Cricket 1902

O ct . 30, 1902. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 435 about that period, I determined to have my afternoon’s amusement, and continued with one eye only. When I had finished my two hours, Hinkly said to me (I remember the words well), “ I think, Sir, that you can play as well with one eye as with two.” But as my left eye was useless that afternoon, the feat was not bad, though I record the ffict myself. Poor Hinkly, a great bowler was he, and had no vanity or pride about him. Tom Adams, of Kent, was a man who loved cricket for the game itself, and not for filthy lucre only, as some do. One day he was bowling to me at the practice wickets at Lord’s a very long time, without success. Being tired out, he retired to the iefreshment bar, but before he went he handed the ball to another bowler on the practice ground, and said, “ Now, you men, just try if you can get out this ‘ piece of machinery.’ ” My last interview with the “ glorious” Alfred Mynn was at the Oval during the summer of 1861. He and I were both spec­ tators of a great match there, and Mynn’s last words to me were as nearly as possible as follows:—“ They have put me into a damp bed, from which I never shall recover, but I should like to have seen your work on cricket which I hear will shortly be published.” But Mynn’s wish was not gratified, for he died about a year before Vol. I. appeared. I played with Mr. W. Ward, the famous bat of former years, in his last appearance at Lord’s, he then being fifty-seven, I eighteen. M.C.C. v. Hampshire was the match. The well-known portrait of Beldham, the famous old cricketer, was preserved entirely on my initiation. I suggested in or about 1858 that it shouldbe taken, and it is an interesting memento. Beldham, however, said afterwards that had he known that it was to have been used as a relic of himself, he would have put on better clothcs, and he had some I suppose ! No cricketer of note of an earlier date has left his portrait behind, I believe. Mr. Osbaldeston is the next, I think, of whom a likeness remains. I take some credit and pleasure in having preserved old Beldham’s picture, and wish 1 had obtained that of T. C. Howard, of Hampshire, whom I visited at the same time ; Howard was good at batting, bowling and wicket-keeping too. Beldham told me a few years before he died, aged ninety-six, that the clergyman of the parish in which he lived —namely, Tilford, near Farnham, in Surrey —said that “ it was time he should think no more about cricket in any form or shape .” But that glorious old man (William Beldham) informed me that he was unable to follow this advice, good though it no doubt was. During the twenty years I operated at Lord’s (1842 to 1861) 1 was only put in last in one match, and that was in Felix s Benefit Match in 1846. In both innings I suffered that degradation, and when 1 grumbled at the Hon. Sec. (K. Kynaston) he had the best of me, for he retorted by saying: “ Well, you had both your innings completed.” Which was true. One day I was participating in a great match at Lord’s, of which, however, I have forgotten the name and date. W. Lillywhite was on the side I assisted, and Fuller Pilch on the other. We were fielding; a wicket had fallen, and we were expecting the arrival of another batsman. In came Fuller Pilch, and as he advanced to take up his position at the wicket, someone suddenly exclaimed aloud, “ Hullo Lilly, here comes your master.” The old master-bowler turned round with celerity, and gave vent to his^ feelings by exclaiming aloud the saying which has been so often misquoted, “ I wish I had as many pounds as I have got out Pilch.” But these two men were equally great, and when opposed to each other, the game was not all one-sided as it now is, for neither batting nor bowling had the upper hand. Equality prevailed always, and the science of the game was delightful to behold in con­ sequence. I was for several years at Lord’s considered to be a “ standing dish,” whatever that may signify. And one amateur once addressed me as follows : “ H.,” he said, “ you live at Lord’s, and you will die there.” But his prophecy has not been quite fulfilled. Except when I first joined the M.C.C. I always went in when one wicket had fallen. At first, of course, I had no choice in the matter, but afterwards I always secured this place. “ Sometimes, but not often in print, people complained of my rate of scoring. In the match between the Gentlemen and Players in 1846, I stayed in a very long while and the Gentlemen won the match by one wicket. A few days afterwards a letter appeared in BelVs Life actually finding fault because I spent much time daily in practising at Lord’s ! I should think such a censure as this must be quite unique. Spectators, I am afraid, hated to see me bat, but I was never hooted or groaned at for my over-steady play. I think from what I read that crowds at cricket matcheswere not as demonstrative fifty years ago as they are now. Naturally, on the wickets which were in use formerly, my scores were small owing to my style of play, and I never reached a hundred in my life, while my fifties were very scarce. If I could make 201 rejoiced, although thumps innumer­ able were often my portion owing to the rough ground and my cramped and stooping position at the wicket.” The letter which appeared soon after the Gentlemen and Players match of 1846 about my very steady batting in that