Lives in Cricket No 37 - William Clarke

104 Controversy used as a promoter because members of the United Eleven would not then appear. Three United men, Lockyer, Sherman and Grundy, took part in their respective county elevens. Be that as it may, Surrey won with ease. William Clarke took 12 Surrey wickets, including eight in the second innings, but Notts could not retrieve their first-innings deficit of 75 runs. On 17 and 18 July the Gentlemen opposed the Players at Lord’s. Clarke and his All-England men refused the invitation to take part. Clarke had, either deliberately or by accident, arranged for All-England to play an eighteen of Maidstone on the same dates as the Lord’s match. The MCC took umbrage at Clarke effectively snubbing the Club and resolved that never again would Clarke be invited to play at Lord’s. Clarke’s reaction was to instruct the players he controlled never to accept an invitation to appear at Lord’s again. Therefore at the end of July when a match was arranged MCC v England, no All-England man turned out, but on the same dates, the AEE opposed Twenty-Two of Bingham. Cricket now had a double dispute on its hands – Clarke versus MCC and UEE versus Clarke, but feelings between individual players don’t seem to have been so acute as might be thought. In successive matches during August, the supposed antagonists played together in three successive matches. During the Canterbury Festival, Kent played England: since, however, a normal eleven-a-side contest would have been very unequal, Kent now being very weak, William Clarke, John Wisden, John Bickley and George Parr were all co-opted into the Kent eleven, with Wisden and Clarke opening the Kent attack, whilst James Dean and Jemmy Grundy opened the bowling for England. England won by seven wickets and Fred Lillywhite commented: ‘The opinion generally expressed was that the selection of the four players (for Kent) was not good, considering they had the scope of England.’ This on the face of it seems a rather biased remark. Many of the players involved in the Canterbury match moved directly on to Brighton where Sussex, with William Clarke and George Parr, as given men, opposed an England eleven. Lillywhite comments: ‘The match originated from someone whose judgment was not altogether sound.’ However, Lillywhite then rather negates his derogatory remark with the following notes: ‘The selection of those “given” Wisden and Clarke again joined together as opening bowlers and shared all 20 England wickets between them, as Sussex won by 68 runs; Dean in the Sussex team hit the highest score in the match.’ Having completed the Sussex match, the group of players proceeded to Nottingham for the start of play on Monday of Nottinghamshire v England. Unlike Kent and Sussex, Notts did not demand any ‘given’ men. The England side was chosen by MCC, rather than by Clarke, so Wisden and Dean were among the visitors to Trent Bridge. England won in two days by an innings. The report in the Nottingham Review attributes the county’s defeat in part to poor fielding. Lillywhite states Notts had difficulty raising their strongest side (Bickley and Frank Tinley were absent). Clarke bowled most overs for Notts but was no more expensive than his colleagues, and the cry that he did not know when to take himself off couldn’t be justly