Cricket 1895

1 0 2 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OP THE GAME. M ay 2, 1895. on Saturdays, with one on August Bank Holiday, and an occasional Wednesday fixture. II. E. Petley, 3, Fairfield Hoad, Old Charlton, S.E., continues in the office of Hon. Sec. CHARLTON PARK. May 4. Eltham, v. Eltkain. May 4. Charlton Park, v. Linden. May 11. Lee, v. Granville (I). M ay 11. Charlton Paik, v. Granville (II). May 18. Brondesbury, v. London Scottish. May 18. Charlton Park, v. Post Office. May 25. Dulwich, v. Dulwich (I). May 25. Charlton Park, v. Dulwich (II). June 1. Charlton Park, v. Blackhcath. June 1. New Cross, v. Goldsmiths’ Institute. June 3. Charlton Park, v. Old Charlton (I). June 3. Charlton Park, v. Old Charlton (II). June 5. Charlton Park, v. Hampstead. June 8. Forest Hill, v. Forest Hill (I). June 8. Charlton Park, v. Forest Hill (II). June 12. Charlton Park, v. Royal Naval College. June 15. Charlton Park, v. Goldsmiths’ Institute. June 22. Charlton Park, v. Dulwich (I). June 22. Dulwich, v. Dulwich (II). June 26. Charlton Park, v. Ne’er do Weels. June 29. Charlton Park, v. Eltham. June 29. Honor Oak, v. Linden. July 6. Charlton Park, v. Granville (I). July 6. Lee, v. Granville (II). July 10. Charlton Park, v. Erratics. July 13. Charlton Park, v. Crystal Palace. July 20. Charlton Park, v. Forest Hill (I). July 20. Forest Hill, v. Forest Hill (II). July 24. Charlton Park, v. Merchant Taylor’ s Schl. July 27. Charlton Park, v. London Scottish. July 27. Woolwich, v. Royal Military Academy (EE). July 31. Hampstead, v. Hampstead. Aug-. 3. Charlton Park, v. Old Charlton (I). Aug. 3. Charlton Park, v. Old Charlton (II). Aug. 5. Rectory Field, v. Blackheath. A ug. 10. Chislehurst, v. Chislehurst. Aug. 21. Woolwich, v. Royal Artillery. Aug. 24. Charlton Park, v. Chislehurst. Aug. 31. Charlton Park, v. Post Office. Sept. 7. Charlton Park, v. Burlington Wanderers. SURREY v. ENGLAND. A R e t r o s p e c t b y F. G. H. As it is now nearly three decades since Surrey essayed to play England, the revival of a similar match in the forthcoming season should create an interest amongst the present generation of cricketers second in no way to that of any contest of 1895, bearing in mind the position Surrey held as the champion county in 1894. The results of the nine contests which have taken place between Surrey and England are here detailed : 1858—Surrey won by an innings and 28 runs. England, 62 and 154 ; total. 216. Surrey, 244. 1859—England won by 393 runs. England, 173 and 390; total, 563. Surrey, 131 and 39; total, 170. 1860—Drawn. Surrey had seven wickets to fall second innings. Suney, 174 and 84; total, 258. England. 148. 1861—Surrey won by 56 runs. Surrey, 234 and 229 ; total, 463. England, 189 and 218 ; total, 407. 1862—Drawn. Surrey had four wickets to fall second innings. Surrey, 102 and 154; total, 256. England, 503. 1863—Drawn (wet). England two wickets down second innings Surrey, 184 and 198; total, 382. England, 218 and 67 ; total, 285. 1864—Surrey won by nine wickets, they having only one wicket down second innings. England, 259 anfl 182; total, 44J, Surrey, 368 and 74 ; total, 112. 1865—Drawn (wet). Suirey had lost six wickets second innings. England, 276. Surrey, 91 and 216 ; total, 307. 1866—England won in an innings and 296 runs. England, 521. Surrey, 99 and 126 ; total, 225 It will be seen by the above figures Surrey won three times, England twice; the other four matches were drawn, two, it may be said, in favour of England. The match of 1859 will always be memor­ able for the extraordinary performance for England of Mr. V. E. Walker, both with bat and ball, in his two innings of 20 and 108, and in getting the whole of the ten Surrey wickets for 74 runs in the first innings, and four wickets in the second innings for 17 runs. It may be said cf this gentleman that he hardly, if ever, met with his equal as a slow underhand bowler. In the match of 1861 Mr. E. Dowson’s batting for Surrey stood out conspicuously, his aggregate number of runs in two innings (first innings 80, second 36), being 116 ; ascore larger than that of any other player on either side. The match of 1862 was what has been styled thesensational one, asthe late John Lillywhite, one of the umpires, no-balled the departed Edgar Willsher, for what he considered his unfair delivery, J. L. thereby showing an independent spirit characteristic of the man. Mr. E. M. Grace for England, and Tom Humphrey for Surrey, were the principal run-makers in the match of 1864, getting, in their two innings, 109 and 107 respectively. The match of 1865 one might say was an epoch in the Grace family history, asit was the first time E. M. Grace and his young brother ‘ ‘ W. G.,” then only seventeen , played together in a first-class match, and the first year the latter was one of an eleven representing England. The experiment of their opening the first innings for England was justified, as they were not separated until the score-board showed 80 runs for no wicket. I believe Thoms was one of the umpires in this match, and I am sure it will be pleasing to see him again acting after a lapse of thirty years— now as the “ King of Umpires.” The following year, 1866, the last of this series of nine matches of Surrey v. England, the