Cricket 1900

386 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. S e p t . 6, 1900. A F E W W O R D S A B O U T A V E R A G E S A T C R I C K E T . By “ A n O l d H a r r o v ia n /* Averages, it is believer], were first pub­ lished about 1840 in Bell’s Life in London, only a dozen or so of names then appear­ in g in the list, there being also no elaborate and m inute details for an adjunct, as is now the case. O nly just the runs, w ith the totals and average of each man were given, and nothing more. Slow ly but surely this list increased annually, till at last it reached its present gigantic proportions, though m any years elapsed before that eventuated. Bell's Life in London was a famous paper in days past, and for a series of years was almost, if not quite the only sporting journal that took any notice at all of cricket matches, and from that paper for a lon g period the principal part of the materials to form the Cricket Scores and Biographies was obtained. It is a fact, too, that even the Times did not begin to report or give fu ll scores of cricket matches till, it is believed, 1848. This, if a correct statement, is most curious and proves that the interest in cricket had not even at that date arrived at the state it now has b y a long way. B u t at the present time too much fuss b y far about rules and regulations is made. D irectly any novelty or altera­ tion appears it is disputed and overhauled by prejudiced persons, and by so-called critics of various calibres and standing in the cricketing world. There are, it must be allowed, far too many additions made of late to the laws of cricket, and they and other changes have not always led to good results, but quite the reverse. The great simplicity of the old laws, made upwards of 125 years back, has been almost destroyed. N o year now ever passes w ithout some alterations not welcome or approved of b y all. The vast quantity of matches now played makes cricket very common-place and uninteresting to what it was formerly, and so it must remain, it is feared, and even become worse in that respect. The quality of the great matches of the day has been evidently swallowed up by the quantity. It is impossible to please all at cricket, or at anything else in this world, but the arrangement about the annual result for the content for the championship county certainly requires re- m odelling, and to be carried out on other lines than those now existing. M any cricketers are with justice of the same opinion. I t has often too been remarked that most cricketers when participating in the “ noble gam es,” whether in a great or in a m iLor affair, or tor their own club, think princip illy if not entirely, of their own avera^18 and but little as regards the victorj or defeat of the side they are aseistii g . This of course is only partly correct, but it is sad to think that such debated cricket should exist anywhere or at all. F iiiy years ago averages were certainly ta lk 'd about occasionally and in a small way, bu t only now and then. They were never discussed and m inutely analysed to the extent they now are during the whole season, and in the winter also, both by the Press and word of mouth ! ! Averages too can never be accurately made up or reckoned, for the simple reason that some ciicketers consider certain matches as first-rate, while other critics call the same contests second-rate only, and so on. Hence a jum ble al­ together is the result as far as accuracy is concerned. Averages generally, no doubt, but not always, are a test and proof of the good­ ness of a cricketer’s play and performances, either in batting or bow ling, during the season. That very great batsman, Fuller Pilch, who was far the best performer in his day, and who flourished from about 1827 to 1854, w ill not be found, on perusing his deeds in the Cricket Scores and Biographies, to have a very large average, and, in fact, it is not near so enormous as the “ cracks” in these days obtain annually. B u t it can be affirmed w ith truth and without fear of contra­ diction or exaggeration that there have been few greater exponents of the art or science of batting than he was. But in his day the wickets (or pitches, as they are now termed) were so bad, even at L ord’s or on the Oval or elsewhere, that the present monstrous compilations were au impossibility, and twenty runs were then certainly as good and meritorious as fifty are now . The “ pitches” at the present time, too, being like a “ billiard table” and of adamantine construction, combined with great smoothness, cause the ball when delivered to come off the ground with great accuracy from the pitch, and no cricketer w ith moderate pluck need in these days fear a blow of any magnitude. Also the ball, when hit away, travels or runs so fast along the ground through the short cut grass, that it easily reaches one of the numerous