contest, was published about a week after the match came off. It appeared in BelVs Life, the great, or in fact, only sporting paper then in existence. I forget what the signature was, and in fact took no notice of it, but I should like to see or read it again. Any person possessing a file of BelVs Life of the end of July or August 1846 can find it there. The gentle­ man who wrote had, I presume, lost some money on the match and was angry in con­ sequence. The Players inmy day weremuch stronger on all points than the Gentlemen, but I had the good luck to be on the winning side on three occasions out of the sixteen in which I appeared. But in those three we certainly had not the superior eleven or one nearly equal to that of the professionals. But the best side at cricket does not always win, and that is one of the glorious uncertainties of our noble game. I was, I may say, very lucky during the twenty years and more that I frequented Lord’s, in escaping from any serious injury. There were no nets used for practice in my day, for they were not required, or, at least, had not yet been invented. The practice wickets were then pitched all in a row near the middle of the ground, not far from the pavilion, and each batsman had to encounter and endure hard blows from those batting on each side of him, right or left. Leg-hits and cuts, of course, were plentiful, and the only safe wicket perhaps was the furthest on the leg-side, the practising batsmen having then only to watch and evade danger from one side instead of from two. But James Dean, when bowling to me once at practice, hurt me much. The ball bumped up as usual and struck me on the side of the head. I con­ tinued batting, however, the rest of the afternoon, but when I got home I found that I had a locked jaw. I could only just open my mouth about an inch, and was obliged to see a doctor. My head, or rather one side of it, had to be shaved and leeches applied. Then, but not before, could I swallow solid food. The medical man said that I must not think of going out of doors for a fortnight, or at least a week, and that I was to keep quiet. But I heeded him not. I happened to be engaged in two matches that week at Lord’s, and I went and participated in both, being moreover successful and remaining uninjured. But I remember that I looked rather queer, being without hair on one side, and the stains of blood also showing. This was in 1853, I think. I never could throw the ball any distance, and I never even thought of slogging or “ forcing” play as it is now called. That would have been to me an impossibility. Fifty years ago real and true critics of the game did not admire only huge hits, but appreciated ones and twos got off most difficult balls, delivered by famous men of those days, namely Alfred Mynn, W. Hillyer, W. Lillywhite, J. Dean, W. Martingell, J. Grundy, W. Clarke, S. Redgate, J. Wisden, E. Willsher, J. Jackson, W. Caffyn, H. H. Stephenson, etc. All lovers of the antiquities of our noble game will remember these great names and appreciate their merits, they all, too, according to the law as it then stood, having to deliver the ball with what I call “ atied-down arm,” or arm not higher than the shoulder. It is otherwise now. Regarding my average in great matches, it is but small, very small, but 60 years back averages were not considered to be everything at cricket as is the case now. Equality as regards batting and bowling was first thought of and not only “ the gate money” and averages. Averages were talked of now and then, but it is absurd in my mind to think solely of them. Regarding my own average, year after year (1842-1861) at Lord’s I was occasionally, though but seldom, asked what it was, but my answer invariably, as I gave it, was this: “ My average is one hour.” And that is really true as far as I could make out, by the clock. For if I only got, say, half-a-dozen runs, I generally took my time over them. When I appeared in the Harrow Eleven in 1842, my weight was only 9 st. 7 lbs., and I was the weakest stripling, physically speaking, in that eleven except one, and that one was Gathorne. He was rather a puny youth, though he excelled at the noble game, and was, moreover, older. Harrow I should venture to say never possessed a better all-round cricketer than was H. Gathome. When I left off cricket I was the possessor of no less than eleven bats, ..but I gave them all away. I have since regretted much that I did not keep by me the bat with which I used against Winchester and Eton, and I tried subsequently to recover it, but I failed. My portrait and biography appeared in a weekly newspaper on July 7th, 1897. It was inserted in that paper without consulting my wishes at all in the matter, at which I was much upset. Ihe short biography too, added, was incorrect, as I never had a chance to revise or correct it. There is certainly one great mistake or, rather, oversight, which I made during the fifty years and upwards in which I was engaged on the Cricket Scores and Biographies , and it is this : I preserved too many matches of an inferior calibre by far. If I had not done this the fourteen volumes already published would have reached a date much further than they do now, namely, to the end of 1878. But I have an excuse, and it is a very good one I think, though the fact I have stated is to be greatly regretted. I could not guess, or suppose, or think for a moment that cricket matches