diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/50373-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/50373-0.txt | 13621 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 13621 deletions
diff --git a/old/50373-0.txt b/old/50373-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index c0e5d3e..0000000 --- a/old/50373-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,13621 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Cricket, by Horace Gordon Hutchinson - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - - -Title: Cricket - -Editor: Horace Gordon Hutchinson - -Release Date: November 3, 2015 [EBook #50373] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CRICKET *** - - - - -Produced by Giovanni Fini, MWS and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was -produced from images generously made available by The -Internet Archive/American Libraries.) - - - - - - - - CRICKET - -[Illustration: - _From a Painting by_ _R. James._ -_TOSSING FOR INNINGS._] - - - - - CRICKET - - EDITED BY - - HORACE G. HUTCHINSON - - [Illustration] - - “_DESIPERE IN LOCO_” - - LONDON: PUBLISHED AT THE OFFICES - OF “COUNTRY LIFE,” TAVISTOCK STREET, - COVENT GARDEN, W.C. & BY GEORGE - NEWNES, LTD. SOUTHAMPTON STREET, - STRAND, W.C. MCMIII - -[Illustration] - - - - -PREFACE - - -Surely it is sheer neglect of opportunity offered by an official -position if, being an editor, one has no prefatory word to say of the -work that one is editing. It is said that that which is good requires -no praise, but it is a saying that is contradicted at every turn—or -else all that is advertised must be very bad. While it is our firm -belief that the merits of the present book—_The Country Life Cricket -Book_—are many and various (it would be an insult to the able heads -of the different departments into which the great subject is herein -divided to think otherwise), we believe also that the book has one very -special and even unique merit. We believe, and are very sure, that -there has never before been given to the public any such collection -of interesting old prints illustrative of England’s national game as -appear in the present volume. It is due to the kind generosity of -the Marylebone Cricket Club, as well as of divers private persons, -that we are able to illustrate the book in this exceptional way; and -we (that is to say, all who are concerned in the production) beg to -take the opportunity of giving most cordial thanks to those who have -given this invaluable help, and so greatly assisted in making the -book not only attractive, but also original in its attraction. In the -first place, the prints form in some measure a picture-history of the -national game, from the early days when men played with the wide low -wicket and the two stumps, down through all the years that the bat was -developing out of a curved hockey-stick into its present shape, and -that the use of the bat at the same time was altering from the manner -of the man with the scythe, meeting the balls called “daisy-cutters,” -to the straightforward upright batting of the classical examples. The -classical examples perhaps are exhibited most ably in the pictures -of Mr. G. F. Watts, which show us that the human form divine can be -studied in its athletic poses equally well (save for the disadvantage -of the draping flannels) on the English field of cricket as in the -Greek gymnasium. The prints, too, give us a picture-history of the -costumes of the game. There are the “anointed clod-stumpers” of -Broadhalfpenny going in to bat with the smock, most inconvenient, we -may think, of dresses. There are the old-fashioned fellows who were -so hardly parted from their top-hats. These heroes of a bygone age -are also conspicuous in braces. We get a powerful hint, too, from the -pictures, of the varying estimation in which the game has been held -at different times. There is a suggestion of reverence in some of the -illustrations—a sense that the artist knew himself to be handling a -great theme. In others we see with pain that the treatment is almost -comic, certainly frivolous. We hardly can suppose that the picture of -the ladies’ cricket match would encourage others of the sex to engage -in the noble game, although “Miss Wicket” of the famous painting has -a rather attractive although pensive air—she has all the aspect of -having got out for a duck’s egg. - -More decidedly to the same effect—of its differing hold on popular -favour—do we get a hint from the spectators assembled (but assembled -is too big a word for their little number) to view the game. “Lord’s” -on an Australian match day, or a Gents _v._ Players, or Oxford and -Cambridge, hardly would be recognised by one of the old-time heroes, if -we could call him up again across the Styx to take a second innings. He -would wonder what all the people had come to look at. He hardly would -believe that they were come to see the game he used to play to a very -meagre gallery in his life. But he would be pleased to observe the -progress of the world—how appreciative it grew of what was best in it -as it grew older. - -Another thing that the collection illustrates is the various changes -of site of the headquarters of the game, if it had a headquarters -before it settled down to its present place of honour in St. John’s -Wood. There is a picture (_vide_ p. v) of “Thomas Lord’s first -Cricket Ground, Dorset Square, Marylebone. Match played June 20, -1793, between the Earls of Winchilsea and Darnley for 1000 guineas.” -With regard to this interesting picture, Sir Spencer Ponsonby-Fane, -in his catalogue of the pictures, drawings, etc., in possession of -the Marylebone Cricket Club, has a note as follows:—“This match was -Kent (Lord Darnley’s side) _v._ Marylebone, with Walker, Beldham, and -Wills (Lord Winchilsea’s side). M.C.C. won by ten wickets. It will be -noticed that only two stumps are represented as being used, whereas, -according to _Scores and Biographies_, it is known that as far back as -1775 a third stump had been introduced; many representations, however, -of the game at a later date show only two stumps.” No doubt at this -early period there was no very fully acknowledged central authority, -and such little details as these were much a matter of local option. -The wicket shown in this picture does not seem to differ at all from -the wicket in the picture of “Cricket” by F. Hayman, R.A. (_vide_ p. -1), in the possession of the Marylebone Club, though the date of the -latter is as early as 1743. Neither does the bat appear to have made -much evolution in the interval. It is on the authority of Sir Spencer -Ponsonby-Fane, in the catalogue above quoted, that we can give “about -1750” for the date of the picture named “A Match in Battersea Fields” -(_vide_ p. 3), in which St. Paul’s dome appears in the background. -Here they seem to be playing with the three stumps, early as the date -is. Again, in the fine picture, “painted for David Garrick” by Richard -Wilson, of “Cricket at Hampton Wick” (_vide_ p. 375), three stumps -are in use, and the bat has become much squared and straightened. Of -course the pictures obviously fall into two chief classes—one in which -“the play’s the thing”; the cricket is the object of the artist’s -representation; the other in which the cricket is only used as an -incidental feature in the foreground, to enliven a scene of which the -serious interest is in the background or surroundings. But the pictures -in which the cricket is the main, if not the only, interest are very -much more numerous. A quaintly suggestive picture enough is that -described in Sir S. Ponsonby-Fane’s catalogue as, “Situation of H.M.’s -Ships _Fury_ and _Hecla_ at Igloolie. Sailors playing Cricket on the -Ice.” In this, of course, there is no historical interest about the -cricket (_vide_ p. 392). The one-legged and one-armed cricketers make -a picture that is curious, though not very pleasant to contemplate; -and the same is to be said of the rather vulgar representation of the -ladies’ cricket match noticed above. The “Ticket to see a Cricket -Match” (_vide_ p. 40) shows a bat of the most inordinate, and probably -quite impossible, length; but we may easily suppose that the artist, -consciously or unwittingly, has exaggerated the weapon of his day. -Here too are two stumps only. We may notice the price of the ticket as -somewhat remarkably high, 2s. 6d.; but it was in the days when matches -were played for large sums of money, so perhaps all was in proportion -(length of bat excepted, be it understood). There is a picture of the -“celebrated Cricket Field near White Conduit House, 1787” (_vide_ p. -17), which is named a “Representation of the Noble Game of Cricket.” -It is a picture of some merit, and evidently careful execution, and -here too the players are seen with bats of a prodigious length; so it -may be that these huge weapons came into fashion for a while, only -to be abandoned again when their uselessness was proved, or perhaps -when the legislature began to make exact provision with regard to the -implements used. In this same picture of the “Noble Game of Cricket” a -man may be seen standing at deep square leg, who is apparently scoring -the “notches,” or “notching” the runs, on a piece of stick. This at -least appears to be his occupation, and it is interesting to observe -it at this comparatively late date, and at headquarters. In the match -between the sides led by Lord Winchilsea and Lord Darnley respectively, -it is seen that there are two tail-coated gentlemen sitting on a -bench, and probably scoring on paper, for it is hardly likely that -they can have been reporting for the press at that time. England did -not then demand the news of the fall of each wicket, as it does now. -Nevertheless, that there must have been a good deal of enthusiasm for -the game, even at a pretty early date, is shown conclusively enough by -the engraving (_vide_ p. 190) of the “North-East View of the Cricket -Grounds at Darnall, near Sheffield, Yorkshire.” What the precise date -of this picture may be I do not know, but it is evident that it must -be old, from the costumes of the players, who are in knee-breeches and -the hideous kind of caps that have been reintroduced with the coming -of the motor-car. Also the umpires, with their top-hatted heads and -tightly-breeched lower limbs, show that this picture is not modern. -And yet the concourse of spectators is immense. Even allowing for some -pardonable exaggeration on the part of the artist, it is certain that -many people must have been in the habit of looking on at matches, -otherwise this picture would be absurd; and this, be it observed, was -not in the southern counties, which we have been led to look on as -the nurseries of cricket, but away from all southern influence, far -from headquarters, in Yorkshire, near Sheffield. To be sure, it may -have been within the wide sphere of influence of the great Squire -Osbaldeston, but even so the picture is suggestive. The scorers are -here seated at a regular table. A very curious representation of the -game is that given in the picture by James Pollard, named “A Match on -the Heath” (_vide_ p. 29). It is a good picture. What is curious is -that, though the period at which Pollard was producing his work was -from 1821 to 1846, the bats used in the game are shown as slightly -curved, and, more notably, the wicket is still of the two stumps only. -There are only two alternative ways of accounting for this: either they -still played in certain places with the two-stump wicket, or else, -which is not likely, Pollard was very careless, and no cricketer, and -took his cricket apparatus from some older picture. I observe, by the -way, that I have, on the whole, done less than justice to the ladies, -as they are portrayed playing the game, for though it is true that the -one picture is, as noticed, vulgar enough, there is another, “An Eleven -of Miss Wickets” (_vide_ p. 248), that is pretty and graceful. While -some of the pictures in this collection are interesting mainly for -their curiosity, or as being something like an illustrated history or -diary of events and changes in the game, there are others that are real -works of art and beauty, sometimes depending mainly on their expression -of the game itself, and sometimes only using it as an adjunct to -the scenery. Of the former kind, we must notice most especially the -remarkable series of drawings by Mr. G. F. Watts, R.A., which show the -batsman in the various positions of defence or attack. To very many it -will be a revelation that the great artist could lend his pencil to -a matter of such trivial importance (as some base souls may deem it) -as the game of cricket; but without a doubt that great knowledge of -anatomy, which has been one of the strong points in all his paintings, -has been learned in some measure from these studies, which also give -it a very high degree of expression. There is a force, a vigour, a -meaning about these sketches which are interesting enough, if for no -other reason than because they show so vividly the inadequacy of the -mechanical efforts of photography, when brought into competition, as -a means of expression, with the pencil of a really great artist. You -feel almost as if you must jump aside out of the way of the fellow -stepping forward to drive the leg volley, or of the fearful man drawn -back to cut, so forcefully is the force expressed with which the -batsman is inevitably going to hit the ball (_vide_ p. 67). One of the -most charming pictures of those who have taken cricket for their theme -is that which is lent by His Majesty the King to the M.C.C., and is -styled “A Village Match.” It is by Louis Belanger, of date 1768 (_vide_ -p. 361). Charming, too, is the picture attributed to Gainsborough, -“Portrait of a Youth with a Cricket-bat”; it is said to be a portrait -of George IV. as a boy, but it seems doubtful. The bat here is curved, -but hardly perceptibly; it shows the last stage in evolution before the -straight bat was reached (_vide_ p. 208). Our frontispiece is a jolly -scene—the ragged boys tossing the bat for innings—“Flat or Round?” -and the fellow in the background heaping up the coats for a wicket. We -all of us have played and loved that kind of cricket. A wonderfully -good and detailed picture is that of “Kent _v._ Sussex” (_vide_ p. -137). It is a picture of a match in progress on the Brighton ground, -and Brighton is seen in the background; in the foreground is a group of -celebrated cricketers in the spectators’ ring, yet posed, in a way that -gives a look of artificiality to the whole scene, so as to show their -faces to the artist. Even old Lillywhite, bowling, is turning his head -quaintly, to show his features. One of the most conspicuous figures is -the great Alfred Mynn, who was to a former generation what W. G. Grace -has been to ours. All the figures are portraits, and every accessory to -the scene is worked out most carefully. The drawing is by W. H. Mason. -Sir Spencer Ponsonby-Fane has a note on this picture: “As a matter of -fact, this match, as here represented, did not take place, the men -shown in the engraving never having played together in such a match, -but they all played for their respective counties about 1839-1841.” -Very delightful, too, is the picture that is the last in our book (p. -433), “At the End of the Innings”—an old veteran with eye still keen, -and firm mouth, telling of a determination to keep his wicket up and -the ball down “as well as he knows how,” and with an interest in the -game of his youth unabated by years. A jolly painting is that of “Old -Charlton Church and Manor House” (_vide_ p. 415), with the coach and -four darting past, and the boys at cricket on the village green. And -last, but to many of us greatest of all, there is the portrait of Dr. -W. G. Grace, from Mr. A. Stuart Wortley’s picture, which sums up a -modern ideal of cricket that we have not yet found ourselves able to -get past (_vide_ p. 228). - -There are other pictures, not a few, that we might select for notice, -but already this ramble goes beyond due prefatory limits. There are the -sketches in which the cricket is made to point or illustrate political -satires. To do full justice to these, one would need to be well versed -in the history (other than the cricketing history) of the period. But -enough has been said. One could not let such a gallery of old masters -go without an attempt to do the showman for them in some feeble way. -They need neither help nor apology. They are good enough to win off -their own bat. - -In our modern instances we have been no less lucky: with Mr. Warner -to bat, Mr. Jephson to bowl, Mr. Jessop to field, and the rest of the -good company, we do not know that any other choice could have made our -eleven better than it is; but after all, that is for the public to say; -it is from the pavilion, not the players, that the applause should -come. - - - - -CONTENTS - - - CHAP. PAGE - - 1. SOME POINTS IN CRICKET HISTORY 1 - - 2. EARLY DEVELOPMENTS OF THE CRICKETING ART 29 - - 3. BATTING 48 - - 4. BOWLING 79 - - 5. FIELDING 117 - - 6. COUNTY CRICKET 137 - - 7. AMATEURS AND PROFESSIONALS 193 - - 8. EARLIER AUSTRALIAN CRICKET 217 - - 9. ENGLISH AND AUSTRALIAN CRICKET FROM 1894 TO 1902 251 - - 10. UNIVERSITY CRICKET 296 - - 11. COUNTRY-HOUSE CRICKET 342 - - 12. VILLAGE CRICKET 361 - - 13. FOREIGN CRICKET 381 - - 14. CRICKET IN SOUTH AFRICA 396 - - 15. CRICKET IN NEW ZEALAND 409 - - 16. CRICKET GROUNDS 415 - - INDEX 443 - -[Illustration] - - - - -LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS - - - Tossing for Innings _Frontispiece_ - - Cricket as played in the Artillery Ground, London, - in 1743 _To face page_ 1 - - The Royal Academy Club in Marylebone Fields ” ” 2 - - A Match in Battersea Fields ” ” 3 - - An Exact Representation of the Game of Cricket ” ” 6 - - The Game of Cricket ” ” 16 - - The Cricket Field near White Conduit House ” ” 17 - - The Noble Game of Cricket ” ” 18 - - A Match on the Heath ” ” 29 - - “Cricket.” After the painting in Vauxhall Garden ” ” 36 - - A Ticket for a Cricket Match in 1744 ” ” 40 - - William and Thomas Earle ” ” 41 - - Mr. James Henry Dark ” ” 44 - - Mr. Thos. Hunt ” ” 45 - - “Block or Play” ” ” 52 - - “Forward Play” ” ” 53 - - The Draw or Pull ” ” 65 - - The Leg Volley ” ” 66 - - The Cut ” ” 67 - - Eighteenth-Century Bats ” ” 70 - - Celebrated Bats ” ” 71 - - War-worn Weapons ” ” 72 - - Relics of Past Engagements ” ” 73 - - George Parr ” ” 74 - - N. Felix ” ” 75 - - The Bowler (Alfred Mynn) ” ” 79 - - William Lillywhite ” ” 84 - - John Wisden ” ” 85 - - Alfred Mynn ” ” 92 - - James Cobbett ” ” 93 - - William Lillywhite ” ” 98 - - William Clarke, etc. ” ” 99 - - Lord’s Ground early in the Nineteenth Century ” ” 106 - - One Arm and One Leg Match ” ” 107 - - A Match at the Gentlemen’s Club, White Conduit - House, Islington ” ” 110 - - The Kennington Oval in 1849 ” ” 117 - - The Cricket Field at Rugby ” ” 124 - - A Match in the Eighties ” ” 125 - - Kent _v._ Sussex at Brighton ” ” 137 - - A Cricket Match (about 1756) ” ” 148 - - A Curious County Club Advertisement ” ” 152 - - Grand Female Cricket Match ” ” 153 - - The Batsman (Fuller Pilch) ” ” 156 - - An Old “Play” Bill ” ” 174 - - Rural Sports ” ” 182 - - The Cricket Ground at Darnall, near Sheffield ” ” 190 - - The Earl of March ” ” 193 - - Mr. J. H. Dark, Hillyer, The Umpire Martingell ” ” 200 - - Fuller Pilch ” ” 201 - - Portrait of a Youth ” ” 208 - - William Doorinton ” ” 209 - - George Parr ” ” 214 - - Thomas Box ” ” 222 - - Dr. W. G. Grace ” ” 228 - - Youth with a Cricket Bat ” ” 236 - - An Eleven of Miss Wickets ” ” 248 - - The Honourable Spencer Ponsonby ” ” 260 - - A Cricket Song ” ” 272 - - A Lyric of the Cricket Field ” ” 273 - - Salvadore House, Tooting, Surrey ” ” 298 - - Cricket Ground, Todmorden ” ” 299 - - Cricket at Rugby in 1837 ” ” 304 - - Cambridge University Students playing Cricket, 1842 ” ” 305 - - The Corinthians at Lord’s in 1822 ” ” 320 - - A Match in 1805 ” ” 328 - - Miss Wicket and Miss Trigger ” ” 344 - - A Country-House Cricket Match ” ” 352 - - A Village Match in 1768 ” ” 361 - - “‘Out,’ so don’t fatigue yourself, I beg, Sir!” ” ” 370 - - A Cricketer ” ” 371 - - Village Cricket in 1832 ” ” 374 - - Cricket at Hampton Wick ” ” 375 - - An Eighteenth-Century Caricature ” ” 381 - - A Parliamentary Match ” ” 386 - - A Match at Igloolie between H.M. Ships _Fury_ and - _Hecla_ ” ” 392 - - A State Match ” ” 398 - - The Soldier’s Widow or Schoolboys’ Collection ” ” 402 - - Old Charlton Church and Manor House ” ” 415 - - Cricket’s Peaceful Weapons ” ” 432 - - At the End of the Innings (William Beldham) ” ” 433 - -[Illustration: - _From a Painting by_ _Francis Hayman, R.A._ -_CRICKET, AS PLAYED IN THE ARTILLERY GROUND, LONDON, IN 1743._] - - -[Illustration] - - - - -CHAPTER I - -SOME POINTS IN CRICKET HISTORY - -By THE EDITOR - - -Cricket began when first a man-monkey, instead of catching a cocoanut -thrown him playfully by a fellow-anthropoid, hit it away from him -with a stick which he chanced to be holding in his hand. But the date -of this occurrence is not easy to ascertain, and therefore it is -impossible to fix the date of the invention of cricket. For cricket -has passed through so many stages of evolution before arriving at the -phase in which we find it to-day that it is difficult to say when the -name, as we understand its meaning, first became rightly applicable -to it. The first use of the name “cricket” for any game is indeed a -matter entirely of conjecture. It is not known precisely by Skeat, -nor Strutt, nor Mr. Andrew Lang. But whether the name was applied by -reason of the cricket or crooked stick, which was the early form of -the bat, or whether from the cross stick used as a primitive bail, or -from the cricket or stool, at which the bowler aimed the ball, really -does not very much matter, for all these etymological vanities belong -rather to the mythological age of cricket than the historical. Neither -is it of great importance whether cricket was originally played under -another name, such as club-ball, as Mr. Pycroft infers, on rather -meagre authority, as it seems to me, from Nyren. Nyren did not hazard -the inference. The fact is that the form in which we first find cricket -played, and called cricket, is quite unlike our cricket of to-day, so -that we do not need to go seeking anything by a different name. They -played with two upright stumps, 1 foot high, 2 feet apart, with a cross -stump over them and a hole dug beneath this cross stump. The cross -stump is evidently the origin of our bails. Nyren does not believe in -this kind of cricket, but he gives no reason for his disbelief, for the -excellent reason that he can have had no reason for his scepticism; and -the fact is proved by the evidence of old pictures. He was a simple, -good man; he never saw anything like cricket played in that way, so he -did not believe any one else ever had. He did not perhaps understand -much about the law of evidence, but he wrote delightfully about -cricket. The fourth edition of his guide, which a friend’s kindness -has privileged me to see, is dated 1847, some time after the author’s -death. - -[Illustration: - _Engraved from a Painting by_ _Francis Hayman, R.A._ -_THE ROYAL ACADEMY CLUB IN MARYLEBONE FIELDS._] - -[Illustration: _A MATCH IN BATTERSEA FIELDS._] - -Yes, in spite of Nyren, they bowled at this cross-stick and wicket -which the ball could pass through again and again without removing -the cross piece, and the recognised way of getting a man out was not -so much to bowl him as to catch or run him out. You ran him out by -getting the ball into the hole between the stumps before he got his bat -there—making the game something like rounders. Fingers got such nasty -knocks encountering the bat in a race for this hole that bails and a -popping crease were substituted—at least the humane consideration is -stated to have been a factor in the change. - -It is not to be supposed that even we, for all our legislation, have -witnessed the final evolution of cricket. Legislate we never so often, -something will always remain to be bettered—the width of the wicket -or the law of the follow on. About the earliest records that have come -down to us there is a notable incompleteness that we must certainly -regret. The bowler gets no credit for wickets caught or stumped off -his bowling. What would become of the analysis of the underhand bowler -of to-day if wickets caught and stumped were not credited to him? But -at the date of these early records all the bowling was of necessity -underhand. Judge then of the degree in which those poor bowlers have -been defrauded of their just rights. Whether or no the name of our -great national game was derived from the “cricket” in the sense of -the crooked stick used for defence of the wicket, it is certain, from -the evidence of old pictures, if from nothing else, that crooked -sticks, like the modern hockey sticks, filled, as best they might, -the function of the bat. They are figured as long and narrow, with -a curving lower end. There was no question in those days of the bat -passing the four-inch gauge. They must have been very inferior, as -weapons of defence for the wicket, to our modern bats—broomsticks -rather than bats—more than excusing, when taken in connection with the -rough ground, the smallness of the scores, even though the bowling was -all underhand and, practically, there was no defence. The solution of -these problems, however, is, I fear, buried in the mists of antiquity, -and one scarcely dares even to hope for a solution of them, or the -fixing of the date of the changes. There are other problems that do not -seem as if they ought to be so hopelessly beyond our ken. In Nyren’s -cricketer’s guide, one of the laws of cricket, therein quoted, provides -that the wickets shall be pitched by the umpires, yet in part of his -time, if not all of it—and when the change was made I cannot find -out—it must have been the custom for the bowler to choose the pitch, -for he records special praise of the chief bowler of the old Hambledon -Club, that on choosing a wicket he would be guided not only by the kind -of ground that would help him individually best, but also would take -pains to see that the bowler from the other end had a nice bumping knob -to pitch the ball on—for by this time “length” bowling, as it was -called, had come into general use. Nyren’s words are that he “has with -pleasure noticed the pains he—Harris—has taken in choosing the ground -for his fellow-bowler as well as himself.” - -In 1774 there was a meeting, under the presidency of Sir William -Draper, supported by the Duke of Dorset, the Earl of Tankerville, Sir -Horace Mann, and other influential supporters of cricket, to draw up -laws for the game, and therein it is stated that the “pitching of ye -first wicket is to be determined by ye cast of a piece of money,” but -it does not then say by whom they are to be pitched, nor does this -function come within the province of the umpires as therein defined. -This, therefore, is the first problem which I would ask the help of -all cricketing readers towards solving—the date at which the pitching -of the stumps ceased to be the business or privilege of the bowler. It -was the introduction of “length” bowling, no doubt—previously it was -all along the ground—real bowling as in bowls—that forced them to -straighten the bats. Mr. Ward, in some memoranda which he gave Nyren, -and which the latter quoted at large, says of these bats, used in a -match that arose from a challenge on behalf of Kent County, issued by -Lord John Sackville, to play All England in 1847: “The batting could -neither have been of a high character, nor indeed safe, as may be -gathered from the figure of the bat at that time, which was similar to -an old-fashioned dinner-knife curved at back and sweeping in the form -of a volute at the front and end. With such a bat the system must have -been all for hitting; it would be barely possible to block, and when -the practice of bowling length balls was introduced, and which (_sic_) -gave the bowler so great an advantage in the game, it became absolutely -necessary to change the form of the bat in order that the striker -might be able to keep pace with the improvement. It was therefore made -straight in the pod, in consequence of which, a total revolution, it -may be said a reformation too, ensued in the style of play.” - -Then follows a record of the score of the match, which need not be -detailed. England made 40 and 70, and Kent 53 and 58 for nine wickets, -a gallant win. “Some years after this,” Mr. Ward continues—it is to -be presumed Nyren quotes the _ipsissima verba_, for whenever he wants -to put in anything off his own bat it appears above his initials in a -note—“the fashion of the bat having been changed to a straight form, -the system of blocking was adopted”—that is to say, some years after -1740. - -The date is vague. Let us say early in the second half of the -eighteenth century, and I think we may go so far as to say that -cricket, as we understand it, began then too. It can hardly have been -cricket—this entirely aggressive batting. The next date of importance -as marking an epoch, if we may speak of the next when we have left -the last so much to conjecture, is 1775. On 22nd of May of that year -there was a great match “in the Artillery Ground between five of the -Hambledon Club and five of All England, when Small went in, the last -man, for fourteen runs and fetched them. Lumpy”—a very famous bowler -baptized Edward, surnamed Stevens—“was bowler upon the occasion, and -it having been remarked that his balls had three times passed between -Small’s stumps, it was considered to be a hard thing upon the bowler -that his straightest ball should be so sacrificed; the number of the -stumps was in consequence increased from two to three.” - -[Illustration: - _Engraved in 1743 by H. Roberts._ _After L. P. Boitard._ -_AN EXACT REPRESENTATION OF THE GAME OF CRICKET._] - -That is plain enough, but what is not plain is the height of the stumps -at that time. - -Mr. Pycroft puts the height of the stumps at 1 foot, with a width -of only 6 inches, up to 1780, and it is evident from what Nyren -says—(_a_) that he had never seen stumps of 1 foot high and 2 feet -wide; and (_b_) that they were not of 22 inches high until 1775. -Therefore here is evidence in support of Mr. Pycroft’s 1 foot high and -6 inch wide wicket, to say nothing of the unimpeachable value of his -own statements. But he himself adduces nothing that I can find in its -support, nor does he attempt to give us the date of the first narrowing -of the stumps; and with regard to the alteration from two low stumps to -three 22-inch stumps I am obliged to find him at variance with Nyren. - -The point, therefore, that I want to light on is the date and -circumstances of the change from wickets of two stumps 1 foot high and -2 feet apart, to wickets of two stumps 1 foot high, and only 6 inches -apart. This very drastic change appears to have been accomplished -without a word of historical comment upon it. There was a deal of -discussion at the time of the introduction of the third stump about the -probable effect on the game of this change, some arguing that it would -shorten the game—that every one would get out quickly. - -Mr. Ward took the opposite view, that it would lead to more careful -and improved batting, and cites a remarkable match played in 1777 -between the Hambledon Club and All England, in which, despite the third -stump, England made 100 and 69; and Hambledon, in a single innings, -made the wonderful score of 403. Aylward, who seems to have gone in -eighth wicket down, scored 167, individually, notwithstanding that he -had the mighty “Lumpy” against him. - -Mr. Ward’s memoranda therefore give us some interesting facts. - -So far as we can see back, the distance between the wickets has always -been 22 yards, but up to about some time in the first half of the -eighteenth century the wicket consisted of two stumps 1 foot high, 2 -feet apart, with a cross stump, and a hole between them. - -Later, this was changed for two stumps, first of 1 foot and then of 22 -inches high, 6 inches apart, with a bail and a popping crease. - -About 1750 “length” bowling was introduced, superseding the -all-along-the-ground business, and nearly concurrently the bats -straightened instead of curved. And I think we can scarcely say -“cricket” began before that, whatever “club-ball” or “stool-ball” may -have done. - -In 1775 a third stump was added. - -This last date, I know, does not agree with Mr. Pycroft, but I cannot -quite make out what his original sources are. He writes: “From an MS. -my friend”—he has mentioned so many friends in the previous paragraph -that it is impossible to identify the one he means—“received from -the late Mr. William Ward, it appears that the wickets were placed 22 -yards apart as long since as the year 1700. We are informed also that -putting down the wickets, to make a man out in running, instead of the -old custom of popping the ball into the hole, was adopted on account -of severe injuries to the hands, and that the wicket was changed at -the same time—1779-80—to the dimensions of 22 inches by 6, with a -third stump added.” So, on the authority of the “MS. received by his -friend”—it may have been the very memoranda given to Nyren, for Mr. -Pycroft has mentioned Nyren in the preceding paragraph—Pycroft cites -Ward as lumping together the double change from the two low stumps to -the three higher stumps in 1779-80, whereas, in his memoranda to Nyren, -Mr. Ward distinctly names 1775 as the date at which the third stump was -added. - -Curiously enough, Pycroft must have known all about this, really, but -it slipped his memory, for, a page or two further, we find him quoting -almost Nyren’s or Ward’s words: “In a match of the Hambledon Club in -1775, it was observed, at a critical point in the game, that the ball -passed three times between Mr. Small’s two stumps without knocking off -the bail, and then, first a third stump was added, and seeing that the -new style of balls which rise over the bat rose also over the wickets, -_then but 1 foot high_, the wicket was altered to the dimensions of 22 -inches by 8, and again, to its present dimensions of 27 inches by 8 -in 1817.” Though I find all up to that point in Nyren, I do not find -the italicised words, but I have no doubt they present the fact quite -accurately. They tell us nothing, however, as to the date at which the -wicket was first narrowed. - -Another curious piece of information Mr. Ward gives us, by the way. -“Several years since—I do not recollect the precise date—a player -named White, of Ryegate, brought a bat to a match which, being the -width of the stumps, effectually defended his wicket from the bowler, -and in consequence a law was passed limiting the future width of the -bat to 4-1/4 inches. Another law also decreed that the ball should not -weigh less than 5-1/2 oz. or more than 5-3/4 oz.” Nyren appends a note -to this: “I have a perfect recollection of this occurrence, also that -subsequently an iron frame, of the statute width, was constructed for, -and kept by, the Hambledon Club, through which any bat of suspected -dimensions was passed, and allowed or rejected accordingly.” “Several -years since,” says Mr. Ward, or Nyren, writing, as I presume, about the -year 1833, so that perhaps we may put this invention of the gauge about -1830, or a little earlier. I wonder who has this iron gauge now. Has it -been sold up for old iron? - -That is a third very practical problem that one would like answered. - -And is it not curious to see how the rules were made and modified to -meet the occasions as they arose. The misfortune of that - - Honest Lumpy who did ‘low, - He ne’er could bowl but o’er a brow— - -in bowling so many times between the stumps of the too greatly blessed -Small—whence the introduction of the third stump. And White with -his barn-door bat, from “Ryegate,” as it pleases them to spell it, -compelling the use of the gauge. - -We are too apt to think of the laws as “struck off at one time,” like -the American Constitution, instead of regarding them as something of -slow growth in the past, that will have to grow, with our growth, in -the future. We shall get into trouble if we regard them as something -too sacred to touch and do not legislate as occasion arises. - -We have altered them greatly since that meeting at the Star and Garter -in Pall Mall in 1774, when they seem first to have been committed to -writing, and by the end of the twentieth century it is likely that we -shall have modified them considerably from this present form. We have -a notion that our forefathers played the game in such a sportsmanlike -manner, taking no possible advantage but such as was perfectly open -and above-board, that they required scarcely any rules to guide them, -but some sad things that the stern historian has to notice about the -influence that betting had at one time on cricket—this, and also a -sentence or two from these very memoranda of Mr. Ward, whom Nyren -extols as the mirror of all cricketing chivalry—may show us, I think, -that our cricketing forefathers had something human in them too. How -is this for a piece of artful advice? “If you bring forward a fast -bowler as a change, contrive, if fortune so favours you, that he shall -bowl his first ball _when a cloud is passing over_, because, as this -trifling circumstance frequently affects the sight of the striker, -you may thereby stand a good chance of getting him out.” And again, -a little lower on the same page: “Endeavour, by every means in your -power—such as, by changing the bowling, by little alterations in the -field, or by any excuse you can invent—to delay the time, that the -strikers may become cold or inactive.” - -A very cunning cricketer, this Mr. Ward. - -Previously he had said: “If two players are well in, and warm with -getting runs fast, and one should happen to be put out, supply his -place immediately, lest the other become cold and stiff.” Now just -compare these two last suggestions with each other, you will say, I -think, that the last is fair and just and proper counsel, instilling a -precaution that you have every right to take, but the former, according -to the modern sense of what is right and sportsmanlike, seems to me to -be counselling something perilously near the verge of sharp practice. -You send your man out quickly, that the other may not grow cold, -and what happens? Your purpose is defeated by the bowler and field -purposely dawdling in order that the man _may_ grow cold. It does not -strike one as quite, quite right, though no doubt it is not against the -rules. But it is tricky, a little tricky. And so again we draw a date, -without his suspecting it, of a new moral epoch, from our invaluable -Mr. Ward. About 1833, or a little later, we grew a trifle more delicate -and particular in some small points of cricketing behaviour and -sportsmanlike dealing. The betting, and the like evil practices at one -time connected with the game, were a grosser scandal which carried -their own destruction with them. - -If any man, therefore, can throw light on these three dark points, I -shall be very grateful to him—the date at which the first high wicket -was narrowed down to 6 inches, the date at which the bowler ceased -to have the pitching of the wicket, and the present habitation of -that famous piece of old iron, the gauge used on the barn-door bat of -White of Ryegate. Nyren, the matchless historian of the game, reveals -himself, in his little history, as a very estimable man, of some -matchless qualities for his task—an unbounded love of his subject and -a sweet nature perfectly free of the slightest taint of jealousy. He -writes of no other cricketing societies, except incidentally, than of -those men of Hambledon in Hampshire. _Quorum pars magna fui_, as he -says, with a single explosion of very proper pride, and a note appended -thereto explaining apologetically that he has some certain knowledge -of Latin. But after this single expression, very fully justified, for -he was the beloved father of the Hambledon Club for years, he speaks -of himself again hardly at all, just as if he had no hand in its -successes, preferring to find some generous word to say of all the -rest—of Beldham, Harris, Aylward, Lumpy. Beldham was not nearly so -handsome to him, speaking of him to Mr. Pycroft. “Old Nyren was not -half a player as we reckon now,” was Beldham’s verdict. However, the -old man was fifty then. - -At least he was a very good type of an Englishman and cricketer, -whatever his class as a player, or he could never have written that -book. And how much Hambledon may have owed to Nyren we can never know. -As it is, Hambledon has the credit that Nyren specially claims for -it of being the _Attica_, the centre of early civilisation, of the -cricketing world. But there may have been other Atticas—only, like the -brave men before Agamemnon, unsung, for want of their Homeric Nyrens. - -The fact of the matter is, we know little but gossip of how the cricket -world went before the year 1786, when Bentley takes up the running and -records the scores. A sad fire occurred in the M.C.C. Pavilion—at -that time the Club played where the Regent’s canal now runs, after -being built out of Dorset Square—and burnt all the old score -books—irreparable loss. - -Mr. Pycroft made an excursion into the home of the Beldhams, and -brought out much valuable gossip, along with the unhandsome criticism -on Nyren. “In those days,” says Beldham—1780, when Mr. Beldham was a -boy—“the Hambledon Club could beat all England, but our three parishes -around Farnham at last beat Hambledon.” - -“It is quite evident,” adds Mr. Pycroft to this, “that Farnham was the -cradle of cricket.” - -Something that Beldham and others may have said to Mr. Pycroft may have -made this fact “quite evident” to him, but I cannot see that he has -transmitted any such evidence to us. This much, however, I think we may -say with confidence, that all that was best of cricketing tradition -and practice _in the south of England_—that is to say, as far as was -in touch at all with its influences—clustered in the little corner of -Surrey in which the parish of Farnham is. But that is not to say that -there were not other nuclei of cricket in the north and elsewhere, and -I think there is evidence to lead us to think there were other centres, -perhaps less energetic. - -The “county” boundaries were not so rigid in those days. “You find -us regularly,” says Beldham to Mr. Pycroft—“us” being Farnham and -thereabouts—“on the Hampshire side in Bentley’s book,” and it is quite -true. - -Then, from this little nucleus, cricket in the south extended. Beldham -had a poor opinion of the cricket of Kent at first. Crawte, one of the -best Kent men, was “stolen away from us,” in Beldham’s words. Aylward, -the hero of the 167 runs, was taken, also to Kent, by Sir Horace Mann, -as his bailiff, but “the best bat made but a poor bailiff, we heard.” -Sussex was a cricketing county from an early date, but Beldham had a -poor opinion of its powers likewise. - -The elements of the nucleus formed round Farnham were disseminated, -as much as anything, by the support that certain rich and influential -people gave the game. We have seen how Sir Horace Mann stole away -Aylward. Other great supporters of the game were Earl Darnley, Earl -Winchelsea, Mr. Paulet, and Mr. East—all before the centuries had -turned into the eighteens. - -“Kent and England,” says Mr. Pycroft, “was as good an annual match in -the last as in the present century.” But in those days, as even his own -later words show us, “Kent,” so called, sometimes had three of the best -All England men given in, even in a match against “England.” They were -not so particular then—what they wanted was a jolly good game, with a -good stake on it. - -“The White Conduit Fields and the Artillery Ground,” Pycroft goes on, -“supplied the place of Lord’s, though in 1817 the name of Lord’s is -found in Bentley’s matches, implying, of course, the old Marylebone -Square, now Dorset Square, under Thomas Lord, and not the present, -by St. John’s Wood, more properly deserving the name of Dark’s than -Lord’s. The Kentish battlefields were Sevenoaks—the land of Clout, one -of the original makers of cricket balls—Coxheath, Dandelion Fields, in -the Isle of Thanet, and Cobham Park, also Dartford Brent and Pennenden -Heath; there is also early mention of Gravesend, Rochester, and -Woolwich. The Holt, near Farnham, and Moulsey Hurst, were the Surrey -grounds. - -[Illustration: _THE GAME OF CRICKET_.] - -[Illustration: - _From an Engraving._ _Published in 1787._ -_THE CRICKET FIELD NEAR WHITE CONDUIT HOUSE._] - -But there was cricket further afield. In 1790 the Brighton men were -playing, and in the following year we find an eleven of old Etonians, -with four players given, playing the M.C.C. team; also with four -professionals, in Rutlandshire. This M.C.C. team went on to play eleven -“yeomen and artisans of Leicester,” defeating them sorely, and in the -same year the Nottingham men met with a similar fate at the hands of -the Club. - -From these matches and their results we are now able, I think, to infer -two things—first, that cricket had been played for some long while, -not as an imported invention, but as an aboriginal growth, in these -northern counties before these teams visited them from the south, and -secondly, that the southern counties had brought it to a much higher -pitch of perfection, for they could never have gone down so ninepinlike -before any eleven of the Marylebone Club. Likely enough the inspired -doctrine, of the straight bat and the left elbow up, of that gifted -baker of gingerbread, Harry Hall of Farnham, had not travelled so far -as the home of these northern folk, and in that case they would have -been at a parlous disadvantage to those who had been brought up by its -lights. They had not perhaps been so long in the habit of coping with -“length” balls, which made the adoption of the left elbow up almost a -necessity of defence. When the bowling came all along the ground it did -not matter. Also there was in the south that prince of bowlers, Harris, -whose magical deliveries shot up so straightly from the ground that -it was almost essential for playing them to get out to the pitch of -the ball. And if they had not this bowling, what was to educate them, -unassisted, to a higher standard of batting? But they were not left -unassisted, for the masterly elevens from the south began to come among -them, and taught them many things, no doubt, both by example and by -precept. - -This was in 1791. 