Cricket 1894

84 0KICKET g A WEEKLY RECORD OF f n ® GAME, APRIL 26, 1894 GENTLEMEN v. PLAYERS. BY J. N. PENTELOW. (Continued from page 78.) T he S umming -U p . Eor the purpose of comparison between the respective strength of the G-entlemen and of the Players at various times, it will be found convenient to divide the whole series of matches into four periods. The first of these extends from 1806 to 1839, duringwhich time the amateurs were so far from being equal to their profes­ sional rivals that all sorts of expedients were used to make a match of it—given men, alterations in size of wickets, eighteens playing against elevens,and once eleven against nine. In spite of all these, the 22 matches played during this period resulted in 13 wins for the pros, against eight to the amateurs, with one drawn game. There was a marked disparity between the run-getting powers of the two sides, too, as may be seen from the following figures :— Runs Wickets Average scored down per wkt. Players................. 4610 .......... S36 .......... 13.66 Gentlem en.......... 4131 .......... 453 ... ... 9.1-2 The second period I have considered as extending from 1839, when the regular series of matches on even terms may be said to have begun, to 1864, the last year before theappearance of W.G.Grace, whose debut for the Gentlemen marks an epoch in the history of the game. During this period the Gentlemen, though they struggled on gamely, met with but a very small measure of success. Of the 36 matches played during the years 1839-64, they won but 6, lost 26, and drew 4. Their average of runs per wicket im­ proved ; but that of the Players more than proportionately increased also. Here are the figures : Runs Wickets Average scored. down. per wkt. Players ........... 9,530 ... 538 ... 17'71 Gentlemen ... 8,041 ... 660 ... 12-18 The thirdperiod (1865-79) is that during which the Gentlemen, largely owing to the wonderful play of Dr. W .G ., were almost uniformly victorious. During this time 36 matches were played ; 8 were drawn ; the Gentlemen won 24, lost 4. Six of the Gentlemen’s victories were in a single innings, three of them in one year (1873). The average per wicket of the Gentlemen nearly doubled itself; that of the Players fell slightly. Runs Wickets Average scored. down. per wkt. Gentlemen ... 13 253 ... 565 ... 23.45 Players .......... 11,561 ... 687 ... 16.82 Since 1879 the contest has been a more open affair, thou ’h, owing to the lack of good amateur bowling and a growing difficulty in getting together representa­ tive teams for the Gentlemen, the Flayers have won oftenest, the results being: Played, 34; Gentlemen won, 10 ; Players won, 16; drawn, 7 ; tie, 1. Wickets Aver. Runs scored. down per wkt. Players ........... 11621 ....... 539 .......... 21.55 Oentlemen... ... 10734 ..... 576 .......... 18.63 Thus the full results are: Played, 128; won by Players, 59 ; won by Gentlemen, 48 ; tie, 1 ; drawn, 20. And the figures for batting throughout: Wickets Aver. Runs scored. down. per wkt. Players .......... 37322 .......... 2100 .......... 17 77 Gentlemen........ 36164 .......... 2254 .......... 16.04 Nine different grounds have been the scenes of Gentlemen v. Players matches : Lord’s (77 games), the Oval (37), Prince’s (5), Hastings (3), Scarborough (2), Can­ terbury (1), and three at Brighton— Tom Box’s ground, the old Hove ground, and the present enclosure having had one game each. In chronicling the games, I had little space to speak of the wicket- keeping, however good, All the great wicket-keepers of the century, from Messrs. E, H . Budd and Herbert Jenner, Hammond, Wenman, Box down to Messrs. Gregor M’Gregor and H. Philipson, David Hunter, Mordecai Sherwin, and Harry Wood, have of course taken part in these games. A reference to the scores of the matches will give some notion of their exploits. The most I can do to give an idea of the development of the art of wicket-keeping is contained in the following table of extras in each of the four periods into which I have divided the series of games. It must be remembered, however, that in the earlier years, and even as late as almost to 1880, long-stopping was in vogue ; and in view of this it must be conceded that the percentage of extras between 1839 and 1864 was very large. 