICHARD DAFT. “ E xtracts from an old S cb ap -B ook .” Twenty-two of the Hungerford Park Club (without a professional) v. the Eleven of All England. “ This match,” says the book, “ was looked forward to with much anxiety in this neighbourhood. It com­ menced on Monday, the 4th of September, at Hungerford Park, the seat of Major Wills, who is the kind and liberal presi­ dent of the Hungerford Park Club, and terminated on Wednesday, the 6th, in favour of the Hungerford Park Club, with 195 runs to spare. The betting at the commencement was in favour of the Eleven, but after the first innings 5 and 6 to 1 was freely offered in favour of the club. It was evident that Capt. Slocock had used his utmost exertions in selecting a powerful team for this occasion, and it must be gratifying to him that the club came off victorious, as two more brilliant innings at cricket against such good players may never again be seen, and special notice should be mentioned of Mr. W . Bidding’s beautiful batting, who scored 08 runs without giving the shadow of a chance. Such a display of cricket has never before been made in a twenty-two match, or such a long score been made by one individual. Mr. Slocock and Mr. Fiennes bowled admirably, as did the other bowlers on the club side. The fielding was also par­ ticularly good, and it is but justice to the All-England Eleven to say that they did their best to win; but a twenty-two such as can be picked out of the Hungerford Park Club are too powerful for any eleven of All-England toplay. The twenty-two scored in their firstinnings 162, G. Graham, Esq., being top scorer with 37, and L. Bandall, Esq., next with 20. The Eleven only scored 85 in their first venture, and 70 in their second. G. Parr scored 13 and 23, Caffyn 17 and 0, S. Parr 18 and 1, Anderson 0 and 19, and J. Guy 12 and 1. In the second innings of the 22 Mr. Bidding was top scorer with 68, and Mr. Slocock next with 37.” Next comes the score of a “ North v. South of All England ” match played at Wells. Unfortunately there is only the score given of this match. The North scored 159 and 132. The South made 127 and 165, and won by 2 wickets. For the North Coates scored 61 and 5, S. Parr 48 and 16, Brampton 30 and 1, G. Parr 0 and not out 36, Anderson 0 and 45. For the South Caffyn scored 32 and 20, Stephenson 33 and 0, Brown 9- and 35, Mr. E. Napper 0 and 23, Bushby 2 and 27, and Mr. A. Mynn 19 and 13. The next match is styled “ Clarke’s Eleven v. Twenty-two of York­ shire,” played at York. Like the previous match, only the score is given. The Eleven totalled 92 and 123. Caffyn scored 32 and 48, G. Parr 18 and 10, Anderson 0 and 22. The twenty-two scored 99 and 93, and lost by 23 runs. Clifford was top scorer in the first innings with 28, and Joy in the second with 37. Many names occur iu the twenty-two who became familiar with me in after years. Amongst others’5thosej]of JMessrs. Bankhart, W. Prest, M. J. Ellison, Joy, and others. The latter I last saw at Middlesborough in 1887, when I made 115 there. The next match which appears in my scrap book is one between the All-England and the South Wilts Club, who played sixteen on their side. The account of this match takes the form of a letter and commences — “ Mr. Editor.” It goes on to state that “ A most interest­ ing and exciting match was played at Salisbury on the South Wilts Ground, on the 26th, 27th, and 28th June, between the All England Eleven and 16 of the South Wilts Club (with Hinkley and Stevenson given), which, from thesuperior bowling and fielding of both sides, did not terminate till near four o’clock on the third day. and then not with large scores. The S.W.C. went in first, Clarke and Bickley bowling, and at the close of their first innings had put 69 runs on the score. The Eleven then took the bat, and were put down for 83, although Anderson had 41 to his name. His batting was very much admired, though he gave three chances, which, fortunately for him, were not taken advantage of. The bowling was excellent on both sides. Sir F. Bathurst never bowled better, and he was ably seconded by Hinkley; the fielding also was good, particularly Mr. Hooper as long stop, and Messrs W. and N. Knatchbull and Bebbeck. The eleven went down for 83 runs (14 on) when the S.W.C. went in for their second innings. The first wickets fell very quietly, except Mr. Rebbeck’s, who played well and steadily throughout, and contributed materially towards winning the match, notwithstanding he was badly hurt on the hand. England kindly allowed another man to go in and to resume