1793 brings a wider ray of light on the scene of -cricket history. Essex and Herts come on the scene as cricketing -counties—of second class, as we should call them now, to Kent and -Surrey, but players and lovers of cricket all the same. They combined -elevens apparently, and played twenty-two against an eleven of England, -which beat them in a single innings. Mr. Pycroft has a specially -interesting note in this connection. He was told by two old cricketers, -one a Kent man and the other an Essex man, that when they were boys, -cricket in both these counties was a game of the village, rather than -of clubs. “There was a cricket bat behind the door, or else up in the -bacon rack, in every cottage.” Of course in London it was a game played -in clubs, for they only could find the spaces where land was valuable. -It was in the year of 1793 that “eleven yeomen at Oldfield Bray, in -Berkshire, had learned enough to be able to defeat a good eleven of the -Marylebone Club.” - -I am scandalised by the wholesale way I have to steal early history -from Mr. Pycroft’s book. The only excuse is that I do not know where -to go to better it, though probably I may supplement it from chance -sources. - -[Illustration: The LAWS of the NOBLE GAME of CRICKET. -as revised by the Club at S^t. Mary-le-bone. -_From the Frontispiece to the Laws._] - -In 1795 he tells us of matches in which the captains were respectively -the Hon. Colonel Lennox—who fought a duel with the Duke of York—and -the Earl of Winchelsea. A munificent supporter of the game was my -Lord of Winchelsea, and used to rig out his merry men in suits of -knee-breeches, shirts, hosen, and silver caps. It was a kind of feudal -age of cricket, when the great captains prided themselves on the powers -of their retainers, and staked largely on the result. - -“In 1797,” says Pycroft, “the Montpelier Club and ground attract our -notice,” and then goes on to speak of Swaffham in Norfolk, as a country -of keen but not very successful cricketers. Lord Frederick Beauclerk -took down an eleven that appears to have beaten three elevens combined -of the Norfolk folk, and that in a single innings. This Lord Frederick -Beauclerk, with the Hon. H. and Hon. J. Tufton, got up the first Gents -_v._ Players match in 1798; but though the Gents, after the generous -fashion of the day, were reinforced by the three chief flowers of the -professional flock—namely, Tom Walker, Beldham, and Hammond—the -Players beat them. In the same year Kent essayed to play England, -only to be beaten into little pieces, and in 1800 they began the new -century more modestly by playing with twenty-three men against twelve -of England. - -For of course, after all has been said, the centre of the national -game, as of everything national, was then, as now, smoky London. -Lord’s Pavilion was then, as it had been since 1787, on the site -that Dorset Square occupies now. In London the men collected who -loved cricket, and had the money to bet on the game and to engage the -services of the players. There were keener cricketers, more general -interest in cricket, then than a little later in the century. Three to -four thousand spectators sometimes came to see a match at Lord’s, and -royalties sometimes took a hand in the game. - -In the first years of the new century, Surrey was the great cricketing -county. Only two of the All England eleven, Lord Frederick Beauclerk -and Hammond, came from any other county. Hammond was wicket-keeper to -the famous Homerton Club—“the best,” says Mr. Ward, quoted by Pycroft, -“we ever had. Hammond played till his sixtieth year, but Brown and -Osbaldestone put all wicket-keeping to the rout”—by the pace of their -bowling, of course. - -About the first decade of the century the counties seem to have been -divided off more strictly, for cricketing purposes, than before. -Hampshire and Surrey, as we saw, ran in double harness, the men of -Hants helping Surrey in a match, and the Surreyites mutually helping -Hampshire. But now they no longer play together. Broadhalfpenny and -even Windmill Down have gone to thistles, and the gallant Hambledon -Club is no more. Godalming is mentioned as the strongest local centre -of the game, and in 1808 Surrey had the glory of twice beating -England in one season. But in 1821 the M.C.C. is again playing the -“three parishes,” Godalming, Farnham, and Hartley Row, and it is -in the accounts of this very same year that we tumble on a dark -and significant observation. “About this time,” said Beldham to Mr. -Pycroft, “we played the Coronation match, M.C.C. against the Players -of England. We scored 278 and only six wickets down, when the game was -given up. I was hurt, and could not run my notches; still James Bland -and the other Legs begged of me to take pains, for it was no sporting -match, ‘any odds and no takers,’ and they wanted to shame the gentlemen -against wasting their—the Legs’—time in the same way another time.” - -“James Bland and the other Legs.” At this distance of time we may -perhaps repeat the epithet or nickname, and even class a named man -under it, without the risk of an action for libel. Perhaps even the -term “Legs” did not imply all the qualities which attach to it to-day, -but in any case it is surely something of a shock to come on the -presence of these questionable gentlemen just casually stated, not with -any note of surprise, but merely as if they were a common and even -essential accompaniment of a cricket match. - -Of course we knew quite well that our forefathers betted large stakes -between themselves, often on single-wicket matches. This was a -favourite style of match with Mr. Osbaldestone—the Squire,—because -his bowling was so fast that no one, practically, could hit it in front -of the wicket, and hits did not count for runs, in single-wicket, -behind the wicket. In double-wicket matches he often “beat his side,” -we are told—beat his own side—“by byes,” no long-stop being able to -stop his bowling effectively. The chief check to the Squire’s career -seems to have been the discovery of the famous Browne of Brighton, who -bowled, some said, even faster. Beldham, however, made a lot of runs -off the latter on one special occasion. This is a digression, into -which the consideration of single-wicket matches for money—and is it -a wonder we do not have more of them now?—beguiled me. But perhaps it -is a good thing that we do not have them, for they may well have been -the root and source of all the subsequent “leg-work.” The Coronation -match is the first occasion on which Mr. Pycroft notices the “Legs,” in -his order of writing, but lower down on the very same page he quotes -some words of Mr. Budd, who shared, with Lord Frederick Beauclerk, -the credit of being the best amateur cricketer of the day, relative -to a match at Nottingham—M.C.C. _v._ Twenty-two of Notts—in which -the same evil influence is apparent. “In that match,” he says, “Clarke -played”—the future captain of the All England travelling team. “In -common with others, I lost my money, and was greatly disappointed at -the termination. _One paid player was accused of selling_, and _never -employed after_.” - -Mr. Budd must have done his level best to avert defeat, too, for -Bentley records that he caught out no less than nine of the Notts men; -but _one paid player was accused of selling_, and Clarke was on the -other side! However it happened, Notts won. Mr. Pycroft also says that -in old Nyren’s day the big matches were always made for £500 a side, -apart, as we may presume, from outside betting. Nowadays a sovereign -or a fiver on the ‘Varsity match is about the extent of the gambling -that cricket invites. The James Bland referred to above had a brother, -Joe—_Arcades ambo_, bookmakers both. These, with “Dick Whittom of -Covent Garden—profession unnamed,—Simpson, a gaming-house keeper, and -Toll of Esher, as regularly attended at a match as Crockford and Gully -at Epsom and Ascot.” - -Mr. Pycroft scouts the idea that a simple-minded rustic of Surrey or -Hampshire would long hold out against the inducements that these gentry -would offer them, “at the Green Man and Still,” to sell a match, and -indeed some of the naïve revelations that were made to him by rustic -senility when he went to gossip with it, over brandy and water, might -confirm him in a poor opinion of the local virtue. - -“I’ll tell the truth,” says one, whom he describes as a “fine old man,” -but leaves in kindly anonymity. “One match of the county I did sell, a -match made by Mr. Osbaldeston at Nottingham. I had been sold out of a -match just before, and lost £10, and happening to hear it, I joined two -others of our eleven to sell, and get back my money. I won £10 exactly, -and of this roguery no one ever suspected me; but many was the time I -have been blamed for selling when as innocent as a babe.” Then this old -innocent, with his delightful notions of _cavalleria rusticana_ and the -wooing back of his £10, goes on to tell the means—hackneyed enough in -themselves—by which the company of the Legs seduced the obstinacy of -rustic virtue. “If I had fifty sons,” he said, “I would never put one -of them, for all the games in the world, in the way of the roguery that -I have witnessed. The temptation was really very great—too great by -far for any poor man to be exposed to.” - -There is a pathetic dignity about this simple moralising that contrasts -well with the levity of his previous confession, but the state of -things that it shows is really very disgusting. It is another tribute -to the merit of this first of English games that it should have lived -through and have lived down such a morbid condition. - -“If gentlemen wanted to bet,” said Beldham, “just under the pavilion -sat men ready, with money down, to give and take the current odds. -These were by far the best men to bet with, because, if they lost, -it was all in the way of business; they paid their money and did not -grumble.” The manners of some of the fraternity must have changed, not -greatly for the better, since then. “Still,” he continues, “they had -all sorts of tricks to make their betting safe.” And then he quotes, -or Mr. Pycroft quotes—it is not very clear, and does not signify—Mr. -Ward as saying, “One artifice was to keep a player out of the way by -a false report that his wife was dead.” It was as clever a piece of -practical humour as it was honest. What a monstrous state of things it -reveals! - -And then Beldham, inspirited by Mr. Pycroft’s geniality and brandy -and water, goes on to assure him—as one who takes a view which the -majority would condemn as childishly charitable—that he really does -not believe, in spite of all that has been said, that any “gentleman,” -by which he means “amateur,” has ever been known to sell a match, and -he cites an instance in which for curiosity’s sake he put the honesty -of a certain noble lord to the test by covertly proposing selling a -match to him. But though his lordship, who seems to have been betting -against his own side, had actually £100 on the match, even this -inducement was not enough to tempt the nobleman from the paths of -virtue. - -We will hope that no amateur did fall, and may join with Beldham in -“believing it impossible,” but the fiction that they did was used by -the Legs to persuade any man of difficult honesty to go crooked. “Serve -them as they serve you,” was the argument, or one of the arguments, -used. That “fine old man” whom Mr. Pycroft drew out so freely gives -no edifying pictures of the players of the day: “Merry company of -cricketers, all the men whose names I had ever heard as foremost in -the game, met together, drinking, card-playing, betting, and singing, -at the Green Man—that was the great cricketers’ house—in Oxford -Street—no man without his wine, I assure you, and such suppers as -three guineas a game to lose and five to win—that was then the sum for -players—could never pay for long.” - -That was their rate of payment, and that their mode of life—perhaps -not the best fitted for the clear eye and the sound wind. - -It appears that this degrading condition of cricket was brought to an -end by its own excesses; it became a crying scandal. “Two very big -rogues at Lord’s fell a-quarrelling.” They charged each other with -all sorts of iniquities in the way of selling matches, all of which -accusations, when compared with the records, squared so nicely with the -truth that they carried conviction, and “opened the gentlemen’s eyes -too wide to close again to those practices.” - -Mr. Pycroft has a note on his own account about the match at Nottingham -in which his informant confessed to him that he was paid to lose. There -were men on the other side who were paid to lose too, but, perhaps -because there were twenty-two of them, they could not do it, but won in -their own despite. - -It must have produced funny cricket, this selling of a match both -ways, and Mr. Pycroft picked up a story of a single-wicket match in -which both were playing to lose, where it was only by accident that a -straight ball ever was bowled, but when it came it was always fatal. -It reminds us of the much-discussed wides and no-balls bowled in the -‘Varsity match to avert the follow-on: but, thank heaven, there is -no suspicion of fraudulent financial motives in even the queerest of -cricketing tactics to-day. - -It is truly wonderful how all heavy betting has gone out. Partly, no -doubt, this is because men play more in clubs. When individuals used -to get up matches the players’ expenses came very heavy; therefore -they made the matches for a considerable stake to cover them, but the -practice cannot have comforted the losers much. Nowadays the club pays -players out of the subscribed funds. - -Why the single-wicket game is all given up is hard to say, for it is an -age of individual emulation, but we are content with the better part -of the game of eleven aside. And when first was that number, which -seems to have some constant attraction for the cricketer, introduced? -We cannot tell. It seems usual from the dawn of history. Moreover, the -length of the pitch was always, so far as the historic eye can pierce, -twenty-two yards—twice eleven, and twice eleven inches was the height -of the stumps when they were first raised from the foot-high wicket. - -Mr. Budd told Mr. Pycroft of a curious single-wicket match in which he -was something more than _magna_, even _maxima_, _pars_. It was against -Mr. Braund, for fifty guineas. Mr. Braund was a tremendously fast -bowler. “I went in first, and, scoring seventy runs, with some severe -blows on the legs—nankin knees and silk stockings, and no pads in -those days—I consulted my friend and knocked down my wicket, lest the -match should last to the morrow, and I be unable to play”—on account -of the injuries to his nankin knees, I suppose. “Mr. Braund was out -without a run. I went in again, and making the seventy up to a hundred, -I once more knocked down my own wicket, and once more my opponent -failed to score.” - -Another interesting match that Mr. Pycroft records was Mr. Osbaldeston -and William Lambert against Lord Frederick Beauclerk and Beldham. Mr. -Osbaldeston, on the morning of the match, which was fixed under “play -or pay” conditions, found himself too ill to play, so Lambert tackled -the two of them, and actually beat them. I am sorry to say I find a -record of a little temper shown—perhaps naturally enough—in this -match, as on another occasion, when he was bowling to that barn-door -bat of the Hambledon Club, Tom Walker, by Lord Frederick Beauclerk; but -after all, what man is worth his salt without a temper? And no doubt -both occasions were very trying. - -The date of these single-wicket matches was about 1820, which brings -matters up to about the time at which a stopper should be put on the -mouth of this gossiping and cribbing Muse of History, for we are coming -to the days as to which men still living are able to tell us the things -that they have seen. - -[Illustration: - _From a Painting by_ _James Pollard._ -_A MATCH ON THE HEATH._] - - -[Illustration: The LAWS of the NOBLE GAME of CRICKET. -as revised by the Club at S^t. Mary-le-bone.] - - - - -CHAPTER II - -EARLY DEVELOPMENTS OF THE CRICKETING ART - -By THE EDITOR - - -When I first formed the presumptuous design of editing this work, it -was my original purpose to divide this chapter into two parts, whereof -the one should treat of the development of batting and the other of -the development of bowling. But I very soon found that such a division -would never do, for it would be a dividing of two things that were in -their nature indivisible, from the historian’s point of view, the one -being the correlative of the other, and the effects of the one upon the -other being ever constant. Of course those effects have been mutual; -the bowling has educated the batting, and in his turn, again, the -batsman has been the instructor of the bowler. No sooner has the one -changed his tactics at all than the other has changed front a little -in order to meet this new attack. Naturally, perhaps, it seems that -the bowler has the oftener taught the batsman, than _vice versa_; the -aggressor, by a new form of attack, forcing on the defendant a new line -of defence. I think it is the generally accepted view to-day that it -is the bowling “that makes the batting,” but on the other hand one is -inclined to think that the excellence of the Australian bowling, and -also of their wicket-keeping and general fielding, is very much the -result of playing on such perfect wickets that the batsman practically -would never get out unless fielding, wicket-keeping, and bowling were -all of the highest quality. Therefore, in that special instance it may -rather be said that the batting, under specially favourable conditions -of climate and wickets, has “made the bowling.” Of course the natural -effect of playing on perfect wickets in matches that last as many days -as you please has had its effect, and to us not altogether a pleasing -effect, on the Australian batting, but this is scarcely the place to -consider that feature of the case. - -The first point of interest to notice is that Beldham is quite at -one with us in attributing the advance in batting to the advance of -bowling, notably to the wonderful bowling of Harris, which was of -that portentous character to which the name of epoch-making is not -misapplied, and Nyren is of the same opinion with Beldham, whom he -considers to have been the first to play Harris’s bowling with success -by getting out to it at the pitch. - -We have seen, in another part of the book, that, setting aside the -stool-ball, and the other legendary sports of the ancients, which -were “not cricket,” the first game worthy of the name of cricket that -appears in the dim twilight of history is the game they played at the -beginning of the eighteenth century—say for simplicity’s sake in 1700. -In 1700 and for some time later the wicket that men bowled at was -formed, as we have seen, of two stumps, each 1 foot high, 2 feet apart, -and with a cross-stump by way of a bail laid from one to the other. -Between the two stumps, and below the cross one, was a hole scraped -in the ground—the primitive block-hole. There was no popping-crease: -the batsman grounded his bat by thrusting the end of the bat into the -block-hole. Then he was “in his ground.” But if the wicket-keeper, or -any fieldsman, could put the ball into the hole before the batsman had -his bat grounded in it, the batsman was out. Observe, it was not a -matter of knocking off the cross-stump with the ball, but of getting -the ball into the hole before the batsman grounded his bat in it. It -takes no very vivid imagination to picture the bruised and bloody -fingers that must have resulted from the violent contact of the bat -when there was a race for the block-hole between wicket-keeper and -batsman. - -And the bowling? The bowling of course was _bowling_, all along the -ground, as in the famous old game of bowls. Very likely it was in some -respects the best sort of bowling for the business. With a wicket only -a foot high, anything between the longest of long-hops or the yorkiest -of yorkers would have jumped over it. They found out this disadvantage -later, when they began to bowl “length” balls, which, after all is -said, must have been far the more puzzling for the batsman. And besides -the chance of going over the wicket, there was also the excellent -opportunity of going through the wicket, between two stumps set as far -apart as 2 feet. Probably this occurred so often that it did not seem -particularly hard luck. The batsman, more probably, deemed himself very -hardly used if he did not get two or three extra lives of this grace. - -And after all, though no records that I can find have come down to us -from those times, it is safe to infer that the batsmen did not make an -overwhelming number of runs. Had it been so we should almost certainly -have heard of it by oral tradition, and Aylward’s great score of 167 -at the end of the century would not have stood out as such a unique -effort. Nor have we far to seek for the reason that the scores were -not prodigious. Though the wicket was low, it was very broad, and a -ball running over the surface of bumpy ground, as we may suppose those -wickets to have been, would very often have taken off the cross-stump -only a foot above the ground. Perhaps, even, at a foot high it was more -assailable than at two feet by these methods of attack. Then too the -weapons of defence—the bats, so to call them—are figured more like -the hockey-sticks of to-day—“curved at the back, and sweeping in the -form of a volute at the front and end,” Mr. Ward’s memoranda of Nyren -say. Of course these were very inadequate weapons of defence, and in -point of fact no defence seems ever to have been attempted. It was all -hit. And for actual hitting of a ball always on the ground a bat of -this shape may not have been so very ill adapted after all. - -We do not know what the wiles of these old all-along-the-ground bowlers -may have been. Probably they were fairly simple. Yet there is a -significant word that crops up in the pages of Pycroft, that delightful -writer, that almost inclines one to suspect these old-fashioned fellows -of some guile. He constantly uses the expression “bias” bowling. He -speaks of it, it is true, in connection with “length” balls, breaking -from the pitch. But why should he have used the word “bias” unless it -were in common parlance, and how should that singular word have come -into common parlance unless from the analogy of the game of bowls, in -which it is a cant term. In the game of bowls the bowls are sometimes -weighted on one side, for convenience in making them roll round in a -curve and so circumvent another bowl that may “stimy” them, to borrow -a term from golf, from the jack; but sometimes—and this seems a more -scientific form of the game—there is no bias in the bowl itself, -but “side” can be communicated to it, by a finished player, with the -same result as before. Now if it was the habit of these old-fashioned -cricketers to bowl their “daisy-cutters” with bias on the ball, so that -it would travel in a curve as it came along, the reason for the term as -used by Pycroft is simple enough; but if this is not the explanation, -the only alternative one is that the term first came into use—never -having been mentioned in cricket before—for balls that broke from -the pitch, wherein the analogy from bowls would be very far-fetched -indeed, and the term altogether not one that would be likely to suggest -itself. Therefore I think there is a likelihood—I claim no more for my -inference—that these old cricketers bowled their underhand sneaks with -spin on them, just as we often have seen them bowled—and a very good -ball too on a rough wicket—in country cricket matches to-day. - -Then we come to a change, and the date of that change appears to -involve some of the highest authorities in a certain disagreement. But -I am going to stick to Nyren, or rather to Mr. Ward’s memoranda as -edited by Nyren, rather than to Pycroft, both because the former wrote -nearer to the date of the occurrences treated of, and also because -the latter—though I love and revere his book—seems to me to have -lumped dates together in a certain scornful, contemptuous haste, as if -they were scarcely worth a good cricketer’s attention. Nyren, or Mr. -Ward for him, is more careful in his discrimination, according to my -judgment as a grave historian. - -According to Nyren, then, it was some time about or before 1746 -that the stumps were both heightened and narrowed. From 1 foot they -sprang up to 22 inches in height, and from 2 feet across they shrank -to as little as 6 inches in width. A bail crossed their tops, and a -popping-crease was drawn for the grounding of the bat, to the great -saving, as we cannot doubt, of the wicket-keeper’s fingers. Still, -however, unless Nyren was mistaken, there were not as yet but two -stumps—virtually it is certain he was mistaken in declining to -believe that the game ever was played with a wicket of 2 feet width, -but that does not prove him wrong in another matter in which all the -probabilities are in his favour. - -We are not given any very clear reason for this change in the height -of wickets, but we very quickly see its effects. Hitherto bowling -had been all along the ground, the wicket being so low that it was -almost necessary to bowl in this now derided fashion if it was to be -hit at all. But a wicket 10 inches higher might have its bail taken -off by a higher-rising ball, the higher-rising ball was found to be a -more difficult one for the batsman to hit, the higher-rising kind of -ball was thereby proved the best for the bowler’s purpose; in a word, -“length” bowling, as they called it—the bowling of good length balls, -as we should say—was introduced. - -And now, all at once, the position of the unfortunate batsman was found -to be a very parlous one indeed. For, remember, he had in his hand, to -meet this bowling, a thing that had more resemblance to a hockey-stick -than a cricket-bat. There is a certain “invisible length” which, as we -all know, is extremely difficult to play with a modern square-faced bat -and with all the science of modern theories of wielding it. How much -more helpless then, as Euclid would put it, must the unfortunate man -with the bandy-stick have felt when he saw coming towards him through -the air a ball of that length which he knew would make it impossible -when it reached him. Batsmen must have had a most miserable time of it -for a year or two. - -At length, out of their necessity was produced a new invention. It was -about the year 1750 that the “length” bowling came into fashion, and -very soon afterwards the form of the cricket-bat was altered to that -straight and square-faced aspect which gave it a chance of meeting the -new bowling—which was assailing comparatively new wickets—on equal -terms. Obviously there ought to be some kind of relation between the -shape of the bat and the contour of the wicket that it is concerned to -defend, and the contour of the upright 22-inch wicket demanded defence -by a straight bat—that is to say, at first, merely a bat straight in -itself. The gospel of the left elbow up and the meeting of the ball -with bat at the perpendicular had not been preached thus early. - -[Illustration: - _Engraved by Benoist_ _After F. Hayman, R.A._ -_CRICKET, “AFTER THE PAINTING IN VAUXHALL GARDEN.”_] - -And I take it that virtually cricket, worthy to be called by any -such great name, did not really begin before this. This game of -trundling along the ground at a two-foot wide wicket, and a man with -a hockey-stick defending it, is really rather a travesty of the great -and glorious game. The origin of cricket it was, no doubt, and as such -is to be most piously revered, but actual cricket—hardly. Consider -that old print of a game in progress on the Artillery Fields, where the -players are equipped with the curved bats, wear knee-breeches, and the -wicket is low and wide, with two stumps upright and one across. There -is not a fieldsman on the off side of the wicket—a significant fact in -itself; but further, and far more significant, a spectator is reclining -on the ground, entirely at his ease, precisely in the position that -point would occupy to-day. There can be but one meaning to this -picture—that such a thing as off hitting was absolutely unknown. -Possibly it was difficult enough to hit to the off, even with the best -intentions, off these bats like bandy-sticks; it is at all events -certain that it was a style of stroke not contemplated by the gentleman -reclining on the ground. - -I have spoken above of the bat as an instrument of defence. So to -style it when writing of this era is to commit an anachronism. The -earlier cricketers, even of the straight-bat epoch, were guiltless of -the very notion of defence. They were all for aggression, trying to -score off every ball. The reason of this was, no doubt, in the first -place that the idea of merely stopping the ball had not occurred to -them—partly because the object of the game is to score, and because -the bandy-stick style of bat must have been singularly ill designed -for defence; but also there is this further reason, that chance was -much more on the batsman’s side in the old days than it is now. -Nowadays, if a ball is straight and the batsman misses it, it is a -simple matter of cause and effect that the bails are sent flying and he -is out. But with the wicket 2 feet wide, and no middle stump, this was -by no means so inevitable. On the contrary, it must have been a very -frequent occurrence for the ball to pass through the wicket without -any disturbance of the timber. Even when the wicket was narrowed to 6 -inches, there was still room for the ball to pass between the stumps, -of which the fortune of the before-mentioned Small was a celebrated -and flagrant instance. The old-time batsman was therefore not so -essentially concerned with seeing that no straight ball got past his -bat. He did not bother himself about defence. He gallantly tried to -score off every ball that came to him. - -Yet, for all that, his slogging was not like the slogging of to-day. He -had no idea of jumping in and taking the ball at the half-volley. His -notions went no further than staying in his ground and making the best -he could of the ball in such fashion as it was pleased to come to him. - -“These men”—the “old players,” so called in 1780—says Mr. Pycroft, -quoting the authority of Beldham, backed by that of Fennex, “played -puddling about their crease, and had no freedom. I like to see a player -upright and well forward, to face the ball like a man”—at this time of -day, the wicket had lately been raised from 1 foot to 2 feet high, but -had for some while been only 6 inches wide, a small mark for the bowler. - -Mr. Pycroft goes on, quoting Beldham again: “There was some good -hitting in those days”—towards the close of the eighteenth century -is the date alluded to, as far as I can make out—“though too little -defence. Tom Taylor would cut away in fine style, almost after the -manner of Mr. Budd. Old Small was among the first members of the -Hambledon Club. He began to play about 1750, and Lumpy Stevens at the -same time. I can give you some notion, sir, of what cricket was in -those days, for Lumpy, a very bad bat, as he was well aware, once said -to me, ‘Beldham, what do you think cricket must have been in those days -when I was thought a good batsman?’” - -This is instructive comment, as to the style of batting previous to -1780—that is the date that it appears we must fix for the change of -style that brought batting in touch with modern theories. But by the -way we ought to notice that Beldham spoke of the fielding as being very -good, even in the oldest days of his recollection, and Mr. Pycroft is -careful to add a note saying that this praise from Beldham was high -praise indeed, and eminently to be trusted, as Beldham’s own hands were -also eminently to be trusted, whether for fielding the ball on the -ground or for a catch. - -But with the year 1780 we come to a new era in the art of batting, -associated more particularly with the name and art of a famous bowler, -David Harris, the association being again an illustration of the truth, -which has several times already been in evidence, that it is the -bowling that is the efficient cause in educating the batsman—that it -is the bowling that “makes the batting.” - -“Nowadays,” said Beldham to Mr. Pycroft, “all the world knows -that”—namely, that the upright bat and the left elbow up and forward -is the right principle of batting—“but when I began there was very -little length bowling, little straight play, and very little defence -either.” - -Beldham was a boy in 1780, and even before this, Harry Hall, the -gingerbread-baker of Farnham, of immortal memory, was going about the -country preaching the great truths about batting. May be he was but -little listened to. At all events it is certain that until men had the -straight bat to play with and the length bowling to contend with there -can have been little opportunity or demand for straight batting. - -“The first lobbing slow bowler I ever saw was Tom Walker,” Beldham -says. “When, in 1792, England played Kent, I did feel so ashamed of -such baby bowling, but after all he did more than even David Harris -himself. Two years after, in 1794, at Dartford Brent, Tom Walker, with -his slow bowling, headed a side against David Harris, and beat him -easily.” - -[Illustration: _AN EARLY TICKET._] - -[Illustration: - _From a Drawing by_ _Wm. Fecit._ -_WILLIAM AND THOMAS EARLE._] - -And this Walker, by the way, was a wonderful fellow in more departments -of the game than one. A terrible stick, but very hard to get out—very -slow between wickets, so that one of the old jokers said to him, -“Surely you are well named Walker, for you are not much of a runner”—a -moderate jest, but showing the sort of man he was. Then he was -“bloodless,” they said. However he was hit about the shins or fingers, -he never showed a mark. Only David Harris, that terrible bowler, made -the ball jump up and grind Tom Walker’s fingers against the handle of -the bat; but all Tom Walker did then was to rub his finger in the dust -to stanch the reluctant flow of blood. It is all very grim and Homeric. -David Harris, rather maliciously, said he liked to “rind Tom,” as if he -were a tree stem withered and gnarled. And it is a marvellous fact that -a man of this character, whom you would call conservative to the core -of his hard-grained timber, should actually have invented something -new. But he did. He first tried the “throwing-bowling,” the round-arm, -which was credited to Willes—probably an independent invention, and so -meriting equal honour—many years after. Well may Nyren speak of the -Walkers, Tom and Harry, as those “anointed clod-stumpers.” Harry was a -hitter, his “half-hour was as good as Tom’s afternoon.” - -And meanwhile what has become of David Harris? David Harris, it is -said, once bowled him 170 balls for one run. And what manner of balls -were these? Let us consider a moment a description of David Harris’s -bowling culled from Nyren. Parts of it lend themselves to the gaiety -of nations, and the whole description, if not very lucid, is full -of terror. “It would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to convey in -writing an accurate idea of the grand effect of Harris’s bowling”—the -effect, as a matter of fact, is conveyed a deal more clearly than -the way in which it was produced. “They only who have played against -him can fully appreciate it. His attitude, when preparing for his -run previously to delivering the ball, would have made a beautiful -model for the sculptor. Phidias would certainly have taken him -as a model. First of all, he stood erect as a soldier at drill; -then, with a graceful curve of the arm, he raised the ball to his -forehead”—singular and impressive ritual—“and drawing back his right -foot, started off with his left. The calm look and general air of the -man were uncommonly striking, and from this series of preparations he -never deviated. His mode of delivering the ball was very singular. He -would bring it from under the arm by a twist, and nearly as high as -his arm-pit, and with this action _push_ it, as it were, from him. -How it was that the ball acquired the velocity it did by this mode of -delivery, I never could comprehend.” - -Nor any one else either, for Harris was a very fast bowler. But I am -inclined to think that there must have been some explanation to be -discovered out of the fact that he was by profession—before cricket -became his profession—a potter. With the strength of fingers that -the potter acquires through working at his clay, he may have had the -power of putting an amount of spin on the ball impossible for men -whose digits had not gone through this course of training. In underhand -bowling such as, after all is said, Harris’s must have been, the spin -is almost entirely the work of fingers. The turn of wrist had little -share in it; for one thing, it was forbidden to deliver the ball with -the knuckles uppermost. - -And so it may well have been that, whatever the pace with which the -ball was propelled, by these singular and statuesque means, through -the air, it may have carried so much spin as to leap up twice as fast -off the ground, as a billiard ball with much side on will seem to gain -twice as much life after touching a cushion. And all that we read of -Harris’s bowling shows that the balls did come off the ground with -tremendous speed. - -“His balls,” says Nyren, in another place, “were very little beholden -to the ground when pitched; it was but a touch, and up again, and woe -be to the man who did not get in to block them, for they had such a -peculiar curl that they would grind his fingers against the bat. Many a -time have I seen the blood drawn in this way from a batter who was not -up to the trick. Old Tom Walker was the only exception. I have before -classed him among the bloodless animals.” - -We have seen, however, that even from him Harris occasionally drew -blood. - -In Harris’s day it was the custom for the bowler to choose the wicket, -and it was always his preference to have a bump to pitch on, and so -help this rising tendency of the ball off the pitch. Of course this -would be the recognised aim of a bowler of to-day, but it was not so -recognised then, and indeed Stevens, nicknamed “Lumpy,” generally -regarded as the second-best bowler to Harris of his day, always liked -to bowl “o’er a brow” in order to make his balls shoot. The result -was, as Nyren points out, that Lumpy—Lumpy of the honestly avowed -preference for bowling “o’er a brow”—would hit the wicket oftener, but -that more catches were given off Harris, though his balls often went -over the wicket. But there was no manner of doubt as to which was the -finer bowler. Harris was the man. - -And now as to its effect on the batting. Notice these words of Beldham, -for really they contain the kernel of the whole matter: “Woe be to the -man who did not get in to block them, for they had such a peculiar curl -that they would grind his fingers against the bat.” - -And again he says the same in more distinct words: “To Harris’s fine -bowling I attribute the great improvement that was made in hitting, and -above all in stopping, for it was utterly impossible to remain at the -crease, when the ball was tossed to a fine length; you were obliged to -get in, or it would be about your hands, or the handle of your bat, and -every player knows where its next place would be.” - -[Illustration: _MR. JAMES HENRY DARK._ -(_The Proprietor of Lord’s Cricket Ground, 1836-1864_).] - -[Illustration: _T. HUNT, OF DERBYSHIRE, d. 1858._] - -In this connection Mr. Pycroft writes as follows: “‘Fennex,’ said -he”—“he” being Beldham again—“‘Fennex was the first who played out at -balls; before his day, batting was too much about the crease.’ Beldham -said that his own supposed tempting of Providence consisted in running -in to hit. ‘You do frighten me there jumping out of your ground,’ said -our Squire Paulet; and Fennex used also to relate how, when he played -forward to the pitch of the ball, his father ‘had never seen the like -in all his days,’ the said days extending a long way back towards the -beginning of the century. While speaking of going in to hit, Beldham -said: ‘My opinion has always been that too little is attempted in that -direction. Judge your ball, and when the least overpitched, go in and -hit her away.’ In this opinion Mr. C. Taylor’s practice would have -borne Beldham out, and a fine dashing game this makes; only, it is a -game for none but practised players. When you are perfect in playing in -your ground, then, and then only, try how you can play out of it, as -the best means to scatter the enemy and open the field.” - -So says Mr. Pycroft, a very high authority, and one whose instructions -to the batsman are very sound and worthy of the very highest respect. -No doubt he is right in his cautious counsel—human nature is prone to -err on the side of rashness—but he does not notice the indisputable -fact that it is easier to meet the ball at the pitch, if you can reach -it, than later—always supposing it is not a rank long hop. He is -rather inclined to treat this principle of getting out to the pitch -as a counsel of perfection, and perhaps it is more easily put in -practice now that wickets are more perfect than in his day, though -if you really go out far enough—and unless you can get so far as to -command the ball, however it break, it is surely better not to go out -at all—the most troublesome ball has not time to develop much of its -dangerous eccentricity before you have met it. Of course there is -always the chance of missing it, and then there’s the wicket-keeper’s -opportunity. - -But, all details of prudence apart, there is no doubt that we have -here a totally new departure in batting, devised, as is usual, to -meet some new requirements on the part of the bowler. A very kindly, -genial, remarkably honest man—a really loveable man—was this potter, -David Harris, though he did say, in chaff, that he liked to “rind” Tom -Walker, and certainly he was an epoch-making bowler, for he made the -ball come off the ground with an underhand action in the very way that -is the study of our overhanders. He was a good sportsman too, and when -he had the pitching of the wicket, tried to give Lumpy, at the other -end, a brow to bowl over, while he chose for himself a brow to pitch -against. No one ever seems to have hinted that Harris’s action was a -jerk, though there were jerkers in the world in those days. - -Beldham and Fennex, then, were the first to pick up the new style of -going in to meet the pitch of the ball, and so prevent its jumping up -“and grinding their fingers on the bat.” Hitherto there had been good -hitting, but all inside the crease, cutting and drawing to leg. Small -had his bat straightened for the special purpose of making the draw -stroke better. But hitherto there had been no idea of driving a shorter -ball than a half-volley. Now first was developed the idea of going in -to drive the ball and of forward defensive play; and therewith, as I -conceive, the batsman’s art became, in its principles, pretty much as -Mr. Warner found it when his school coach began his education. - - -[Illustration] - - - - -CHAPTER III - -BATTING - -By P. F. WARNER - - -It has been said that good batsmen are born and not made, but my -experience is rather to the contrary. There are certain gifts of eye -and hand which all really good batsmen must possess, but I am strongly -convinced that early practice and good coaching have a very great -deal to do in the acquiring of all-round skill. A. E. Stoddart, whose -retirement from first-class cricket has proved such a loss, not only to -Middlesex, but to English cricket, is the only batsman who has attained -to the first rank who did not start to play the game quite early in -life, and he is the exception that proves the rule. - -Any success I may have had as a batsman I attribute to my devotion to -the game from my youngest days. Early rising in the West Indies is the -custom, but so enthusiastic about cricket was I that I often got up -at half-past five, so as to practise to the bowling of a black boy on -a marble-paved gallery which provided the fastest and truest wicket -I have ever played on. Even now I am ashamed to recall the number of -broken window-panes I was responsible for, and many was the time that -my black hero and I have taken to our heels, to be speedily followed -by an irate nurse, who never failed to report the damage I had done -to headquarters. But despite many a scolding, and prophecies that I -should come to a bad end, I persevered in my wrong-doing, and to that -perfect marble wicket and a good coach I owe the fact that I was seldom -guilty of running away to square leg, a fault so common among boys. -Therefore the first essential is a thoroughly good wicket to practise -on, and a good wicket is not a difficult thing to obtain nowadays, what -with the improved condition of grounds all over the country. And let -me urge on every young cricketer the absolute necessity of practising -in earnest from the very beginning. Endeavour to play at a net exactly -as you would in a match, and if you are bowled out, try to feel almost -as disappointed as if a similar fate had befallen you in a game. Pay -attention to details, and if you make a bad stroke, notice where your -mistake lay, remember it, and take the lesson to heart. But practise, -practise, practise, and, if you are a keen cricketer, batting at the -net may be made almost as enjoyable as batting in a match. Well, then, -practise in earnest from the start of your career, and if possible -get some keen and intelligent cricketer—not necessarily a great -one—to coach you, but one with infinite patience and tact, who will -occasionally give a word of encouragement, for an encouraging word and -look do a greater amount of good than is generally imagined. - -Having got a good wicket and a capable coach, see that a suitable -bat is in your hand, and I strongly advise every boy to play with a -bat suited to his strength and style; and here I may mention that -it is a thousand times better to play with too light a bat than too -heavy a one, for with too heavy a bat one cannot cut or time the ball -correctly; besides, it is hardly possible to play straight with it, -and a straight bat is the very essential of good sound batting. Giving -the young cricketer a good driving and well-balanced bat, see that -he puts on two pads, and at any rate one, if not two batting gloves. -Thus equipped, he will be ready to take his place at the wicket, and -the first thing our imaginary coach will have to teach him will be -his POSITION AT THE WICKET. No fixed rules can be laid down as to the -position a batsman should take up at the wicket, but undoubtedly the -best advice that can be given is to take up the position most natural -to him. The most popular way of standing is to place the right foot -just inside the popping-crease, with the left just outside it, pointing -towards the bowler or mid-off; but no two players stand exactly alike, -and as I have said before, the most natural position is the best. - -There used to be a difference of opinion as to whether a batsman should -stand with his weight equally balanced on both legs, or on the right -leg only, but nowadays the universally accepted theory is that the -weight should be chiefly on the right leg. At any rate, W. G. Grace, K. -S. Ranjitsinhji, C. B. Fry, and A. C. Maclaren are all of that opinion, -and they certainly ought to know. L. C. H. Palairet’s method of -standing at the wicket is generally supposed to be the model attitude, -and another cricketer whose position might well be studied is R. E. -Foster, who, like Palairet, stands straight, but with a slight easing -of the knees, which helps him to get a quick start at the ball. Both -these cricketers stand as near as possible to their bats, without being -leg before wicket, and I am a strong believer in this, for the reason -that the nearer one is to the bat the more chance is there of playing -absolutely straight and getting well over the ball. I am quite aware -that there are one or two first-class batsmen who do not play with a -straight bat, but they are men of wonderful eyesight, and their success -has not altered my conviction that a boy should be taught to play with -a straight bat. - -As for taking guard, it does not matter whether you take middle, middle -and leg, or leg stump. I have taken all three in a season. It is a mere -question of inclination. - -The bat should be held, I venture to think, in the manner most natural -to the batsman, but the most common method is with the left hand -nearly at the top of the handle, and the right hand somewhere about the -middle; but there is no golden rule on the subject, and G. L. Jessop, -for instance, holds the bat with his right hand at the very bottom of -the handle. But Jessop is a genius, and his method should certainly -not be copied by the young cricketer, unless the style of play Jessop -adopts comes quite natural to him; then by all means he should be -allowed to cultivate it. I rather believe myself in holding the bat as -high up the handle with the right hand as possible—that is to say, -about an inch or an inch and a half interval between the two hands. -This is the manner in which L. C. H. Palairet holds his bat, and I have -always regarded and always shall regard him as the model for young -cricketers to copy. - -The first principle the coach has to instil into our young batsman is -that he _must never move his right leg backwards_ in the direction of -short leg. He may move it to jump out to drive or to cut or to play -back, but _never should he move it away from the wicket_. - -This is the first point to be mastered by the beginner, for if the -right leg is withdrawn away from the wicket, it is impossible to play -with a straight bat, which, as I have said before, is the very essence -of good batting. If a young batsman cannot refrain from running away, -he should have his right leg pegged down. - -[Illustration: - _From a Drawing by_ _G. F. Watts, R.A._ -_BLOCK OR PLAY._] - -[Illustration: - _From a Drawing by_ _G. F. Watts, R.A._ -_FORWARD PLAY._] - -The second principle to be inculcated is that _a_ _straight bat is -essential to success in batting_, though I do not mean to say that the -bat should be held straight for every stroke, for the cut and the pull, -for instance, are not made with a straight bat; but what I mean is that -for defensive strokes, and in some scoring strokes, the bat must be -held straight. A batsman who plays with an absolutely straight bat is -nearly always a strong defensive player. - -The third maxim is, _watch the ball_. Watch the bowler’s arm as he runs -up to bowl, and then the ball as it leaves his hand. Watch it closely -right on to your bat, and do not start with a preconceived idea of -where the ball is going to pitch, and do not make up your mind to make -a certain stroke before the ball is actually delivered. - - -PLAYING THE BALL - -All strokes may be conveniently divided into two kinds, back and -forward, and back play and forward play may be further divided into -back and forward play for defensive purposes and back and forward play -with the object of making runs. I will deal first with _Forward play_, -and I will imagine that a good length ball has been delivered on a -hard, true wicket. To play this ball correctly the batsman should get -his left leg well out in the line of the ball, and then bring his bat -as close as possible to his leg. This is the secret of all forward -play, and the young cricketer cannot be too often urged to “get the -left leg well out to the bat” when playing forward. Care should be -taken not to overbalance oneself, but if body, wrist, and legs work -correctly, the ball may be forced past the fielder, and it is really -quite extraordinary the power that may be got into the stroke. The -position of the hands changes during the forward stroke, the left wrist -being on the side of the bat away from the wicket before the stroke -is played, and on the opposite side at the expiration of the stroke. -The ball must of course be kept down, and in order to do this the left -shoulder must be kept well forward, pointing in the direction in which -the stroke is made, and the bat must be at such an angle that the top -of the handle is nearer to the bowler than the bottom of the blade. The -whole weight of the body should be brought to bear on the stroke, and -the batsman must make the most of his reach, and the whole thing should -be one action and in one motion. Tom Emmett, the famous old Yorkshire -cricketer, who was our coach at Rugby during the five years I was -there, was never tired of teaching us this stroke. In playing forward -the bat must be quite straight, and at the moment of actual contact -with the ball the bat should be just behind the left leg. Now that -the wickets are so good, forward play is a very effective weapon both -of offence and defence to have in one’s armoury, and it is therefore -distinctly worth while for a batsman to acquire the highest efficiency -in it. - -The off drive may range anywhere from the left of the bowler to just in -front of point, and the ball to be thus driven is one that is fairly -well pitched up on the off side of the wicket, but not necessarily a -half-volley. The great thing is to get well to the pitch of the ball, -watch it, and not slash wildly at it. Care must be taken not to have a -“go” at too wide a ball, for this is a favourite trick of slow bowlers, -especially left-handers, and often results in an easy catch on the off -side. There is one stroke, which is neither a genuine cut nor a genuine -off drive, which may for convenience sake be dealt with here. The left -leg is thrown out, as if the batsman were about to play a genuine off -drive, but the ball is hit later than in the off drive, and with a -horizontal rather than a perpendicular bat, the shoulders and forearm -being brought into play rather more than the wrist. In some respects -the stroke is very like the forward cut, of which I shall speak later, -and many cricketers do not consider it an off drive, but rather in the -nature of a cut. It is a useful stroke for a weak-wristed player. A -good length ball on the off stump should be played in the direction -of mid-off. A ball just wide of the off stump in the direction of -extra cover, and a ball about a foot wide on the off side, should be -played towards cover-point. The farther the ball is pitched outside -the off stump, the farther ought the left leg to be thrown across the -wicket, and the farther ought the left shoulder to be thrown forward. -The wider the ball is, the more difficult it is to play, and a mistake -common amongst beginners is that, without considering the direction -of the ball, they advance the left leg straight down the wicket, just -as if, in fact, the ball had pitched on the off stump, and not, for -instance, a foot outside it. The left leg should be thrown _across the -wicket almost in a line with the flight of the ball_. If the batsman -plays forward at a ball a foot outside the off stump with his left leg -straight down the wicket, he will find that the weight of his body will -play no part in the stroke, and that should the ball break back he will -be bowled out; therefore always remember to get the left leg well out -to the bat, for apart from this being the golden rule for all forward -play, there is an added advantage to be gained from the fact that, if -the ball breaks enough to beat the bat, there will be little or no room -for it to pass between the bat and the leg. - -But in forward strokes, as in all other strokes, the great thing is to -watch the ball carefully, for should you be playing forward with “your -head in the air,” that is to say, not looking at the ball, which at -the last minute does something unexpected, either bumping or hanging -on the pitch, you will for a certainty find yourself in trouble; and -therefore, until you are thoroughly well set and have got the exact -pace of the wicket, there should be a margin for emergencies, so that -it should be possible to alter one’s stroke at the last moment. The -best way of playing a ball which one has gone forward to, and which -one finds one cannot reach far enough to smother at the pitch, is to -adopt the “half-cock” stroke. This stroke is made by holding the bat -quite straight just over or slightly in front of the popping-crease -and letting the ball hit it. It is a most excellent defensive stroke, -and the proper way to play a ball whose length one has misjudged. W. -G. Grace uses this stroke very frequently, as does F. S. Jackson. In -making a forcing forward stroke the great thing is to swing the arms -well and carry the stroke right through, which if well timed will send -the ball very quickly to the boundary. Some batsmen play this forcing -forward stroke so hard that it is difficult to distinguish it from a -genuine hit, and I have a very vivid recollection of a grand innings -of a hundred odd which A. E. Stoddart played at Lord’s for Middlesex -against Kent some five or six years ago. The wicket was hard and -fast, and the power with which Mr. Stoddart forced good length balls -from W. M. Bradley to the off boundary was astonishing. In offensive -forward play great care should be taken not to bend the right knee, -for with the bending of the right knee comes the sinking of the right -shoulder, and if the shoulder sinks the batsman is very likely to -get under the ball. When a batsman who is a strong forward player is -thoroughly well set on a hard, true wicket, many of his runs will come -from off drives, especially if the bowling be fast or medium paced, and -the power one can get into an off drive, if body, wrist, and eye are -working together, is almost as great as in the case of a genuine hit. -It requires no great physique to be a powerful off driver, for a man -of very slight build, if he is timing the ball well—and by timing the -ball I mean the harmonious working of body, wrist, and eye—can make -the ball travel to the boundary as fast as a strongly and powerfully -built man. There are few better moments at cricket than when one -has forced a good length ball through the fielders on the off side, -standing well balanced where one is, and the ball making haste to the -ring. There is a very conscious feeling that brain, eye, body, and hand -have all acted in concert, and that a great deal has been accomplished -with a minimum of exertion. - - -BACK PLAY - -As soon as a batsman has made up his mind to play a ball back, the -weight of his body should be transferred to the left leg, and the right -foot should be moved back towards the wicket and the left leg drawn up -to it. - -Many writers on cricket have laid it down as a rule that the right leg -should never be moved in playing back, which may be all very well as an -elementary principle for a boy who is just starting cricket, but which, -I submit, with all respect, is altogether wrong if applied to one who -has got over the initial difficulties of the game. For myself, were -I coaching a boy, I should tell him to move the right leg in playing -back, though of course I would never allow him to move it away from -the wicket. With a moment’s thought it will be seen that a batsman who -moves his right leg towards the wicket must have a better chance of -playing the ball correctly than one who stands with his right leg glued -to the ground. In the first place, by moving back he makes the ball -which he is shaping at shorter than it would have been if he had stood -where he was by the distance that he stepped back. The ball is made -shorter by two feet if the batsman moves two feet towards his wicket, -instead of playing it where he originally stood, and the two feet more -which in this case the ball has to travel gives the batsman so much -the more time to judge and play it. Again, supposing a ball pitches on -the off stump or just outside it, the batsman will assuredly play that -particular ball more correctly if he moves his right leg across the -wicket in a line with the off stump than if he keeps it firmly planted -just off the leg stump. It stands to reason that if he moves his right -leg across the wicket in a line with the ball, he will be nearer the -direction the ball may take after pitching than if he adhered to his -original position. Moreover, should the particular type of ball we are -discussing break an inch or two from leg, the odds on his being caught -at slip or the wicket are very great, should he not move his right leg -across the wicket; whereas, should he bring his right leg across to -the off stump and watch the ball closely after it has pitched, he will -stand a far better chance of playing that ball in the middle of his bat -than if he had remained with his right leg rooted to the earth. I well -remember a very promising boy at Rugby, one who is now a county player, -being nearly ruined by one of the cricketing masters insisting on his -never moving his right leg, with the result that time after time was he -caught at slip or the wicket, for the simple reason that he was too -far off the ball when he played at it. - -In playing forward, the golden rule is to get the left leg well -forward to the direction the ball is taking, and the bat well up to -the leg. The same rule applies in playing back. Get the right leg up -to the line of the ball, and the bat as near as possible to the leg. -The difficulty about moving back across the wicket is that the stroke -requires considerable quickness of eye and foot, and quickness of foot -is a point not half enough insisted on by the majority of coaches. All -the best back players play back in this classical way—Victor Trumper, -Ranjitsinhji, C. B. Fry, Tyldesley, A. C. Maclaren, and F. S. Jackson. -If the ball in question breaks back into the batsman, he is equally -well prepared for it, for he is well over the ball and better able to -contend with the break, because more easily able to move his bat and -get into position to play the stroke, than if he were standing firmly -fixed on his right leg. Any one who thinks about the matter at all -must see the advantage of playing in this way. It seems to me that in -cricket the nearer the striker’s body is to the ball, the more likely -he is to make a correct stroke, for the reason that his eye is nearer -to the object he is striking at. If then a batsman keeps his right foot -firmly fixed just off the leg stump to a ball which pitches on the off -stump or a couple of inches outside it, his eye is necessarily farther -away from that ball than if he moved his right leg across the wicket -in the direction the ball is taking. I do not think this point can be -insisted on too strongly by coaches. Besides, let any cricketer compare -the two methods of playing back, and he will, I am convinced, find the -one I have urged the easiest and most natural. - -I am a firm believer in this method of playing back, not only because -all the famous players use it—and that in itself were sufficient—but -because from one’s own experience it has proved not only the easiest, -but by far the most effective. By drawing back the right foot towards -the wicket, not away from it, a batsman is often able to force the ball -away between mid-on and the bowler, or between mid-off and the bowler, -or between short leg and mid-on, the ball in the last instance being -played away by a quick turn of the wrist at the last moment. - -“It is a mistake to play back behind the legs, for it is impossible -to put any power into a stroke when the bat is held nearer the wicket -than the batsman himself is standing.” These are the words of K. S. -Ranjitsinhji in the _Jubilee Book of Cricket_, and as Ranjitsinhji is -about the best back player in the world, he ought to know. - -It is comparatively easy to play back as a defensive stroke, but any -one who aspires to be a really good batsman must learn to make his -back play a means of scoring runs. On a difficult wicket back play is -everything; in fact, it may be safely said that a good rule to bear in -mind on a sticky wicket is _to play back or hit_. - -A batsman, unless he be an experienced one, ought not to try and -hook short balls round to leg, especially if the bowling is fast, but -a “rank long-hopper” may be hit to any point of the compass with a -horizontal bat; though, however short and bad a ball, it should be -carefully watched all the way, in case of an unexpected hang or rise. -Short and straight balls, if they do not get up to any height, may be -flicked round on the on side by a quick turn of the wrist. - -In making the hook stroke the batsman should move back towards the -wicket, turn almost square to the ball, and hit with a horizontal -bat to the on side. The ball should be watched right on to the bat, -so that, if it does anything unexpected, an ordinary back stroke may -be substituted. Even a very short ball outside the off stump may be -hooked round to leg, especially if there are seven fielders on the off -side and only two or three on the on side. Shrewsbury, Tyldesley, A. -C. Maclaren, C. B. Fry, K. S. Ranjitsinhji, and Victor Trumper are, -or were, very good at this stroke, which may be made, by using the -wrists, with an almost straight bat. Men who play the stroke with their -arms, like A. C. Maclaren, hit across the ball. To hook a fast bowler -is a proceeding fraught with no little danger, and ought only to be -indulged in very occasionally, for it is a stroke that requires no -little skill and nerve, for often the ball comes shoulder or head high -to the batsman. A. E. Stoddart was particularly good at hitting this -type of ball round to leg. Indeed, all round there have been few finer -players to fast bowling than Stoddart. On slow wickets the hook stroke -is simply invaluable, and short straight balls may be despatched to the -boundary quite easily. - - -THE BACK GLANCE - -A ball rather short of a good length pitching just outside the leg -stump should be played away on the leg side with a backward movement. -The right foot is put well back in a line with the leg stump, and the -left foot drawn up beside it, but different cricketers play the stroke -differently. Ranjitsinhji, for instance, moves his left leg across the -wicket towards point, faces the ball, and plays it at the last instant -by a quick turn of the wrist. Other batsmen turn almost right round, -and others get right in front of the wicket. The ball must be watched -right on to the bat, and the ball should glance away somewhere behind -the umpire, or in the direction of long leg. It is a most useful and -fascinating stroke, and can be employed to balls pitching on the middle -and leg stumps, especially to a break-back bowler, though of course -there is a danger here of being given l.b.w. - - -THE FORWARD GLANCE - -A good length or slightly overpitched ball just outside the leg stump -should be played in the following manner: The left leg should be thrown -down the wicket in a line with the ball, and the moment the ball -touches the bat, the bat should be pushed forward by a quick turn of -the wrist, the whole weight of the body being put into the stroke. The -body is thrown well forward, with the result that the ball will go -round to leg at a great pace. - -I have found this a very useful stroke to bowlers like Mold, -Richardson, and Lockwood, who break back into one, and, as in the -case of the back glance, the stroke may be made to a ball pitching on -the middle and leg stump to a break-back bowler. At Lord’s it is a -particularly effective stroke if one is batting at the end opposite -the Pavilion, for the slope in the ground tends to accentuate the off -break of any bowler who is on at the Pavilion end. Altogether it is a -very productive stroke in first-class cricket. The back glance and the -forward glance have practically taken the place of the leg hit, though, -with the new-fashioned type of leg-break bowling as practised by Vine, -Braund, Armstrong the Australian, and others, the genuine leg hit was -more often seen last season than in some past years; but with six or -seven men on the on side, it is extremely difficult to hit a leg ball -without running the risk of being caught somewhere on the leg side, -especially as the Braund type of bowler bowls a good length outside the -batsman’s legs. - -The square leg hit is made by advancing the left leg down the wicket, -and hitting the ball just as it passes the left leg. It is either just -before the ball pitches or on the rise, according to the length of the -ball. It is a very difficult matter to keep the ball down, the complete -success of the stroke depending upon perfect accuracy of timing. This -hit ought only to be attempted to a ball short of a half-volley. If the -ball is a half-volley or well up, the correct stroke is in front of the -wicket or square to leg with a vertical bat. - -[Illustration: - _From a Drawing by_ _G. F. Watts, R.A._ -_THE DRAW OR PULL._] - -I am inclined to think that the glance stroke is preferable to the -square leg or long leg hit, for it is quite as good for scoring -purposes, and the ball can be watched right on to the bat, and placed -and kept down with far greater certainty. - - -THE PULL - -differs from the hook stroke in that it is more in the nature of a -drive. The pull stroke is used to hit a ball pitched outside the -off stump round to leg, and the stroke may be applied either to a -half-volley or a good length ball outside the off stump. - -W. W. Read used to be the great exponent of this stroke, and -Ranjitsinhji also plays it with wonderful certainty. It is a dangerous -stroke, for the ball which can thus be treated requires very careful -choosing, and it is the difficulty of choosing the right ball which -makes the stroke dangerous. The left foot should be thrown out to the -pitch of the ball, and just as the ball rises from the ground it should -be hit round on the on side with a horizontal bat. It is often a very -useful stroke on a sticky wicket, to a bowler who is breaking back, -though there is some risk of being caught at deep square leg, rather in -front of the wicket, by the fielder who is almost invariably placed -there when the wicket is helping the bowler. - -A straight half-volley is a ball which every player ought to be able to -drive, and it should always be hit in the most natural direction. It is -a mistake to try and pull a straight half-volley. The chief point to -remember in hitting a half-volley is to get as much swing as possible -into the stroke. One or two batsmen swing the bat so far back that they -occasionally hit themselves with the back of the bat on the head. The -shoulders should come greatly into play in the drive, for they give -added power to the swing of the arms, and throw the weight of the body -with great force on to the left leg at the moment of hitting the ball. - -In driving, the back of the left hand remains facing the bowler, -instead of being on the opposite side of the handle, as in the case -of forward play. The bat, as in forward play, must be kept as near as -possible to the left leg. Batsmen who are quick on their feet often -jump out to the pitch of a ball, and thereby make it a half-volley. -Victor Trumper, the finest batsman Australia has ever produced, is the -great exponent of this stroke, and the rapidity with which he gets to -the ball is astonishing. - -It is, if successfully played, a very useful stroke, for nothing is -more apt to put a bowler off his length than by thus attacking him. It -is of course a stroke more suitable for slow bowling than for fast. - -[Illustration: - _From a Drawing by_ _G. F. Watts, R.A._ -_THE LEG VOLLEY._] - -[Illustration: - _From a Drawing by_ _G. F. Watts, R.A._ -_THE CUT._] - - -THE ON DRIVE - -Nearly every batsman prays for a half-volley on the leg stump, or one -pitching within three or four inches of the leg stump, for, if properly -timed, it is a stroke which sends a thrill of joy through the batsman. -If the ball pitches on the wicket, the hit should be made between the -bowler and mid-on, though with a break-back bowler the ball may often -be forced wide of mid-on’s right side. If the ball pitches outside the -leg stump, it should be hit anywhere to the right of mid-on. - -The whole body should work in agreement, the arms should swing freely, -and the stroke should be well followed through. Nearly all the great -batsmen play this stroke to perfection, but none better than F. S. -Jackson. - - -THE CUT - -There are three classes of cuts: the forward cut, the square cut, and -the late cut. - -The forward cut is made at a shortish ball outside the off stump, the -right foot being kept still, but the left foot brought across in the -line of the ball. It is a stroke that requires very accurate timing, -but when timed well, the ball often goes to the ring like a flash of -lightning, somewhere between point and cover-point. W. L. Murdoch plays -this stroke particularly well, as do A. O. Jones, H. K. Foster, and W. -Gunn, while C. H. B. Marsham made the great majority of his fine 100 -not out in the ‘Varsity match of 1901 by its means. It is a somewhat -dangerous stroke, for should the ball hang or bump unexpectedly, an -uppish hit will in all probability follow. - -The square cut sends the ball just behind point, and is made by moving -the right foot across the wicket in a line with the off stump; and just -as the ball is passing the batsman’s body, the bat is brought down by -a quick movement of the arms, while more power is added to the stroke -by a sharp flick of the wrists. The bat should be slanting downwards -towards the ground, in order to get well over the ball. - -Tyldesley of Lancashire plays the same cut as well as any one else, -though he often hits across the ball rather than over it, a fine -stroke, harder than if he had got over the ball, being the result. His -method is, however, a little dangerous, as there is a chance of the -ball going up, though Tyldesley seems to have brought the stroke to -perfection. - -In the late cut the right foot is moved across to the same position -as in the case of the square cut, but the ball is hit _after_ it has -passed the batsman’s body. The most suitable ball for the late cut is -one pitched wide of the off stump, not quite so short as the ball for -the square cut, but still short of a good length. It is essentially a -wrist stroke, and a man with a weak wrist will be wise not to attempt -it. Late cutting requires a little manœuvring-ground, and care must be -taken to avoid cutting at a ball too near the wicket. - -There are few players who cut late really well, for the stroke requires -the greatest nicety in timing and a strong, flexible pair of wrists. -Ranjitsinhji makes this stroke with great certainty and brilliancy, but -then he possesses an extraordinarily supple pair of wrists. - -There is another kind of cut, called the “chop,” which should be used -to a short ball outside the off stump which keeps low after pitching. -The bat should be brought down with great force horizontally, and if -well timed the ball will go very hard. This is a favourite stroke -of Sir T. C. O’Brien, K. G. Key, Victor Trumper, and R. E. Foster, -who in the ‘Varsity match of 1900 brought off this stroke on several -occasions off E. M. Dowson’s bowling. On a hard, true wicket, against -fast or medium-paced bowling, forward play is the best; against slow -bowling and lobs play back or hit is, generally speaking, the soundest -advice that can be given a young cricketer, though on some wickets slow -bowling may be played forward to, and even forced forward. But every -really good slow bowler varies his pace. Five out of the six balls -may be more or less of the same pace; but one ball out of the over is -generally a fast one, or at any rate medium pace. Rhodes, the Yorkshire -left-hander, bowls a very good fast ball, which comes across quickly -with his arm, and the same may be said of Blythe of Kent and Cranfield -of Somerset; while amongst slow right-handed bowlers C. M. Wells, for -instance, is constantly varying the flight and pace of the ball. But in -distinguishing the different styles of play which should be adopted -in playing fast and slow bowling, it is well to remember that to fast -bowling one plays forward to score runs, while to slow bowling you play -forward to defend your wicket; though, as I have said before, a slow -bowler may often be pushed forward between the fielders for one and two -and sometimes four runs. - -I do not think that batsmen jump out enough to slow bowling, for there -is nothing so demoralising to a bowler as a batsman who comes out of -his ground and hits when the ball is at all overpitched. Remember, if -you do make up your mind to jump out and hit, to get right to the pitch -of the ball; forget, too, for the moment, that there is such a person -as the wicket-keeper. - -When the bowling is fast enough to compel the wicket-keeper to stand -back, I have found it a good plan to stand a foot or two outside the -popping-crease. This tends to put the bowler off his length, for he -finds his good length balls hit on the half-volley, and this, for the -time at any rate, is apt to disconcert him. - -[Illustration: _EIGHTEENTH CENTURY BATS, WHICH BELONGED TO THE FOURTH -DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH._] - -[Illustration: _CELEBRATED BATS._ -_The one on the left belonged to Alfred Mynn, 1850; the centre one -was originally used by Merser, of Kent (left-handed batsman); and the -right-hand bat by E. Bagot, 1793._] - -In playing lobs you may stand in your ground and play back, -occasionally scoring a single, but in dealing with lobs offensive -tactics are the best, for, as a great general once said, “The best -method of defence is to attack.” Lobs should therefore be either hit on -the full pitch or played back, and the batsman should stand a little -easier on his right leg than if he were playing fast or medium bowling, -so as to be ready to jump out and take the ball on the full pitch the -moment he sees that it is slightly overpitched. By far the best lob -bowler of the present day is D. L. A. Jephson, the Surrey captain, for -he varies the flight and pace of the ball extremely cleverly, often, -indeed, sending in quite a fast good length ball. He can, too, make -the ball break both ways, and many people think that he might with -advantage to Surrey bowl more than he does. - -Batting on a hard, true wicket and on a sticky, difficult one are two -entirely different things, and one often sees a man who is a fine -player on a fast wicket absolutely at sea when rain has ruined the -pitch. A left-handed bowler like Rhodes is then in his element, for -he pitches the ball a good length on the leg stump; it comes across -quickly to the off, and you stand a very good chance of being either -bowled, or caught by David Hunter at the wicket, or snapped up by eager -and lengthy John Tunnicliffe at short slip. Haigh, also of Yorkshire, -is an extremely difficult bowler on this kind of wicket, for the amount -of off break he can get on the ball is prodigious; while Trumble, -the Australian, is probably as hard a bowler to play under these -circumstances as ever lived. - -As a rule the hitting or “long-handle game,” as it has been called, -pays best under these circumstances, but some men who are really strong -in their back and on side play can play their ordinary game. A strong -defensive back player can often get a good length ball which breaks -back away on the on side for two or three runs, while a good puller has -a great advantage on this kind of wicket. The man who does not watch -the ball, and watch it well, will have little or no chance on a sticky -wicket. At one time there were very few men who could play at all -successfully on a really difficult wicket, but of late years, what with -the general improvement in back play—due chiefly to Ranjitsinhji’s -influence on the game—the number, though far from being large, has -increased. Victor Trumper, F. S. Jackson, Ranjitsinhji, C. B. Fry, A. -C. Maclaren, T. L. Taylor, and Tyldesley are the best batsmen we have -under conditions favourable to the bowler, and I shall never forget an -extraordinary innings Ranjitsinhji played at Brighton in July 1900 for -Middlesex _v._ Sussex. When stumps were drawn on the second evening -of the match, Ranjitsinhji was not out 37, the game up to that time -having been played on a perfect wicket. Rain, however, fell heavily -in the night, and with the sun coming out next morning, the wicket -was altogether in favour of the bowler. Vine made 17, but no one else -on the side that day got more than 5, excepting Ranjitsinhji, who was -last man out, l.b.w. to Trott, for 202! He gave one chance in the long -field when he had made about 160 runs, but apart from this, his batting -was absolutely without a flaw. Most of his runs came from hard drives, -chiefly to the on, and strokes on the leg side. It was an astonishing -innings, and its full significance was possibly not appreciated until -Tate, on an exactly similar wicket, dismissed a powerful Middlesex -eleven for just over 100 runs. - -[Illustration: _WAR-WORN WEAPONS._] - -[Illustration: _RELICS OF PAST ENGAGEMENTS._] - -A few words now on running. Never attempt a run if you feel any doubt -as to its safety, for it is better to lose a possible single than to -run out your partner. At the same time, I do not think that cricketers -as a rule run as well as they ought to between the wickets. The -Australians are an exception; they are extraordinarily quick. - -Always back up two or three yards; when you call, call in a decided -manner. If your partner calls you, run hard if you intend to go; if -you do not, stop him at once. The great thing is to make up your mind -instantly. - -If you are the striker, and you play the ball in front of the wicket, -_always say_ something—either “Yes,” “No,” or “Wait.” If