Cricket 1907

M a t 2, 1907. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 99 scored 118 for North v. South up at Lord’s just a month or two before. This time he got a duck. I can see the ball popped up by him in front of the wicket, and Tom Lockyer, running from behind the wicket, made the simplest of catches. But there was a wonderful catch made by Grundy at short-leg. Y. E. Walker, prince of lob bowlers, tempted Tom Humphrey to have a ‘ go.’ Grundy jumped up and held the ball with the right hand fully extended. It was Humphrey’s first season, and we longed to see him play up to the great name he had already made for himself. Talking of catches, I never saw a finer than that made by A. J. Webbe in the Varsity match at Lord’s in 1875, when he ran ever so many yards and caught the Hon. Edward Lyttelton low down with one hand just on the boundary. Memory, as you know, is most capricious, else why do I recall so vividly an innings of 55 runs played by C. P. Buller for M.C.C. v. Cambridgeshire at Lord’s in 1866. Tarrant was then the terror of all batsmen, especially on a Lord’s wicket, but Buller was his master. I can see the father congratulating his boy of 20 years of age just after he got out. Buller was the handsomest man I ever saw on a cricket field, just as Bichard Daft had the most perfect style of any batsman of the past 50 years. Here’s another match —the very first ever played by an Austra­ lian team in London—viz., v. the M.C.C. in 1878. The morning was dampish, and, as I was busy, I decided to wait until after lunch. There being a big gate I went on to the grand stand. The Colonials had lost eight wickets for 30. I remarked to my neighbour, ‘ A glorious show for men who have come 15,000 miles to show us how to play cricket.’ He then handed me a score-card, from which I learned with dismay that the more powerful M.C.C. team had been dismissed for 33. Never mind, I thought, they will have a second innings. Oh ! that second innings. ‘ W. G .,’ Hornby, and two others got a duck apiece, and the whole side was out for 19, Flowers getting 11. The match was over by six o’clock, and we all went home, if not wiser, certainly sadder. ‘ W. G.’s’ 344 at Canterbury in 1876 can never be forgotten. I wanted to be off to Margate, hoped to get there on the Friday evening, but ‘ W. G.’ then was not out 133, so I had to linger on. The next morning I sat as close to the entrance gate as possible, so as to run off the moment he was out. He kept me waiting until some time after lunch and I have never forgiven him. But enough of reminiscences. I should want a month at least to tell the story of interesting memories of first- class cricket which cover nearly 50 years.” “ In comparing the present game with that of your youth, what would you regard as the chief differences ? ” “ The differences are well-nigh count­ less. Just look at the grounds. Take Lord’s. There is not a single brick l-.fc of the Lord’s I first knew. I feel a stranger there to-day. The removal of the quaint-looking tennis court for the hideous stand represents a distinct loss to myself. In the old days spacial stands were put up for the Varsity and Schools’ matches. There was a modest little tavern, from the balcony of which I saw W.G.’s first innings for the Gentlemen in 1865. E. M., in that match, hit a ball clean through the balcony window. The scoring-box, both there and at the Oval, was on wheels, and the reporters—there were never more than three or four— used to sit on a form in front of this box and take their notes on their knees. I have seen the umpires cut the creases at Lord’s (but not at the Oval) wi h their pocket knives. At that time the Lord’s matches used generally to be played in the early part of the week, those at the Oval later on in the week, so that they might not clash. Then look at the wickets. At Lord’s shooters would alter­ nate with balls that bounded over bats­ man and stumper into long-stop’s hands. An innings of 50 was something to be proud of. George Freeman once told me that the Oval was his favourite ground because the wicket was so true that a bowler always knew what every ball would do. Then as to the gates; a first- class match seldom attracted a crowd. At Old Trafford in the late sixties there might be 500 present to see Yorkshire play. No wonder ‘ benefits ’ were on a modest scale. I often say that the giants of my boyhood were bom forty years too soon. But those matches were