his innings after. Sir F. Bathurst’s batting was ex­ tremely good, quite in his own style, and he headed the score in the total of his two innings ; one splendid hit elicited great applause, •sending the ball over the booth and fence into the adjourning field, and counted six. At the close the same number as the first innings, 99, was put on the score. The Eleven went in with 55 to tie, but the bowling and fielding were again so good that they were all down for 52, the S.W.C. winning the match with 3 runs. The latter part was extremely exciting, six wickets were down for 28 runs, and when Box, the eighth man, went in there were still 15 required to tie. He made 12 rather quickly, and it seemed almost a certainty, he and S. Parr well in, and only 3 runs to get to tie, 4 to win, when Box was cleverly caught by Mr. Davis (fielding for Mr. Rebbeck, who was disabled the day before). This altered the complexion of the match, though still two wickets to go down. Bickley went in and was bowled first ball by Hinklv. W. Clarke followed and took the last ball of the over; however, Sir Frederick’s second ball removed S. Parr and closed the match. The singular features of this match were the extra­ ordinary evenness of the scoring of all points of the game. Exactly the same number of balls were delivered by Clarke and Bickley in each innings, 242, and exactly the same number of runs were made from them, 69 ; also the similarity of the numbers of both parties in balls delivered, runs obtained, and maiden overs. England, balls delivered. 484; runs obtained from them, 138 ; maiden overs, 59, Bickley 34, Clarke 25. South Wilts Club, balls delivered, 482; runs obtained from them, 135 ; maiden overs, 57 ; Sir F. Bathurst 30, Hinkley 27. Thus terminated a most interesting match.” Then comes the score. There were only two batsmen of the South Wilts side who contrived to reach double figures, viz., Bell 12 and Sir Frederick Bathurst 10 ; and in the second innings only three reached doubles, Stevenson scoring 10, and Sir F. Bath- hurst and Mr. E. Turner 13 each. For All England George Anderson was far ahead of any of his companions with 41 in the first innings, and Clarke come next with 11. These being the only two double figures. In their second attempt Box was top scorer with 12. Judging from the scores, I should say that the wicket could not have been a particularly easy one, and Anderson’s performance must have been a highly creditable one, but George often got runs in an emergency of this kind when other players were unable to make a stand. Bickley and Clarke appear to have bowled throughout the two innings, notwithstanding the fact that the afterwards famousWillsher (whose name is here misspelt Wiltshire) was one of the Eleven. But I believe that at the early part of his career the batting of this cricketer was thought more of than his bowling. He with Mr. A. Mynn opened the batting for England on this occasion. Curiously the two Clarkes (father and son) both took part in-this match. STOICS CLUB. April 21—Thames Ditton, v. Thames Ditton April 28— lhames Ditton, v. Thames Ditton May 5—Acton, v. Pallingswick May 12—Bushey. v. Bnshey May 14—Chelmsford, v. Chelmsford May 19—Wanstead, v. Wanstead May 26—Woodford, v. Woodford Wells May 29—Upper Clapton, v. Upper Clapton June 2-wCatford Bridge, v. Private Banks June 6—Gravesend, v. Gravesend June 9—Wa’thamstow, v. Forest School June 15—Enfield, v. Enfield June 27—Finsbury, v. Hon Artillery Co. June 30—Bushey, v. Bushey July 4—Bedford, v. Bedford Grammar School July 5—Bedford, v. Bedford Modern School July 7—Highgate, v. Highgate School July 9—Plaistow, v. Plaistow July 11—Hampstead, v. Hampstead Ju'y 14—Finchley, v. Christ’s College July 20—Colchester, v. Colchester Garrison July 21—Edmonton, v. Edmonton July 25—ijee, v. Granville July 27—Reigate, v. Reigate Hill July 28—Ealing, v. Ealing Aug. 1—Buckhurst H il, v. Buckhurst Hill Aug. 4—Streatham, v. Streathara Aug. 10—Upper Tooting, v. Upper Tooting 4ug. 11—Brondesbury, v. London Scottish Aug. 25—Brentwood v. Brentwood Sept. 1—Leyton, Married v. Single Sept. 6—Crystal Palace, v. Crystal Palace S u s s e x T o o k June 18—Eastbourne, v. Eastbourne June 19—Eastbourne, v. South Lynn June 20—Hurstpierpcint, v. Burst College June 21—Ardingly, v. Ardingly College June 22—St. Leonard’s, v. South Saxons June 23—Tunbridge-Wells, v. Tunbridge Wells H o m e W e e k a t L e y to n . Aug. 13—v. Plaistow Aug. 14—v. Bucfehurst Hill Aug. 15—v.^Hampstead Aug. 16—v. Wanstead Aug. 17—v. Essex Club and Ground Aug.518— v. Vampires