you hit the -ball behind the wicket, your partner at the bowler’s end should call, -but as to whether the striker or non-striker should call the hit to -third man many cricketers differ. The best plan, in my opinion, is to -arrange with your partner. In that event a disaster is not likely to -occur. - -Always run the first run as hard as you can, and always look out for -a second run when the ball is hit to the long field, for even to a -Tyldesley, a Denton, or a Burnup, good runners, who understand one -another, may often with safety get two for a drive to the long field -when a slower runner would be content with a single. - -There are, too, very few third men to whom one cannot run. I do not -mean to say that a run should be attempted to third man when the ball -goes hard and straight to him on the first bounce, but for a stroke -a little to one side of him there is frequently a run. But the two -batsmen must use their own discretion—and as has been said, _it is -a thousand times better to lose a run than to risk running out your -partner_. I was twice run out in the ‘Varsity match of 1896—to a -great extent my own fault in the second innings,—and since that -game—memorable for the fact that Oxford, going in with 330 runs to -win, hit off the number for the loss of four wickets, and for the -no-ball incident which led eventually to an alteration in the follow-on -rule—I have taken particular pains to improve my running between the -wickets. I am not often run out now, and I hope I but seldom run my -partner out—_Experientia docet sapientiam_. - -Many batsmen, when nearing their 50 or 100, attempt the most absurd -runs. This fault is more common amongst professional cricketers than -amongst amateurs, for the reason that all the counties, with the one -exception of Yorkshire, give their professionals a sovereign for every -50 runs they make. This so-called “talent-money” has been the cause -of many a run-out. Yorkshire gives no “talent-money,” but over and -above the usual fee of £5 or £6 a match, each professional is “marked” -according to his work in a particular game. For example, if a man made -25 runs on a bad wicket at a critical time, or even 10 not out in a -one-wicket victory, he would be marked according to the merit of his -performance in the eyes of his captain—in this case Lord Hawke. A fine -bowling feat or a fine catch would be similarly rewarded. Each mark -represents five shillings, and this system might with advantage be -adopted by other counties. - -[Illustration: _GEORGE PARR, THE FAMOUS NOTTINGHAM BAT._] - -[Illustration: _“N. FELIX” (N. Wanostrocht)._] - -There is one thing that no coaching will teach a young cricketer, and -that is confidence. Time alone can give him that, for confidence is a -plant of slow growth. I do not believe the cricketer who says he has -never been nervous—he is certainly not a first-class cricketer if he -adheres to that statement; but nervousness will gradually disappear as -a batsman gains confidence in himself. I have known men who when they -first played county cricket were almost paralysed with nervousness, but -who after two or three years’ experience went out to bat with every -confidence. Nervousness is undoubtedly a great handicap, and young -players should try to overcome this weakness as soon as possible. -Too much confidence is a mistake, for, to go back again to the Latin -grammar, _nimia fiducia calamitati solet esse_. But too much confidence -is better than no confidence—and by confidence I do not mean conceit, -but a belief in one’s own capabilities, founded on past deeds. - -There are cricketers, too, who are so superstitious as to be almost a -nuisance. There is the man who thinks he cannot make runs unless he -goes in in a particular place. These men are somewhat annoying, but I -think a captain should always try to humour them, if by so doing he is -not upsetting the batting order of his side. - -The typical instance of superstition affecting one’s play at cricket -seems to me to have been exemplified in the case of the Rugby boy who, -alighting at the St. John’s Wood Station on the Metropolitan Railway, -for the Rugby and Marlborough match, saw the advertisement of Mr. John -Hare’s play, _A Pair of Spectacles_, staring him in the face. That boy -had made heaps of runs during the summer at Rugby, but he came on to -the ground fully convinced that he would make a pair of spectacles, and -make them he did. - -Again, G. O. Smith, to whose splendid batting Oxford were mainly -indebted for their victory over Cambridge in 1896, had a firm -conviction that he could only make runs in a certain pair of trousers; -and G. J. Mordaunt, the Oxford captain of the previous year, took it as -an evil omen, when, on awaking on the morning of the ‘Varsity match, -he saw from his bedroom window the flag with “Druce” in large letters -on it flying from the Baker Street Bazaar. W. E. Druce was captain -of the Light Blue eleven that year, and Mordaunt’s feeling of coming -disaster was, I regret to say, justified by the result of the match, -for Cambridge beat us by 134 runs. - -Coaches should be careful to avoid cramping the style of a young -batsman, and of suppressing individuality and budding genius. Batsmen -cannot be all of one type. Had G. L. Jessop been made to play according -to the rules laid down, a great hitter would have been lost to the -world, and England would never have won that last test-match at the -Oval, for there would have been no Jessop on the side to accomplish -what was, perhaps, the finest piece of hitting ever seen on a -cricket-ground. It is useless trying to make a Barlow into a Lyons, or -a Lyons into a Barlow. - -Always endeavour to reach the ground in good time before a match -begins, and to have five or ten minutes’ practice; though there are -some batsmen who do not believe in too much net practice. Every man -must of course decide what suits himself best, but I cannot believe -that a few minutes at a net can do anything but good, for one gains a -sight of the ball, and gets the pace of the wicket. - -If you are put in to bat anywhere but first, always remember that it is -your duty not to take more than two minutes in getting to the wicket, -for that is the limit allowed by law. This is most important, for you -have no right to keep your partner waiting, and to waste time. - -No one will ever become a great batsman without enthusiasm, and -enthusiasm of the kind which will carry him through the inevitable -disappointments and troubles of his early career. The path to success -is not easy, and success comes only to the few. But the goal once -reached, he must be a poor man indeed who does not feel a glow of pride -on seeing the magic figures 100 going up on the big scoring-board at -Lord’s beneath his name; for believe me, the satisfaction is so great, -and the applause such sweet music, that it is worth while taking the -greatest pains to attain the proficiency necessary to the achievement -of the feat. There is, too, a subtle charm and fascination about -the game which creates among its devotees a bond of fellowship and -_camaraderie_ which nothing can alter. - -[Illustration: - _From a Drawing by_ _G. F. Watts, R.A._ -_THE BOWLER._ -(_Alfred Mynn_).] - - -[Illustration] - - - - -CHAPTER IV - -BOWLING - -By D. L. A. JEPHSON - - -To those that have time hanging all too heavily on their hands, and in -good truth know not what to do—to those perchance that may, through -lack of occupation, be compelled amid adverse circumstances, finding -that anything is occasionally better than nothing, to peruse these -jagged, untrimmed sentences—I would say this: that for many days, -with a deep determination of purpose, I have perused the writings of -our great cricketers—I have read the golden words of Grace, of Steel, -of Ranjitsinhji—and have arrived hot-haste, sick at heart, at the -conclusion that I cannot retell what has so often been told by them, -and told so clearly, so succinctly, with such prodigious insight into -the profound ramifications of this art. And so, like some pale-faced -curate sitting fear-bound beneath the terrifying presence of a ruddy -bishop, I must perforce scratch with a rusty pen of the bowlers I have -met. In the ten years of my cricket life I have met many. - -Let us divide them into classes. We will take the old-time division; -we will divide them into four—those that are of a slow pace, those -that are of a medium pace, those that are fast, and those semi-moribund -trundlers, the dealers in lobs. - -Having myself started in my early days with the firm conviction that -this old game of cricket was the best game for boys and men of moderate -years that the ingenuity of generations had invented, I became also -convinced that to be a great bowler was the highest pinnacle of fame, -and at the same time of usefulness, that a cricketer could hope to rest -on. - -The work, without doubt, is hard, the labour of the day strenuous, but -the pleasure of bowling a length with the wicket a bit in your favour, -with a side that are trying to field, and not loafing as “little mounds -of earth or waxen figures in a third-rate tailor’s shop,” is a goodly -thing, a thing to dream of. And this craft of bowling is so sure, so -certain. A great batsman may make a mistake, even on the Oval in the -height of summer, even on the Oval in the height of perfection—and -all those that have played there know the miraculous opportunities for -run-getting this ground affords—he may make a mistake, let us say, -bowled Richardson, 0! Well, for the day he is done—up to now of no -use to his side, of no use to himself. Now, take the great bowler on a -wicket of this excellence, or of any other. He can make a mistake, drop -a slower one a bit too short, overpitch the well-intentioned yorker, -falter in his stride and be placed to leg for four. What matter from a -selfish point of view? His fun for the day has not departed. He bowls -and bowls, and continues to bowl; and probably the blind goddess gives -in the end the wherewithal to be cheerful. Therefore, on this miserable -lowest ground of self-interest, be a bowler! - -And then again, when he has done a noble thing—or perchance it is his -birthday, and the elements give heeding to his call—there falls, let -us say, a gentle rain in the early-bird hours, and a hot sun scorches -from 10 to 12. He has got his money on a two to one chance (and nobody -else in the race)—Peel, Rhodes, Haigh, Jack Hearne, the wonderful -George Lohmann, and dozens more. What does the other side make? They -are lucky to make 100—lucky to make 70! - -To be a bowler on a bit of bird-lime is the biggest certainty the -cricket world has knowledge of. You may meet a Ranjitsinhji, a Bonner, -a Jessop, or a Frank Crawford; but if you don’t meet these, the odds on -you are as the odds on an arc light to a farthing dip. - -Again—for a moment to raise the platform on which we have -been discussing so casually this selfish side of the bowler’s -existence—there can be little doubt that of the three branches -of the game (batting, bowling, fielding), bowling is the pivot on -which the other two turn. Who is the more use to his side—the great -batsman or the great bowler? Nine out of ten intelligent beings answer -unhesitatingly, the bowler; and rightly too, especially if he be -of medium pace, or even slow medium, on a great variety of wickets, -ranging from the fiery, cast-iron, stone-strewn rock of an Old Trafford -wicket (I don’t mean for a second that the Old Trafford ground is often -in this state, but when it is, it is a little faster, a little more -susceptible of bump, than anywhere else I know) down to Bristol or -Southampton after a wet day, he is invariably of supreme assistance to -his side. And what a number of graduated shades of differing wickets -there are, from the sun-scorched cracking clay, where the fast bowler -finds your fingers, or failing these your ribs, where your runs are -made through the slips or first hop over their heads to the boundary, -down through the varying degrees of good, natural, fast wickets to the -Valhalla of batsmen, let us say Taunton, the Oval, or Bristol, where -the ball rarely rises stump high, and where there is as much life -in the wickets as there is in a barrel of oysters! On grounds like -these the batsman assuredly cometh into his own, and metaphorically -layeth the bowler by the heel, bruising him hip and thigh through -the weary hours of an August day, till the welcome news of the last -over revives the rag of a man that is left, and he slowly wends his -way to the rabbit-hutch, in sore need of the well-earned bath and its -ensuing rub down—in sore need of a ginger beer. Perhaps there are too -many of these superexcellent wickets; perhaps, from certain batsmen’s -point of view, there are not. But the moment the rain appears, the -bowler is another being; in the language of the card-room, he wears -a four-ace smile, and there is a corresponding depression in the -countenance of the great batsman. All down the still more numerous -phases of wet, sticky, and real bird-lime wickets (impossible for -nine out of ten batsmen)—down through all these the four-ace smile -remains, and it is only when we arrive at the thoroughly sodden ground, -with a faint drizzle or slight showers at convenient intervals, when -the ball is wet, the footholds greasy, and there are bucketfuls of -sawdust besprinkled here, there, and everywhere, that the batsman again -reverses the situation, and, like an overfed fox-terrier, has acquired -another poor rat of a bowler. - -I say overfed advisedly—not that he is replete with runs on too -many occasions in an ordinary season, when a fair amount of rain -falls, and the good and bad wickets are allotted us fairly evenly, -and a decent percentage of catches are held (which is very seldom -the case); but when he glues himself for a day or day and a half to -some easy-paced billiard-table wicket, where a blind boy could stay -with a toothpick, I say he is overfed—he gluts himself with runs; -and though, as I have said before, he has, in my humble opinion, less -chances of distinguishing himself than the medium-paced bowler, and -is in consequence of less value to his side (which, after all, is the -very essence of the game), yet when his opportunity arises he overeats -himself to an astonishing degree, and often grouses to a similar extent -as the rat of a bowler catches him by the tail with a duck and one on a -wicket of sun-baked clay. - -I have sorely digressed, but the trend of the digression was this, that -if as a youth you wish to play cricket, devote all your time, all your -energies, to bowling. A great bowler is born, not made; but though you -may never soar to the heights of a Spofforth or a Lohmann, you can -learn to bowl a good length, you can learn to bowl intelligently, and -be a source of comfort to yourself, and, what is infinitely better, in -all probability a source of comfort to your side. - -We have divided the bowlers of to-day and yesterday into four: it -were better to say three, leaving the few dealers in lobs to huddle -themselves into a minute band that can nowadays follow many leagues -behind the great cavalcade that comprises the real three divisions. -Lobs are occasionally useful things to carry round with a side, but -should in a healthy team be used medicinally. - -They act as a stirring tonic to men in the field who have grown lazy -and careless from lack of work, for with all the lobs I have ever seen -there is always a blissful uncertainty as to where a good batsman will -place the next one; and some players hit them so uncomfortably hard -that it is best for the slackers to keep their weather eyes open, or -they may experience a rude awakening. There is no more exhilarating -spectacle on a cricket-field than to see a drowsy dreamer of a field -receive the ball in a most unexpected place, on the wrist or the ankle, -on the nose or somewhere where the injury is not likely to be serious. - -[Illustration: _WILLIAM LILLYWHITE._] - -[Illustration: - _From a Painting by_ _W. Bromley._ -_JOHN WISDEN._] - -Three years ago at the Oval, I remember, Sam Woods was watching a -match, and a certain individual in an immaculate sweater, brilliantly -decorated in front with letters a foot long, sauntered on to the field. -It was evidently a part of the game with which he had no sympathy. Sam -glared down on him, and in his terse phraseology commenced— - -“Who’s that feller?” - -Some one mentioned a name. “I know,” says Sam. “I know the silly -bloomer.... He was fielding in the country—I was playing—up she went -in the air—he was fast asleep—catch her, you fool!—and he caught -her—_plumb on the nut_.” - -And this genial cricketer was pleased for the rest of the day at the -mere recollection. - -At last we have arrived, through devious paths, at our three great -divisions. Many bowlers whom I class as slow may in reality consider -themselves to be medium; many medium may prefer to be known as fast; -and perhaps there may be a very few fast bowlers who prefer the -description of medium—but I doubt it. - -First and foremost we must place the Old Man, or Old ‘Un, as we so -endearingly like to speak of him. There can be but few people in this -country who do not know this full-bearded, full-bodied figure of a -man—the few short shuffling strides, the arm a little above the -shoulder, the right hand a shade in front of him, the curious rotary -action before delivery, _and the wonderful length_. - -The hand is large and the ball well concealed, and as you face him, -for he stands full fronted to you, it seems to leave by the back door, -as it were, that is, over the knuckle of the little finger. - -I have played with him many times, but he does not seem to me to do -very much (of course I am speaking of a good wicket), but some come -a little higher, others a little lower, some a little faster, some -slower; on the middle leg is his favourite spot—two or three off the -leg stick with a square deep who is not asleep, then a straighter one -with a “bit of top on it”—the batsman tries to push to leg—there is a -somewhat excited _’s that?_ and the would-be run-getter is sauntering -pavilionwards. - -Certainly of all the slow bowlers I have met he is the most successful -against _new faces_, whether they are young or old. He generally bowls -them neck and crop, or else they are l.b.w., and it makes very little -difference if the batsman is an Australian wonder, or a boy in a -village school: they come in and they go out, and they can’t understand -it—it looks so extremely harmless. They forget the master-hand, with -the master-mind to work it; they forget the wonderful perseverance! If -you can’t get them out over the wicket, try round; if you can’t succeed -this end, have a rest and try the other. - -To-day he may bowl a trifle slower than he did twenty years ago. It -seems to me, however, that he bowls with very much the same effect. He -is a bowler that stands by himself. As long as I can remember, no one -has ever compared “W. G.” with any other bowler; he stands alone—it -is a distinct form of attack. We hear of Rhodes being contrasted with -Peel, and Peel discussed in relation to Peate, and so on in thousands -of instances, but the Old Man stands by himself, with a style, a -method, a success of his own. - -Of really good amateur slow bowlers, during the last twelve years, in -which time I have been more or less nearly connected with first-class -cricket, there has been a phenomenal dearth. - -They can literally be counted on the fingers of a man’s hand. As I -write only two stand out—C. L. Townsend and C. M. Wells. Of course -there have been others, and there are others, but unless I have missed -my way through the long lists of bowlers through which I have passed, -I have lighted on no names that, without some slight stretch of the -imagination, one could place on anything like the same level with the -two already mentioned. Should there be any, I sincerely apologise for -their omission. A. G. Steel and E. A. Nepean never entered into my -short first-class cricket experiences. - -I have met them both, however, in club games, and even with the small -amount of natural and acquired intelligence at my disposal, I could not -fail to see how good they must have been at their best. - -One feat of Nepean’s I remember well. He was playing for the Gentlemen -_v._ the Players at the Oval. Arthur Shrewsbury was batting, and Nepean -was bowling, if my recollection fails me not, at the gas-works end, -and, greatly to the astonishment of many of us present, _bowled him -round his legs!_ - -Great as was the astonishment of the spectators, it paled before the -wonder of the two in question, and the tale went round on the morrow -that gentle sleep had failed to visit their respective couches on the -evening of this memorable day. One was said to have lain awake all -night marvelling _how on earth he had done it_, and the other _how on -earth he had let it be done!_ - -Whether the tale be of truth or otherwise I know not, but it was a ball -that probably Nepean will remember long after he has ceased playing -even club cricket. - -The one exception that proves the rule that great bowlers are born and -not made is C. M. Wells. To the best of my belief, when he started -his career at Dulwich as a bowler, he was of the shut-your-eyes, -bang-’em-down, never-mind-where-but-plug-’em-down style. Only a slight -success, I think, attended his efforts in this direction, and so, -having seen some good slow bowler on the school ground, assiduously -worked day after day at the nets, until up at Cambridge he proved -himself to be on his day one of the finest slow bowlers we have seen. -He possessed, and still possesses, a wonderful command of length, with -plenty of spin from the off—a considerable variation of flight—a -slower ball with several inches of break from leg, delivered, by the -way, from almost the palm of the hand, and a ball that, as it comes -sailing up the pitch towards you, has every appearance of being -intended for a leg break, but which in reality is simply propelled with -a large quantity of “top on.” It comes naturally quick off the ground, -and it comes along straight as a die, and many a batsman has ceased -from troubling, out l.b.w., through playing for a break that did not -exist. I should perhaps not have said ceased from troubling, for it is -a curious fact, and one for which there seems no adequate explanation, -that though a batsman generally grumbles a little at being given out -l.b.w. to a fast bowler, a _rara avis_ is occasionally found agreeing -with the decision; men as a rule grumble and trouble themselves vastly -being dismissed in a similar manner to a slow ball, and a _rara avis_ -in this connection is almost as the dodo. - -Of Wells’ fast ball I am perhaps not so eulogistic, but no doubt he -uses it as an astute hunter uses dead wood and briars to cover the many -pitfalls into which his intended victims are to cast themselves. This -end or that end, he never tires; if the laws of the game permitted it -he would bowl both; and as regards fielding his own bowling, I think he -is the best I have ever seen. I remember once at Cambridge in the Long -Vac. playing with him—I think it was against the M.C.C. I know the -side included Shacklock and Barnes. The latter was batting, and Wells -let go a slow full pitch, and poor old Barnes dashed at it as a dog at -a dinner. Wells, as he generally is, was well up the wicket, his legs -well apart, looking for what he could find. Barnes found the full toss, -and Wells the ball. As the veteran passed me at mid-off, his face was -as the face of a man who stoops to pick up a sovereign and finds a -brass button. It was the hardest catch, I should think, ever made at a -range of 10 yards from the gun, and Barnes was no niggard with the wood! - -Having played with and against Wells a great many times, I have had -copious opportunities of watching him closely. He invariably starts -with the ball in the left hand, and in the first stride or two throws -it into his right. For the off break it falls into a cradle of fingers; -the middle digits are spread open, while the first and fourth are bent -double at the second joint. The ball rarely touches the thumb; the -natural straightening of the first finger at the moment of delivery -imparts the required break; but to bowl a length without the use of -the thumb, and to train your fingers to fall at will into this cramped -position, involves considerably more patience and practice than the -average cricketer cares to give. - -Here again I shall digress. In all the excellent works on cricket -that at one time or another I have so diligently studied, I find -most elaborate instructions on this same subject, the holding of the -ball—“Always use your fingers,” “Never use the palm of the hand,” -etc., etc.; but despite all this worthy advice, I have never yet seen -two bowlers gather their fingers, or fingers and thumb, round the -ball in such a manner that the hand of one could not for an instant -be confused with the hand of the other. The length of their run may -occasionally coincide, very occasionally their stride may be of the -same compass, but these are the only two similar characteristics -which any two bowlers may be said to possess. The action and method -of handling the ball are as different in different bowlers as the -features on the face of the one are unlike the features on the faces -of the others. George Lohmann, one of the greatest bowlers that has -ever lived, spread his long, sinuous fingers (in which I include the -thumb) at almost equal distances round the whole circumference of the -ball. Spofforth, on the other, held only half the ball, the little -finger underneath, with the thumb on the top, both resting on the -seam—believing, as at billiards, that a ball struck on one side will -of necessity spin in its run or flight in the direction of the side -to which the propelling force was given. Turner, on the other hand, -covered the whole of the circumference, with the ball resting nearer -the palm of the hand than is the case with the majority. Mead, again, -being blessed with a long, strong forefinger, produces the same off -break with this finger and the slight use of his thumb and second -finger. Those who have played against Albert Trott know well the -particular delivery when they see part of the ball projecting below his -little finger, and the strong thumb standing straight up in the air; -it is practically propelled by the second, third, and fourth fingers. -I give these simply as a few instances. Every bowler, whether first -class, second class, or “no class,” has a peculiar method of his own, -some idiosyncrasy, however slight, in his manner of gripping the ball, -and this, too, _in addition_ to the varying flexibility, the varying -“flicks” or “whips” of the wrist, that each in his very own way -employs. - -Now for C. L. Townsend—by accident this is a suggestive phrase, and -one that in his prime exactly describes the plan of action adopted by -the incoming batsmen—“Now for Charles,” “Go for him”—and they went; -and a great number came back sorrowing—bowled round their legs with a -two-foot break, stumped a couple of yards, caught at cover trying to -drive, bowled with an off break or a fast one—out in every possible -way. Bowling with a high, shambling action, he was very deceptive in -the flight and very deceptive in the pace, the ball coming slow in air -and fast off the pitch with as much finger leg break as he wanted. - -On a sticky wicket, unlike the majority of slow leg break bowlers, he -could, if he wished, leave it alone and rely almost entirely with very -satisfactory results on the off break, bowled a bit faster. And, like -Wells, he could bowl all day, and did until towards the end of his -regular cricket career, when he forsook the stony path that a regular -first-class bowler must tread for the scented groves where dwell our -great batsmen, and, lapped in the luxury of 2000 runs per annum, -forsook to a great extent his former mistress. - -Among all the famous slow left-handers there is one that to me stands -out more clearly than the rest, whether his striking personality—for -who did not know that bouncing ball of a man?—whether his wonderful -all-round skill, or his possession of that golden quality on a cricket -field, the golden quality of _life_, stood uppermost in my mind, I -cannot say, but to this day, as often as I think on the game, there -always arises the short, thick-set figure of poor Johnny Briggs. - -[Illustration: - _From a Painting by_ _W. Bromley._ -_ALFRED MYNN._] - -[Illustration: _JAS. COBBETT._] - -Buffoon, perhaps, at times, but never with an obnoxious buffoonery. -And what a bowler! The ball left his hand with a finger flick that -you could hear in the pavilion, and here was every known variety of -flight: three or four short, half walking, half running strides, and -the ball was at you, spinning like a top; first a balloon of a ball -that would drop much farther off than you thought, a lower one just -on the same spot, both breaking away like smoke; then another, with -nothing on, straight at the sticks; and then you saw the arm come -round a shade faster, and, if you weren’t on the watch, you found you -had struck a snag in the form of a really fast yorker, bowled at a -considerably greater pace than you have ever received one from either -Peel or Rhodes. Poor Johnny! I have no space to dilate further on your -wonderful gift of bowling with this indefinite “_you_.” In conclusion, -as this chapter seems rapidly to be casting itself into the mould of -personal reminiscence, I will relate my last two meetings with you. - -We were playing at Hastings in the Week. “W. G.” was in command. It -was my lucky day, having made 50 or so by blind slogging, and the -liberal help of a sluggish field. The Doctor suggested you should try -the Chapel end. I took 28 off the first three overs, six of them -fours, mostly well off the off stump, bouncing up against the canvas at -square leg. I remember the aggrieved look on your face as you remarked -to the Old Man, “That’s not much of a stroke, Doctor,” and the Doctor -answered, “It’s all right if you can do it, Johnny”; and then, Johnny, -you were taken off. - -We were playing at Lord’s, North _v._ South. It was a perfect wicket. -I was in need of a few runs to end the season with. Poor Johnny was -bowling, and bowling as well as ever, a bit faster on the fast wicket, -and going considerably with his arm. - -“W. G.” had made as good a 130 as he ever made in his life. I went to -the wicket, played two, and the leg stump leant wearily back with a -ball that pitched on the middle and off—0! - -The second innings, through the clemency of Ernest Smith, I avoided a -pair. I got to the other end and faced Johnny: the same ball, the same -languid attitude of the same stump, and the balance was mightily in -your favour, Johnny, as it always was. - -He was a great bowler on his day, a bowler that was never done with, -and the void he has left on the cricket field will not be filled for -many a day, if ever it be filled at all. - -The mind of every cricketer naturally associates with the memory of -Briggs the names of the other two great left-handers, Peel and Rhodes; -and what a wonderfully successful trio they have been, and what an -amount of amiable argument has been expended in the vain attempt to -decide which is the greatest of the three! I prefer to bracket the -three. And as no side is thoroughly equipped for attack without the -inclusion of a bowler of this stamp, had the captain of a side the -first call on the services of these two, he no doubt would include Peel -on a fast wicket, and in the event of the rain falling, would give the -preference to Rhodes. The smile on the face of either of them after a -goodly shower, and an hour or two’s stickying sun, has struck terror -into the heart of many a creditable run-getter. - -My first experience of Peel was at Cambridge. As usual, and rightly -too, my place was number eleven on the list. There was six minutes to -time, and the good MacGregor told me to buck up and go in. So into -the dark I went, and, backed by the luck that sometimes falls to most -undeserving persons, I stayed through an over and a half of Robert—not -out 0 at night, and my last game for the ‘Varsity! On the morrow, on -not a very easy wicket, my marvellous luck remained with me, and stayed -with me even until lunch! 41! It must have been a dreary show. I only -instance this to once again emphasise the old old truism of what a game -of chance this cricket is. Here was I playing in my last match, playing -as a bowler, but, as the vulgar say, “couldn’t bowl for toffee,” or any -other desirable sweetmeat. Here was I, number eleven, and by a kindly -turn of fortune’s wheel allowed to stop Bobby Peel for two hours and a -half. Well, that six minutes in the dusk gave me ten years’ cricket, -so _I_ have nothing to grumble at in the luck of the game! - -As every one knows, Yorkshire owe much of their great success to the -efforts of these two. Always to be relied upon—always ready to bowl -either end for two or twenty overs at a stretch: bowlers that a captain -can put on for an over, and knowing that neither of them will throw -away a couple of fours trying to find their length. Should we compare -the actions of the two, we must award the palm for style and easy -rhythmic swing to Peel. To Rhodes we must allow the greater amount of -spin. - -Wilfred, as his intimates designate him, for some years had a bad time -when he journeyed with his friends to the Oval, for he nearly always -struck a fast wicket, and very few bowlers are affected to the same -extent as he is by the varying conditions of the ground. - -On the Oval we have generally managed to score against him, provided -it is fine; but give him a little rain, and he gets his own and a bit -more back. I remember, three years ago, at Kennington, Yorkshire and -Surrey both made over 300. On the third day of the match there had been -rain, and a blistering sun was doing its best to give the spectators -their money’s worth in the afternoon. In this it succeeded. Yorkshire -held a lead of about 25. “Another drawn match, I suppose,” was heard on -every side; but the members and their friends don’t quite realise the -enormous difference of Rhodes, and of Rhodes and Haigh coupled, on a -dry and on a sticky wicket. - -Latterly, Surrey have been anything but a good side on a bad wicket, -and those of us that knew this were by no means so happy in our minds, -and our dismal forebodings came very nearly being realised. Haigh at -the pavilion end and Rhodes at the gasometer did exactly as they liked. -The former, with practically only three men on the off and innumerable -short legs and silly mid-ons, bowled a perfect length off the off -stump, coming back anything from three inches to a foot. Only once -during the sorry rot that ensued did he get hit on the off. Rhodes, now -a totally different bowler from the day before, plugged away on the off -stump, and did exactly as he liked with the ball. - -_Four wickets for 8_, and an hour and a bit to go! Poor old Surrey -in the soup again! It certainly looked like it, for the mouldy eight -runs on the tins were only hoisted there by a mighty effort and a -considerable amount of luck. All out 15; and it would have been so had -not Hayward stayed forty-five minutes, amassing another 8, and for -Tom Richardson’s pluckily slogged 17. The total, I think, reached by -devious and rugged, very rugged paths, 51—and so Yorkshire were robbed -of a well-earned victory. Rhodes had his own back, as he always does -have it back when sun and rain put their heads together and strive -strenuously for his welfare. - -On another occasion that I recollect we made the handsome compilation -of 37 against him and Wainwright at Bradford. The score-sheet was -covered with “Stumped Hunter, b. Rhodes, 0.” It was a most catching -complaint, and five of us succumbed to it. It attacked us in two -distinct varieties. We either played forward and slipped—“Stumped -Hunter, b. Rhodes, 0,” or we charged gaily up the pitch for home or -glory. The result was precisely the same—“Stumped Hunter, b. Rhodes, -0.” - -But enough of Rhodes. Helped by his two good god-parents, sun and rain, -the subject is a painful one to us of the south. - -His co-helper in this match, Wainwright, is another bowler to whom the -varying conditions of weather, and consequently of wickets, makes a -phenomenal difference—perhaps more strikingly pronounced even than to -Rhodes. - -Harmless enough on a good wicket, on a bad one he could make the ball -do what he liked. Many, of course, can do this; but they cannot make -it turn with the astonishing rapidity from the pitch that Wainwright -could. Slow in its flight, yet on touching the mud it would rush at -you—I had almost said bite you—at any rate bowl you as you were -playing back for the hang. - -And now, my indulgent reader, we will make full sail southwards, with -the brave north wind full astern, to the headquarters of the cricketing -world, the abode of the all-powerful M.C.C. Here we find a slow bowler; -I call him slow, for though bowling every conceivable pace, I always -maintain that he is at his best when four or five out of the six sent -down are leisurely in their progress up the pitch, mixed up with one or -two so exceedingly fast that “eye cannot follow them in their flight.” -I refer to Trott, or “Alberto,” as he is generally called. - -[Illustration: _WILLIAM LILLYWHITE._] - -[Illustration: _WILLIAM CLARKE_, -_Famous for Underhand Bowling_.] - -A bowler of infinite resource—at times no doubt he gives many runs -away through the persistence with which he tries new theories, new -dodges, or a new action; but he is one of the few bowlers that -the batsman is compelled to watch more closely than many another. -Personally, I have retired from the conflict with Albert through -every one of the exceedingly varied methods by which he has removed -obstructing batsmen. As a rule he bowls with a decidedly low action, -with any amount of off break on—with every degree of pace. Again the -ball is held in the last three fingers, and a powerful upright thumb -confronts the player opposed to him; this is generally a “pull-backed” -one which hangs most uncomfortably in the air. The next comes as the -lightning, and as likely as not catches you full pitch on the toe, -or hits the bottom of the stumps as you are lifting the bat to play. -At his best (for sometimes I have seen him bowl for hours without -employing his fast one) it is as fast a ball as one wishes to meet, -and its pace is made in the last of the few short steps Trott takes. -Should he be unsuccessful, he will suddenly raise his arm and deliver -one right over his head at a medium pace, which very often whips back -sharply from the off, or, reverting to something like his original -action, he will bowl an over or two of slow leg breaks, which, if their -length is not all it should be, break about as much as Harry Trott was -wont to break, and that is saying a good deal. - -He is a bowler that I have never seen tired, and a wonderful gatherer -of unconsidered trifles in the way of almost impossible “c. and b.’s.” -He stands in front of you like a brick wall, and you’ve got to hit -it mighty hard for him to let it go by. Truly a great worker, this -Anglo-Australian, as the papers so frequently call him. - -At Taunton, a year or two ago, we invariably came across the slowest -overhand bowler that has played in first-class cricket for ten years or -so. Tyler was for a long time the stumbling-block in the way of many -sides, more particularly of Surrey. Time after time he has bowled us -out on all sorts of wickets—it was too slow, too high in the air, and -consequently such a long time coming to you. Dozens of players I have -seen bowled trying to sniggle one to leg, and if they were not bowled -they were out l.b.w. Of course he has been “planted” again and again -into the churchyard, but he knew what he was doing, and a ball a little -higher or a little shorter found a resting-place in the safe hands of -Palairet or Daniell on the pavilion rails. He has much to thank Sam -Woods for. Wicket after wicket has he got at mid-off through Sam’s -fearless fielding, and run after run has he been saved. A great many -cautious batsmen, too, have been irritated into hitting through the -close proximity of Sam at silly point, and this silly point to a bowler -of Tyler’s pace is no sinecure, even with the most gentle of batsmen. -I often wonder that this placing of a man right under the batsman’s -nose is not more often adopted, as the result seems always to justify -it, for whether you get the man out or not, he is most decidedly put -off his game. It is not, however, a place to go to sleep in, even with -the mildest of performers. I was sorry that Tyler should have been -no-balled at the close of his career, for the day on which he was -penalised there seemed to be no difference whatever from the action he -always had, and which was universally passed for years. - -Of the leg-break bowlers there is Braund, one of the best all-round -cricketers of the day. He is second only in the matter of pace to Vine, -and he is easily first in the matter of length and direction—perhaps -not so difficult as Vine is at his best, but he always bowls well, -consistently well, on all sorts of wickets, and he is never punished to -the extent the other bowlers of this class are when one is lucky enough -to catch them on an off day. - -There are many other slow bowlers of whom I should like to scribble, -but time presses, and we must pass on to our second division, to the -bowlers of the medium pace, whose numbers are as sands on the seashore. - -There is very little doubt that the bowlers who comprise this our -second division are in the majority of instances of more general value -to their side than the faster bowlers, for the obvious reason that they -can always obtain a foothold. - -They can also bowl longer at a stretch, they can vary their pace, -they can alter the whole principle of their attack to suit the varying -stages of a wicket in a way that is given to very few of our really -fast bowlers. There are, too, so many that one must include in this -class, that it is a matter of considerable difficulty to make anything -like an adequate selection. There are some, however, whose names will -immediately occur to the minds of every average cricketer. - -I asked W. G. Grace not long ago, “Who was the best medium-paced bowler -you ever played against?” Almost without thought the answer came back, -“George Lohmann”; and there is many another player who, asked the same -question, would make answer in a similar strain. - -We all knew that tall, fair-haired, broad, rather high-shouldered -figure—a splendid worker in every section of the game. Great as the -pleasure was in studiously watching the man