Lives in Cricket No 45 - Brief Candles 2

64 No-ball! The contemporary sporting journals tell us disappointingly little about exactly what happened next, but the main facts are clear enough. Coxon was the fourth bowler to be tried in the Oxford innings. His first two overs were uneventful, but in his third he was no-balled and that was it: he was immediately taken off, and did not bowl again in the match. The only description of these events comes again from the Sporting Life : ‘Coxon, who bowls left hand, medium paced, has a very curious action and Webb no-balled him in his third over for throwing, after which he was taken off.’ I’d love to know more about the curiosity of his action, but sadly that is all we get. The Sportsman doesn’t mention the incident at all, and The Field merely states that he was no-balled without giving any details. Oxford were dismissed for 199 on the second day, and in their second innings the Gentlemen made 321, setting the University an unlikely 384 to win. Thanks to an innings of 116 by opener W.D.Llewellyn they reached 242, but a heavy defeat was unavoidable. For the Gentlemen Coote Hedley performed the match double with innings of 43 and 70 and bowling figures of six for 86 and five for 61. Coxon’s contribution to the Gentlemen’s second innings deserves to be recorded. As The Field put it, ‘the last day’s play was remarkable for some really brilliant batting on both sides, the pace of the run-getting at times being unusually fast, notably when Messrs Hedley and Coxon, and Messrs Llewellyn and Thesiger, were associated … [during the Hedley/Coxon partnership] the bowling came in for some very rough treatment … [Moss] badly missed Coxon off [Bassett’s] first ball. This proved a most expensive mistake, and boundary hits became of frequent occurrence … Mr Farrant was [eventually] put on, with the result that Mr Coxon was dismissed for obstruction [i.e. lbw] in his second over. The partnership had lasted 40 minutes, during which time just double [that] number of runs had been scored.’ Their ninth-wicket partnership (Coxon, who made 21, was again at number nine, and Hedley at ten) did indeed add exactly 80 runs, taking the score from 214 to 294 to help to set up the eventual victory. But although Coxon’s batting in the match had not let him down, it was surely his bowling that had been regarded as his stronger suit; and the fact that this had been judged illegal surely put an end to any hopes that he may have had of a longer career at the higher levels of the game. The Sporting Life on the first day of the match had said that Coxon “has been some years in Japan [which may be accurate, or is perhaps more likely to have been a confusion of geography with Hong Kong] and is, we believe, qualifying for Middlesex”. If the latter was true - and I have found no evidence either to confirm or to refute it - surely his treatment at the hands of umpire George Webb put an end to any such aspirations. Though not to his cricket altogether. As we have seen, he played again in Hong Kong in 1892 and 1893, while in 1891 he had played five matches for