Cricket 1896

A pril 9, 1896. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. BETWEEN THE INNINGS. Bo Maurice Bead is no more to be seen in the Surrey ranks ! Heavy news this, truly. To Surrey’s success in the field, indeed, it should make but little difference. The champion county has in reserve not only such able men as Baldwin, Hender­ son, Smith and Ayres, any one of whom almost any other county would be glad to play, but also such smart youngsters as Braund, Nice and Thompson, all of whom may yet be seen doing big things for their county. Thus Surrey can spare Maurice; and her loss will be Bead’s gain, as the engagement which he has accepted is a good and remunerative one. But we shall miss him—every freqnenter of Kennington Oval will miss him—the cheery, plucky, great-hearted, dashing batsman—the safe, speedy long-field—the fine, straightforward, manly fellow that he was ! One by one they pass into retirement, the heroes of the old days. “ Jack” Shuter, “ The Little Doctor,” and good old “ Billy ” Barnes were missed last year; while Walter Humphreys, that “ sage Ulysses, skilled in many a wile,” dropped out of the Sussex team. George Ulyett — hard-hitting, dashing “ Happy Jack ” —went but a little earlier; and a little before him his old comrade, Louis Hall, and Barlow the stonewaller, and his comrade, the veteran Scotchman. Ten years bring many changes in the world of cricket. Beside me as I write lies Wisden for 1887, open at pp. 286, 287, whereon are chronicled the first-class averages for 1886. A glance down these lists shows how many have disappeared from first-class cricket since then. Mr. W. W. Bead and Shrewsbury head the two columns of batting averages; they are both still with us, though each is now approaching the end of his long career. Mr. A. G. Steel follows Mr. Bead—Mr. Steel, all too soon lost to the cricket field and embarked upon a forensic career, yet who still flashes out now and then with something of hisold brilliance, andMaurice follows Shrewsbury; and after him come Abel, George Heame, Humphreys, Hall, Gunn, Scotton (dead by his own hand, poor fellow !), Barnes, Frank Heame (now an Afrikander), Bates (whose career was so summarily ended during the visit to Australia in 1877-78 by the loss of an eye), Spillman (who never played in first- class cricket before or after ’86), Lohmann (still with us, thank G od ! though the doctors almost gave him up a year or two ago), Grimshaw, Flowers, Chatterton, Preston (dead) and Peel. These eighteen had averages over 20 in 1886; how many of them will be seen in first-class cricket in 1896 ? Shrewsbury (perhaps), Abel, Gunn, Lohmann, Flowers, Chatterton, Peel—seven! Thirty-three amateurs having an aver­ age of over 20 are shown; and of these only nine—Messrs. W. W. Bead, W. G. Grace, A. J. Webbe, W. Newham, G. Brann, F. Marchant, A. E. Stoddart, and H. W. Bainhridge, with Lord Hawke, then the Hon. Martin Bladen Hawke— now play first-class cricket regularly. Among the others are Lord Harris, states. man and Governor-General as well as cricketer, who may yet be seen again in flannels for dear old Kent; Mr. C. Wilson, since the Bev. Cecil Wilson, and later still, Bishop of Melanesia; Mr. Frank Townsend, whose son now fills his old place in the Gloucestershire team; Mr. F. M. Lucas, dead, under an Indian sky little more than a year later: Mr. Cyril Buxton, who met with the same sad end as poor William Scotton; and three of the Thornton family, “ the Parson,” C. I., and A. J. Of the rest, Messrs. Yemon, Bashleigh, Hewett, Patterson, Hornby, and Leslie Wilson are still occasionally to be seen in old-time harness of pads and flannels. Taking the whole of the tables ( Wisden ten years ago did not give as full batting summaries as now, be it remembered, and the lowest average recorded here is prac­ tically fourteen per innings). I may summarise them thus :— Amateurs —48 players given. Still playing regularly, 12. Still playing oc­ casionally, 12. Dropped out, 24. Professionals —33 players given. Still playing regularly, 11. Still playing oc­ casionally, 2 (Shrewsbury and G. G. Hearne). Dropped out, 20. That is to say that of 81 of the principal players of 1886, no fewer than 44 are no longer seen in first-class cricket. Go back still another 10 years, and what do we find ? The following is a full list of the men who played first-class cricket in both 1876 and 1895 :— Lord Harris, Messrs. W. G. Grace, A. P. Lucas, C. I. Thornton, A. N. Hornby, G. F. Yernon, W. W. Bead, and A. J. Webbe, with Shaw, Shrewsbury, Hum­ phreys, and G. G. Hearne. Twelve in all—a short list, yet a notable one. Famous to a man, as well they may be, with 20 years’ good service behind them. Forty years of age and more, the most of them, some over fifty; yet would I like