most en­ joyable, if only because you could Bit in comfort anywhere ; to-day even a County member dare not leave his seat during a first-class match. No doubt the accom­ modation has been improved out of knowledge. The Oval at my first visit was partly surrounded by backless seats; stands were not dreamed of. Many lolled on the grass. Sundry waiters would perambulate the enclosure entreat­ ing us to ' Give your orders, gentlemen ! ’ In those days there was no need for boundaries; every hit was run out, the scanty company letting the ball travel the full distance of the hit. One misses those delightful hits for six and seven to-day. 1 recall a wonderful square-leg hit of George Parr’s when playing for Notts on the old cattle ground at Isling­ ton ; that ground tapered down to a few feet at one end, in shape like a triangle, and Parr, with his well-known horiz jntal swing of the bat, sent the ball into the farthest corner, and seven runs were made. “ And this leads me to note other changes, largely brought about by the modern style of bowling. There is no leg-hitting to-day; off-balls are the fashion. When the arm had to be level with the shoulder, and when most of the bowling, excepting lobj, was fast, and right-hand bowlers generally bowled round the wicket, leg-bails and wides were frequeat. So the loag-stop was necessary then, especially as most wickets were fiery and kicked. And it was delightful to watch such long-stops as Mortlock, of Surrey, and Rowbotham, of Yorkshire, at Lord’ s against bowlers like Tarrant, Jackson ana Howitt. I re­ member two long - stops to Ho witt’s bowling in the Whitsuntide match of 1866—so fearful was his paos and so rough the wicket.” “ Yes, there have been many changes in the game within my recollection. Talent money for an innings of 50 used to be given in public, and formed a pleasing diversion for juveniles. Toe last time I saw it thus presented was in the Surrey v. England mitch in 1865, Tom Humphrey and Pooley being the recipieats. The Surrey secretary, William Burrup, made a brief eulogistic speech before the presentation, and then the batsman was carried shoulder-high to the foot of the long flight of steps which led up to the dining-room. As this interruption wasted generally fifteen minutes, it was wise to abandon it. There is possibly more variety in modern cricket. The placing of the field is different. In the earlier days the several fielders were seldom moved for different batsmen. There was always a long-s top save when a lob-bowler was on. There are no bowlers of this typa to-day; then there was little or no slow round- arm bowling, nearly all being either very fast or fast medium. Half­ volleys were then respectfully played back to the bowler or the mid-wicket fielders. To hit such a ball was not cricket. Pulling was quite unknown. Maiden overs were held to be the test of good bowling. I have seen Jimmy Grundy, who always wore a dark velvet cap, bowl a dozen and more such overs to free-hitting batsmen. It was E. M. Grace who dared to treat half-volleys cavalierly, and the old fogies were scandalised. “ Then, again, the famous itinerant Elevens have disappeared owing partly to the rise of fresh Counties. The move­ ment initiated by old Clarke did splendid service to the gams by showing the country-side to what pitch of excellence batting and bowling could be raised. It was hard work for those worthy pioneers travelling up and down the oountry—all through the night not seldom—in days when modern facilities and comforts were unknown. I don’t think there are more matches to-day than then, but they are of better quality, and so impose a severe strain on first-class cricketers. I have always regretted the disappearance of Cambridgeshire from the first-class circle, for in the palmy days of Hayward, Carpenter and Tar­ rant it could hold its own against all comers. I fancy that cricket bats are not only much thicker in the pod but also considerably heavier than they used to be. My o il friend, Harry Luff, once gave me an old ‘ Wisden ’ bat of the year 1857; it certainly was not made for driving. Better time is kept to-day; the intervals are not so unduly prolonged. And most certainly the status of the professional has been raised. In dresi they used to be distinguishable at a glance from amateurs, with their dark check shirts, often collarless, and dirty flannels. I recall the SurreyEleven of 1864 looking resplendent in braa-new fl innel