bowl, or watching him bat, -taking the extraordinary risks he did, to my mind an almost equally -enjoyable thing was to watch him at extra slip. Before his time there -were good slips, bad slips, fast-asleep slips, and since his time every -variety of “slipper” has passed across the stage, but none ever had the -same catlike activity, the same second-sight to practically foretell -the flight, the pace of a ball, and the same safe pair of hands to hold -it in. - -But I am presumably writing on bowling and not fielding. The following -description of George Lohmann by C. B. Fry is one of the very best -things of the many that he has done:— - - He made his own style of bowling, and a beautiful style it was—so - beautiful that none but a decent cricketer could fully appreciate - it. He had a high right-over action, which was naturally easy - and free-swinging, but, in his seeking after variations of pace, - he introduced into it just a suspicion—a mere suspicion—of - laboriousness. Most people, I believe, considered his action to have - been perfect. To the eye it was rhythmical and polished, but it cost - him, probably, more effort than it appeared to do. His normal pace - was medium; he took a run of moderate length, poised himself with a - slight uplifting of his high square shoulders, and delivered the ball - just before his hand reached the top of its circular swing, and, in - the act of delivery, he seemed first to urge forward the upper part - of his body in sympathy with his arm, and then allow it to follow - through after the ball. Owing to his naturally high delivery, the - ball described a pronounced curve, and dropped rather sooner than the - batsman expected. This natural peculiarity he developed assiduously - into a very deceptive ball which he appeared to bowl the same pace - as the rest, but which he really, as it were, held back, causing the - unwary and often the wary to play too soon. He was a perfect master - of the whole art of varying his pace without betraying the variation - to the batsman. He ran up and delivered the ball, to all appearances, - exactly similarly each time; but one found now that the ball was - hanging in the air, now that it was on to one surprisingly soon. He - had complete control of his length, and very, very rarely—unless - intentionally—dropped a ball too short or too far up. He had a - curious power of making one feel a half-volley was on its way; but - the end was usually a perfect length ball or a yorker. He had that - subtle finger power which makes the ball spin, and consequently he - could both make the ball break on a biting wicket and make it “nip - along quick” on a true one. He made a practice of using both sides of - the wicket on sticky pitches. If he found he was breaking too much, - he would change from over to round the wicket, and on fast pitches he - soon had a go round the wicket at a batsman who appeared comfortable - at the other sort. But he was full of artifices and subtleties, and - he kept on trying them all day, each as persistently as the others, - one after another. With all his skill, he would never have achieved - his great feats but for his insistence of purpose. He was what I call - a very hostile bowler; he made one feel he was one’s deadly enemy, - and he used to put many batsmen off their strokes by his masterful - and confident manner with the ball. He was by far the most difficult - medium-pace bowler I ever played on a good wicket. - -In the spring of a year eighteen summers ago three or four of us were -playing cricket on the wilderness of Clapham Common. A young man -watched the game for a little, and eventually took a hand. He bowled to -us and he batted for us, and we learnt something. At the end of half an -hour he left. We asked his name. “Lohmann,” came the reply. We said, -“Good-morning, and thank you.” And to-day I think that there are dozens -of committeemen all over the country, and especially in the county of -Surrey, who would like to go out into the same or a similar wilderness -and encounter another George Lohmann. They may go out hot haste to find -one, but they will return empty-handed. - -In reply to the same question that I asked W. G. Grace, Ranjitsinhji -said, “Noble.” Now of Noble I have not had sufficient experience to -write, so I asked him again, and the next answer was, “Jack Hearne”; -and for perfection of action, with its open-shouldered, almost -three-quarter arm swing, I have never seen his equal. He has every -variation of pace, and, on a wicket that suits him, as much off break -as he wants; and he bowls, or did bowl at his best, a length that only -a very few bowlers like Alfred Shaw ever excelled. It has been said -that on a perfect wicket he plays a man in. Well, perhaps he does; but -those of us who on a sticky wicket at Lord’s—and at Lord’s a sticky -wicket spells perdition—have had the temerity to stand up against him, -bowling as he nearly always is from the pavilion end, know with what -difficulty he can be stopped, and with what superhuman effort scored -off. - -Two other great medium-paced bowlers appeal immediately to the player -of cricket—Attewell and Mead—both of a wonderful length, and doing a -bit either way, not in the same way as Jack Hearne, who is practically -an off break bowler, with a fast ball going with his arm, but with -distinctive finger or hand break going both ways. - -Who does not remember Attewell’s easy, full-faced run up to the wicket, -the splendid control of length—a very machine, but a machine with an -untiring human intelligence. Both these two are perfect gluttons for -work—this end, the other end, both ends, all day and probably all -night if the span of the hours for play were lengthened. Attewell I -should have taken on a good wicket, and Mead on a bad. - -The latter I remember years ago at Broxbourne, where he and I led the -attack for the local club, and wonderfully successful he was; but -in those days he bowled almost entirely leg breaks, and it was only, -I believe, after journeying Leytonwards, that he developed the off -theory, with an occasional straight one and with an occasional leg -break, that ultimately gave him the position amongst great bowlers that -he holds to-day. - -Lancashire some seasons ago possessed a quartette that very few sides -have been able to equal. I refer to Briggs, Hallam, Cuttell, and Mold. -Each of the four obtained a hundred wickets. Lancashire were playing -at the Oval; the wicket was on the slow side, not very difficult and -not very easy; each of the four had a turn, and in this particular -match Hallam bowled extremely well. In my own mind he was at his best -one of the most difficult of medium-paced bowlers, for the flight was -so deceptive. He has a good variation of pace, but the bad luck he has -had in his health has clung to him in the matter of bowling—there seem -to be more missed chances, more balls that beat the bat and evade the -wicket, than fall to the lot of many another bowler in the same class. - -[Illustration: _LORDS GROUND EARLY IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY._] - -[Illustration: - _From a Water-Colour by_ _H. Alken._ -_ONE ARM AND ONE LEG MATCH._] - -In the matter of length, in the knowledge of the art of bowling, in -his phenomenal success, there is one man in this our second division -who occupies an almost unique position—Alfred Shaw. Every one knows -the records that he holds, but there is one thing that at the time of -its occurrence certainly was the subject of much gratifying comment, -and this was Alfred Shaw’s astonishing resurrection in first-class -cricket, which hardly to-day receives the recognition that it merits. -Sussex journeyed to the Oval. Shaw, who for a considerable time had -given up first-class cricket, was included in the side, and those of -us who were playing against him saw and realised one of the finest -pieces of bowling ever given on a perfect Oval wicket. Surrey’s score -was well over 300. Shaw bowled one end and then the other till he had -completed 50 overs. _During this time only 60 odd runs had been scored -from him_, and there were seven Surrey victims labelled Shaw in the -score-sheet. He bowled as only a marker could bowl, and every man that -proceeded to the wicket either played a bit too soon or a bit too late -at some period or other of his innings. It was a remarkable bowling -performance, and remarkable evidence of stamina of a bowler not in the -first flush of youth. - -Another in this same class, and who at the start of his career was -engaged on the staff at the Oval with his future club-mate Hulme, -was George Davidson, a fast medium bowler with a longish run and an -imperturbable length—full of life and vigour, and a man whose place in -the side Derbyshire have not yet been enabled to fill. - -Tate, like Rhodes, is again a cricketer to whom the state of a wicket -makes a phenomenal difference, even more so than is usually the -case. Given suitable conditions, there are few bowlers that can make -the ball come up faster off the pitch than Tate. He bowls a really -good length, and can apply the off break at will, and for years has -stepped into the breach for Sussex and saved the rest of his side -many many wearying hours of fielding. And now to make an end of our -second division we will include F. S. Jackson and J. R. Mason. It is a -very moot point whether they should be termed fast or medium—let us -say they are fast-medium. It really does not matter much what we call -them, for any one whose patience has held out thus far in this article -has no doubt seen them both bowl again and again. F. S. Jackson is a -confident bowler; he bowls with a confidence born of the past, and -with an unlimited confidence in the future, and to this self-reliance -I attribute a large proportion of his success. Bowling fast-medium, -with an occasional off break and an occasional slow ball, he invariably -manages to keep the runs down, and at the same time to take his quota -of wickets; and a bowler that can go with Sam Woods through the whole -of a Gentlemen _v._ Players match unchanged must be a really good -bowler, even though as we watch him we cannot exactly determine how he -succeeds as he undoubtedly does. - -J. R. Mason is probably a bit faster than Jackson. He has a free -upstanding delivery, an easy run up to the wicket, and a full-arm -swing. He bowls a good length just off the off stump, and on his day -and with a wicket in his favour can make the ball do a lot from the -off. Sam Woods said that he had never in his life seen much better -bowling than Mason’s in the Somerset _v._ Kent match at Taunton in -August 1901. The home side were dismissed for 74 and 78, Mason’s share -of the wickets being four for 26 and _eight for 29_, an excellent -performance for any amateur on any wicket. - -The last of our three divisions now claims our limited attention, and -here it would be as well if I made yet another apology: the names of -many of the great Australian bowlers have been omitted from these -pages, from the fact that I have so seldom played against them. Of -Giffen, Palmer, Turner, Ferris, Jones, and the “Demon Spofforth” I -wish I could write, but what I could say of them would be as the sum -of the runs I should in all probability have made against them. As I -said before, to the cricketer who has got his heart and soul in the -game, there is nothing much more exhilarating than the sleepy field -being rudely awakened to a just sense of his duties. Speaking from a -spectator’s point of view, there is nothing more exciting than to watch -the uprooting of the sticks, to note their gyration in the direction of -the glorified long stop, and to follow the flight of a bail for fifty -or sixty yards. To this end we must possess ourselves of a really fast -bowler. - -The best natural fast bowler, taken at the zenith of his fame, was -Tom Richardson. Those of us that have watched him pounding away hour -after hour and day after day at the Oval, have marvelled much at -the wonderful natural spin, and have marvelled perhaps more at his -inexhaustible energy and neverending fund of good-humour. He was never -tired and never out of sorts, and when the wicket was badly broken -I have known him time after time slacken his great pace for fear of -injuring an opposing batsman. Always, and rightly too, one of the most -popular players that ever stepped on to a cricket-field, still to-day, -when perhaps his prime is past, there is no figure more welcome to the -thousands that throng our grounds than the figure of “Long Tom,” as the -crowds delight to call him. It was indeed a gustable tit-bit to watch -him in 1894 bowl Essex out at the Oval, taking the whole ten wickets -himself. - -A noteworthy fact in connection with Richardson, in the four years when -he aggregated over 1000 wickets, was the great success he met with on -all sorts and conditions of wickets. He could be quite as deadly in the -slime or on a drying wicket as on the fieriest piece of asphalt. Now -this ubiquitous wicket-taking is given to practically no fast bowler -that I have ever seen, with the exception of Spofforth, and he did it -not by bowling his usual great pace, as was the case with Richardson, -but by slowing himself down to the speed of a Haigh or a Jack Hearne. - -It is the general opinion of many of our greatest cricketers—W. G. -Grace and Ranjitsinhji, for example—that on a fast good wicket, and -when bowling at the top of his form, we have never known the equal of -Lockwood. Bowling with a long bouncing run, he can make the ball flick -higher and faster from the pitch than any other bowler in this our -third class. There is at times the very devil in it, and when the ball -is not rapping incontinently at your fingers, it is hitting the middle -and leg from well outside the off stump. One of the finest balls bowled -that failed to get a wicket was bowled by Lockwood to Ranjitsinhji at -the Oval three or four seasons ago. - -[Illustration: _From an Engraving Published in 1784._ -_A MATCH AT THE GENTLEMAN’S CLUB, WHITE CONDUIT HOUSE, ISLINGTON._] - -I was standing at mid-off, and can see it to this day. Ranjitsinhji had -just come in to bat, and was, I think, still on the mark. It was very -fast; it pitched three to four inches off the off stump, and came back -like lightning. I listened for the pleasing rattle of the sticks, but -at the eleventh hour—no, I had better say the last hundredth part of -a second—Ranjitsinhji’s right leg was bent across, and he received -it full on the thigh. There was no other player living who, having -failed to stop it with his bat, could have got his leg there in time. -He certainly acquired a bruise, but the pain of this surely and swiftly -dwindled in an innings of over 190! - -One of the finest victories Surrey ever won over Yorkshire was at the -Oval. On a perfect wicket Surrey scored over 300 on the first day and a -portion of the second. Richardson at the pavilion and Lockwood at the -gasometer end started the attack, and on the same magnificent wicket -_dismissed Yorkshire for 78!_ Of these, Jack Brown made 48! Those of us -who were playing, and those who were lucky enough to have visited the -Oval that day, could never in their lives have seen finer fast bowling. -Both bowled at a tremendous pace, both bowled at the top of their form; -they seemed almost to be bowling man against man, to be vying for -supremacy. It was a great day to catch the finest natural fast bowler -in conjunction with the finest cultivated fast bowler making sad havoc -of a very powerful side. It was in the second innings of Yorkshire that -poor Frank Milligan made his last appearance at the Oval, and right -well he played, making 64 out of a total of 170 odd. (I should have -mentioned before that F. S. Jackson was unfortunately incapacitated -from batting through an injured thumb. This of course greatly weakened -the Yorkshire batting, but at the time Lord Hawke said he had rarely -seen finer bowling.) - -Of Arthur Mold this can be said with absolute certainty, that no bowler -ever attained a similar pace with such a minimum of exertion—two or -three long loose strides, two at a trot, and an arm swinging round -like a flail, a good length, great pace, and on any wicket at times a -considerable flick back from the off—a bowler that, like Richardson or -Lockwood, might bowl a man at any period of his innings, however well -set he might be. For as many of us know, there are certain bowlers, -generally of the slow or medium class, that a respectable batsman, -after an hour or so’s stay at the wicket, can negotiate with safety, -unless of course some violent risk be taken. With these three, and -perhaps one or two more, it is quite possible to be bowled neck and -heels when taking no risk whatever. - -Of all the other fast bowlers I have met, the majority, and it is a -large majority too, either go with the arm or go up the pitch straight -as a die. Wass and Barnes are exceptions to this general rule, for -under favourable conditions they bowl with a distinct leg break, and -very difficult to play they are. - -George Hirst, I think, stands in a section of fast bowlers entirely -his own. It is a curious thing that we possess so few really fast -left-handers. Hirst is equipped not only with great pace, but also -with an extraordinary swerve, that is to say, he does not always have -it under his immediate control, but when starting fresh and with a new -ball, he swirls inwards in a stump-uprooting manner, and the swerve -seems to take place in the last two or three yards of the ball’s -flight. I remember seeing Captain Bush confront him last year at Leeds -for the first time. Hirst came up to the wicket with his swinging run, -the ball left his hand; Bush’s left leg shot out for his slashing -stroke by cover, and it was only by astonishing luck that at the very -last moment he stopped a yorker almost behind his right foot, and in -stopping it overbalanced and lay prone—thus emphasising the luck -he had experienced and the amount of the swerve. With a new ball it -usually stays with him from twenty minutes to an hour, and it can occur -again after a sufficient rest and the acquisition of another new ball. -I think I am doing Rhodes no injustice when I say that for some time -now Hirst has dismissed, largely through this swerve of his, more of -the first five or six batsmen than have fallen to his, Wilfred’s, lot. - -Of all the really fast amateur bowlers none have given me so much -pleasure to watch as Sam Woods. At Brighton College they tell me he was -quite as fast as he ever was afterwards all through his first-class -career as a bowler. Personally I experienced the same luck as many -another would-be run-getter who met him for the first time, that is to -say, I went in to bat and came out again without having heard the sound -of the bat striking the ball, b. Woods 0! The pace was bewildering. At -his best and in full health he was as fast as an ordinary player cares -to encounter. Exceedingly even in temper for a fast bowler, there were -only one or two little things that really worried him. One, however, -was to see a man draw away as he came up to the crease with those short -shuffling strides he always adopted. I shall never forget one day at -Fenner’s in some trial match a rather nervous performer against fast -bowling wobbled to the wicket. Sam was bowling _over_ the wicket, and -the newcomer, who practically relied on a very late cut for scoring -purposes, promptly planted him for two or three fours through the -slips, having first withdrawn, at the approach of “the Terror,” in the -direction of the square leg umpire. The same sliding motion at right -angles to the wicket, the same stroke, the same lucky four, and Sam -goes round the wicket. If fast at first, he is faster now, and the -nervous player is still more nervous. The ball comes down well clear -of the leg stick, and is cut _behind the wicket and between the wicket -and the stumper!_—a truly miraculous stroke, and one that I have never -seen executed save on this solitary occasion. Four! but the next was -straight, and it crept a bit, and the nervous batsman retired, having, -however, before his departure credited himself with fifty or so on the -sunburnt “tins.” - -Of W. M. Bradley, there is nothing to be said—a natural fast bowler -with the mind of a man and the strength of a bull. I faced him two -years ago at Canterbury. He was bowling against the pavilion and -against the sun; the slope of the ground went with him, a new ball was -in his hand, and it whizzed down the pitch as it left it. It was about -the most uncomfortable ten minutes I ever spent. They came “down the -vale” with a four-inch off break; they grazed one’s ribs, one’s chest, -one’s nose; and at last I was caught in the slips protecting my eye -with my hand. It was on this occasion that I was truly convinced of -what a grand player Tom Hayward is against really fast bowling. Though -we were easily beaten, he made 97 not out! Good boy! - -There are many more in this our third class that I should like to write -about, but space and the clock forbid, and so perforce am I compelled -to halt awhile and wait for the little cavalcade of “lobsters” that -are so far behind, so very far behind, the pressing throng of modern -bowlers. To quote from _Wisden_:— - - We, the solitary few who still strive to hold upright the tottering - pillars in the ruined temple of lob bowling, unto whose shrine the - bowlers of the olden time for ever flocked, to-day we are but of - small account; there is scarcely a ground in England where derision - is not our lot, or where laughter and jaunting jeers are not hurled - broadcast at us. To-day perhaps to an all-powerful side we are of - little use—to a side that is weak, to a side whose special weakness - is its fielding, we are the strychnine of tonics. By himself stands - Simpson-Hayward, for he “flicks” the ball as we have all seen many - a wrathful billiard-player do when returning the white from a most - unexpected pocket—it spins and spins and breaks sharply from the - off, and it sometimes hits the wicket. There are two more, Wynyard - and myself, and we both bowl in the old, old way, and we bowl with - a persistence born of tentative success—occasionally we hook a - fish, and great is our rejoicing. We are both fond of this bowling, - I particularly so, and when on many a ground throughout the country - there has arisen on every side the gentle sound of “Take him orf! Take - him orf!” were it not that the side ever comes before oneself, I would - bowl, and bowl, and bowl, until at eventide the cows come home.— - - D. L. A. J., _Wisden_, 1902. - -[Illustration: - _From a Painting by_ _C. J. Basébe._ -_KENNINGTON OVAL IN 1849._] - - -[Illustration] - - - - -CHAPTER V - -FIELDING - -By S. L. JESSOP - - -It has become almost an axiom of the game that more matches are lost by -bad fielding than through any superexcellence of batting or bowling, -and that this is really the case few will deny. - -How many of those favoured mortals who participate in first-class -cricket can call to mind instances of brilliant batting, followed up -by capital bowling, all to be rendered null and void by the missing -of a “sitter” by some lazy fieldsman whose thoughts were anywhere but -on the game. Cricketers are but mortals, and catches will be missed -as long as the game of cricket is played, but less mistakes would be -made, especially in the slips, if fieldsmen would but pay the strictest -attention to the game, and not allow their thoughts to wander. That -chance that “Cain” gave to third slip, which might have turned defeat -into victory, would in all probability have been accepted, had the -culprit’s thoughts not been too much engrossed in the choice of -theatres that evening for his fiancée; and to such causes as these, -if one could but read the thoughts of those at fault, many of the too -frequent mistakes could be traced. Too much emphasis cannot be attached -to this lack of attention, for one can but judge from one’s own -experience. - -That fielding, the most important branch of the game, has deteriorated -during even the past five or six years may be accepted as a true bill, -and we can only look for improvement to those who have the rising -generation under their charge. No one can expect to become a good -fieldsman without assiduous and often irksome practice, and this, -combined with the undue prominence bestowed on batting, may account -somewhat for the deterioration. A batsman, by scoring 50 runs, feels -that he may have had a material hand in the success of his side, and -in the same way so does a bowler who takes five or six wickets, for -they both have something tangible to show in the score-sheet. True, the -fieldsman may have helped the bowler by a brilliant catch or two, but -there is no record of the amount of runs he may have saved. Thus it is -that a little selfishness may crop up, for whereas the fieldsman may -feel that, like the spoke of a wheel, he is only part of a whole, the -batsman or bowler feels that he is an individual. Be the reason what it -may, there is no doubt that the practice of fielding is much neglected, -and as there is not that monotony in it that so frequently crops up -in batting achievements, it is difficult to understand the cause of -that neglect. When one considers that the best batsman in the world -is not absolutely certain of scoring a run, and that a good fieldsman -nearly always saves 20 or 30, the importance of fielding can at once be -appreciated. - -From a spectacular point of view there is no more stirring sight than -to see eleven players, each of whom is striving his utmost to outdo -the other in his efforts to save runs, bringing off catches that an -ordinary field would not even attempt, and saving runs in a manner -which at times borders on the miraculous. It is such a sight as this -that saves cricket from becoming too monotonous. As has been mentioned -before, sufficient practice is not indulged in; players who take -great pains to improve their batting look upon fielding in the light -of a “something” that has to be put up with, and as such only to be -tolerated. Let these same players take half an hour’s practice every -day for a month, and they will find an improvement in their fielding -such as they would have hardly deemed possible. The only feasible way -of obtaining practice is for some one to hit the ball to you from all -sorts of distances, varying from 10 yards to 70, as this range will -include different kinds of chances, from “slip” catches to catches in -the long field. It is a good plan to use a light bat and hold it in the -same manner that one would grasp a racquet, as by doing so one is able -to impart a “cut” to the ball which closely resembles the spin that -would result from a mis-hit to “cover” or a “snick” in the “slips.” -Excepting at school, throwing at the wicket is seldom practised, which -is a great mistake, for many a run has been saved and many a wicket -taken by the accuracy of a smart return. - -In classifying fieldsmen, one can roughly do so by saying that there -are two kinds, those that field near the wicket and those that field -in the out-field, and these latter are in the minority. In the same -manner, fielding may be dissolved into two parts, namely, ground -fielding and catching. Ground fielding has been brought to a state of -perfection for which the improvement in the modern cricket-grounds is -in a large manner responsible. To become a good ground fieldsman one -must be able to judge the pace of the ball to a nicety; otherwise, -although one may succeed in stopping it, one will fail to gather the -ball accurately, and consequently will not save the run. The fieldsman -who excels is the one who, gathering the ball accurately, returns it to -the keeper or bowler with one and the same action. The time saved by -this almost simultaneous action of stopping and returning the ball is -of immense value to fielders in the long field, not only in the saving -of singles, but also in the running out of unwary batsmen. When a ball -is travelling along the ground, the first duty of a fieldsman is if -possible to get in front of it, drawing the legs close together, so -that, should the ball through any irregularity in the turf bump over -the outstretched hands, it will be impeded by the fieldsman’s body. He -must be equally certain with right or left hand in stopping those hits -that he cannot get to with both hands, and there may be a time when it -is absolutely necessary to use his foot in order to save runs. This -method, useful and indispensable though it may be at times, is, one is -sorry to say, becoming a little too general. Whenever possible the hand -should always be used, and only as a desperate last chance should the -foot be resorted to. - -On the perfect grounds that now abound, in nine cases out of ten the -chance of overtaking a ball that has been only moderately hit is very -small, but it is worth while to pursue, even with the odds so great -against one. And one should bear in mind that the quicker one starts in -that pursuit, the more likely is that boundary to be saved, especially -as to gauge the decrease in the pace of the ball is a most difficult -matter. Grounds too must be taken into consideration, for it does -not follow that a boundary which one might save at Birmingham would -be saved at Brighton. When you are attempting to save a boundary by -_pursuing_ the ball, never try to seize the ball too soon, for you are -only more likely to miss it altogether, and your chase to be rendered -futile. Even should you succeed in grasping the ball, your effort of -stooping down and diving forward so upsets your balance that to turn -round and return the ball without unnecessary loss of time is extremely -difficult. The method that should be adopted, and one that is more -likely to meet with success, is for the fieldsman to overtake the ball, -and when a little in front, or even level with it, to stretch the hand -out and allow it to roll into the hand. - -No matter how accurate one may be in returning a ball, accuracy is -of little avail unless it be tempered with speed, for even though -occasionally a man may be given out when the wicket has been hit and -he has regained his ground, yet the fieldsman will find that it is the -exception and not the rule. Without speed of return the fieldsman, be -he ever so certain a catch or brilliant a ground field, will never -reach a high point of excellence; he will be useful, but not great. -Even this useful field is not so frequent as he should be. - -Opportunities of running men out are often lost by the fieldsman -becoming flurried, and returning the ball in a haphazard manner to -whichever end he happens to be near. This is a most fatal mistake, -and one that has been the cause of allowing many a batsman to proceed -on his way safely when the reverse should have been the case. When -an opportunity of running out a man does occur—and these, from the -fieldsman’s point of view, are too few and far between—the fieldsman -should determine as to which end he is to return the ball before -it reaches him. He will then have more time to make certain of the -accuracy of his aim. Should he be fielding near the wicket, he should -return to the wicket-keeper at the height of the latter’s chest; if -from the long field, on the first bounce, but always at the utmost -speed. A time may come when it is imperative to aim at the stumps, for -the time occupied in the keeper breaking the wickets may just suffice -to give the batsman the benefit of the doubt in a close race; but as -a general rule it is one’s duty to rely on the keeper. The bowler at -times has to fulfil the duties of a wicket-keeper in receiving the -return balls, and as he does not possess the protection of gloves, one -has to consider the question of damaging his fingers. With a bowler who -is wont to flinch at a fast return, it is wiser in the end to leave the -wicket entirely to the accuracy of the thrower and the nimbleness of -the backer-up. Many “run outs” may accrue in this manner which might -not have come to pass if too much reliance had been placed on the -bowler. Preventing runs is made much easier by the faculty of being -able to anticipate the direction of the batsman’s stroke before he has -actually played the ball, and this capacity is only acquired by most -careful attention and experience. By being on one’s toes, somewhat in -the same manner as one would start for a race, it becomes much easier -to cut off a ball than if one’s foot is placed flat on the ground. The -adoption of this attitude not only saves actual runs, but it has the -further advantage of preventing batsmen from attempting those short -runs which so often have the effect of demoralising a weak fielding -side. Difficult as it is at times to judge to which end the ball will -be returned, especially when a fieldsman feints to throw in at one end -and then suddenly returns it to the other, some one should always be -backing up both the wicket-keeper and bowler. Nothing is more annoying -to the bowler than to see a sharp-run single converted into a two or -even more by the lack of adequate backing-up. It is those who are -fielding near the wicket who should be responsible for the prevention -of overthrows, especially the man in that place to which it is usual to -relegate a weak fieldsman, mid-on. - -There is no hard-and-fast rule for the proper position to hold the -hands when about to receive a catch. The hand should be so held as -to form a cup, with the fingers extended, and the moment the ball is -inside, the hand should be allowed to give, in order to minimise the -impact. For catches in the long field one should thrust the hands up -as high as one can, so that, if the ball should be fumbled, a chance -may be left of securing it on a second attempt. One-handed catches -must be made at times, even in the long field, but whenever possible -two hands should be used. Confidence is a great factor of success at -cricket, but even that quality may be overdone, especially in catching. -To make a comparatively easy catch look difficult, in order to extort -applause from the crowd, is a most unsportsmanlike act, jeopardising -as it does the success of a side in order to gain a few moments of -self-glorification. Fortunate is the side which does not possess one -of these mountebanks. Catches should be looked upon as timely gifts of -Providence, and as such not to be lightly treated, for in these days of -concrete-like wickets chances occur all too infrequently. - -[Illustration: _THE CRICKET FIELD AT RUGBY._] - -[Illustration: - _From a Painting by_ _W. J. Bowden._ -_A MATCH IN THE EIGHTIES._] - -In no branch of the game is the improvement so marked as it is in -wicket-keeping, and for this improvement present-day cricketers have -to thank that prince of wicket-keepers, the Australian, Blackham. -Before he made his appearance in England, long-stops were looked upon -as quite as indispensable to a side as the wicket-keeper himself, -but on his arrival in 1878 the fallacy of that theory was quickly -demonstrated. Wickets in those days were not quite the perfect wickets -of to-day, and with Spofforth bowling his fastest and best, the manner -in which Blackham stood close up to the wicket, and without the aid of -a long-stop, was looked upon as something approaching the marvellous. -Magnificent keepers as we have had, since he revolutionised the art of -wicket-keeping, he is still without an equal. - -No one, unless he possesses a natural aptitude for the position, is -likely to achieve any considerable success, though it is a mistake -to suppose that a wicket-keeper, like the poet, is born, not made. -Much can be done by practice, and by studying the methods of the many -brilliant keepers that abound to-day. Excepting the captain of the -side, no man is more open to criticism than the wicket-keeper, and in -nine cases out of ten this criticism tends in the direction of abuse. -By those who have been unfortunate enough to have been persuaded to -don the gloves, the difficulties of the position are duly appreciated, -but unless one has done so, one is hardly able to judge the great -assistance that a good keeper can render a bowler. Besides his duties -of stumping, running out, and catching, he is often able to inform -the bowler as to the weak spots in a batsman’s play, for from his very -position he can more easily detect them. In the case of a good bowler -and an equally competent stumper, it is a combination of two heads -against one, the most valuable combination that a side can possess. The -confidence that a good keeper inspires in a bowler is only equalled -by the confidence that one would naturally possess in using one’s own -billiard-cue. An incompetent wicket-keeper will make a good bowler -powerless, whilst a good keeper considerably strengthens a weak bowling -side. A wicket-keeper without a good nerve may be likened to a ship -without a rudder, for each is practically helpless. The slightest sign -of flinching would result in an appalling amount of byes and missed -opportunities. Very rarely indeed is a match concluded without the -wicket-keeper having played an important part in either the winning -or the losing of it. He should never lose sight of the ball from the -moment it is out of the bowler’s hand to the moment it reaches him, -and above all, he should never snap at the ball. He stands up in a -stooping posture, with his hands close enough to the bails to allow -him to remove them in almost the same action as receiving the ball. -Until the ball has been struck or has passed the bat, he should remain -stationary, for it is much easier to accurately judge the ball thus -than when on the move. Necessity compels him at times to jump to this -or that side, but this should be done before the ball reaches him, in -order to allow the body to be again stationary when his hands receive -the ball. In order to run the least chance of injury to the hands, -especially to the top joints of the fingers, the hands should be held -at a downward angle, and allowed to “give” with the impact of the -ball. This “give” should be very slight to slow or medium bowling, -as the drawing back of the hands after taking a ball, even though -occupying the slightest fraction of a second, often results in a -missed opportunity of stumping. Wicket-keepers who are in the habit of -allowing their hands to “give” considerably are, on account of their -hands being farther back, invariably better catchers than stumpers. -This is especially applicable to Board, the Gloucestershire keeper. -He brings off some most wonderful catches, but from this very habit -of drawing the hands back too far, he is often unable to outpace the -batsman when a question of stumping arises. Considering how completely -a batsman, especially a left-hander, often obscures the sight of the -ball from the keeper’s view, it is a distinct credit to his skill -that he is able to perform his duties so ably. How many times has the -explanation of a dropped catch by cover or mid-off been put down to -want of a proper sight of the ball; but one rarely hears that excuse -from the stumper, and yet he, above any of the other fields, has -a right to use it. To a very fast bowler even the most proficient -of wicket-keepers should stand back, for he is more likely to make -catches there than if he stood up. Stumping off fast bowling is of rare -occurrence, not on account of the pace of the bowling, but because in -playing it a batsman rarely leaves his crease, and consequently the -keeper gets few opportunities. The latter’s most difficult duty is the -taking of balls on the leg side. He rarely gets a clear sight of these, -and consequently has to rely more or less on guess-work, especially -to bowling above medium pace. The South African, Halliwell, was quite -as much at home in keeping on the leg side as he was on the off, and -frequently used to stump batsmen whilst attempting to glance fast -bowling to leg. Thankless as the post of wicket-keeping is at times, -yet from the frequency of his opportunities the wicket-keeper must -often gain some solace. - -Because a fieldsman is a good out-field, it does not follow that he -will be equally successful in any position nearer the wicket, so that, -though it may be an excellent plan for a fieldsman to become acquainted -with other positions in the field, yet, as “use is second habit,” it -may be wiser for him to make a specialty of that position in which he -has become accustomed to field. On account of the comparatively little -movement that it requires, “point” is a much sought after position by -those players who, either from stress of age or laziness, do not wish -to indulge in much running or throwing. Such is really not the use -for which this position was intended, for, from the very fact of its -being so adjacent to the wicket, it requires extreme attention and -activity. “Point” should never be farther away from the wicket than 12 -yards, either to slow bowling or fast, and he should always be ready to -take the place of the stumper whenever the latter, either because of -the bad return or on account of his zeal in running after a “snick,” -leaves his post. Many “points” stand too far out, so much so that they -encroach on the duties of “cover.” If a “point” stands some 16 or 17 -yards away from the wicket, the “cover” must of necessity stand much -deeper, and by doing so he can rarely stop two determined batsmen from -stealing many short runs during the course of a long partnership. No -finer “points” than Noble, and Wright of Derbyshire, who stand rarely -more than 10 yards from the bat, could be found, and the number of -catches that they have brought off because of their propinquity to the -wicket more than counterbalances the number of runs that they might -have saved by standing back. - -There is no position in the field that gives so many opportunities -for a fine field to shine as does that of “cover-point.” It is a most -trying position for any one who may not be in the best of condition, -as he has to be continually on the move, for he it is that is held -responsible for the prevention of short runs, quite the most arduous -part of his many duties. As he has a large area of ground to look -after, he must be very exact in keeping in his right place, as even a -yard may mean all the difference between taking or missing a chance, -especially as the ball sometimes travels at great speed in his -direction. The difficulty of the position lies in the amount of “spin” -that is often imparted to the ball, not only when on the ground, but -also when in the air. Catches which often appear to be going to one’s -right hand have suddenly to be attempted with the left, on account of -the curve, and this curve being of a very sudden nature, these catches -are extremely hard to judge. This curve is most pronounced when a slow -left-hand or a leg-break bowler is bowling. One often sees apparently -easy catches from mis-hits dropped at “cover” in a most unaccountable -fashion, but in reality these simple “dolly” catches are much more -difficult to hold than those from hard drives. An incredible amount of -“spin” is put on a mis-hit ball, so that, unless the catch is received -well into the middle of the hand, the spinning ball will act in much -the same fashion as does a billiard-ball when “check side” is imparted -to it. When assisted by an extra mid-off, “cover” should place himself -much squarer with the wickets, as he will have a much less area of -ground to guard, and he must be just deep enough to be able to save -singles. He should be able to return the ball from below the shoulder -with a fast wristy action, full pitch to the wickets. The introduction -of extra mid-off has somewhat lessened “cover’s” duties, so much so -that often a brilliant field has very little to do in that position, -this being especially the case with slow bowling. Naturally, strokes -off slow bowling are made more in front than behind or square, so that -to this class of bowling the extra mid-off is indispensable. To see -Gregory fielding at “cover” is an object-lesson to those fielders who -may have fallen into the disastrous habit of allowing the ball to come -to them, instead of dashing in to meet it. There are many admirable -cover-points, but for many years the Australian has been quite in a -class by himself in that position.