to see an eleven chosen from these and some three or four more “ old crocks ” —say Peate, Watson, Barlow, Ulyett, and Burton—opposing the Australians at Lord’s this summer. I don’ t say they would win; I don’t think they would; but I believe every lover of cricket who could get there would crowd to the match, and it would be an object lesson to the Austra­ lians, who are apt to think a man old at thirty-three. Maurice has not completed his score of years’ service; still, if one counts his visits to Australia, he has played full twenty seasons’ first-class cricket. John Maurice Bead—to give him his full baptismal cog­ nomen—was born at Thames Ditton on the ninth of February, 1859, and first made his appearance in the Surrey team during the season of 1880, when he had just at­ tained his majority. It was in 1882 that a great innings of 130 for the Players against the Australians at the Oval first brought him into great prominence, though even before that he had been looked upon as quite the most promising professional batsman in the South of England, which was not saying a great deal in those days, and won him a place for the first time in the England Eleven. The match was that famous seven runs’ victory of the Australians, and Maurice, though he batted well for nineteea not out in the first innings, failed as hopelessly as the rest of the tail in the second. Since then, however, he has been ever quite in the front of professional batsmen; has four times visited Australia and once South A frica; has played for the Players, the South and again (in 1890, by no means one of his best years) for England; has scored eleven centuries in first-class cricket, and has never once in England finished up the season with an average of less than twenty per innings. The following is a list of his cen­ turies :— 186, not out, Surrey v. Somerset, Oval 1885. 186, Surrey v. Australians, Oval, 1886. 136, Surrey v. Oxford University, Oval, 1889. 135, Surrey v. Gloucestershire. Oval, 1890. 135, Surrey v. Yorkshire, Sheffield. 1891. 131, Surrey v. Hampshire, Oval, 1895. 130, Players v. Australians, Oval, 1882. 113, not out, Surrey v. Gloucestershire, Oval, 1883. 109, South v. Australians, Gravesend, 1886. 109, Surrey v. Yorkshire, Bradford. 1888. 106, Lord Sheffield’s Team v. N.S.W., Sydney, 1892. Also in matches not ranking as first- 140, Shaw’s Team v. X V III of Sandhurst, 1®87. 131, Surrey v. Leicestershire, Leicester. 1892. 121, Shaw’s Team v. X X of Ballarat, 1887. 108, Surrey v. Derbyshire, Oval, 1893. 101, X I of Surrey v. X IX of Guildford, 1889. And here are his complete averages, season by season, in first-class matches. MAURICE READ’S BATTING AVERAGES. Times Highest Season. Inns, not out. Runs. Aver. score. 1880 ... 23 ... 1 .... 355 ... 16.13 ... 68 1881 ... 29 ... 2 ... 515 ... 1907 ... 81* 1882 ... 44 ... 3 ... 919 ... 22 41 ... 130 1883 ... 42 ... 5 ... 850 . 22 97 ... 113* 1881 ... 44 ... 5 ... 834 ... 21*38 ... 99 In Aust. 1881-5 ... 12 ... 1 ... 178 ... 16-18 ... 56 1885 ... 35 ... 2 ... 1137 ... 34-45 ... 186* 1886 ... 43 ... 4 ... 1364 ... 34-97 ... 186 In Aust. 1886-7 ... 17 ... 0 ... 288 .. . 16-94 ... 63 1887 ... 38 ... 0 ... 908 ... 23 89 ... 71 In Aust. 1887-8 ... 13 ... 0 ... 218 ... 1676 ... 39 1888 ... 32 ... 1 ... 786 .... 25 35 ... 109 In S. A. 1888-9 ... 3 ... 0 ... 16 ... 533 ... 12 1889 ... 27 ... 2 ... 847 ... 33 88 .. 136 1890 ... 42 ... 2 ... 829 ... fcO’72 ... 135 1891 ... 29 ... 1 ... 722 .... 25 78 ... 135 In Aust. 1891-2 ... 11 ... 0 ... 326 ... 29 63 ... 106 1892 ... 32 ... 4 ... 616 ... 22-00 . . 86 1893 ... 34 ... 4 ... 651 . 21-70 ... 87 1894 ... 23 ... 2 ... 640 ... 30 47 ... 86 1895 ... 37 ... 4 ... 1031 ... 31-24 ... 131 Total ...610 43 14,030 24-74 * Signifies not out. It is a great record this, truly, and yet I don’t think that it thoroughly expresses Maurice’s value on a side. His utter fearlessness often helped him to success where more cautious and—let it be added —more scientific batsmen failed. More scientific, I say, for orthodoxy was as little one of Read’s merits as was dulness one of is faults. Would there were more professionals like him ! It is all very well to “ play the game ” carefully and scientifically for hour after hour, to pay devout respect to the off theory; It may be all very well for the man who cares more for his own average than for any considerations of true sportsmanship to practice systematic legging; but one longs sometimes For the lift of a smiting hand, And a sound of a swipe for six ! Not that Maurice was a reckless player, and no more. No player could have made so great a name and so many runs as he did by consistent recklessness. His defence was strong enough; and he could play a steady game when need be. A fine long-field, too; George Lohmann has