two brothers again played for England, when the budding champion cricketer, W. G. Grace, then only eighteen, astonished the United Kingdom by getting 224 not out , the highest innings he had ever played, and the biggest ever seen on the Oval. Twenty-nine years have elapsed since Surrey played England, and the same great batsman, it is to be hoped, will be seen again this year playing in the tenth match (on the England side), against his friend Mr. W. W. Read, on the occasion of the well-earned testimonial benefit of that star of Surrey cricket. In conclusion, it may not be considered out of place tomention that the two doctors, E. M. and W. G. Grace, are the only two cricketers nowr playing who took part in the ninth encounter of Surrey and England so long ago as 1866. BUCKS. May 22. Aylesbury v. M.C.C. and Ground. July 11. Aylesbury v. Warwickshire Crusaders. July 17. Thame v. Oxfordshire. August 5. Aylesbury v. Northamptonshire. August 7. Aylesbury v. Oxfordshire. August 9. Lord’s v. M.C.C. and Ground. August 12. Aylesbury. Gents of Bucks v. A . J. Robart’s X I., Tile House, Buckingham. August 21. Leighton Buzzard v. Bedfordshire. August 23. Northampton v. Northamptonshire. August 26. Aylesbury v. Bedfordshire. August 28. Aylesbury. Club and Ground v. H. Tubb, Esq.’s X I. NORFOLK. June 3. Norwich v. M.C.C. June 27. Spalding v. Lincolnshire. July 25. Bishop Stortford v. Herts. July 31. Norwich v. Zingari. August 12. Norwich v. Cambridgeshire. August 14. Norwich v. Lincolnshire. August 16. Norwich v. Hertfordshire. August 21. Norwich v. Oxfordshire. August 26. Whitney v. Oxfordshire. August 28. Cambridge v. Cambridgeshire. All two days’ matches. T he late Mr. G. II. Strutt left a legacy of £200 to the Perbyshiie County C.C; T H E I M P R O V E M E N T OF CRICKET GROUNDS. The number of cricket books of the ordinary kind would appear to be never ending. Cricket history has been done to death in every shape or form. Statistical matter has been overdone till it has become positively wearisome, except to the statisticians. The only subject on cricket which has hardly been properly treated—certainly not treated in a practical shape—is the preparation and main­ taining of cricket grounds. The treatise by Mr. J. A. Gibbs, just published by Horace Cox, therefore may be said to supply a real want. In any case the \srorkhas the advantage of representing the opinions of a practical man. In the main it is a reprint of a series of articles written for the benefit of village clubs. Economy has therefore been the leading principle in their preparation, and the various methods have consequently the benefit of simplicity. As a specimen of the contents we have ventured to reproduce the chapter dealing with the influence of the heavy roller on pitches. This is a subject which appeals to- cricketers of most classes, and will no doubt be read with interest. INFLUENCE OF THE HEAVY ROLLER ON PITCHES. A difficult question often arises at the end of the first innings of a cricket match, and it is sometimes no easy matter for the captain to decide. It is simply whether to put the heavy roller on the pitch for ten minutes or not. Many a match is lost or won with the captain’s decision on this point, and so much depends on circumstances that it is difficult to lay down any law on the subject. There are, nevertheless, certain conditions of the ground in which there ought to be no doubt. For instance, a heavy roller should be used in the following case:—When a ground is thoroughly soft after long continued rain, the side that goes in first will cut up the wicket badly; the ball will cut a piece out of the ground every time it pitches, and the bowlers will do considerable damage at either end. Under these circumstances it is always to the advantage of the batsmen, after all the broken bits of turf have been swept away, to have a big roller on. But it ought not to be done if the heavy roller is likely to bring so much water up to the surface as to make the ground unfit for play. The light roller would then answer the purpose equally well. The reason for rolling under these circumstances is as follows:—When a ground is much cut up, the drier it becomes the more difficult it will play. As long as it is wet on the surface the ball will cut through and go straight on to^ the bat. Should it be a fine day, wdth either a hot sun or a good breeze, the surface of the soil will dry to a certain extent; and if it be allowed to go on drying all day the ball will begin to “ catch hold ” of the uneven surface and do extraordinary things. But the heavy roller, besides making the pitch flat, also- makes it wet again, and the pitch will play easily until the sun or wind begins to dry it. Grounds, whether slow or fast by nature, always play faster than usual immediately after or during rain. I am not considering this state of things, but referring to those pitches which heavy rain has had time to soak into and render slow. Nevertheless the roller, by bringing up water, acts in the same sort of way as rain, inasmuch as it makes the ball “ cut through,” and therefore makes it easier for the batsman to play. Having endeavoured to explain when a heavy roller is of use, I now pass on to an instance in which it ought not to be used