[1] - -The duties of “third man” are of the same description as those of -“cover,” for the position calls for equal activity and dash. Short -runs are invariably attempted if the “third man” is at all likely to -be flurried, so that the fieldsman selected for the position must -essentially be cool and collected. The pace of the wicket and the -bowling should determine the exact position in which he should stand, -and he should cultivate a stooping attitude, as the balls come to him -as a rule very low. He will not get many catches, but when he does, it -is extremely likely that they will be very difficult, on account of -the “cut” that the ball will possess from being hit in that direction. -When a short run is attempted, it is better to return the ball to the -bowler, as the batsman who is backing up has less ground to cover than -the striker. Any ball that goes to the left hand of “point” he has to -attend to, and he must also back up the wicket-keeper when the ball is -returned from the on side. One of the long fields is generally deputed -to fill the position, often solely in order to save him from having -to walk too far in order to fill some other position. Naturally it is -a wise precaution to avoid tiring your fieldsmen, but unless the long -field shows a marked aptitude for the position, he should not be placed -there. Third men that one cannot occasionally steal runs from are very -rare, but he would be a daring runner who would attempt to do so when -such brilliant men as Trumper, Sewell, or Burnup are fielding in that -position. - -If one could trace the position of the field in which most catches are -missed, “the slips,” it would be safe to say, would pan out as the -chief offenders. Excepting the wicket-keeper’s, theirs are the most -important places, and require quick-sighted fieldsmen who are certain -catches. Attention is the most important quality, combined with the -faculty of being able to judge the flight of the ball from the bat. -One must adopt a stooping attitude, in order to reach low catches, and -also because it enables one to spring in any direction with more ease -than if one stands upright. Though two hands, as in other positions in -the field, should be used whenever possible, yet one must be certain -with either hand, as the majority of catches are brought off with one -hand. Two common faults are pretty general, namely, snapping at the -ball instead of letting it come into the hand, and standing in the -wrong place. The distance at which the slips should stand varies very -much in accordance with the state of the pitch and the nature of the -bowling. They would naturally be farther back to fast bowling than to -slow. It is a moot point as to whether a slip should be stationary -or occasionally on the move, in order to anticipate a stroke. An -experienced slip has his own method, and he is wise to stick to it -if he finds it meets with success, even though it be a method not -altogether orthodox. Of present-day slips individually, R. E. Foster, -A. O. Jones, Tunnicliffe, J. R. Mason, and Braund stand out very -prominently, but collectively the combination of Braund, Maclaren, and -Jones is all that one could desire. - -An easy position, but one that requires considerable nerve and -activity, is “mid-off.” As a rule the ball comes straight to the -fielder and at great pace, but usually with very little twist on, -though occasionally, when a left-hander is bowling, the ball swerves -a good deal. The most difficult catches that he has to deal with are -those that rise from the very moment that the ball touches the bat, -and unless he judges the ball very accurately, he will find that the -tips of his fingers will suffer very considerably, and that success -will not attend his efforts. “Mid-off” should be in such a position -as to be able to back up the bowler when the batsman returns the ball -hard, and also to save short runs. Like “cover” and “third man,” he -should be always ready to start, as he often gets chances of a run-out. -The amount of runs that the Australian Jones and Hirst save in that -position, and the catches that they bring off, are phenomenal. - -In all the course of my experience I have never yet seen a really -first-class “mid-on.” It may be that I have been peculiarly unfortunate -in that respect. It is an easy position to field in, because the ball -is not often hit in that direction, and when it is, there is no twist, -although there may be a good deal of pace on it. On account of the -easiness of the position, the weak fieldsmen are deposited there. When -a “short leg” is utilised, “mid-on’s” duties are a perfect sinecure, -but on fast wickets, when the short leg’s services are dispensed with, -he has a considerable amount of work to get through. He is often the -only man fielding on the on side of the wicket, and accordingly he has -to run for any ball that may be played on that side. He must be ready -to back up both the wicket-keeper and the bowler, so that a great many -runs can be saved by a smart field in this position. - -On a bad wicket and with an off-break bowler the position of short -leg is indispensable, as under these conditions many balls, though -intended to be played straight, hit the edge of the bat and, on account -of the break, proceed in his direction. Though weak fielders are also -relegated to this position, it is a difficult post to fill adequately, -as the ball comes often very quick and low, with a good deal of spin -on. His position varies a good deal according to the style of the -batsman, but he should not be too deep. As a general rule, he should -be about 10 or 11 yards from the batsman. As so much leg-break bowling -is now in vogue, he often gets bombarded in a dangerous manner. When a -bowler of this kind is performing, it is just as well to place one of -the best fieldsmen in that position. - -Fielding in the “long field” requires more nerve and judgment than -does fielding near the wicket. The ball is much longer in the air and -on the ground, and it is on account of this fact that nerve plays -such an important part. The ball is so long in coming to the fieldsman -that he has time to conceive all manner of things that may happen, -and it is for this reason that the knowledge of the temperaments of -those playing under him is so useful to the captain. A fieldsman who -is nervous in the long field need not necessarily be classed as a bad -field, for cases have come under my own observation of the wonderful -change that has been wrought in a “nervy” field when fielding close to -the wickets. Generally speaking, there are two positions in the long -field, “long on” and “long off,” but now that the fashionable method of -bowling wide of the leg stump has somewhat superseded the “off theory,” -the old position of “long leg” has lately been made more use of. In all -three positions the duties are similar, and they require a safe pair -of hands, speed in running, and great accuracy in returning the ball. -Everything in the nature of a chance must be attempted, even at the -risk of not saving a boundary, for often catches are made that at times -look impossible. “Long field” must return the ball the moment that it -is in his hands, and should never wait for the ball to come to him, but -should dash in the moment it is struck. Few “out-fields” can throw a -distance of 70 or 80 yards without going through some such preliminary -as moving the arms round and round in order to gain sufficient momentum -to aid them in propelling the ball, and even running 2 or 3 yards -before returning it. This waste of time is simply a sign of lack of -practice, and can easily be remedied by sufficient attention paid to -it. - -The importance of good fielding cannot be too greatly emphasised, for -without it a good bowling side is rendered ineffectual and powerless -to win matches, excepting on bad wickets. Unless a batsman or a -bowler should possess great proficiency, he should not be included -in a first-class match if he cannot attain to an average standard -of fielding; _i.e._ he should be able to throw, not jerk, and catch -reasonable catches. The time comes when a fieldsman, through advancing -years, may not be so speedy in the field as he was wont to be in -his younger days, though his powers as a batsman may be scarcely -diminished. Provided he is still able to hold catches, in positions -that require little or no running about, he may still be a powerful -factor of success to his side. But for young fieldsmen who either from -sheer laziness or inability cannot either hold catches or save runs, -one cannot but have a feeling of disgust, and it is such players as -these that are out of place in first-class cricket. - -[Illustration: _KENT_ v. _SUSSEX, AT BRIGHTON._ -_A supposed Match played between 1839-41._] - - -[Illustration] - - - - -CHAPTER VI - -COUNTY CRICKET - -By W. J. FORD - - -It has been always cast in the teeth of us Englishmen by our -Continental critics that we take our amusements seriously—that our -idea of recreation is to go forth and kill something, and that anything -of the nature of excitement is unknown to us; even our wars seem to -them to be conducted by us in a cold-blooded, business-like, almost -saturnine fashion, such as the foreigner cannot understand. Our almost -fanatical excitement over the relief of Mafeking and of Ladysmith might -have served to disenlighten our neighbours to a certain degree, but -they probably regarded those wild bursts of enthusiasm as a mere phase -of a fever, as one of the periodic alternations of heat and cold that -are characteristic of a severe attack of ague. It is for the historian -and the student of human nature to decide whether our nature is -phlegmatic or merely proud, and whether these rare outbursts are not in -reality a genuine eruption of violent volcanic feelings which have long -smouldered beneath the crust of our real nature. The true account seems -to be that in matters of a public and, still more, of an international -character, insular pride does not allow us to reveal the fact that the -Englishman possesses a certain amount of that excitability which we -choose to attribute to the southern and the Latin races: it is only a -special stress that reveals this side of our nature. When, however, -the Englishman’s foot is on English soil, and when his only critics -are of the same blood as himself, then and only then does he allow -the true keenness of his disposition to run riot. The Englishman, in -short, only casts aside his phlegm, his reserve, and his pride when -he is in congenial society, and the presence of the necessary society -is in no place more apparent than on the scenes of those sports that -afford him the amusement and, in some cases, the means of life. Those -scenes may be narrowed down to the football field, the race-course, and -the cricket ground. It is with the last of these that our business at -present lies. - -It would be impossible to lay down any cast-iron reason for the fact -that general interest in cricket has increased by leaps and bounds -in the last twenty years. The fact is incontrovertible, whatever the -cause may be, but to most of those who have watched the course of -cricket events, the progress of county cricket will present itself as -the primary cause of the progress of the game as a whole. At the same -time, there is a fair field left for those who choose to maintain that -the impetus given to county cricket is really due to the rapid spread -of the game itself and the attendant enthusiasm of its admirers; while -there is, as usual, a third course left to us, which is to maintain -that the two things, general cricket and county cricket, have advanced -_pari passu_, each owing much to the other. And at this point we may -abandon the question as one that will produce abundant controversy and -no conviction, especially as all the theorists can meet and agree as -to the one common effect, differ as they may as to the cause, namely, -that both players of the game and lovers of the game have increased by -innumerable multiples during the last fifteen or twenty years. There -are those who think it good to decry this desperate enthusiasm for a -pastime—who declare that it is a symptom of national decadence, and -declare that a mere game is an irrational thing, inasmuch as a rational -treatment of it at once destroys its existence as a game in the true -sense of the word. We are hardly prepared, however, to have our -pastimes handled in this Socratic manner. A game is a game, and if it -is a good game, we who love it consider that it deserves something more -than casual and ephemeral treatment; hence we throw ourselves into it -heart and soul, and those who like to see heart-and-soul work have only -to go to the nearest county ground on a match day to see how energy -and rivalry can, on the principle enunciated above, turn a game into a -no-game. - -Nor is it illogical at this point to assume that county cricket is to -us the highest popular embodiment of our pastime; it is true that a -certain and a limited number of special matches attract more attention, -for sentimental reasons, than do mere county matches, but it is on -the latter class of games that genuine and general interest is mainly -expended, earning for those who exhibit it a certain amount of contempt -from those who hold that to lavish interest on a game is to squander -a valuable asset. Political economy and its votaries would doubtless -tell us—indeed, they do tell us—that such labour as is expended on -hitting, or on bowling, or on stopping, or on catching a mere ball, -is unproductive labour, and consequently labour lost, while they show -no limit to their contempt for those who, not being actual players -themselves, squander—so they call it—valuable time in watching other -people waste time that is equally valuable. However, the cynic and his -butt, like the poor, are always with us; all that we can desire and all -that we can hope for is that he will confine himself to his dwelling, -and leave us to enjoy ourselves in peace, while we may fairly ask him -to reflect in the recesses of his barrel as to what the watchers of -cricket would do with themselves if there were no cricket to watch. -That they would be better employed is possible; that they would be -worse employed is probable; and he would be a poor philosopher indeed -who would find fault with the open-air stage of Lord’s or the Oval, -and would yet allow the music-hall and the theatre to stifle their -nightly victims. The strictest of Puritans could hardly find fault with -bat and ball as being the inculcators of evil principles; rather, like -the study of the ingenuous arts, do they “soften our characters and -forbid them to be savage.” The cynic and the rhymer have had their say, -but cricket is still with us, and seems likely to stay, howl as they -will. - -In connection with the game’s advance, it would be unjust not to -acknowledge the fillip that has been given to it by the periodical -visits of Australian elevens, the first of which occurred as far -back as 1878, combined with the return of their calls by our men. It -was a new truth to us that there was growing up in Greater Britain a -race of men who, taught by ourselves, profiting by our lessons, and -in the process of time perhaps improving on our methods, were able -to withstand us to our face, the pupil often proving the superior -of the master; and it may be that to this fact, and the perhaps -unconscious conviction that “the old man” must not be “beaten by the -boy” at cricket as at chess, is due the uprise of county cricket as -the readiest means of ascertaining our strength and organising our -resources, though it was not till several years after the first visit -of Australians that any real attempt to organise county cricket into -a formal competition succeeded. Such an attempt had been made in 1872 -by the Marylebone Cricket Club, which offered a cup in that year for -competition among the counties, but the offer was coldly received, the -counties that entered were so few that such words as “competition” and -“championship” became misnomers, and the offer was withdrawn. Not that -the word “champion” had not been and still was applied to some county -or another as soon as the last ball of the season had been bowled, but -the expression was visionary; it was merely the outcome of the views -of the press or of individuals, and it naturally happened that when -these views conflicted there were “two Richmonds in the field,” both -styled champion by their respective supporters. It was not till the -representatives of counties met in peaceful conclave, coded laws and -bye-laws, with the request that the M.C.C. would exercise a fatherly -and presidential rule over county cricket, that the latter became -historical fact. - -It seems to me that the growth and systematization of general cricket -are due to the growth and systematization of county cricket, and the -emulation which accompanied its increase. The counties, having set -their hands to the plough, were in no mood to look back; those which, -as exceptionally strong, were rated first-rate, set themselves to see -that no weakness on their part should cause them to be degraded to the -ranks; while the rank and file, on the other hand, spared no effort -to secure their own promotion. And at this point it is well to remind -those who profess to see a mere desire of money-making underlying the -expansion of county cricket, that the then junior counties, many of -which are now seniors, owed their existence and its prolongation not -to gate-money or speculating syndicates, as is the case with many -football clubs, but to the generous assistance of enthusiastic patrons, -whose only motive for liberality was their own love of the game, as a -game, and their desire to see it not merely extended, but perfected. -At the present day there are county clubs which rely mainly for their -existence on the voluntary subscriptions and donations of their -supporters, men whose only reward is the opportunity of seeing good -cricket brought home to their own doors, and the promotion, expansion, -and improvement of the game. Gate-money is of course an important -factor in a club’s receipts, but it is sheer nonsense, it is almost -mendacity, to declare that the county cricket of to-day is played for -gate-money and for nothing else. Yet such assertions have been made, -and are still made, by men who do not reflect that the patrons who -subscribe to a club do not do so with the idea of providing the public -with a gratis entertainment, though—I am thinking of one patron in -particular—such an act would not be without precedent: their idea is, -as stated before, to provide amusement for themselves, encourage the -game, and help those who help themselves. The last people to grumble at -the payment of gate-money are the payers themselves, who are not slow -to recognise that sixpence is not a large sum to expend for a day in -the open air, with a display of skill and activity thrown in, for which -the spectator pays at the rate of about one penny per hour! Lastly, -and briefly—for there is no satisfaction gained by dealing with -misstatements—when accounts are balanced, the surplus that remains, -if any, does not go to swell the speculator’s income, but is devoted to -the improvement of accommodation, the advancement of the game, or that -prudent economy that provides against the cricketer’s bugbear, in every -sense of the word—a rainy day. - -I have suggested that we owe the increase of cricket to the growth -of county cricket, and the reasons are not far to seek. When once a -county is included in the first class, or aspires to it, its first -effort is to enlist all its available talent, and as the reward of the -great cricketer is no mean one, whether that reward come in the shape -of reputation and amusement to the amateur, or of good red gold to the -professional, the aim and ambition of every promising player and of the -club to which he belongs is to get at least a fair trial in the higher -spheres of the game. Further than that, the executive does not merely -wait to receive the applications of the ambitious, but, like Porsena -of Clusium, it “bids its messengers ride forth, east and west and -south and north,” not exactly “to summon its array,” but to ascertain -what fighting blood there is in the county ready for immediate action, -and what recruits there are whose early promise may be developed into -disciplined effectiveness. In other words, the cricketing pulse of -the county at once begins to throb, and the executive, like a wise -physician, keeps its finger on that organ, to ascertain the condition -of the patient. But it is not merely by inquisition into the talent -that is available that the ranks of a county eleven are filled up: -the promising players are invited to attend at the county ground for -inspection, practice, and tuition, being drafted into the company of -the “ground” bowlers, and given opportunities in minor matches of -exhibiting their natural and their trained powers, a further impulse -being given to cricket by the distribution of the big matches among -different centres, where such distribution is possible, and by the -mission of so-called second elevens to the most distant bounds, to -play matches and to discover talent. These trips may well be compared -to the marches of different regiments through those districts from -which, under the territorial system, they hope to draw their recruits. -When to these different forms of encouragement we add the sums spent -in occasional subsidies, to say nothing of the salaries of players and -officials, and of the expenses entailed by the upkeep of the club’s -ground and property, it will be seen that, though the sour may sneer, -it would be and is impossible for a crack county to maintain its -position unless its assured income from subscriptions were augmented -by the humble sixpence of gate-money. It is not, of course, every -county that can manage its cricket _en prince_ in the way indicated: -that implies a heavy rent-roll, a handsome and dependable income, and -perhaps a snug little sum in the 2-3/4 per cents; only rich counties -can do things with a lavish hand, and find themselves able to spare -a lucrative match that will produce a bouncing benefit for some -deserving professional. Others have to look rather wistfully at the -small roll of cloth from which their coat has to be cut, and have to -curtail expenses accordingly; but the county cricket club, even if run -upon humble lines, recollects that Rome was not completed within the -twenty-four hours, and that as nothing succeeds like success, its first -and primary duty is to be successful, if possible; that it is only by -pains and patience that the best men are to be discovered and utilised, -and that its turn can only be served by inoculating as many people and -clubs as possible with the most virulent type of cricket fever. - -I am disposed to think that that county is likely to prosper which -can find two or three grounds within its borders which are suitable -for county cricket, and are in the centre of fairly populous -districts; to which fact I attribute, in no small degree, the success -of the Yorkshire County C.C. as an institution, and of its eleven -as a fighting body. Not that the side has always had the pleasant -experiences of 1900, 1901, and 1902, when in a series of eighty-three -matches only two resulted in failure, for as recently as 1889 the big -county and Sussex met at the fag-end of the season in an encounter -which was to decide whether the northern or the southern county was -to find its name at the bottom of the roll; but the county of so -many acres has not only a large field of selection, but has also, in -Sheffield, Leeds, Huddersfield, Bradford, Scarborough, York, Hull, and -Dewsbury, so many centres of action that she can display her powers to -tens of thousands, where other counties can only muster thousands, and -can thus command a very large and consistent income. But in strict -and strong relief stands out the figure of Nottingham, a county that, -to the best of my knowledge, has never played a “home” match away from -the Trent Bridge ground, and has never been blest with a superabundance -of this world’s goods, yet has for many years not only possessed a -formidable eleven of its own, but has also been able to send out a full -and steady stream of professional players of all classes, some of whom, -though not exactly thankless children, have proved a veritable set of -serpent’s teeth when arrayed against the mother county. Nottinghamshire -is a standing exception to the rule that great elevens are the outcome -of great incomes. - -There is no doubt that the true nucleus of a county eleven lies in the -body of professional players that the executive has at its disposal. -As men who are in receipt of a definite wage for their services, and -as men who, by reason of their skill, obedience, and civility, have -something like a right to expect a benefit match after some ten or -twelve years of service, they find it a duty as well as a pleasure -to keep themselves in good condition as well as in good practice, -and, their services being always available, they are in the long run -of more general use than the amateurs, many of whom, having other -avocations, are unable to play regularly. Not that any eleven is -complete without its amateurs. Among professionals a certain amount -of professional jealousy is sure to arise, which sometimes grows into -something stronger; while it has been proved by actual experience -that in an eleven entirely composed of paid players, and of course -captained by a professional, difficulties of discipline will occur, -the management of the eleven being acridly criticised by those who -think that in some form or other their abilities have not been duly -recognised, which lack of recognition is attributable to the worst and -meanest of motives. There is no such thing, fortunately, as a cricket -trade-union, nor is there any place for it, but as a matter of history -it is right to record that various secessions, almost amounting to -mutinies, have occurred in the professional ranks at different times, -which have sometimes taken the form of a strike, based either on a -claim for higher pay, or on a demand that certain players who are -regarded as obnoxious—almost as blacklegs—by their comrades should -not take part in a given match, under no less a penalty than the -refusal of the protestants to appear themselves. All these things have -occurred, but just as the intestine disputes of bees may, according -to Virgil, be allayed by the flinging down of a handful of dust, so -a little diplomatic negotiation has settled the dispute. But nothing -tends so much to bind a team together in the bonds of amity as well -as of discipline as the presence of capable amateurs—men of tact -and education as well as efficient cricketers, one of whom, acting -as captain and supreme controller, can readily check the earlier -symptoms of discontent, or, better still, by his wise administration -of his office prevent the incubation of a disease so disastrous as -indiscipline. The moral effect of the presence of amateurs is no whit -less than their value as players, preventing as it does the somewhat -sordid troubles that are apt to arise among those to whom cricket -is a livelihood, and not merely a pastime. Further, a great deal -has been said and written—mainly by those who know nothing of the -subject—as to the exact relations existing between the amateur and -the professional. Only ignorance permits a man to apply such a word -as “snobbish” to the custom of providing separate accommodation for -the two classes of players; worse is it when such a one hints at such -a thing as stand-offishness on the part of the amateurs. There are -certain differences in the education and the social position of the two -classes that makes the closer intimacy of the pavilion undesirable, and -undesired also by both parties. At any rate, cricketers are perfectly -capable of making all such arrangements for themselves, without -the intrusion and interference of others. They have their own code -and their own method, nor does there exist any analogy between the -regulations, especially as to the amateur _status_, of cricket and of -other games. Cricket stands on its own pedestal, and it is good that it -should. - -[Illustration: _A CRICKET MATCH (about 1750)._] - -One of the troublous parts of cricket legislation has been the question -of the residential qualification of cricketers for their counties, -and the manner of defining what _bona fide_ residence is. It has been -always recognised, I believe, that a man may play for the county in -which he was born, or for the county in which he resides, though for -“or” might have been written “and” as recently as 1873. Up to that -date a man might, and many men did, play for two counties in one -and the same season, under the two qualifications, while it was an -understood thing that when those two counties met he represented the -county of his birth. There were, however, obvious objections to this -dual license, though they only first took shape in the form of proposed -regulation in 1868. Five years later it was made law that a man who was -doubly qualified must elect at the beginning of each season to play -for one of these counties, and for no other. It was undoubtedly an -abuse that such a state of things should exist, but it must have been -a convenient source of revenue to a few professionals in the days when -fees were low and matches few. But the accurate definition of _bona -fide_ residence is still a difficulty: in some cases a man has taken -a room, or a room has been taken for him, in the county for which he -is desired to qualify, and he has, as occasion suited, occupied it -for a night or two, while similar evasions or elastic interpretations -of the law have existed; but the present solution of the question -is probably the best one, _i.e._ to fall back on the patient and -ever-willing committee of the M.C.C., which consents to adjudicate on -all such questions as they arise. It should be added that proposals -have been made several times, notably by Lord Harris in 1880, that -the residential period should be reduced to one year; but though this -reduction would have acted well in certain cases, especially in those -of Colonial and army players who took up their residence in England, -it has been held that objections outweigh the advantages, and the tale -of years has not been reduced. - -Some men consider that only the qualification of birth should be -considered, so that only natives of a county should represent it; -but, after all, this qualification is a mere accident as far as the -individual himself is concerned; it would act hardly on a man born -in a poor county—poor, that is, as a cricket-playing county; it -would condemn many a first-class player to take little or no part in -first-class cricket, which is the same thing as county cricket, and we -might even have the anomaly of a county desiring, owing to its plethora -of great players, to put two teams into the competition. As long as -one county does not attempt to lure away men from its neighbours, as -long as every club keeps its eyes wide open in its quest for its own -young blood, and as long as every man feels that it is a primary duty -to keep his allegiance to his native county, so long will the present -rule be thoroughly satisfactory, and the “sporting spirit” must be -trusted to see that the unwritten laws are not transgressed. At the -same time, a hard case may readily be stated, the case of the man of -true and tried merit, who has only the prospect of a small income and -a small benefit as the reward his birth-county can give him, while -by naturalising himself with its neighbour he may look for a large -pecuniary reward. As a general rule, however, the present system works -well: useful men are sometimes overlooked, and allowed, so to speak, -to take foreign service as soldiers of fortune, but as the process is -largely reciprocal, it reacts, to some extent, on all counties alike. -To Yorkshire, and I believe to Yorkshire alone, belongs the credit of -having been represented for many years by Yorkshiremen alone; but then -Yorkshire is a very big land. - -[Illustration: _A CURIOUS COUNTY CLUB ADVERTISEMENT._] - -[Illustration] - -As soon as cricket became a part and parcel of English sporting life, -the contesting sides naturally ranged themselves, in some cases at -least, under the political subdivisions of England, viz. the counties, -and consequently we find county cricket existing in a form as far back -as 1730, when “a great match was played on Richmond Green, between -Surrey and Middlesex, which was won by the former” (I quote from T. -Waghorn’s _Cricket Scores_). It is interesting, by the way, to note -that two of the keenest rivals of to-day met in friendly combat some -130 years before Middlesex could boast of a county club, while the -Surrey Club did not really come into existence till 1845. It may be -added that Middlesex had its revenge three years later, _i.e._ in 1733, -and that the then Prince of Wales, a great patron of cricket, was so -pleased with the skill and zeal of the players, that he presented them -with a guinea apiece. Organisation, classification, championships, -and all the paraphernalia of modern county cricket did not exist, -of course, in the times when locomotion was difficult and matches -consequently few, except among near neighbours; but it may not, on -the whole, have been bad for cricket that at the outset many matches -were made for money, and that all contests of importance were vehicles -for universal and heavy betting. It may seem heterodox to approve of -wagers and stakes, when nowadays it is the pride of those interested in -cricket that it rises above such things, but it must not be forgotten -that customs change with the times; that betting was universal in the -eighteenth century and the early part of the nineteenth among all men -who wished to be considered “smart”; and also that, but for the support -and encouragement given to the game by “sportsmen” and “Corinthians,” -it would never have flourished in the fashion in which it flourishes -to-day: indeed, there was nothing more absurd in Kent playing Hampshire -for 500 guineas, than that the representatives of the two counties -should fight a main of cocks for the same sum. We naturally find -certain abuses which are due to the betting system, but on the whole, -it kept the game alive, and soon quickened it into a more vigorous -existence. Money had to be found somehow; gate-money was out of the -question in the days when most matches, even the very greatest, were -played on village greens or open commons; hence the natural sequence -that in the men who found the stakes and laid the wagers cricket -found its best and keenest patrons. To the love of betting we may -probably attribute the formation of various matches in which curious -combinations of numbers were made, or when certain men were played as -“given” men, so that the strength of the contending parties might be -equalised. Who, however, would care to go nowadays to see twenty-two -of Surrey play twenty-two of Middlesex, a game that took place in -1802, and again in 1803? In 1797 we find that England played against -_thirty-three_ of Norfolk, and won in a single innings by 14 runs. -Again, in 1800, twelve of England play nineteen of Kent, and we find -about this period such matches as “Middlesex, with two of Berkshire and -one of Kent _v._ Essex, with two ‘given’ men”; but a special interest -attaches to this match, as being the first ever played on Lord’s -ground, the old “Lord’s” of Dorset Square, in 1787. Perhaps it is not -unfair to conjecture that the original match was to be between the two -counties, but that the sides had to be patched up owing to defections. -It seems hardly probable that monetary or other reasons would prompt -such curious combinations of men and counties. Proper qualification -can hardly have been insisted upon; indeed, we find that the famous -Hambledon Club, practically Hampshire county, was largely composed of -Surrey men who received enthusiastic invitations to visit the famous -Broad Halfpenny Down. Harking back to some stray scraps of historical -interest, we read that in 1739 Kent, “the unconquerable county,” played -England in the presence of 1000 spectators, but the match ended in a -fiasco, owing to disputes; indeed, such terminations were not very -uncommon when party feeling ran high and betting was rampant. In 1746 -Kent again plays England, and wins by a short neck, _i.e._ by one -wicket, while Sussex and Surrey seem great rivals; Surrey, indeed, -beats England three years later, and in 1750 loses to Kent by 3 runs, -but wins the return by nine wickets. From the names quoted, it is -evident that cricket flourished in the south rather than in the north; -but cricket was not unknown in the big manufacturing shires, for we -find that Manchester and Liverpool were then, as now, desperate rivals, -as were Sheffield and Nottingham. Sheffield, indeed, was so strong that -it could play, and used to play, the rest of Yorkshire single-handed. -In a note to a match played between Hants and England in 1772, we find -that “Lumpy,” for England, bowled out Small, “which thing had not -happened for some years”! Perhaps “Lumpy” had secured one of those -wickets on which he could bowl— - - For honest Lumpy did allow - He ne’er could bowl but o’er a brow. - -Hence if the wicket had a “brow,” and Lumpy pitched one of his -“shooters” on it, Small’s downfall is not remarkable. However, though -Hambledon was the best club and Hants the best county, England was too -strong to be tackled single-handed. Surrey first met Kent in 1772, -and beat the county of cherries and hops, having previously done the -same for Hants, though in the latter case the nuisance of “given men” -crops up on both sides; yet such games were clearly popular, strength -being thereby equalised, for we find numerous matches between Hambledon -and England in which the former club was supported by the presence of -outsiders. However, the Hambledon Club, “the cradle of cricket,” with -its “ale that would flare like turpentine”—what a use to put good -“October” to!