boundaries, none of which existed in and about 1850. The m ow ing machine and very heavy Toller now so frequently used on cricket grounds were not in existence half a century back, and as the grass in the fielding portion of the arena was much longer then, the ball would and could never roll or slide along with the rapidity it now can. A t L ord’s then only a very light and almost useless roller was in vogue. P ut the greatest billiard player to display his skill on a faulty table, and mark the result. H e could not possibly make the enormous “ breaks ” he now is able to execute. A s with a billiard player on a bad table, so also with a batsman half a century ago. In 1850 no one could make the runs which in 1900 are comparatively easy to obtain. Also like another case, that of W illiam Lillywhite, the “ nonpareil,” a man who most likely was the best bowler who evtr existed with a “ tied down arm ,” or in other words, compelled by the laws of cricket as they then were not to raise his arm on delivery higher than the shoulder, an enormous impediment to all bowlers of that period. In his days also, when a wicket was obtained b y a catch or stumping or l.b .w , off his bow ling, his name, as well as that of all other bowlers, was often not recorded or preserved on the written score sheet, but om itted. The great number of wickets “ L illy ” gained during his great career was by this omission greatly reduced, and his average as a bowler largely diminished. A ll lovers of the antiquities of cricket who wish to peruse the old records, and not only the seekers after big averages, will on examination of the facts, allow the correctness of these statements, if they will with an unbiassed m ind think the matter over carefully, and for the sake of cricket only. They must put on one side their own individual interest either as regards their own average, and must also despise “ filthy lucre.” EASTBOURNE y. INCOGNITI.—Played at East- bourne on August 29 and 30. E astbourne . First innings. Second innings. L G. A. Collins, c Poland, b Schwarz ...........................25 c Snaith, bAbney 53 G. L. Whatford, c Cloete, b Schwarz .......................... 44 b Schw arz......... 1 F. W . Bush, c Schwarz, b Snaith.................................. 33 run out ....... 48 P. W . Hale, b Schwarz ... 1 b Abney ........ I Dr. Pavri. run out ......... 26 notout.................61 Nixon, b Quin ........... 6 b Schw arz......... 1 i ev. H. von E. Scott, b Schwarz ...........................15 b Schwarz ........ 5 R. T. <rawford, c Poland, b Snaith......................... 11 c Scell, b Snaith 19 E. M. Crosse, c Snell, b Snaith ................... 1 F. T. Wilman, b Schwarz ... 1 H Addison, absent 9 n otou t................. 0 H. F. Matheson, not out .. 0 Extras ... ...................10 Extras.............12 T o ta l......................172 Total ...191 I ncooniti . First innings. Second innings. Rev. F. W . Poland, b Pavri 7 b Nixon .........13 M. R. Quin, c Hale,b Pavri 61 b P a vri............... 10 A. P. Snell, b Pavri ........... 6 b P * v ri................ 0 N O. Tagart, lbw. b Hale 29 b Nixon 24 R. O. Schwarz, b Nixon ...117 c Crawford, b Nixon ......... 5 A. E. Ridsdale,lbw,b Nixon 16 cCollins, bNixon 14 Rev. H. C. L. Tindall, st Wilman, b Pavri ...........16 c Nixon, bPavri 4 J. C. Snaith, b Collins ... 19 b Pavri................*.5 A. E. Holt, c Wiiman, b Eush ..................................11 b H a le.....................14 A. B . Wall, c Nixon, b Bunh ................................. 9 abnent................... 0 M. Cloete, b Pavri ........... 7 bPavii .......... 4 L. E. (i. Abney, not out ... 1 notout................... l Extras ........................... 3 E xtras........... 5 Total...........................302 Total ..119 GENTLEMEN OF 8USSEX v. ItfC O G N IT I.- Played at Brighton on August *8. I n c o g n it i . Rev. F W . Poland, b A. E. Holt, b E. P . Sm ith................ 55 Beard 12 M. R. Quin, st Reed, P. Barker, b E. P. b Newham ......... 31 Beard ........... 7 A. E. fcidsdale, c and b M .Cloete,cBF. tleard, Sm ith......................... 17 b N-wham ........... 17 E. C. Lee, c Turnbull, A. P. Snell, not out 2 b Newham 35 L E.G.Atney,c8m ith, R. O. Schwarz, b E. P. b E. P. B eard ......... 3 Beard 32 E xtras................. 8 J. C Snaith, b E. P. — Beard......................... 8 Total ......... 227 S u ssex . B. F. Beard, b Schwarz 12 G. Whitfield, c Abney J. S. Bostock, c Cloete, b Ridsdale 52 b Schwaiz.................. 18 W . J. E. Verrall, not C. L. a . Smith, c Snell, out ........................... 33 b Snaith ... S6 E. A. Rtdwdale, c J. Gaifcford, b Schwaiz 7 Schwarz, b Ridtdale 2 E. G Reed, c Cloete, b E.P. Be»rd, b Schwarz 3 Schwarz ......... 4 E xtra*................. 12 F. J. Turnbull, c Lee, — b Schwarz... 10 Total ........... 199 W . Newham, c Snell, b Snaith ................... 18 I