Cricket 1895

“ Together joined in Cricket’s manly toil.” — Byron. Begird f ^ r ' a n T H U R S D A Y , MA Y 1 1895. PR ICE 2d. CRICKET NOTCHES. B y the R ev . R . S. H olmes . The nine-hit from the bat of the Surrey Colt, Higgins, at the Oval last week wants analysing. Were there any overthrows in it ? It is certainly worth noticing in these days of boundaries, though it is not “ a record for any first-class ground.” Dear Mister Editor, a hit at Lord’ s in 1863 can beat it ; it was made in a match which has long been discarded—for Government v. Opposition—and realised 10 runs, which, however, contained a couple of overthrows ; the batsman was the Hon. W. Coke, who scarcely lives to fame. Of course nearly all such hits have been made on unenclosed grounds. Charles Payne, whom the older generation will recall as one of the best batsmen in the south of England,and “ the finestshort-leg’ of his day ; who played for both Sussex and Kent in the same years. . . . . Payne at Tunbridge Wells in 1863 was credited with a hit for 13, Joseph Rowley, one of a famous past brotherhood, playing for Manchester v. Liverpool at Old Trafford (another first-class ground), in 1863, hit a nine, an eight, and a sevenin his innings of 46 : whilst the old Cantab, J. H. Ronpell, on Parker’s Piece, for Trinity Hall v. Emanuel College, in 1865, got hits for 10, 9, and 8 in compiling 97. Up to date there had been no other ten-hit made on that ground. Two or three years ago there passed away the Rev. Frederick Thackeray, a relation, I believe, of the great novelist; he was the hero of many a notable per­ formance on the cricket field. In one match—title not given, nor date —he hit a ball to the leg for which he and his partner, Mr. F. Ede, ran 10 runs, and then, although the ball was not returned, Mr. Ede said he could run no more. “ Two affidavits were sworn to the truth of this statement.” But fancy a hit for 13 in a single wicket match! Surrey’s old captain, F. P. Miller, was the executant when playing G. Gilbert in August, 1851 ; Gilbert threw the ball at the wicket—perhaps more than once— but as it did not conform to the law by passing within the bounds, Miller kept on running. Somewhere I have read of an apocryphal hit for 27; the pitch bang at the top of a hill; ball hit to square-leg ; a relief of fielders got it up the^hill, when the last of them had a shy ran after it from short-leg to the palings, and as “ Bummy” was no sprinter, seven runs were easily run. The boundaries have completely done away with all this. I can assure my younger friends there was some excitement in watching such hits run out, especially when the batsmen hadnot another ten feet in them. Batting, in those days, wasa serious business, you needed good wind. We have made things too comfortable and ea»y tor the present gene­ ration of batsman ; yet we have not in the least studied bowlers. What with perfect tickets, sight boards, and boundaries, we have handicapped bowling so heavilv that I ofter wonder they have not struck enmasse. Next week I may have something to say in the direction of certain changes or reforms in cricket, so as to put a stop to what many of us regard as the prime evil in current cricket, viz., the excessive scores. Perhaps the biggest hit on record was that which landed the ball into a passing tiain which carried it over a hundred miles before the ball was discovered. A couple of letters have remained unanswered fir some little time, to which I would now briefly refer. In both cases disputes arose which gave rise to considerable local dis­ cussion. I have been urgently^re quested to give an tp nion. The first c<mes irom Thamts, Auckland, New Zealand, and encloses a copious newspaper correspondence. The match was between two Senior teams. One of the batsmen made a hit for five, that is to say, the scorers registered that number of runs. When he left the wicket h® asked how many runs were set down on the score sheet, the answer was five... He ieplied that it should have been seven, and, on consulting his secretary, was advised to get the figure altered in thdr score-book at any rate. The captains, disagreeing as to the number run fur this 1it, con­ sulted the umpires, one of whom could give no definite answer, whilst the other said that seven ha been run. The captains accepted the latter’s decision, and so both the score books were correct d. The point debated is this Have the umpires power over the scorers, as they have over the players ? It is not easy to answer this question. As a rule they have nothing to do with them ; their respective functions are entirely separate. Of cour.e, 1 take it, any responsible person iii a match can ask to seo at wicket, but missing it, the ball went careering down the foot of hill on the other side of wicket. The most telling hit in a first-class match I can recall was made in the first year I visited the Oval—1862. The North were playing Surrey; Yorkshire Anderson, a rare smiter, and who was having his third benefit match last week end, hit the ball toward the gas­ ometer, fielder in throwing it up did not clear the seat, the consequence was they ran eight. MU. TOM HKARNE ( See p . 139). 1 saw W. G. score an eight in his innings of 215 against the Players in 1870 by a magnifi­ cent cut down past the old Ireenearby the Oval entrance, but there was an overthrow for a single hit in it. Billy Mortloek, I remember, in the Whitsuntide match at Lord’s in 1865, hit a seven to square-leg—his favourite hit, the laige gate being open at the time, the ball ran out into St. John’ s Wood Road. In Surrey Stephenson’s benefit, in 1871, Dick Humphrey got a beauty to square- leg soon after that fatal first ball which John Lillywhite' gave against W. G. J. C. Shaw