—“a viand (for it was more than liquor)” that was “vended -at 2d. per pint,” collapsed towards the end of the century, and it -was many a long year before Hants became great again. Alas, too, for -Hambledon cricketers! They were not content to play cricket for love -or for glory, but for stakes, the stakes being pints, doubtless of the -famous “viand”! - -A few stray notes on the early half of the century may be not -inappropriate, and most interesting seem to be the trio of matches -played between England and Sussex in 1826. No such contest had ever -taken place before, and the series was really arranged to test -the relative merits of underhand bowling and the then new-fangled -roundhand. The results may be regarded as conclusive. Not only did -Sussex win the first match by seven wickets and the second by three -wickets, but the third match was lost by the county by as few as 24 -runs. More conclusive was the action of nine of the professionals, -who refused, after the second match was over, to play in the third -game, “unless the Sussex bowlers bowl fair—that is, abstain from -throwing.” The triumph of the new style was complete, though five of -the recalcitrants played in the third match after all. It was in the -Kent-Sussex match of this year, Kent having some given men, that wides -were first counted, though they did not appear as a separate item. -Three years later no-balls received a similar distinction, the match -being, nominally, between Middlesex and the M.C.C.; but the county had -no regular organisation till five-and-thirty years later. Indeed, it is -illustrative of the then condition of some so-called “county elevens,” -that “Yorkshire” plays the Sheffield Wednesday C.C. and is beaten in -1830, while in 1832 Sheffield plays twenty-two of Yorkshire! However, -in 1834 an eleven, called Yorkshire, consisting mainly of Sheffielders, -lost to Norfolk by no less than 272 runs, Fuller Pilch contributing -87 not out and 73; yet Pilch was a Suffolk man, who was eventually -induced to settle in Kent, though in this year he played for England -and against Kent, which at this time was easily the strongest county. -Next year Yorkshire had its revenge on Norfolk, as, though Pilch made -153 not out in the second innings, the Norfolk men surrendered, the -game being hopeless, probably to avoid the necessity of coming up on -the third day. - -[Illustration: - _From a Drawing by_ _G. F. Watts, R.A._ -_THE BATSMAN._ -(_Fuller Pilch_).] - -It is unnecessary to dive more deeply into dates, figures, and facts, -beyond the important fact that early in the last century there were -many counties that played cricket between themselves, and in certain -cases could challenge the rest of England, though they did not exist -as regularly organised societies. The matches were arranged by the -patrons of cricket, as an exciting form of contest in which money -was to be won or lost by betting, and with a view to the increase of -the excitement, men were given to one side or barred from another, -or else extra numbers were allowed as a counterpoise to extra skill, -till in due course counties began to exist as organisations of -themselves, with a view to county cricket pure and simple. Their -establishment, however, was a matter of time. Sussex led the way in -1839; Kent seems to have followed the lead in 1842, the year when the -first Canterbury “Week” was held, under similar conditions to those -that now exist; while the year 1845 saw the birth of the Surrey Club, -with the Oval as its cradle. Then came a gap, but in the ‘sixties -county clubs sprang rapidly into existence—Notts in 1859 or 1860, -Yorkshire in 1862, Hants in 1863 (though the club collapsed early, -and was resuscitated in 1874). Middlesex saw the light in 1864, and -so did Lancashire. Leicestershire dates back to 1878, Derbyshire to -1870, while Gloucestershire is only a year younger, being followed by -Somerset in 1875, by Essex in 1876, and by Warwickshire in 1882. With -the appearance of Worcestershire on the scene in 1899, at least as a -first-class county, we have reached the last-joined of the present big -cricketing counties; but it should be clearly understood that the dates -given are as a rule only those of the years in which the clubs were -originally formed. Their pretensions to be included in the privileged -list of those who are entitled, as being “first-class,” to take part -in the championship competition were only gratified when they had by -active service and doughty deeds established a claim to promotion. - -The formation of county clubs, especially in the middle of last -century, may fairly be traced directly to the success, in finance as -well as in cricket, of those famous organisations, the All England -and the United All England elevens. Originally founded as purely -financial speculations, for the promotion and success of which the -best cricketing talent of the country was enlisted, they made annual -progresses through England, meeting the picked local talent of all -cricketing centres, generally reinforced by imported men, and meeting -each other at Lord’s on Whit-Monday, this last match being regarded as -at least the equal of the Gentlemen and Players fixture as a display of -scientific cricket. The periodical visits of these skilled _troupes_ -not only excited the interest and improved the cricket of the local -centres—Dr. Grace himself bears ample testimony to the keenness caused -by their presence—but they also opened the eyes of cricket-lovers to -the fact that good cricket could be made self-supporting. Further, they -saw the immense progress that the game would make, and the enormous -facilities that would be offered to that progress, in every county -which had a club and a centre of its own. It may be said, indeed, -that the success of these peripatetic teams, while it conduced to -their own collapse, suggested and promoted the foundation of county -cricket as it is played nowadays. The two great elevens did their work -well and thoroughly, both for themselves and for the game, and when -they dispersed, and their constituent members were drafted into the -county elevens, they could at least claim that they had popularised -the game, had improved the methods in which it was played, and had -left behind them a valuable legacy to all those who either played or -admired cricket. Think of this, all of you who are apt to remember only -the pettinesses and schisms of those two great elevens! There were -pettinesses, and there were schisms, but these must be forgotten in the -recollection that the men who erred were likewise the men who put our -first-class cricket on its present basis, who made the existence of -county cricket feasible, possible, and profitable. - -It should here be noted that though only fifteen counties have been -enumerated, the cricket-playing counties are by no means restricted to -that number. Norfolk and Suffolk have for many years been cricketing -counties. Cambridgeshire was at one time, thanks to Hayward, Carpenter, -and Tarrant, one of the strongest of counties. Northamptonshire, -Durham, Northumberland, Lincolnshire, and many others, _quos nunc -perscribere longum est_, have all fostered cricket and cricketers, -and if they have not come into the forefront of the battle yet, there -is no reason why they should not yet figure as champions, considering -the vigour and keenness with which the game is played and watched. -In fact, the question of classification is an extremely hard one, -the uncertainty of cricket and the part that luck plays adding most -materially to the difficulties. By the present system the general -results pan out pretty well, and harmonise, as a rule, with public -opinion, but accurate organisation and registration, with due regard -to merit, is impossible in a game at which such curious results -are possible as were seen in the Yorkshire-Somerset match of 1901. -Yorkshire, undefeated, was at the head of the list then, as at the -end of the year. Somerset, at the time the match was played, had won -but one match out of eight; further, the game in question was played -on Yorkshire territory, and Somerset, dismissed for 97, was headed -on the first innings by 238 runs. In the end, Somerset won by 279! -Who can classify, who promote, who degrade, when such extraordinary -fluctuations are possible? It is clearly no solution of the promotion -question to suggest that the lowest of the first-class counties should -play the highest of the minor counties, the first-class certificate -being the stake. Nor are matters facilitated when we remember that, -for financial and other reasons, the minor counties contend in a -competition in which only two days are allotted to a match instead of -three. Doubtless public opinion, _i.e._ the opinion of the players who -are before the public, offered the best solution of the difficulty of -promotion by co-opting Worcestershire into their ranks, the formality -being of the simplest nature; for Worcestershire, the fresh claimant -for the highest honours, simply announced at the Counties’ meeting -that they had arranged to play the minimum number of matches that -qualify for the first class with the requisite number of counties. -The first-class counties co-opted Worcestershire; arbitration and -adjudication were unnecessary. - -In the infancy of county cricket the meetings of the different -clubs were arranged by a sort of process which we may appropriately -describe as natural selection. What could be more natural than the -rivalry between the great professional sides—I am writing of the -‘seventies—of Yorkshire and Nottingham, and of both with Lancashire, -and of the amateur elevens of Middlesex and Gloucestershire? -Geographical convenience brought certain counties into close contact, -and pre-eminent strength tempted others to ignore all difficulties, -geographical and sentimental, and to fight the good fight to the -bitter end. All things, indeed, seemed to be working up for some form -of county competition, when the M.C.C., in 1872, offered a challenge -cup to be held by the leading county of the year. The conditions, put -in an abbreviated form, were that a certain number of counties, not -exceeding six, were to be selected by the M.C.C. as the competitors; -that the matches were to be played at Lord’s, and apparently on the -“knock-out” principle; in the event of a draw, the match was to be -replayed; the cup to be retained by any county that could win it three -years in succession. The competition, however, fell through, several -of the counties withdrawing their entries, and the Marylebone Club -consequently withdrawing its offer. Kent, however, played Sussex at -Lord’s for perhaps the only time, and on “dangerously rough wickets,” -Kent winning by 52 runs. - -It is not possible to give a list of champion counties that is -absolutely accurate, as, until the competition was regulated by proper -laws, and a recognised system of scoring points existed, the champions -were selected partly by popular opinion, partly by the written opinions -of the press, the two often differing, especially when party feeling -ran high. In the following list, however, the opinion expressed by Dr. -W. G. Grace in his _Cricket_ has generally been regarded as paramount, -and few will venture to dispute his authority. - - -CHAMPION COUNTIES, 1864-1901 - - 1864. Surrey. 1883. Yorkshire. - 1865. Notts. 1884. Notts. - 1866. Middlesex. 1885. Notts. - 1867. Yorkshire. 1886. Notts. - 1868. Yorkshire. 1887. Surrey. - 1869. Notts. 1888. Surrey. - 1870. Yorkshire. { Notts } - 1871. Notts. 1889. { Lancashire } equal. - 1872. Surrey. { Surrey } - { Gloucestershire } 1890. Surrey. - 1873. { Notts } equal. 1891. Surrey. - 1874. Gloucestershire. 1892. Surrey. - 1875. Notts. 1893. Yorkshire. - 1876. Gloucestershire. 1894. Surrey. - 1877. Gloucestershire. 1895. Surrey. - 1878. Notts. 1896. Yorkshire. - { Lancashire } 1897. Lancashire. - 1879. { Notts } equal. 1898. Yorkshire. - 1880. Notts. 1899. Surrey. - 1881. Lancashire. 1900. Yorkshire. - { Lancashire } 1901. Yorkshire. - 1882. { Notts } equal. 1902. Yorkshire. - -Thus in the last thirty-eight years, if we reckon in the occasions when -two or more counties have tied for the first place, we find that the -championship has been held by Nottinghamshire thirteen times, by Surrey -eleven times, by Yorkshire ten times, by Lancashire five times, by -Gloucestershire four times, and by Middlesex once. Sussex did not lose -a match in 1871, but only played its neighbours of Kent and Surrey, -in a year when the three northern counties were particularly strong. -The above list is of course given for what it is worth, but may be -regarded as fairly accurate, though the conditions and the methods of -calculation have differed so widely at various periods. Up to 1888, no -special system for reckoning the “order” seems to have obtained, the -results being practically arrived at “by inspection”; in that year and -in 1889 the proportion of wins to the matches played was the accepted -process, losses being ignored, and drawn games counting half a point, -so that Notts, with nine wins and three draws in fourteen games, tied -with Surrey and Lancashire, both of which had ten wins and one draw, -ten points and a half, in the same number of matches. Next year, and -till 1895, defeats were deducted from victories, and the points thus -obtained decided the award, but in the latter year the present system -was adopted: a win counts a point for, and a defeat counts a point -against; losses are deducted from wins, and a ratio is calculated -between the figure thus obtained and the number of finished matches, -draws being ignored. Thus, if a county plays 20 matches, wins 11, loses -4, and draws 5, the figure is 11-4, _i.e._ 7; the proportional fraction -is 7/15 (15 being the number of completed matches), and the figure -of merit 46.66, the original vulgar fraction being, for the sake of -convenience, multiplied by 100 and reduced to a decimal. - -Referring back to the list once more, we note that Gloucestershire was -not beaten in 1876 or 1877. Lancashire lost no match in 1881, and won -six games with an innings to spare. Lancashire and Notts had identical -figures in 1882; but critics were inclined to favour the superiority -of Lancashire, as having beaten Notts on one of the occasions when the -two counties met, while the other match was drawn. Notts in 1884 won -nine games out of ten, and drew the tenth—a great record, eclipsed by -Yorkshire, who lost no match in 1900, and only one in both 1901 and -1902. Yorkshire’s career since 1889 has been curious: in that year -she played Sussex at the very end of the season, the “wooden spoon” -depending on the result; however, Yorkshire won. In 1890 she was third. -Then followed two bad years, but in 1893 the big county was at the top, -and also in five of the next nine years, her lowest place being fourth -in 1897. Surrey has a fine sequence of six headships, beginning with -1886, by far the largest series on the list. - -A word may here be added on the connection between the Marylebone -Club and the counties. The club has always religiously abstained -from interfering in county matters unasked, though reserving to -itself the sole right of deciding all questions connected with -the game in general. But at times there seem to have been signs -of a little petulance on the part of some of the counties, or -their representatives, kindly patronage having been mistaken for -interference. Nothing, however, could be more satisfactory than the -present state of things, the M.C.C. being regarded, as it rightly -should be regarded, as the supreme _junta_ of cricket, and consequently -as the oracle to be consulted in case of difficulty, and the arbiter -in the event of difference. The county delegates discuss all county -matters, and refer the results of their deliberations to the M.C.C., -with a request that the club will duly hall-mark them, and settle any -disputes or questions that may arise out of them. A powerful neutral is -indeed necessary as arbitrator, seeing that the County Cricket Council, -which was born in 1887, proclaimed its own dissolution in 1890, having -shown no great capacity for managing its own affairs. - -We may now note a few of the more important landmarks in the history -of county cricket. The question of qualification, as already stated, -was raised as early as in 1868, for it was felt to be an abuse, as well -as unfair to certain counties, that men should be allowed to represent -two counties in one year; it was, however, an unwritten law that a man -did not play against the county of his birth, even if he did not play -for it. Thus Howitt, who was practically identified with Middlesex, -did not play against his native Notts. Southerton, however, who -played regularly for Surrey by the residential qualification, always -represented Sussex against Surrey, often to the discomfiture of his -foster-county. However, it was not till 1872 that formal legislation -took place, when the following arrangements were made:— - - (1) No man to play for more than one county in the same year. - - (2) Any player with a double qualification to state at the beginning - of each season for which of the counties he proposed to play. - - (3) Three years’ _bona fide_ residence to qualify professionals; two - years sufficient for amateurs. - -These regulations were passed at Lord’s, but next year a meeting, held -at the Oval, asked that the Lord’s authorities would put professionals -and amateurs on the same footing, and two years of residence are -now required of both alike. It was also enacted that under the term -“residence” was included the parental roof, provided that it was open -to a man as an occasional home. Lord Harris proposed in 1880 that the -two years should be reduced to one, but did not carry his motion, -though it was and is felt that in certain cases, _e.g._ in that of an -Englishman born in India, or of an officer home on furlough, the rule -bears rather hardly. It was further passed in 1898 that a man who had -played for a particular county for five years was permanently qualified -for it, provided that the series had not been broken by his playing for -another. - -It seems hardly credible, considering what county cricket has grown -to be, to hear that not till 1890 was any real classification of -counties undertaken; however, it was at a meeting of the moribund -Cricket Council, held at the Oval on 11th August, that eight counties -were pronounced to be first-class, and to be the competitors for the -championship in 1891. The sacred eight were:— - - Notts. Kent. Yorkshire. - Lancashire. Middlesex. Sussex. - Surrey. Gloucestershire. - -And these were to play home and home matches with each other. In -1892—prospective legislation this—the lowest of the first-class -counties was to play the highest of the second-class for its place, -and various details were worked out in connection with this scheme, -but when the Council assembled at Lord’s on 8th December of the same -year, so much difficulty and trouble occurred over the question of -classification that it was felt to be a relief when a representative of -Middlesex jumped up and proposed that “this Council do adjourn _sine -die_.” The resolution was accepted with gratitude, and the County -Cricket Council was no more. - -Next year Somersetshire, having arranged a purely first-class -programme, announced the fact at the annual meeting of county -secretaries, and was duly recognised as a first-class county. In -1894 the matches played by Warwickshire, Derbyshire, Hampshire, -Leicestershire, and Essex were recognised as first-class, though for -convenience the counties were considered to be outside the competition -for that year. In 1899 Worcestershire made a similar announcement to -that of Somerset, and was admitted into the sacred circle, thus making -the number of first-class counties up to fifteen. With these increases -in the number of competitors, it was clearly impossible to maintain -the original principle that each county should play home and home -matches with every other, especially in those years when an Australian -eleven was in England. Some of the larger and richer counties manage to -get through so huge a programme, even with Australian matches thrown -in, but in ordinary years the original number of eight is retained as -the qualifying number, reducible by decree of the M.C.C. in those years -when reduction is necessary. It was in consequence of the increase in -the number of the playing counties that the proportional system of 1895 -was introduced. - -We may now glance at the history of the various first-class counties, -taking them seriatim; and I must here express my indebtedness to K. S. -Ranjitsinhji’s _Jubilee Book of Cricket_, which is a perfect mine of -information on the subject. - -_Derbyshire._—Though the county club only came to its birth in 1870, -cricket had long flourished in the land, fostered largely, as one -authority tells us, by the clergy. “The game in Derbyshire,” he tells -us, “owes much at one time and another to the parsons—a fact that is -perhaps worthy of more general recognition than is sometimes allowed.” -The first appearance of the new county was remarkable, as on the Old -Trafford ground, in its very first match, it defeated no less a side -than Lancashire by an innings and 11 runs, the home county mustering -no more than 25 notches in its first innings, when Gregory actually -had six wickets for 9 runs. So strong was the county attack in its -early days, Gregory being reinforced by Platts and Hickton, Flint, W. -Mycroft, and Hay, that the eleven was jestingly described as consisting -of ten bowlers and a wicket-keeper, the batting being by no means -powerful. Mycroft was one of the most formidable bowlers in England, -but with the decadence of himself and the rest of the band, the bowling -weakened as the batting improved, though at last the latter, thanks -partly to the transfer of good men to other counties, failed so sadly -that in 1887 the county was reduced to the second class, only to be -restored in 1895, and in that year to reach as high a place as fifth -in the championship competition. Fine bowling was again the chief -contributory to this success, G. G. Walker, George Davidson, Porter, -and Hume, with Storer to keep wicket, being backed by such good -batsmen as S. H. Evershed, L. G. Wright, and Chatterton. In Davidson -and Storer, indeed, Derbyshire possessed a pair of wonderfully fine -all-round men, Davidson’s premature death being a grievous loss. Last -year (1902) the fortunes of Derbyshire were not particularly brilliant, -but the county, always a by-word for bad luck, especially at one period -when it seemed impossible for its captain to win the toss, made a good -step forward. It is unfortunate for a hard-working and enthusiastic -committee that the Derby public gives to cricket but one tithe of the -support that it lavishes on football; however, there are plenty of -liberal supporters of the club, which has also, in its times of need, -proved its ability for raising the necessary funds by means of bazaars -and the like. The ground, which is at Derby, has a total extent of -eleven acres, with a good pavilion and an excellent pitch. - -Essex, founded in 1874, originally settled at Brentwood, but migrated -to Leyton, as a more accessible place. The county has had a hard fight -in the past to make both ends meet; indeed, at one time the end seemed -to be at hand, but kindly friends, chiefly in the persons of C. M. -Tebbut and C. E. Green, helped it out of its trouble. To the latter’s -enthusiasm the very existence of the club is largely due. Created -first-class in 1895, Essex has never achieved the championship, though -it has more than once knocked possible champions out, especially in its -earlier years, when the ground was not all that a batsman could desire; -but in 1901, thanks to some of the modern patent “mixtures” used in -dressing the pitch, so easy was the wicket that it was impossible, -apparently, to get batsmen out, and the scoring was in consequence -abnormally large. By way of revenge, when the ground is spoilt by -rain, it is absolutely unplayable. In cricketers Essex has been rich: -C. J. Kortright is one of the fastest bowlers of this age or any -other, and in the days of rough pitches was a terror to the county’s -opponents; C. M’Gahey and P. Perrin, known as “the Essex twins,” have -helped to win or save many a match; while in Young, an ex-sailor, the -county unearthed a bowler who was good enough to play for England in -1899, but has done little or nothing since. The name of A. P. Lucas -must not be omitted, as, though he is now some forty-six years old, -he plays cricket in as sound and stylish a fashion as when he was an -undergraduate at Cambridge. As before hinted, though Essex has never -been close up for the championship, it has always been a factor to be -reckoned with. - -Gloucestershire is, of course, “the county of the Graces,” which -is synonymous with stating that its fortunes have been watched and -assisted by three of the most talented and experienced cricketers -who have ever taken the field. In the early days, it seemed to exist -by them and for them; but though professional talent appeared but -slowly, a sturdy band of amateurs soon gathered round the brotherhood, -and showed that good batting, especially when attended by superb -fielding, can compensate for only fair bowling. Such men as W. O. -Moberley, F. Townsend, W. Fairbanks, W. R. Gilbert, and J. A. Bush (the -wicket-keeper) were both scorers and savers of runs. Of the Graces it -is needless to say anything; they were batsmen, bowlers, and fieldsmen, -all of different types, but all of one class. E. M.’s fielding at point -was only to be matched by G. F.’s at long-leg and W. G.’s anywhere, -while it was mainly in county cricket that the Doctor’s famous leg-trap -was so successful. Pages might be devoted to what the champion did for -Gloucestershire, but probably no individual triumph ever delighted him -so much as that it should, in 1874, four years after its foundation, -be the champion county of England. It was in a Gloucestershire match -that Grace scored his hundredth century, completed the 1000 runs that -he made in the single month of May 1895, and twice scored a double -century, _v._ Kent in 1887 and _v._ Yorkshire in 1888. To pry deeper -with the pen into the great man’s performance would be to write, -what has been written before, a history of modern cricket or his own -biography: the works would be almost identical. Woof is undoubtedly -the best professional bowler that the county has unearthed, just as -Board is the best wicket-keeper, but Midwinter, the Anglo-Australian, -Paish, and Roberts have all done good service with the ball. Ferris, -however, another Australian who settled in Gloucestershire, quite lost -his bowling as his batting improved. Of more recent players the most -prominent are undoubtedly Charles Townsend, son of the aforementioned -Frank Townsend, and G. L. Jessop. Like Ferris, the former lost a little -of his bowling when he became—he has now apparently retired—the best -left-handed batsman in England. Of Jessop’s hurricane hitting and -rapid scoring the whole cricket world has heard and talked. The county -ground is at Bristol, and is well equipped for its purpose, but the -more famous cricket used to be played on the grounds of Clifton and -Cheltenham Colleges, the Cheltenham “Week” being one of the events of -the season. One hears, however, that the Clifton cricket ground will be -used no more for county matches, owing to the lack of local support. In -the early days the matches between Middlesex and Gloucestershire, two -teams of powerful amateur batsmen, were famous for the long scoring -that prevailed. - -Hampshire, as already stated, was the champion county as far back as, -roughly speaking, 1780, its famous downs, Windmill Down and Broad -Halfpenny Down, having been the scene of many great contests in the -days when the Hambledon Club was the champion of England. The history -of those days and of the heroes of those days has been so often and -so admirably written, besides being somewhat foreign to the scope of -this chapter, that one need do little more than record the names of -David Harris and William Beldham, as the champion bowler and batsman of -their day. But Hampshire found that cricket, like everything else, is -transient and ephemeral, and almost a century after the championship -days, in 1874, to be accurate, the old Cambridge captain, Clement -Booth, worked hard to restore the county’s old prestige. Even his -energy failed, for, as already noted, it was not till 1894 that the -county was recognised as being of first-class merit. Hampshire has -naturally been the county of the soldier cricketer, and can boast of -E. G. Wynyard and R. M. Poore as being probably the best batsmen that -ever wore the King’s uniform, J. E. Greig, another soldier, being but -little behind them. What the value of these men was to the county is -amply demonstrated by the fact that in the absence of the first two -Hants won never a match in 1900, but with Greig’s appearance next year -the county, with six each of wins, losses, and draws, at least gave as -good as she got. In E. I. M. Barrett and the professional Barton the -army is still further represented in the Hampshire ranks, with a new -and valuable civilian recruit in Llewelyn. In fact, now that the piping -times of peace have arrived, and the soldier cricketers listen for the -pavilion’s bell rather than the _réveillé_ of the bugle, Hants may -well hope to find herself higher up the ladder of cricket. Other good -names are those of the two Cantabs, A. J. L. Hill and F. E. Lacey, the -present secretary of the M.C.C. The ground, a very fine one, is in, or -rather near, Southampton, the club having bought the freehold of it, -and it is a great improvement on the classical but unsuitable Antelope -ground, situated in the middle of the town. - -[Illustration: _AN OLD “PLAY” BILL._] - -Kent was one of the pioneers of cricket, the earliest match which she -played as a county dating back to 1711, nearly two hundred years ago, -when she tackled an eleven of All England. It was, however, a full -century later when she was at her prime, supported by such famous -performers as Alfred Mynn, Fuller Pilch, Adams, Wenman, “Felix,” and -others; but of these Pilch was a Suffolk man, who was induced to settle -in Kent and give his services to the county. Mynn was probably one of -the finest all-round cricketers that ever lived—a fine bat, tremendous -hitter, and a grand bowler of the very fast type; yet it is recorded -that “off one of Mr. Mynn’s tremendous shooters” T. A. Anson, a Cantab -wicket-keeper, stumped a man, “using the left hand only”! In later days -Kent has continued to flourish exceedingly, but has never achieved -champion honours, being, as a rule, like most of the southern counties, -deficient in bowling, though Willsher, whose career terminated in the -early ‘seventies, was a left-handed bowler who was second to none. -He was also the hero of the first great no-balling incident. No one -has worked harder for Kent cricket, and cricket in general, than Lord -Harris, to whose vigour, and to whose enthusiastic efforts to enforce -the proper spirit in which the game should be played, the county owes -a deep debt of gratitude. The headquarters of the county club, which -was established in 1842, the year of the first Canterbury “Week,” are -at Canterbury, but the executive rightly believes in the distribution -of matches throughout the county, and we find that county games have -been played, and are still played, not merely at Canterbury, but at -Gravesend, Catford Bridge, Beckenham, Tonbridge—where there is also -a “week,”—Maidstone, Tunbridge Wells, and Blackheath—truly a goodly -list for a county that is not abnormally large. The Mote ground at -Maidstone probably possesses a greater slope than any other ground on -which great games are played. Among the more famous Kent cricketers we -may quote the names of W. Yardley, W. H. Patterson, J. R. Mason, F. -Marchant, W. Rashleigh, E. F. S. Tylecote, Stanley Christopherson, the -brothers Penn, W. M. Bradley, C. J. Burnup, and Hearnes innumerable. -Than J. R. Mason, the late captain, there are few finer all-round men. - -Lancashire dates back to 1864 as a county club, but Liverpool and -Manchester had long had strong clubs of their own, and at present the -whole county is a perfect hotbed of cricket. Nowhere is a more critical -and enthusiastic body of spectators to be found, though cricket “caught -on” later in Lancashire, as in other northern counties, than in the -south. The bulk of the big matches, including one test match when the -Australians are in evidence, are played at the Old Trafford ground in -Manchester, where there is huge accommodation and a capital pavilion, -a reduced facsimile of that at Lord’s; but the wicket, though the turf -is excellent, is often on the slow side, as Manchester is a rainy spot. -A certain number of big matches are also allotted to the Aigburth -ground, Liverpool. It would be hard to say who is the finest player -that the county has produced, but it is easy to name the most popular -and the most famous, namely, A. N. Hornby, the present president, who -played his first county match in 1867, and has only recently retired -from county cricket. He was for many years the captain of the team and -has probably stolen more runs (and run more partners out) than any -other cricketer. From a mere cricket point of view, A. G. Steel is -doubtless the greatest of Lancastrians as an all-round player, but his -career was all too short, while another equally famous Lancastrian, A. -C. Maclaren, holds the record for the highest individual score made -in big cricket, to wit, his 424, made against Somerset in 1895. Like -Hornby, he is a Harrovian, while Steel, as all the world knows, or -ought to know, hails from Marlborough. Among other great amateurs who -have played for the county should be mentioned the names of Appleby, -Rowley, Makinson, F. W. Wright, Eccles, and Crossfield, while the roll -of professionals is equally famous—Barlow, Briggs, Watson, Mold, -Crossland, Albert Ward, Tyldesley, Pilling (prince of wicket-keepers), -Frank Sugg, and others. It is a curious fact, however, that no less -than four of the great Lancashire bowlers have, rightly or wrongly, -been severely criticised, and even penalised, for throwing when they -were supposed to be bowling. - -Leicestershire took to itself a county club in 1878, the very first -match being played against the first Australian eleven, and a very -fair fight being made against that strong team. Matches had, however, -been played under the title of “Leicestershire” between the years 1789 -and 1829. Like other counties, Leicestershire has had some hard times, -pecuniarily, to pass through, but now that the storm has been safely -weathered and a permanent home found, greater prosperity in every sense -may be hoped for. It cannot be said that the county has hitherto had -great success in the county contests, as eleventh is the highest place -it has yet reached; but the 1902 eleven was considered to be much -stronger than any other that had represented the county, so that, as -there is plenty of fight left in the men, better results may be looked -for. Pougher is probably the best all-round man that Leicestershire has -produced, the bright, particular star in his career being the bowling -down of five Australian wickets for _no_ runs. This occurred at Lord’s -in 1896. In C. E. de Trafford, the present captain, Leicestershire -possesses one of the hardest hitters and fastest scorers in England, -and in Woodcock one of the fastest bowlers. Among its amateur players -have been numbered, or are numbered, R. A. H. Mitchell, T. S. Pearson, -H. P. Arnall Thompson, G. S. and C. Marriott, C. J. B. Wood, and Dr. -R. Macdonald, and, of professionals, King, Knight, Geeson, Whiteside, -Parnham, Rylott, Wheeler, Warren, and Tomlin. - -The Middlesex County Club first saw the light in 1864, the year of -Lancashire’s birth, but, like all other counties, had played matches -long anterior to that year under the style and title of “Middlesex”; in -fact, in 1802 and 1803, as mentioned before, twenty-two of Middlesex -encountered twenty-two of Surrey. Middlesex is as much “the county of -the Walkers” as Gloucestershire is “the county of the Graces,” for the -name of John Walker is identified with the county as closely as are the -initials V. E., R. D., and I. D. Indeed, it is to their perseverance -and enthusiasm, to say nothing of their unbounded generosity, that the -club ever existed or continued to exist. The first home of the club -was a ground near the Cattle Market, in Islington. It then migrated to -the Athletic Club’s ground at Lillie Bridge, and was nearly dissolved -for want of funds. A migration to Prince’s ground in Chelsea helped to -replenish the treasury, and a final resting-place—at least all hope it -will prove to be final—was found at Lord’s in 1877. It is noteworthy -that in 1866, only two years after the club’s foundation, Middlesex -was the champion county, and was specially invited to play All England -next year; but the result was disastrous. The weakness of Middlesex was -always due to a dearth of bowling; in amateur batting Gloucestershire -itself was hardly its superior; but of late years J. T. Hearne was in -the very first flight of bowlers, as also A. E. Trott, the Australian -professional. Howitt, of Nottingham, long did good service, as also -Burton, Clarke, Phillips, and Rawlin, most of whom—one blushes to -say it—were aliens. Several brotherhoods have done good service to -Middlesex—in triads, the Walkers, Studds, and Fords, and in pairs, the -Lytteltons, Webbes, and Douglases; while of the individuals who have -been at the very top of the tree may be mentioned especially the three -Walkers, C. T. Studd, A. J. Webbe, Sir T. C. O’Brien, A. W. Ridley, T. -S. Pearson, G. F. Vernon, A. E. Stoddart, F. G. J. Ford, S. W. Scott, -C. I. Thornton, G. MacGregor, E. A. Nepean, and a host of others who -are only in a sense of the word “minor lights.” To attempt to single -out individuals for comparison would be equally hopeless and invidious; -it is only when we recall the weakness of the Middlesex bowling that -we appreciate the strength of the batting that has enabled it to hold -its own, though since 1866 championship honours have not come the -metropolitan county’s way. It has, however, till last year, 1902, -held a high place. Among its amateur bowlers should be mentioned the -Walkers—of course,—J. Robertson, A. F. J. Ford, E. A. Nepean, C. K. -Francis, A. W. Ridley, and E. Rutter, while no county has produced such -a trio of amateur wicket-keepers as M. Turner, Hon. A. Lyttelton, and -Gregor MacGregor, the present captain of the side. - -Nottinghamshire played its first match in 1771, but the Trent Bridge -ground was not opened till 1839, nor the club formed till 1859 or 1860; -but it is safe to say that no club has sent forth such a stream of -great cricketers, some to play for their own county, and some to take -out naturalisation papers in others, to say nothing of hosts of useful -second-class players and practice-bowlers. The Trent Bridge ground, -originally opened by the famous slow bowler William Clarke, is rather -larger than most grounds, and tries the batsman’s powers of endurance -rather severely, but the pavilion and the other appointments of the -ground are inferior to none, Lord’s alone and the Oval being excepted. -Of the famous players the name is legion; posterity and contemporaries -must settle among themselves as to whether George Parr (the great -leg-hitter), Daft (the stylist), Shrewsbury (the all-patient), W. Gunn -(the personification of style and patience combined), or Barnes were -the greatest, not forgetting that among Notts batsmen were such men -as A. O. Jones, J. A. Dixon, and J. G. Beevor, with William Oscroft, -Selby, Wild, Summers, Flowers, and Guy, while the bowling names are a -dazzling array of talent—Clarke, Tinley, Jackson, Grundy, Alfred Shaw, -J. C. Shaw, Morley, Flowers, Martin M’Intyre, Attewell, and John Gunn, -with Biddulph, Sherwin, and Wild as wicket-keepers; while to the best -of bowlers should be added the name of Lockwood, who, unsuccessful for -his native county, has done wonderful work for his adopted county, -Surrey. Notts has been champion in no less than thirteen years, and -thus heads the list. - -Somersetshire can boast of no recorded antiquity as a cricketing -society, the county club only being inaugurated in 1875. Curiously -enough, the first meeting to consider the proposed club was held -at Sidmouth, and the first circular issued from Ilfracombe, both -Devonshire towns. It was not till 1891 that Somerset, having defeated -all the other second-class counties, passed into the upper ranks, being -then almost as strong as it ever has been since. The county ground at -Taunton is a gem, but rather a small gem; hence hits into churchyard -and river are not infrequent, and scoring rules high. Further, it is -a tradition of the county that it generally beats Surrey, and not -seldom Yorkshire, in the Taunton match. Of its players, H. T. Hewett -was a splendid left-handed forcing player; L. C. H. Palairet is a -grand player and a stylist that has no rival; his brother, R. C. N., -who has partly retired, was always valuable, but inferior to his -elder brother; S. M. J. Woods has lost his wonderful bowling, but is -a fine and scoring batsman; V. T. Hill was a wonderful hitter, while -J. B. Challen, C. E. Dunlop, W. C. Hadley, and G. Fowler were all -useful men. No great professional players have as yet been unearthed, -as Braund is a Surrey man who has cast in his lot with the western -county, though Tyler, Nicholls, Cranfield, and Gill were, or are, a -fairly good quartette of bowlers; but bowling has always been a weak -point, ever since Woods strained his side. There has never been a -dearth of wicket-keeping, all amateur, such names as A. E. Newton, -Rev. A. P. Wickham, and L. H. Gay being famous. It must be admitted, -however, that, with its crack players ageing, and new blood not being -forthcoming, the prospects of Somersetshire are not at their brightest; -but whatever the brilliancy of the prospects, there can be no question -as to the brilliancy of the cricket as played both in the present and -in the past. No side has been more exhilarating in its methods than the -sides captained successively by Hewett and Woods. - -[Illustration: - _From a Drawing by_ _Thos. Rowlandson._ -_RURAL SPORTS OR A CRICKET MATCH EXTRAORDINARY AT BALL’S POND, -NEWINGTON, ON OCT. 3rd, 1811._ -(_Probably the return Match to that -mentioned in the advertisement facing page 152._)] - -Though Surrey has only been champion eleven times to Nottinghamshire’s -thirteen, yet she might quite fairly assume the words _nulli secunda_ -as her motto. Not that unbroken success has been the law of her -existence, for there were times when Surrey’s fortunes were at a -very low ebb, but patience and perseverance have enabled the county -to win its way upward, while in the list of brilliant cricketers few -counties, perhaps none, can claim the right to enrol more names. The -foundation of the club dates back to 1845, the first match between -Surrey and England to 1747, and by the end of that century, when the -dispersion of the Hambledon Club set several Surrey players—Beldham -(“Silver Billy”) among them—free to return to their native shire, -the county was actually strong enough to play fourteen of England, -but then almost collapsed, as far as organised cricket was concerned, -for over thirty years. With resuscitation came success, and for -three consecutive years, 1849-51, Surrey was unbeaten, her successes -continuing till the ‘seventies, and being due to such fine amateurs -as F. P. Miller, C. G. Lane, and F. Burbridge, supported by H. H. -Stephenson, Lockyer, Southerton, Griffith, Mortlock, Julius Cæsar, -Jupp, the brothers Humphrey, Caffyn, Street, and Pooley. But as these -men passed into the veteran stage, no others of equal merit arose -to take their place, and with the bowling sadly deteriorated, the -position of Surrey was quite unworthy of its name and fame, though by -a kind of spurt she was champion county in 1872, Jupp, the Humphreys, -Pooley, and Southerton being the chief factors in this success, which -was not repeated for fifteen years, when for six consecutive seasons -Surrey headed the table. It was mainly the stubborn discipline of -John Shuter, the Winchester cricketer, that kept the eleven together -during its period of depression, and he had his reward when Lohmann, -Bowley, Beaumont, and Sharpe, by their excellent bowling, did much to -make their foster-county—none of these were natives of Surrey—forge -ahead and stay ahead. In later days Richardson and W. Lockwood (the -discarded Nottinghamshire player) bore the brunt of the bowling. -It is instructive to note that so many of the Surrey bowlers have -been born in other counties, but if even the fact lends itself to -criticism from one point of view, it at least throws excellent light -on the Surrey system of selection and training where young players are -concerned. Surrey’s wicket-keepers have been Lockyer, Pooley, and Wood -in practically unbroken succession, and all three were of the best, -Lockyer’s name being worthy of classification with those of Pilling -and Blackham. Of her batsmen, the names of some of her professionals -have already been mentioned, but there are others who are and will be -equally, or more, famous—those, to wit, of Abel and Hayward, Maurice -Read and Brockwell, and in a less degree Lockwood and Holland. Among -amateur batsmen the name of W. W. Read is a name that will never be -forgotten, nor those of the successive captains—J. Shuter, K. J. Key, -and D. L. A. Jephson, while we may add those of W. E. Roller, H. D. G. -Leveson-Gower, F. H. Boult, C. W. Burls, V. F. S. Crawford, as those of -men who have at different periods rendered good service to the county. -Though not situated amid picturesque scenery, the Oval