Cricket 1913

70 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. M arch 15, 1913. promised him a b a t if he scored 50. F ryer fell short of th a t b at b y only 47 runs. In a match for Stile- bridge v. Town Mailing this season he lowered 10 w ickets ; the return game, in which he also played, was a tie— Town Mailing 79 and 44, Stilebridge 61 and 62. In 1854 his two matches for the county— he did not represent it in ’ 53— were both against Sussex— result, 17 not out, o, o, and o. On successive days this season he played for Boughton Monchlesea v. Cobham (his 39 top score in the match), and for Hollingbourne v. Cobham. W hat a fragrance of the past, the good old days of village cricket, when little Benenden played All Ken t, and the m ighty right arm of Alfred Mynn made Leeds and Bearsted a power in the land, and Fuller Pilch taught Town Mailing to hold its own, there is in the very names ! “ Farmer ” Bennett, a rare good all­ round man, was Cobham’ s crack, and a Bligh or two m ight be counted upon' with the side. In many a good game against Cobham— the D ingley Dell of “ Pickw ick,” some say— did F ryer play. He went in first for the Eighteen of Maidstone, nearly all K en t county players at one time or another, against the A ll England Eleven this season ; bu t a duck was his contribution to the score-sheet. He was highest scorer (44) for Maidstone v. Cobham in ’ 58, bu t only played once for the county in that year— again v. Sussex— scoring 2 and 15. In the following year he played in five matches for Kent, his best scores being 27 and 26 not out, both v. Sussex. Against Surrey at Tunbridge Wells he made 19 and 7, and his 19 was the only double figure for K en t in the match ! That he was considered of high promise is shown b y the fact that he usually went in first, sometimes with Adams, some­ times withWillsher, both comrades of his in earlier cricket, though Adams was a Gravesend, not a Maidstone man. In ’ 57 Fryer was engaged at Cambridge for a few weeks j early in the season, and played for Eleven Players v. the University. This season he appeared in five matches for the county, keeping w icket capably, but making few runs till the last game, when against Sussex at Gravesend he scored 57 and 25. Adams and Bennett also aggregated over 80 in the match, and John Lilly- white made a century for Sussex. His best performance of 1858 was not in a strictly county match. Both at Lords and at Canterbury he and Goodhew were allowed to assist the Gentlemen of K en t against the Gentlemen of England, and on the St. Lawrence ground he ran up 67, the highest score made for his side. He scored 47 for Ken t and Sussex v. Surrey at Hove, too. For Town Mailing v. Cobham he made 31 and xo, and lowered 15 wickets ; in the return, when the Hon. E . V . B ligh made 100 and George Bennett 58 for Cobham, no one else reaching double figures in a total of 207, he had a full share of bowling to do, and took 6 wickets. For F . Caesar’ s New A ll England X I. (a short-lived organisation) v. 22 of Tunbridge Wells he caught eight batsmen behind the wicket. The 1859 season was a Poor one for him in county matches, but there was one bright spot, 39, highest score for his side, v. Sussex at Hove. Apart from that his best was 24 v. M.C.C. at Maidstone. In i860 he was highest scorer (24 and 48) v. M.C.C. at Lord’s ; bu t in ’ 61 he was a complete failure, totalling only 34 in 10 innings for Ken t, and he began ’62 badly with a pair of them v . Yorkshire at Sheffield. Then the tide turned, and in three successive games he made more runs than any one else on the side— 32 and 2 v. Cambs. at New Brompton, 27 and 18 v. Surrey at Canterbury, and 20 and 19 not out v. Sussex at Hove. Not remarkable scores, you may say ; but they headed the rest, and centuries— even fifties— were not so cheap in those days, as now. (Fryer only made one century during his career— 127 for Yalding v. B lue Mantles.) He followed up these performances with 23 and 0 v. England at Lord ’s, and 32 and 6 v. Surrey at the Oval. He took four catches behind the wicket v. Yorkshire at Cranbrook, and showed his versatility by lowering 6 wickets for 37 in the next game, v. Sussex at Sandgate. For the K en t X I. v. 22 of Chatham he bowled at one end for some time, keep­ ing wicket at the other. In the match he caught two batsmen and stumped three, and his second innings’ analysis was 80 balls, 5 runs, 5 wickets ! K en t played 18 of Mote Park for his benefit this year. It was in September, 1862, th at he lost the sight of one eye, through being thrown out of a trap while returning from a match at Cranbrook ; but in spite of this handicap he was distinctly useful to the county in ’ 63. His highest scores were 35 v. Notts at Trent Bridge, 28 v. Sussex at Sandgate, and 24 not out v. England at Canterbury. In the first four matches of the season he kept wicket, catching 4 and stumping 4 batsmen ; but he soon afterwards gave up this post, and in ’ 64 his chief value to the side was as a bowler, though in one match (v. Sussex at Hove, 65 and 28, highest score each innings) he did the best performance of his career as a batsman. Among his analyses were 8 for 40 (13 of Ken t v. England at Lord’ s), and 5 for 73 (v. Notts at Crystal Palace) ; altogether he took 26 w ickets at 16 each for the county in ’64. Then, at a time when he might have been reaching his best, the effects of the injury to his eye became more evident. It is likely that, as so often happens, its loss affected the sight of the other eye. In 1865 he did little, his only performance of any note being 17 and 24 v. Sussex at Hove, and he was dropped—■“ weeded out,” as the phrase, a quite unnecessarily offensive one, went at the time. It was not until four years later that he played again, when an analysis of 4 for 36 in one match and scores of 14 and 19 in the other showed th at he still had cricket in him. Against Sussex at the Crystal Palace in 1870, with 30 and 27, he was second highest scorer for the side ; bu t after th at he only played in one more game, v. Sussex, in 1872 (13 and 7 his scores), finishing his county career, as he had begun it, at Hove, though not on the same ground. He had a benefit from the county (Kent v. Surrey, at Maidstone) in 1870. In all he played in 74 matches for Kent (not includ­ ing the two or three in which he assisted the Gentle­ men, or the games in which Sussex and K en t joined , forces), and totalled 1,415 runs, averaging 10.88. He Itook 49 wickets at a cost of between 18 and 1 9 ’each ; and keeping wicket in 49 matches, caught 48 and stumped 22 batsmen. It is not a great record ; bu t an average of nearly 11 in those days meant fully as much as twice the number to-day. His bowling was fast, and in batting he did not waste time. For a long period, up to 1878, when he had turned 50, he was groundsman to the Mote Park C.C., and played in most of their matches when not umpiring in county games. For th irty years or so Harry Fryer played cricket in the Maidstone district, respected for his play and his character b y all who knew h im ; and now, bearing wonder