Cricket 1906

S ept . 13, 1906. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 405 if, on the average, it takes three or four good bowlers, supported hy a keen fielding side, an hour and a-half to dispose of Hirst, what chance would a single indi­ vidual, with the services of only two or three fieldsmen, possess of dismissing him at a reasonable cost? But, although one may, without the slightest regret, recognise that single-wicket matches can never again come into favour, it is pleasing to find how important a part such games have played in the history of cricket. It was owing to an incident which occurred in the match played in the Artillery Ground, London, in May, 1775, between Five of Kent (with Lumpy) and Five of Hambledon (with White), that the number of stumps in the wicket was increased from two to three. Small, the last man on the Hambledon side, went in when 14 runs were required, and obtained them, though the famous Lumpy three times bowled right through his wicket without disturbing the bail. It was at the conclusion of this match that the Duke of Dorset, being desirous of complimenting Small on his skill, made him a present of a fine violin, and paid the carriage, and “ Small,” — to quote Nyren— “ like a true and simple- hearted Englishman, returned the compli­ ment, by sending his Grace two bats and balls, also paying the carriage." Some of those early games, although very inter­ esting, must at times have been a trifle tedious. It must, for instance, have been the reverse of exciting to see David Harris bowl Tom Walker 170 balls for one run, or to see the same batsman score, as he did at B ish o p sb o u r n e in 1786, at so leisurely a pace as to be in almost five hours for 26. To modem spec­ tators, who have witnessed Jessop’s h u rrica n e hitting, such exhibitions would seem a burlesque on the game. A perusal of the accounts of these old matches reveals many a crafty action, many a human weakness. Pycroft, in his Cricket Field, has related how, in a great single-wicket match at Lord’s, inl806, Beld­ ham, when bowling to Lord F . Beauclerck, ‘ ‘unseen took a lump of wet dirt and sawdust, andstuck it onto theballwhich,pitching favour­ ably, made an extraordinary twist and took Lord F .’ s wicket.” What his Lordship remarked at the moment is not recorded, but he was of a very choleric nature and doubt­ less spoke strongly. Four years later he again had his equanimity disturbed. Os- baldeston and Lambert made a p.p. match with Lord Frederick and Howard, but, on the day of the match, as Osbaldeston was too ill to play, Budd suggested to his Lordship that a postponement should be made. But the latter would sanction no such thing : it must be either pay or play. So Lambert played alone against his two redoubtable opponents—and beat them by 15 runs ! It was a 6plendid achievement on the part of the great player, but it is impossible not to feel some sympathy for his Lordship. Lam­ bert, who was a very long-headed individual, purposely bowled wides to Lord Frederick, in order to put him out of temper, and succeeded in his design. (Wides, it must be remembered, were not then included in the score.) The sequel followed in 1818, when Beauclerck, who, ever since the great match, had a grudge against the “ Squire,” found himself in a position to deny the latter membership of the M.C.C. In the year named Osbaldeston and Lambert endeavoured to beat Budd James Thumwood, Howard and Brown, at Lord’s, but, instead, were themselves de­ feated, and by an innings and 27 runs. This result so provoked the “ Squire” that he at once took up a pen and erased his name from the list of members of the M .C.C., and, in so doing, obliterated the only two other names beginning with 0 . Later, he regretted his hasty act, and asked his friend Budd to wait upon Mr. W illiam Ward and Lord Frederick Beauclerck in order to have his name again placed upon the books of the Club. W ard was Single Wicket Match for 100 Sovereigns, BETW EEN PI' fHHSiSlH§l®S!f#PI- SilSl® IMS- p l a y e d A T TOWN MALLIN G, AUGUST 20th, 1838. F I R S T I N N I N G S Balls Hits Runs WIDE NO BALLS HOW OUt. ALFRED MYNN , .. 8 2 — 5 8 _ 3 3 — 1 O. JAMES DEARMAN , 9 — 1 — 2 — 1 B. S E C O N D I N N I N G S : ALFRED MYNN , .. 17 8 — 1 1 9 — 8 8 — 1 B. JAMES DEARMAN , 18 1 2 — 8 — B. U m p ir e s .— M e s s r s . C a ld e c o u r t & G o o d - Return Match to be played at Sheffield on the 27th instant: in the event of each player winning a Game, the Final Game to be played on the 10th of Sept. at Sheffield. “ Victoria Mailing Press,” G. Windsor, Printer, from Gravesend. agreeable, but Lord Frederick refused to grant the permission which might have restored friendship between the two. Possibly the two greatest single-wicket players known since those days have been Alfred Mynn and Fuller Pilch. In 1832 M jnn twice beat Thomas Hills, and in 1838 James Dearman and Mr. Felix, each twice also, whilst in 1833 Pilch defeated Tom Marsden with great ease both in Norwich and Sheffield. A match between the two should certainly have been arranged: “ Yoltigeur and The Flying Dutchman would have been nothing to it,” comments the Hon. K. H. Lyttelton. Both, however, were members of the Kent X I., all of whom, to quote Pilch, were “ like brothers,” so it was quite possible that the pair had agreed not to play against each other. (Such an arrangement had been previously come to between Os­ baldeston and Budd, on the former’ s suggestion). Had they met, however, it is probable that the victory would have rested with Mynn, whose fast bowling would have more than compensated for his inferiority to Pilch as a batsman. It must be remembered, too, that, although Pilch scored so largely in his matches with Marsden in 1833—he made 73 off his own bat at Norwich, and 78 and 100 in the return at Sheffield— it was against the old-fashioned underhand bowling. Bell’s Life of July 12th, 1835, contained the following interesting announcement:— “ W e have authority for saying that the challenge in our paper of the 21st ult., from A . Mynn to Fuller Pilch, was without the consent of the former. The fact is, that within the last three months there was a private offer, on the part of a friend of Mynn’s, to back him against F. Pilch, granting the latter the privilege of naming his own sum, time, and place, but the friends of Pilch declined the invitation.” A meeting between the two would have caused a great sensation. In more recent times such matches have been indulged in by various players—Hayward, Carpenter and Tarrant, of Cambridge, were a capital trio—but during the past quarter of a century have been regarded more as curiosi­ ties than anything to which seriousness could possibly attach. They are now quite out-of-date, and, in all probability, will never again become at all fashionable. On Saturday last, for the first time for many years, I jour­ neyed to Mitcham to see a match. The locality appeared to have altered con­ siderably of late years. Electric cars have quite changed the nature of the place, and now, where formerly was peace and quiet, all is bustle and con­ fu s io n . M itch a m used to be an old- world village, but now it threatens to develop into a town and, before long, to be swallowed up in London, which, as a rustic once remarked, will be a fine place when it is finished. The Green, however, is still unchanged, and can never be built upon, so doubt­ less the grand old game will always be played in that earliest and most famous of Surrey cricket strongholds. As one stood watching the game on Saturday last, it was impossible not to muse upon the important part Mitcham has played in the affairs of the County’s cricket. In the early part of the century before last— almost two hundred years ago, in fact—the village possessed so fine a team as to be able to thrown down the gauntlet to the London Club, which then occu­ pied the position in the cricketing world which in later years was successively held by the Hambledon and Marylebone Clubs. Owing to absence of scores, it is impossible to state who were the leading players until the nineteenth century had dawned, but that Mitcham has been able to boast several successive genera­ tions of great players reference to the news­ papers will readily prove. Old John Bowyer, who was bom in 1790, and died in 1880—he was the last surviving member of the famous “ B ” Eleven—may be regarded as the father