is _qua_ cricket -ground perfect, the accommodation being ample and the wickets superb. -The new pavilion alone cost from £25,000 to £30,000. The Prince of -Wales is the county’s landlord. - -Sussex can boast a venerable antiquity and the royal patronage of -George IV. when he was Prince of Wales, these being the days of William -Lillywhite, the “Nonpareil,” Box and the Broadbridges, to say nothing -of C. G. Taylor, the Cantab “crack.” The county club was formed in -1839 on Brown’s ground, the said Brown being the famous fast bowler, -who is said to have bowled through a coat, and to have killed a dog on -the other side! But the builder was inexorable in Brighton, and the -county was hustled from place to place, till it settled finally—it -is hoped—in its present splendid ground at Hove, which is, however, -save in the comfort of its appointment, not one whit better for cricket -purposes than the Brunswick ground, which the county used between 1847 -and 1871. In modern times the names of great Sussex bowlers are few, -Southerton playing but rarely, and the others being Tate, the brothers -Hide, Parris, and Walter Humphreys, the “Lobster.” The earlier names -include those of several Lillywhites, Wisden, Brown, and Dean, while -of wicket-keepers we may quote those of Box and Ellis, Harry Phillips, -and Harry Butt. One is almost bewildered by the dazzling list of great -batsmen who have represented Sussex—C. G. Taylor, Wisden, J. M. -Cotterill, L. Winslow, R. T. Ellis, W. Newham, G. Brann, F. M. Lucas, -Bean, Killick, and Marlow, to say nothing of the great Anglo-Australian -player, W. L. Murdoch, who settled in Sussex and was at once invited -to captain the eleven. But great as these names are, the names of -C. B. Fry and K. S. Ranjitsinhji are perhaps even greater. They are -household words at present, as are their wonderful feats with the bat, -which—as the tale is not yet complete—may be left to be chronicled by -posterity. At the present day, were the Sussex bowling in any sense -on a par with its batting, the county would probably carry all before -it. One record of Fry’s should, however, be recorded, as it is so far -ahead of any similar feat. In 1901 he actually scored six successive -centuries, the scores being: 106 _v._ Hants, 209 _v._ Yorks, 149 _v._ -Middlesex, 105 _v._ Surrey, 140 _v._ Kent, and 105 _v._ Yorkshire. The -last of these was made for an Eleven of England, all the others for -Sussex. No one else, not even W. G. Grace, has ever made more than -three hundreds in succession. - -The Warwickshire County C.C. only dates back to 1882, but it was some -years before it “caught on,” though it was the energy of William Ansell -in pushing the club that led not only to its recognition, but, more or -less directly, to the dissolution of the County Cricket Council. Being -first of the second-class counties in 1892 and 1893—bracketed with -Derbyshire in the latter year—it was duly promoted to higher rank, and -opened the 1894 season in sensational fashion by defeating, in rapid -succession, Notts, Surrey, and Kent, no other county being successful -that year in beating Surrey at the Oval. The county has always held its -own well, even though, with the exception of the internationals, Lilley -and W. G. Quaife, it has produced no very prominent men: it has won -its way by steady and consistent cricket, rather than by brilliancy. -The Quaifes—there are two of them—were originally Sussex men, and -it is but right to record that a good deal of feeling was caused by -the manner of their secession. The present[2] and the only captain of -the club is an old Eton and Cambridge captain, H. W. Bainbridge, who -has been blessed in having so superlative a wicket-keeper as Lilley, -and such prodigies of steadiness as Quaife and Kinneir, to serve under -him. L. C. Docker, the brothers Hill, and T. S. Fishwick are the -better-known amateurs, with Devey, Charlesworth, Santall, Hargreave, -Field, Pallett, Shilton, Diver, and Whitehead among the professionals, -few or none of whom have made a great stir in the cricket world. The -county ground is at Edgbaston, a suburb of Birmingham, and being well -equipped in every way, was selected as the scene of the first test -match played in 1902, a match that is dealt with in a later chapter. - -The existence of Worcestershire, the latest recruit to the first -class, may be considered as due to the superlative excellence of three -brothers, the brothers Foster of Malvern College, whose initials, W. -L., H. K., and R. E., are as familiar as are those of the Studds, -Graces, or Walkers; indeed, some wit, with a keen ear for assonance, -has dubbed the county “Fostershire.” Splendid batsmen as they all are, -no one of them is a bowler, wherein they fall behind the three great -fraternities quoted above. The family has, however, a record of its -own, as in 1899, playing against Hampshire, R. E. scored 134 and 101 -not out, and W. L. 140 and 172 not out; further, R. E. has a private -record of _his_ own, having made 102 not out and 136 against the -Players at Lord’s in 1900. In Burrows, Wilson, Arnold, and Bowley, with -Straw to keep wicket, Worcestershire has put some useful professionals -into the field, while the other better-known amateurs are W. W. Lowe, -G. Simpson-Hayward, and the Bromley-Martins. The county ground is to -be found at Worcester, and, like most of its sort, is in all respects -excellent. - -On Yorkshire cricket, and especially on Yorkshire bowlers, volumes -might be written, but powerful as the county is now in the present, -and has been in the past, it has not been free from the ordinary -vicissitudes of life in general and of cricket in particular, to which -fact allusion has been made earlier in this chapter. It has also -been stated before that Sheffield was the original home of Yorkshire -cricket, being a club strong enough to play the rest of the county and -beat it, and boasting in Dearman and Marsden, the famous left-hander, -two of the great stars of the early nineteenth century. However, -the county club was organised in 1862, with the Sheffield ground at -Bramall Lane as its headquarters, though the big county is so rich in -fine grounds that it distributes its favours among many towns. In the -plethora of great professionals the amateur element has always been -in a minority in the county eleven, though the names of Lord Hawke, -T. L. Taylor, Frank Mitchell, and F. S. Jackson, and in a quieter way -of George Savile, Rev. E. S. Carter, A. Sellers, F. W. Milligan, E. -T. Hirst, and R. W. Frank, will always be familiar to cricketers, to -which may be added that of G. A. B. Leatham, whose wicket-keeping -powers would have found him a place in many a good county eleven; but -the county of Pinder and the two Hunters has not been hard up for a -custodian for many years. Of the amateurs, be it said that no more -brilliant all-round cricketer has walked out of a pavilion than F. S. -Jackson, and that in Lord Hawke the county found an ideal man, apart -from his batting powers, to command its side, a side, too, that has -for many years been composed exclusively of Yorkshire-born men. Lord -Hawke found the county at a low ebb, shared its struggle upward, and -is finally the proud leader of a body of men that lost but two county -matches in three years, and he has had the additional satisfaction of -helping to raise the county to such admirable financial condition, -that it is able to treat its professionals with a liberality that but -few other counties can emulate or even approach. It is not unnatural -in consequence that the Yorkshire eleven should be practically a band -of very happy and contented brothers. The names of the great county -bowlers are legion: every one has read of Freeman and Emmett, Ulyett -and Bates and Peate, Hirst and Rhodes, Slinn, Atkinson, Allan Hill, -Peel, Haigh, Ulyett and Wainwright, but one notes with interest how -many of these have been left-handers. Then the batsmen—Stephenson -(E.), Rowbotham, Iddison (a lob bowler of much merit), the Greenwoods -(Luke and Andrew), Ephraim Lockwood (of wonderful cutting powers), -Bates, Louis Hall (the pioneer of stickers), Peel, Brown and -Tunnicliffe, Denton and Wainwright, _cum multis aliis_. It is indeed -a wonderful list of names, names of cricketers of all sorts and -conditions, as versatile as they are numerous. One wonders, considering -the years that they cover, that Yorkshire has ever been anything but -champion county, especially as the names excluded are only a whit less -well known than those that are included. - -[Illustration: _THE CRICKET GROUND AT DARNALL, NEAR SHEFFIELD._] - -Such in brief is the history, a mere sketch, of our more important -counties, their rise and their fall: a full and complete account of -them would fill the whole of a goodly volume, which would be replete -with interest and anecdote, but which would require the patience and -the genius of a Macaulay or a Froude for its adequate and comprehensive -compilation. Cricket may indeed be but a mere pastime, but it is a -pastime that has come home to the hearts of Englishmen, or at least -to the hearts of a goodly number of Englishmen, during a period of -some two hundred years. He who would write that history must be a man -of infinite patience and vast perseverance. He will not find cricket -history writ large in columns of big print, but, for the earlier days -at least, often packed away in obscure corners of local journals. -Thirty years ago there was no daily sporting paper, while the big -“dailies” took but little notice of cricket matches. Add a hundred -years on to the thirty, and only local papers record a great match. -Consequently, he who would write a full and accurate account of the -cricket played by the counties, must rummage even more painfully than -the recorder of political facts, and in journals that are far less -accessible and that give less prominence to the special facts of which -the writer is in quest. The great work may yet be written, but the -writing thereof will be largely a labour of love, for the divers into -cricket lore are but few, and the writer will naturally wonder whether -the game will be worth the candle. - -[Illustration: - _From a Painting by_ _J. Lush._ -_THE EARL OF MARCH._] - - -[Illustration] - - - - -CHAPTER VII - -AMATEURS AND PROFESSIONALS - -By the HON. R. H. LYTTELTON - - -It would not appear to be a difficult task to make a clear and accurate -definition of the two common words found at the head of this chapter. -Forty years ago the making of such a definition would have been easy, -and if we could regard things from an ideal point of view, it would -be easy now. There are, however, so many difficulties at present in -the way, so many changes in the carrying on of the game of cricket, -so much acquiesced in which formerly would not have been dreamt of, -that the old boundary line has been obliterated—all is confusion, and -in too many cases there can hardly be said to be any difference or -distinction between the amateur and professional in these days in the -world of cricket. - -It is strange that such should be the case, and it is also strange that -these difficulties should exist so much more in the case of cricket -than any other game. Whether this always will be the case appears to -be doubtful. In the case of rowing there seem to be dangers ahead, and -perhaps in the world of football also. But if I am not misinformed, -the rowing authorities are not troubled in the matter as far as this -country is concerned. It is owing to the fact that in America there -do not appear to be the same regulations on this vexed question as -in England—and the American invasion of England includes the chief -prizes of Henley as well as the tube railways of London. The rowing -authorities have a very difficult task before them. To come to a -right decision, and yet not to offend the feelings of a nation we all -respect, and have every wish to be, from a sporting point of view, on -good terms with, is by no means an easy task, but I can only hope that -a satisfactory decision will be attained. - -Cricket, however, seems to stand altogether on a different footing to -any other game. The boundary line between the two classes of amateurs -and professionals has become blurred and indistinct, if indeed it has -not entirely disappeared. As far as I know, no such state of things -exists in other games, such as golf, tennis, football, or billiards. -The reason why this is so seems to be twofold. The first is that if -a man wants to play as much cricket as he likes he must practically -devote five months of the year to nothing else. A match takes three -days to finish, and the whole of each day is taken up by the game, and -in this respect cricket stands alone. You may play golf or tennis every -day if you have the opportunity; but two or three hours is enough for -this, and the rest of the time may be spent in the counting-house. -First-class cricket, however, now is of so exacting a nature that -it really amounts to this, that nearly half the year must be wholly -devoted to the game, and comparatively few amateurs can afford to do -this. The other reason is somewhat on a par with the experiences of -rowing men, and is because of the Australian invasion. International -cricket between this country and Australia has come to stay, and it -is much to be hoped this will always remain. Nothing in cricket is so -interesting, and no other matches contain so many exciting elements, -and in no other class of match is such a high standard of skill shown. -In Australia, however, there does not seem to be any very clear -distinction between the amateur and professional. In 1878, when they -first came to England, the two Bannermans and, I think, Midwinter were -classed as professionals, the rest as amateurs. In subsequent years -there was no distinction drawn, and without going too minutely into the -merits of the case, they are now all called amateurs. It may not be -obvious what difference this makes to English cricket, but nevertheless -on more than one occasion there has been friction, and it is notorious -that the bone of contention is to be found in the fact that the -English professionals have a somewhat well-founded idea in their -minds that the Australian cricketers are really professionals like -themselves, and they should in both countries stand on the same footing. - -It is necessary, however, that some comparison be made of the -conditions that existed thirty years ago, with the state of things now. -This is a delicate and thorny subject, and it is almost, if not quite, -impossible to avoid treading on corns; but the matter is a critical one -for the welfare of the great game, and some clear understanding should -be arrived at, and to attain this the public should know all the facts, -that they may come to a right opinion. - -It has been said that a definition of the words amateur and -professional forty years ago would have been easy, and this is true. -The question of money for the amateur was purely a personal one for -himself. He played cricket according to his means. If he was of a -sufficiently high class, and was qualified to play for a leading -county, he played on the home ground if his business, if he had one, -allowed him, and if he could not afford railway and hotel fares, he -did not play the return match, it may be two hundred miles away. No -doubt there were far fewer matches in those days, for Surrey, the chief -county in the ‘sixties, only played on an average ten or eleven matches -a year. For an amateur of Surrey to have played in all these matches -was no doubt a tolerably arduous task, but it was not an impossible -one. If the first-class amateur could not afford to play away from -the neighbourhood of his home, he simply declined to play. The reason -was obvious, but tact forbade the cause being inquired into, and the -amateur was not thought any the worse of on this account. No doubt -cricket was not in one sense the serious thing it is now. There were no -carefully compiled and intolerably wearisome tables of statistics that -drown one in these days; nevertheless there was just as much keenness -for success, but championships and records did not constitute the -_summum bonum_; it was the genuine sport that was chiefly considered. -In other words, the game was generally carried on, in the best sense, -in more of the amateur spirit than now, and this notwithstanding the -fact that far more so-called amateurs play first-class cricket now than -formerly. There was more cricket in matches of the class of Gentlemen -of Worcestershire against Gentlemen of Warwickshire; the famous touring -pure amateur clubs, such as Quidnuncs, Harlequins, I Zingari, and Free -Foresters, played as they do now; and there were as many club matches -played by the M.C.C. and Surrey clubs as were in those days wanted, and -in these the amateur was able to take his part. - -The ambition of every player in these days is to reach such a measure -of skill as to earn him a place in the picked eleven of England -against Australia, and very properly is this the case. To represent -the Gentlemen against the Players at Lord’s is still the goal of many, -but not so much now as it was. For a University man a place in his -University eleven is as keen an object of ambition now as it used to -be, and though the bowling may be weak and the fielding not so good -as it ought to be, still University cricket is the same as it always -has been—the embodiment of the purest amateur spirit of the game. -But forty years ago, to be selected to represent the Gentlemen or -the Players, as the case might be, set the seal on both amateurs and -professionals, in the same way as to be selected to play for England -against Australia does now. The amateur came up cheerfully to share -in the annual defeat that almost invariably awaited him; the bowling -for most of them was too good, and his record, speaking generally, at -Lord’s at any rate, would be laughed at by the modern critic, stuffed -out as he is with centuries, statistics, and comparisons, but to be -selected made him happy. - -The reader may now naturally ask, When and how does the amateur of -forty years ago differ from the amateur of the present day? The -question will be discussed more fully later on, but the answer is -simply this, that in former times no amateur ever received one penny -for his services, whether disguised under the name of expenses or by -the receipts of a benefit match, euphemistically called a complimentary -match. Here at once is the difference, and for the present it is -sufficient merely to state the fact, and file it, as it were, for -future reference. - -The professional of old was drawn from the same sources as he is now. -He comes from the shop, from the factory, from the pit, and from the -slum. He had by no means so much cricket as he has now in the way of -first-class county matches, but he filled up his time, if he arrived -at a certain height of skill, by playing a series of touring matches -against local twenty-twos, and these matches, if they did nothing else, -gave an impetus to local cricket. There can be no doubt, however, -that an enormous change has taken place in the type of professional -cricketer. The first-class modern player moves altogether in a higher -plane. He earns far more money in populous centres, such as Bradford, -London, and Manchester. He has been known to clear £2000 and more by -a benefit match. A spectator coming on to Lord’s at five o’clock in -the afternoon, during the annual match between Gentlemen and Players, -might easily for a moment be uncertain which side were fielding. There -could have been no mistake in old days. Older cricketers well remember -Jemmy Grundy in an old velvet cap more fitted for the North Pole than -an English cricket ground, such a cap as a poacher would wear. You can -see prints of Hayward and Carpenter in spotted shirts and large belts -and ties, and Jemmy Shaw bowling his hardest in a yellow shirt that did -duty apparently for the whole summer. Now, without any disrespect to -the amateurs, the professional is as smartly dressed as his opponents. -He is clad in spotless white; he is smart; and, in fact, as far as -appearance goes, he is an amateur, and good at that. Two reasons may be -given for this. In the first place, he is more highly paid; in the next -place, the great number of county matches brings him more frequently -into contact with amateurs; and it is also true that county committees -look more closely after the players than they did. The life of a -professional is a very hard life in the way of work, and though a sound -batsman, who is of steady habits, like poor Shrewsbury, can play for a -long while, the fast bowlers are overweighted with the constant labour -of bowling on too perfect wickets, and they cannot keep their pace and -skill for much more than six or seven years. - -The professionals who are not good enough to play for a first-class -county have by no means so good a time. They get engaged by clubs -such as are found all over South Lancashire and in the West Riding -of York, and they bowl for several hours all the week to members of -the club at the nets, and on Saturdays play for the club in league -matches. The results of these matches are tabulated in the local -newspapers and in the sporting papers published on Sundays, and in -their own district cause no end of excitement. The end of the season -finds one of these clubs champion of the local league; and cricket is -carried on very much like football in this respect. There are senior -and junior leagues, there are Pleasant Sunday afternoon leagues, and -in each of them there exists a carefully considered system of tables -and elaborately calculated records of averages, and the leading -cricketers, like the leading football players, are heroes. The game, -however, as played in such matches, is of a distinctly lower type, -and if report speaks truly, the umpires have often more than their -proper share in determining the issue of the match. The professional -supplements his income in other ways. He generally supplies bats and -balls and other cricket materials, and sometimes, if he is a man of -business, he establishes himself finally in a shop, more frequently in -a public-house, and settles down for life. - -[Illustration: - _MR. J. H. DARK._ _THE UMPIRE._ - (_Proprietor of Lords_). (_Wm. Caldecourt_). - _WM. HILLYER._ _WM. MARTINGELL._] - -[Illustration: _FULLER PILCH_, -_Who was considered, till the days of Dr. W. G. Grace, the best Batsman -that had ever appeared_.] - -The descriptions of the amateur and professional as given above are -accurate enough, and many of us who can remember the former state of -things probably think that, in comparing the epoch of 1860 to 1870 with -that of 1892 to 1902, the condition of things was better, as far as the -amateur is concerned, in the ‘sixties, and worse for the professional, -and that now the position is exactly reversed. An amateur should be -either one thing or the other, but nobody can say in these days what he -is. The change has taken place gradually, and began from causes that -sprang into existence perhaps thirty years ago, and these we will now -try to explain. - -Nobody who has watched the game carefully can fail to be struck with -the wonderful development of county cricket. The ideal county cricket -really exists, speaking of first-class counties alone, in the three -counties of Nottingham, Yorkshire, and, we think, Derbyshire. Regarded -impartially, a county ought to be represented solely by county players, -but as a matter of fact this is not the case anywhere but in Nottingham -and Yorkshire. But in many counties are to be found gentlemen who like -to have first-class cricket in their county, and a county cricket club -is founded. The financial prosperity of the club depends in a great -measure on the success of the county eleven, and if a county has three -or four amateurs who materially strengthen the side, the committee -make great efforts to secure their services all through the season. -The natural result follows. The amateur is driven to confess that he -cannot afford the expenses of travelling and living at hotels, and he -must decline to play. The winning of matches being the golden key to -financial prosperity, the committees have been driven to adopt a system -of paying the amateur money, that their counties may play their best -elevens, and the first step in obliterating the boundary line that -should exist between the amateur and professional has been taken, and -what thirty years ago was done in one or two instances is now a matter -of universal practice. - -I am now for the moment making no comment; only stating a fact. As far -as the balance-sheet of the county club is concerned, you cannot assume -that the club can run its eleven cheaply by playing amateurs, who in -truth cost the committee as much per head as the professionals. It -would involve too much worrying into detail, and might lead to other -harmful consequences, to get exact statements of the cost of railway -tickets, etc.; so there is a fixed payment in a majority of cases given -to every amateur, and this fixed payment is on a sufficiently generous -scale to enable many an impecunious amateur to devote his services -to his county. Nor is this the only way of providing livelihoods for -skilful amateurs. There has to be, of course, a secretary, and you can -either appoint a cricketer to this post, and provide him with a clerk -who can do the work while his employer is playing cricket, or else -make the cricketer an under-secretary, both posts, of course, having -a salary attached.[3] It is also, if report speaks truly, a matter of -fairly common practice for employers somehow or other to find some -employment for cricketers during the winter, of course at a salary, and -it has therefore come to this, that many an amateur has found in the -game of cricket a means of access to a livelihood. No distinction has -yet been given between a complimentary match and a benefit; the result -is much the same in both instances; the proceeds of gate-money, after -deduction of expenses, are handed to the player for whom the match is -played. - -A short time ago there was a proposal, emanating, if I am not mistaken, -from the Australian authorities, that the M.C.C. should undertake -the arranging and selection of an English eleven to represent this -country in a series of matches in Australia. The committee of the -M.C.C. undertook the task, though not, it must be confessed, in a very -sanguine spirit. Their labours did not last long. Difficulties met -them on the very threshold, and these difficulties were entirely on -the ground of the amateurs’ expenses. Now it must be assumed that, if -the principle of paying amateurs’ expenses be allowed, there ought to -be no difficulty in the way of settling with amateurs. A manager has -to go out; why should not he take all the tickets, pay the coaching -and railway expenses and hotel bills, receive the proper share of -the gate-money, and deliver the amateur safe back in his own country -without the payment to the amateur of a penny? The word expenses has a -well-defined and proper meaning, known to everybody. It represents the -actual cost to a player of living, travelling, and playing, from the -moment he leaves this country to the moment he sets foot in it again; -but it is perfectly certain that, if left to the amateur to make a sort -of private bargain, other and improper developments will take place, -and it is notorious that they do. - -Now let us consider for a moment the position of affairs, as far as -this question of amateurs and professionals is concerned, in the case -of Australia. As was said before, there was some sort of discrimination -between the two in the first Colonial eleven in 1878. Both the -Bannermans, as noted above, were avowedly professionals, and Midwinter -also, if I remember rightly, and perhaps one or two others. But the -bulk were amateurs, and the mystic sign “Mr.” was placed before their -names. If no authoritative statement is made, and no balance-sheet -made public, nobody can be surprised if the facts are more or less -conjectural. But for all that, rumour in this instance is no lying -jade, and without fear of contradiction, I assert that many of the -so-called Australian “amateurs” who have been to this country have made -money over and above their expenses.[4] Let nobody be misled, or assume -from this that any stigma attaches to any of these Australian players; -it is not their fault, but some may complain of the system. The -profession of a cricketer, the calling of a professional, is in every -way an honourable and good one. What puzzles so many of us is that, -this being the case, so many should adopt the profession, but deny the -name. They seem to prefer the ambiguous position of a so-called amateur -to the straightforward, far more honourable one of a professional. This -is not the case in other professions. Take the case of the dramatic -career. There are many actors and actresses of more or less high social -standing who have been driven by their love of the work and skill to -adopt the calling of an actor. There is no ambiguity about it. They -become what they are. They do not call themselves amateurs and receive -salaries under the guise of expenses, which is exactly what cricketers -do; and many of us ask ourselves, what is the reason of this? - -To this question all that can be said is that circumstances have so -changed that what was easy to define formerly is difficult now. It may -be impossible to have the same rules and regulations now that used to -exist forty years ago. But even if this is true, there can be no doubt -that in these days a most unhealthy state of things prevails. It is -bad for the nominal amateur, it is bad for the game, and it is bad for -the country. Cricket is the finest game ever invented, but it is after -all only a game, and it is wrong that things should have developed in -such a way that amateurs become professionals in all but the name, -and that gate-money should be the real moving spirit and ideal of all -county clubs. To be prosperous financially a county must win matches, -to win matches you must get the best possible county eleven, therefore -the best amateurs as well as professionals must be played; and if these -amateurs cannot afford the time and the money to play, why, then, they -must be paid, and paid accordingly they are. That this is the case now -everybody knows, and it seems strange that the greatest game of the -world should be the one game where such things occur. No complaint need -be made of the Australian system, except in this, that players who are -in fact professionals should be treated as such. We are always glad to -give them every welcome and show them every hospitality; nevertheless, -they should have the same treatment and stand on the same footing that -our professionals do when they visit Australia. In the same way, if any -player feels himself unable, at the invitation of the M.C.C., to go out -to Australia, because he is only offered the payment of the actual cost -of travelling and living, and afterwards goes out under some private -arrangement, he should be treated and recognised as a professional. -It is an old proverb that you cannot eat your cake and have it, and -if the modern amateur does not care, on social grounds, to become a -professional, then let him honestly refuse to play cricket if he cannot -afford to play on receipt of his bare expenses only. Richard Daft, in -old days, found himself in the same dilemma, and grasped the nettle -and became a professional, and justly earned the respect of all for so -doing. - -Put briefly, in these days the state of things is this. A large number -of amateurs directly and indirectly make something of a livelihood -by cricket, and yet they are recognised as amateurs. Such cricketers -are those who, under the guise of expenses, get such a sum that after -paying these expenses leaves something to be carried over, as Mr. -Jorrocks called it. A few others do things on a far more lordly scale. -They have complimentary matches given them by their counties; in other -words, they have benefits like many of the leading and deserving -professionals, but still they are called amateurs; and whether it is -correct to call a class of men one name, when they are obviously and -openly something different, is perhaps a matter of opinion, but for my -part I do not hesitate to say it is neither right nor straightforward. - -Further trouble arises from the curse of gate-money. This hangs like -a blight over everything. County clubs dare not take a decided line -about cricket reform, lest a shortening of the game might diminish the -gate-money, and professionals do not speak out because they are forced -to bow the knee to Baal. County clubs are therefore in this position: -they must attract gates; to do this they must have a fine eleven; to -get a fine eleven they must have amateurs, and these amateurs cannot -play regularly without being paid, and so paid they are. The expenses -of running a first-class county eleven are therefore very great—so -great, in fact, that few can stand the strain. Some years ago we -used to have three or four wet seasons running occasionally. If ever -this occurs again, bankruptcy awaits several county committees, as -Warwickshire and Worcestershire have some reason from last season’s -experience to dread. It now costs as much to run a team of amateurs -as professionals, as all have to be paid. Perhaps some day, when the -public get tired of seeing match after match unfinished, and refuse -to pay their entrance money, and the cricket world find out that some -reform is necessary, and the duration of a match is two days and not -three, county clubs will find out that they cannot pay these wages for -amateurs, and a remedy will be found from an unlooked-for cause. - -[Illustration: - _Attributed to_ _Thos. Gainsborough, R.A._ -_PORTRAIT OF A YOUTH._ - -(_Said to be of George, Prince of Wales, afterwards George IV._)] - -[Illustration: _WILLIAM DORRINTON._] - -Having thus given vent to a growl on an unpleasant subject, the -features of professional and amateur play may now be discussed. There -used to be great differences in old days, far more than there is now, -but in one respect there is a great difference still, and that is in -bowling. We all know what sort of bowling will be seen in a University -match, or in Free Forester and Quidnunc matches. There will be one or -two fair slow bowlers, but that is all. Good fast bowling has not been -seen for some years in amateur elevens, but for this the amateurs are -hardly to blame. The modern wicket, shaved and heavy rolled, has made -it practically impossible for any really fast bowler to do any good, -unless he is one of the shining lights, like Richardson or Lockwood. -Amateurs like Messrs. Jessop, Kortright, and Bradley have an occasional -day of success, but these bowlers, being naturally fast, depend mainly -for their success on the agility of the field in the slips, and on -their capacity to make the ball bump. To attain this they generally -have but a short career. They take out of themselves by adopting a -gigantic long run and banging the ball down from straight over their -head at a terrific pace. Flesh and blood cannot stand this for more -than a short time. A human being is but human after all; he is not a -machine built to order like a steam engine, and work like what he has -to undergo knocks him up. The professionals have always had much the -best of it as regards bowling, and they have so still; but why this is -so is not easy to see. Between the ages of twelve and eighteen there is -no reason to suppose that the professional practises more at bowling -than the amateur; the probability is the other way. A young amateur -is at school during this period, where cricket is more systematically -carried on than at the board school, which the professional leaves at -thirteen and exchanges for a shop or a factory. But the tendency in -amateur bowlers is to promise well as a boy, and not to come up to -expectations as a man, and especially is this the case when, as so -often happens, there is a corresponding improvement in batting. - -In my experience of more than thirty years, the only instance I -can call to mind of an amateur who bowled above medium pace like a -professional—that is to say, with a professional’s accuracy and -method—was Mr. Appleby, who died last year. Mr. Appleby had a -beautiful easy action, and was always to be relied on to keep a length -and direction, as J. T. Hearne did for many years. Mr. Jackson is still -in the middle of his career, and next to Mr. Appleby, bowls more nearly -approaching to the professional standpoint; but, good bowler as he -is, he does not strike one as quite like a professional bowler. Slow -bowlers are not quite in the same class. Here the amateur is more at -home. Mr. W. G. Grace and the late Mr. David Buchanan were worthy of -being classed with Alfred Shaw, Peate, and Rhodes. Mr. Grace must be -so much used to hearing his merits discussed entirely from the batting -point of view, and has done so little bowling as compared with batting, -that it may interest the present generation that for some years as -a bowler he was as effective as the best professional. His method, -however, was very different. At a time when a wicket was supposed to -be worth only ten runs, and when nearly every bowler bowled more for -maidens than they do now, Mr. Grace was the first to show the way of -a deliberate system of getting wickets by getting men out, other than -by merely bowling them. He habitually placed a deep square leg in the -right place, and tempted men like Oscroft, Charlwood, and many more to -send chances there, and many a time and oft has the trick come off. He -frequently bowled in a way that showed what idea was in his head. A -very common device of his was in regard to l.b.w. He never objected to -being hit over the ropes, as he would silently argue that an ordinary -batsman, having once tasted the sweets of a mighty leg hit over the -ropes, would very much like to repeat the feat, and Mr. Grace would -drop down a tempting ball on the leg stump, and if, as often happened, -the batsman did hit at it and did miss it, he was out l.b.w. To this -day, to batsmen like those who come from Australia for the first time, -and have therefore never seen Mr. Grace bowl, I would as soon put on -Mr. Grace to bowl for a few overs as any man in England. He is and -always has been quite unlike any other bowler, both in the way he -delivered the ball and the strange way he placed his field. - -Mr. Buchanan was another bowler who copied Mr. Grace in one sense, for -though he did not bowl for catches to leg, he carried out the theory -of bowling for catches on the off side more than any bowler before or -since. A bold hitter might hit Mr. Buchanan, if he was quick on his -feet and had a good eye, but for all that there were few bowlers who so -rarely bowled a bad-length ball. Neither were there many bowlers who -made such absolute fools of batsmen as Mr. Buchanan did. The picked -professionals who played against him in Gentlemen and Players matches -at Lord’s and the Oval as a rule displayed all the feebleness that -was possible. Daft, Lockwood, and Oscroft were exceptions to this. -Lockwood, who had a wonderful cut, more than any other, realised the -danger of hitting at the pitch of Mr. Buchanan’s off ball. Instead of -doing this, he got back and cut the ball behind the wicket for three -runs—it might have been four, but Lockwood was a slow runner. Mr. -Buchanan did not like to have a third man, and his nervous system was -seriously insulted at Lockwood’s method, which forced him to change the -disposition of his field in a way he did not like. Mr. Grace and Mr. -Buchanan were two amateur slow bowlers who really studied the art of -bowling, and both of them, Mr. Grace in particular, studied the play of -their batting opponents; but when you have mentioned Messrs. Appleby, -Grace, and Buchanan, and for a short time Mr. Steel, you have nearly -exhausted the list of bowlers who during the last thirty years may be -said to have challenged comparison with the best professionals. - -In batting it is very different. Mr. Grace, of course, must be -left out of any calculation. Apart from him, however, the amateurs -can quite hold their own in batting. It is not fair to take as an -illustration the performances of each in Gentlemen _v._ Players -matches, because the bowling on one side is so superior to the other. -But in international test matches, both here and in Australia, Messrs. -Stoddart, Ranjitsinhji, Maclaren, Jackson, and Steel have been fully -as good and successful as Shrewsbury, Barnes, Gunn, Hayward, and -Tyldesley. As far as style is concerned, the older professionals, such -as Shrewsbury and Barnes, had a more distinctive difference of method -than their modern successors. Hayward and Tyldesley far more closely -resembled the amateur method of Messrs. Jackson and Palairet than -Shrewsbury and Barnes did that of Messrs. Steel and Stoddart. It is -not easy to explain on paper the difference, but every decent judge of -the game could see that a difference was there. Some of the players, -like Ulyett and Bates, could and did hit as hard and as often as the -amateur, but in the professional there was little real grace of style. -It is strange that this is so, for grace and ease are qualities that -must be born, not made, but it is true, nevertheless, speaking of the -older cricketers. Nowadays it would seem that Tyldesley and Hayward -have nothing to fear, as far as style is concerned, from any amateur, -always excepting Mr. Palairet. As far as mere run-getting is the point -of discussion, there would seem to be very little in it one way or the -other. In the great series of test matches, both here and in Australia, -during the last ten years there have been Stoddart, Maclaren, -Ranjitsinhji, and Jackson, as there have been Shrewsbury, Hayward, -Tyldesley, and Gunn, the amateurs perhaps having a shade the better of -it. - -The fielding also is and always has been tolerably even. In this, -however, there is a great difference now as compared with old times. -Thirty years ago the professional wicket-keeper was a class, even two -classes, above the amateur. Lockyer, Pooley, Plumb, and Pinder formed -a class that the amateurs could not show any comparison with. Possibly -the rougher wicket and the, generally speaking, faster bowling made the -position more unpleasant than it is now, but undoubtedly the amateur -has improved beyond all knowledge in wicket-keeping, and there is not -much to choose now. In other respects also the quality seems tolerably -equal. The observer will undoubtedly notice a change in the figure -of the ordinary professional now. The old Yorkshire eleven, with the -well-known figures of Roger Iddison, