Cricket 1902

114 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. M a y 8, 1902. Shaw as one of the bowlers. He was throwing, without a doubt, and we both got hit all over the body, but for all that we managed to get over a hundred between us. But it was exciting work, I assure you. It seems to me that the best thing would be to allow throwing— the wickets are so good now that nobody could be hurt. But even if throwing is not allowed, I think jerking ought to be. It’s all rubbish to say it would be too fast, for nobody could jerk as fast as men bowl to-day, or, as I call it, throw.” As showing how keen men were in Mr. Norton’s time to get a chance of improving their game, it may be men­ tioned that Mr. Norton once drove twelve miles and back for the sake of getting a few balls at practice from Hillyer. “ This was in 1847 or ’48,” he said, “ and I felt that the journey was worth the trouble. I may say that the pictures one sees of Hillyer are entirely mislead­ ing ; they are mere caricatures. I have always considered that, as a bowler, he was very much like Tom Emmett; there was more devil in him than in old Lillywhite, who was much more easy than the bowlers we met afterwards. Most of the tales that one hears about the men of my time are pure inventions, in my opinion, but it is quite true that old William used to say ‘ If you wantto see real cricket you should see Fuller Pilch a battin’ and me a bowlin’.’ When he first came out, his style was new to everybody, and therefore he was very difficult, but in later years his bowling was something like my own—slow and very straight, without much in it. I could get a break on if I threw.” “ Who, in your opinion, were the best bowlers of your time ? ” “ I should say good old Alfred and Hillyer for the earlier time, and Tarrant Willsher, Mr. V. E. Walker, Southerton and A. Shaw for the later. Mr. Harvey Fellowes was very fast indeed, and very straight, but being almost underhand, he was not difficult.” “ Is there any truth in the well-known statement that Fuller Pilch refused to give Dr. E. M. Grace out at Canterbury because he wished to see him bat ? ” “ None whatever; it is pure invention. I ought to know, for not only was I captain of the Kent team, but I was bowling also. Kelson missed E. M. at the wicket before he had made any runs at all, and he afterwards made 192 not out, besides taking all our ten wickets. By rights he ought not to have played in the match at all—it was Kent v. M.C.C.—but it was all planned before­ hand to play him as an emergency, because it was known that we should object to his playing for the M.C.C. if he were placed on the list of players selected. As a matter of fact we did object before the match began, and some of us were ready to walk off the field. But Mr. Win. de C. Baker, who was managing the Can­ terbury Week, appealed admisericordiam, on the ground that as so many people were present so much money would be lost if the match were not played, and we gave way. We had just started the Kent County C.C., and there wag some jealousy with the Canterbury club, because they did not play what we called legitimate county cricket. Some people thought that we started the county club in opposition to the Canterbury club, but this was not the case, and five years before the two clubs became amalgamated, I wrote, as secretary, by the direction of the committee, to Mr. Baker to try and bring it about. But the time for amalgamation had not yet come, and it was left to Lord Harris, with the help of our old committee, to bring about a complete reconciliation.” Mr. Norton often played at Southgate during the time of the famous private club organized by the Walkers. “ There was good cricket played then at South­ gate, and no mistake,” he said. “ I had forgotten how often I played there until I read a recent book about the Walkers ; it recalled details of several delightful matches. I remember that once a lot of us were walking in the grounds after a match, when a rabbit ran across the path, whereupon I took up a stone and knocked him over, as much to my own surprise as his, I daresay.” W. A. B etteswokth . erorrtsponfctmc. The Editor does not hold himself responsible tor the opinions of his correspondents. A NOTE ON LAST WEEK’S “ CHAT.” To the Editor of C r ic k e t . D e a r S ib ,— I was particularly interested in your latest “ Chat,” as I have at one time and another played a good deal of cricket with Mr. S. S. Pawling, and having had to “ long-stop ” on occasion, I can bear good evidence to his pace, though like all fast bowlers he sometimes sacrificed accuracy. Strangely enough, too, though I did not know it until I read your “ Chat,” I was a spectator of his first success—when bis bowling was so success­ ful for Mill Hill (under 15) against Elstree. And it is with Mr. PawliDg’s remark about this match [that he clean bowled Andrew Gerrard, Leslie and M. F. ItamBay] that I now write to you; yet again his accuracy suffers for his pace! Mr. Pawling says that the “ two latter played for England against Australia.” This is not correct. Mr. Leslie, the old Rugby, Oxford-Middlesex cricketer, of course represented England when in Australia as amember of Hon. Ivo Bligh’s team, in 1882-83, and so may be said to have done so. But Mr. M. F. Ramsay certainly never played in anything approaching repiesentative (or test) cricket, either here or in Australia— good cricketer though he was and pro- ably is. For it is only a year or two ago that he w h s playing over here I noticed. Mr. Andrew was the Elstree captain, and a capital schoolboy bat, as too was Mr. Gerrard, who was sub­ sequently one of those unfortunates who just missed his flannels at Harrow. I remember the match in 1874, v. Mill Hill, well enough, but never knew until now that it was Mr. Pawling who was the destructive angel. Yours, etc., “ A n O lp E l s t r e e i t e .” AN AUSTRALASIAN RECORD. WELLINGTON v. BKEAK O’ DAY (Tas­ mania.) Played at Hobart on March 8, 15 and 22. Break o’ Day won on the first innings by four wickets and 375 runs. AN INNINGS OF 419 NOT OUT BY C. J. EADY. W e llin g t o n . K.Bum,c Gill, b Eady 161 M. Macleod, b Eady .. 0 O. Douglas, b Eady ... 19 N. Dodds, b Eady 11 8. Ward, c Butler, b M a x w e ll......................23 L . Macleod, b E ady... 29 B. Burgess, b Eady ... 7 D.McDowall, c Lucas, b C hancellor........... A . Seager, b Eady ... J.Donoghue.c Byfield, b Maxwell ........... A. Hayton, not out ... Extras ........... Total.......... 277 C. J. Eady, not out .. 419 W .Gill,c and b L. Mac­ leod ........................ 10 E. Lucas, b Burn ... 38 H. Hale, c Dodds, b Donoghue.....................17 F.Pocock, b Donoghue 0 B r e a k o’ D a y . E Maxwell, c Donog­ hue, b L. Macleod 8 F. Chancellor, c Bur­ gess, b Dodds.......... 0 W . Abbott, not o u t.. 106 Extras..................54 Total (6 wkts) 662 W e llin g to n . O M. R. W . O. M. R . W C. J. Eady 46 21 877 I H. H ale... 8 1 29 0 F.Chancelloi29 3 831 C. Butler 7 1 13 3 E. Maxwell 16 2 66 2 | B r e a k o’ D a y . O.M . R. W . O. M. R. W . N. Dodds... 26 1 10110 .Douglas 12 0 61 0 J.Donoghue 16 3 86 ~ *' * ' 2 L. Macleod 19 0 165 2 8. Ward ... 8 0 50 0 M .Macleod 5 0 39 0 A.H ayton 22 2 79 0 K. Burn... 8 1 25 1 INCOGNITI. FIXTU RES FOR 1902. M AT. 8. Crystal Palace, v. London County* 10. Vincent Square, v. Westminster School 15. Teddington, v. Teddington 16. Oxford, v. Christ Church* ) rr„ , 19. Oxford, y. Keble College* I Oxford Tour 19. Cambridge, v. Jesus College* ) A 21. Cambridge, v. Trinity College* >•Cambridge 28. Cambridge, v. Crusaders* ) 10u* 28. "Woolwich, v. W oolwich Garrison 81. Chiswick, v. C. M. Tuke’s X I. JUNE. 2. Sherborne, v. Sherborne School* \ 4. Cheltenham, v. Cheltenham Club* / Schools’ 0. Cheltenham, v. Cheltenham College* j Tour 11. Godalmiog, v. Charterhouse f 12. Ciew^r Park, v. Sir Daniel Gooch’s X I.* 14. Harlow, v. Moor Hall 16. Bickley, v. Bickley Park* 1. Dunstable, v. L. C. R. Thring’s X I. 28. Woolwich, v. R.M .A. 30. Bury, v. Bury and West Suffolk JU LY. 2. Potter’s Bar, v. Northaw Place 8. Streatham, v. Streatham 9. Heckenham, v. Beckenham 12. Wimbledon, v. Wimbledon 14. Aldertshot, v. Aldershot Division* 16. » gham, v. Milton Park 18. Hetiley-on-Thhmes, v. Henley 19. St. Quintin’s Park, v. Kensington Park 23. Alresford, v. Sir H. Tichborne’s X I.* 26. A btey Wood, v. Lecsness Park 28. Lichfield, v. W. E. Harrison’s X I.* 30. Blackheath, v. Blackheath ALGUST. 1. Chiswick, v. Chiswick Park 2. Chelmsford, v. Chelmsford 1. Jbxmoutb, v. Exmouth* 4. Sidmouth, v. Sidmouth* 6. Seaton, v. Seatou* 8. Sidmouth, v. Sidmouth* Western Tour 11. Exmouth, v. Exmouth* 13. Teignbridge, v. Teignbridge* 15. Plymouth, v. Plymouth G ’son*-' 18. Southampton, v. Hampshire Hogs* 20. Portsmouth, v. United Services* 22. Brighton, v. Gentlemen of Sussex* Southern 25. Worthing, v. Worthing* Tour 27. Eastbourne, v. Eastbourne* 29. Eastbourne, v. Devonshire Park* * Two-day matches.