Cricket 1901

34 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME, M arch 28, 1901. Thoms, who, after thinking a moment, said that he could find a man who would upset the apple cart of the hitherto victorious eleven. The day of the match arrived, and a young fellow in black waistcoat, flannels of a kind, no collar, and a gorgeous cap, appeared on the side of the visitors. The ball was given to the “ dark horse,” who turned out to be a slow bowler of infinite cunning. One by one the home team sadly discovered that there were weak points in their armour, and the result was a severe defeat for them. It is whispered that all chance of a renewal of the occurrence was averted b y the prompt engagement of the pro­ fessional for three years by the captain of the losing side. It may be added that the triumphant bowler was Jack Hughes, a great friend of Caffyn, who is inclined to consider him as having been the greatest slow bowler of his time. Like Caffyn, he lives at Hertford, and the two old cricketers have many a talk together about old times. Although Caffyn is now seventy-two years old (it will be remembered that his exceedingly entertaining book published early last year was entitled “ 71 n o to u t” ), he still occasionally umpires for clubs in the neighbourhood of Hertford, and as he is not a man who can only see good in old-time cricket, he is popular with rising players, who recognise that he still knows a thing or two about the science of batting— a great admission for modern youths to make. Naturally the wiser of the young players of the neighbourhood like to induce the old man to point out the difference between the old and the new. He tells them that he thinks there is no modern bowler quite as fast as Mr. Harvey Fellows or Mr. Lang, adding that if a man were faster ttian either of them, it would not be possible for a batsman to see the ball at all— there would be no time. He is an authority on lob bow ling, for, besides playing against all the great men of his time, he was coaching at Brighton College when Walter Humphreys was just com ing out, and frequently sampled his bow ling—and in the opinion of many people who played against him, Walter Humphreys had more devil in him in his earlier days than when he was considered, many years afterwards, as the greatest lob bow ler of m odem years. C offin has also seen most of the other modern lob bowlers, who are always regarded as inferior to Humphreys. He thinks that the greatest difference between the old and tiie new is that there is no fast underhand ball at all comparable with that which used to be bowled b y Clarke and Mr. Y . E. Walker. Humphreys was exceedingly good, he tlurks, but not in the running with Clarke and Mr. Walker, of whom he considers the latter the more difficult, chiefly because of the great amount of ground he could cover on either side of the wicket, rendering it unsafe to hit a ball a foot above the ground unless it would pass the bow ler’s wicket at least three or yards away. Of modern cricket he thinks that throwing ought to be put down when it is discovered, but that very few men are really open to the suspicion of throwing. As to the pro­ posed alterations in the l.b.w . law, he is of opinion that it would make far greater unpleasantness, and that it would be a big job for umpires to carry it out. Hundreds of men would be given out when the ball would have passed the wicket if it had not been intercepted, and this even when an umpire was honest as well as competent. It is quite possible that Caffyn would still be playing cricket in local matches, for he has all the enthusiasm of a young man, if it had not been for an accident to his knee years ago, caused by slipping when trying to turn after attempting a very short run with the late Mr. Yardley. It is a little surprising that Caffyn was never seriously hurt in any other way on the cricket field, despite the long innings which he played against such tremendously fast bowlers as Mr. Harvey Fellows and Mr. Lang, on such fiery wickets. It is hardly necessary to say that he did not escape severe blows on the body, and often after a long innings, especially when opposed to a good deal o f fast left-hand bow ling, his left side was black and blue from the effect of continuous blows from which there was no possibility of escaping, other than by running away. It has always been his firm opinion that Willsher, the famous old Kent left-hand bowler, could hit a man on the ribs as often as he considered necessary to get him into a proper frame of mind for the grand coup. Happy days ! Cafljn can certainly look back with satisfaction on his connection with cricket. H e had a great career as a batsman, playing for years in Clarke’s famous All England Eleven and for Surrey with the greatest success, and visiting Australia with the first team which left England to try the strength of the colonies. A t the end of the tour he was persuaded to remain in Australia, thus forfeiting his right to a benefit at the Oval. At Melbourne and Sydney he batted and bow led and coached until he had im­ proved young Australian cricketers out o f all knowledge, and had worn himself out in their service; but in his wildest dreams he never imagined that in seven years’ time they would be playing En g­ land on level terms. Finally, his book, “ 71 not out,” has become one of the classics of the game, and certainly ought to be in the hands of every cricketer who can possibly afford it. It is now in a second edition. Wise in his generation, Caffyn learned a trade when he was young, and after he retired from cricket he had his business as a coiffeur (he took lessons in Paris) to fall back upon. The Surrey County Cricket Club, mindful of the great things be had done for the old Surrey eleven, and for­ getful of the fact that he had deserted them when they most needed his services, granted him a small pension, and although up to the present, Australian cricketers, who owe so much to him, have not in any way recognised the vast benefit derived from his coaching in the early cricket days of the colonies, it is possible that one of these days they will remedy the defect. W . A. B e t t k s w o k t h . THE MARYLEBONE CLUB IN 1901. The programme to be undertaken by the Marylebone Club this summer shows no sign of diminution either in quantity or quality. In a long list of out matches may be mentioned the follow ing tours: — Sussex College Tour.— JUNE. 8. Eastbourne, v. South Lynn 10. Ardingley, v. The College 11. LanciDg, v. The College 12. Hurstpierpoint, v. 8t. John’s College 13. Brighton, v. The College 14. Eastbourne, v. Eastbourne College 15. Eastbourne, v. New College « South Wales Tour. 17. Hereford, v. Herefordshire 19. Cardiff, v. Glamorganshire 21. Newport, v. Monmouthshire Warwickshire Tour .—JULY. 17. Leamington, v. The College 18. Leamington, v. Leamington Town 19. Rugby, v. Ru?by Town 22. Warwick, v. Gentlemen of Warwick 24. Coventry, v. North Warwickshire 25. Kenilworth, v. Kenilworth Cornwall and Devonshire Tour. —AUGUST. 12. Truro, v. Cornwall 14. Plymouth, v. The Garrison 16. Tavistock, v. Devonshire 19. Westward Ho. v. Westward Ho 21. Instow, v. North Devon 23. Sidmouth, v. Sidmouth South Coast Tour. 19. Eastbourne, v. Devonshire Park 21. Hastings, v. Hastings and St. Leonard’s 23. Eastbourne (Saffrons), v. Eastbourne MARYLEBONE CRICKET CLUB. (Fixtures at Lord’s for 1901.) M A Y 1. Anniversary Meeting and Dinner 1. M.C.C. and Ground v. Notts 6. M.C.C. and Ground v. Yorkshire 9. M.C.C and Ground v. Lancashire 13. M.C.C. and Ground v. Sussex 16. M.C.C. and Ground v. Leicestershire 20. M.C.C. and Ground v Kent 23. M.C.C. and Ground v. Derbyshire 27 (Whit-Monday). M.C.C. and Ground v. Somer­ setshire (W . Gunn’s Benefit). 80. Middlesex v. Gloucestershire JUNE. 3. M.C.C. and Ground v. South Africans 6. Middlesex v. Yorkshire 10. Middlesex v. Notts 13. M.C.C. and Ground v. London County C.C. 17. M.C C. and Ground v. X I. from Minor Counties 20. M.C.C. and (iround v. Worcestershire 21. M.C.C. and Ground v Grange Club and Ground (two days) 26. Gentlemen of M.C.C. v. Navy (one day) 27. M.C.C. and Ground v. Cambridge University JULY. 1. M.C C. and Ground v. Oxford University (two days) 4 . Oxford v. Cambridge 8. Gentlemen v. Players 12. Eton v. Hairow (two days) 15. Middlesex v. Surrey 18. Middlesex v. Sussex 22. Gents, of M.C.C. v. Royal Artillery (tw odajs) ‘24. Gents, of M.C C. v. Household Brigade (twodays) 26. Gents, of M.C.C. v. Royal Engineers (two days) 29. M.C.C. and Ground v. Bedfordshire (two days) 31. Rugby v. Marlborough (two days) AUGUST. 2. Cheltenham v. Hailejbury (two days) 5. M.C.C and Ground v. Gentlemen of Holland (two days) 7. M.C.C. and Ground v. Hertfordshire (two days) 9. M.C.C. and Ground v. Cambiidgeshire (two days) 12. Middlesex (2) v. Essex (2) (two days) 14. M.C.C. and Ground v. Dorsetshire ^two days) 16. M.C.C. and Ground v. Wiltshire (two days) 19. Middlesex v. Lancashire 23. M.C.C. and Ground v. Oxfordshire (two days) 2*. Middlesex v. K -nt 29. M.C.C. and Ground v. Northamptonshire (two days) 31. M. .0. and Ground v. London Playing Fields (two days) SEPTEMBER. 2. Middlesex v. Essex Unless otherwise specified the matches last three days.