1908—33. Players gave 235 extras in 4134 runs—per. 5.70 Gentlemen „ 339 „ „ 4310 „ ,, 8.43 1839—54. Players gave 590 extras in 8143 runs—per. 7.33 Gentlemen,, 883 „ „ 9530 , ,, 9.28 1863—79. Gentlm’n gave 454 extras in 11561 runs—per. 3.92 Players „ 527 ,, „ 13253 ,, ,, 3.S7 1880—93. Gentlmn gave 569 extras in 11621 runs—per. 4.90 Players „ 514 „ „ 10731 „ „ 5.00 From this it will be seen that while the Players gave far fewer extras than the Gentlemen in the early years of the fixture, the Gentlemen have a slight pull on the matches since 1864. But of course the proportion of extras varied very much more from time to time than these tables, each of which covers a comparatively long period, would lead one to suppose. In 1836 there were 97 extras given in amatch of 387 runs! while in 1877 only 17 had been allowed out of 565. I had intended to give, in addition to the batting averages which follow, the bowling averages of such as have done best in these matches. But in the earlier years not even the bowler’s name is given, except in cases ofwickets bov led down; and even for some time after the scores are made out in the fashion in use to-day no analyses are procurable. So, rather than give what must necessarily be an incomplete and fragmentary table, I have decided to leavo the bowling averages untouched. I may, however, just mention that W.G. has taken the most wickets (241); that Alfred Shaw (132), oldLillywhite,andAlfred Mynn (both of whom bowled in the days before bowler's name is given, so that I am unable to give their number of wickets) also secured over 100 wickets each; and that the following all took 40 or more'. Mr. A. G. Steel, 92 ; Mr. D. Buchanan, 86; Lohmann, 82 ; Willsher, 75 ; Jackson, 67; Hillyer, 67 ; Barnes, 65 ; Mr. V. E. Walker, 62; Mr. G. F. Grace, 58 ; Morley, 56; Mr. A. Appleby, 55 ; Mr. S. M. J. Woods, 51; Clarke, 50 ; J. O. Shaw, 47; Mr. C. D. Marsham, 48 ; Wisden, 45 ; Mr. E .M . Grace, 44; Barlow 42; Attewell, 42; Briggs, 42; Flowers, 40; Hill, 40; and Sir F. Bathurst and Redgate, whose exact totals cannot be determined, In the batting averages which follow, all those who played at least ten innings with a double figure average are included, the idea being, in view of the importance of the matches, to make the list as compre­ hensive as possible. The first and last year in which the batsman played is given in brackets, and the averages are brought out to two places of decimals. The asterisk signifies not out. BATTING AVERAGES. Times Most not in Inns.out.Rns.inns.Aver. Dr. W. G. Grace, 1855-93 ... 115 6 4576 217 41-S8 T. Hayward, 1830-71 .......... 19 3 614 132 38.37 A. Shrewsbury, 1876-93 ... 45 7 1441 151* 37.82 Mr. W. Yardley, 1869-74 ... 15 3 435 83 36.25 Mr. C. T. Studd, 1881-83 ... 12 3 313 103 31.77 T. Hearne, 1853-69 .......... 16 2 474 12** 33.85 W. Gunn, 1881-93 .......... 38 3 1112 169 31.77 Mr. A. Lubbock, 1866-71 ... 15 2 396 107* 30.46 Mr. (J. F. Grace, 1870-78 ... 41 6 1043 134 L9.80 Mr. W. W. Read, 1877-93 33 1 986 159 2817 W. Barnes, 1879-92 .......... 51 5 1263 130* 27.45 G. Ulyett, 1875-92 .......... 65 0 1781 134 27.40 W. Bates, 1830-87 .......... 29 3 708 81 27.23 \V. Searle, 1821-32 .......... 17 3 331 60 27.21 T. Beagley, 1819-36 .......... 27 6 569 113* 27.09 Mr. T. C. O’Brien, 1884-92 15 2 352 90 27.07 Mr.R. A.H.Mitchell, 1862-71 13 1 322 7 7 26.91 Mr. A. G. Steel, 1878-91 ... 27 5 589 76 26.77 R. Carpenter, 1839-73 28 1 707 119 26.18 Mr. E. H. Budd, 1819 29 ... 13 1 314 63 26.16 J. Saunders, 1821-31 .......... 15 1 364 100 26 John Lillywhite, 1854-60 ... 16 3 335 66 25.76 R. Daft, 1858-79 ................. 48 4 986 102 25.28 W. Mortlock, 1854-68 18 2 403 78 28.18 J. Selby, 1875-82 ................. 20 0 494 70 24 7J Mr. A. W. Ridley, 1873-83... 22 2 491 103 24 55 Mr.G. H. Longman, 1873-76 12 0 293 70 24.21 Mr. A. N. Hornby, 1869-83 50 1 1185 144 24.18 G. Parr, 1846-65 ................ a ) 2 656 77 23.42 Jas. Broad bridge, 1821-35 20 3 391 49 23 E. Lockwood, 1869-83 53 1 1176 97 22.61 J. M. Read, 1882-93 .......... 24 1 515 66 £2.39 R. Abel, 1886-92 ................. 21 1 416 117 22.30 Mr. A. P. Lucas, 1876-89 ... 35 3 704 107 22 Mr. I. D. Walker, 1865-76 38 6 689 165 21.53 M. F. Penn, 1876-81 ......... 14 2 259 52 21.50 Mr. R. D. Walker, 1863-68 E. Willsher, 1856-73 ......... 18 1 364 92 21.41 34 11 479 77 20.82 Mr. E. Smith, 1891-93 ... 10 1 187 76 20.77 H. Jupp, 1865-80 ................. 64 0 1329 72 20.76 J. Wisden, 1848-59 .......... 23 3 415 53 20.75 Mr. John Walker, 1852-63 18 4 290 98 20.71 Mr. A. E. Stoddart, 1887-93 27 0 557 85 20.62 Hon.C.G.Lyttelton, 1861-66 21 0 418 81 19.90 H. H. Stephenson, 1857-69 24 2 424 117 19 27 Hon. A. Lyttelton, 1876-81 14 0 269 66 18.21 Mr. W. Ward, 1819-38 33 3 570 10ii* 19 Lord F. Beauclerk, 1806-24 12 1 207 58 18.81 Mr. B. B. Cooper, 1865-69... 11 1 183 70 18.80 R. Peel, 1887-92 ................. 21 2 349 56* 18.36 J. Guy, 1838-52 ................. 28 3 466 65 18.32 T. Humphrey, 1865-70 19 0 346 64 18.21 Mr.E.F.S.Tylecote. 1871-86 27 4 418 107 1817 Julius Caesar, 185>63.......... 14 1 235 51 18.07 J. Briggs, 1884-93................. 20 2 323 85 17 94 Mr. E. A. Nepean. 1887-92... 10 2 141 39* 17.62 T. Lockyer, 1854-66 .......... 27 3 422 76* 17.58 Mr.C. E. Green, 1869-75 ... 13 2 192 57* 17.45 Mr. E. M. Grace, 18-52-86 ... 25 1 417 71 1787 R. G. Barlow, 1876-83 37 2 611 65 17.17 Mr. F. P. Miller, 1855-63 ... 24 2 377 55 17.13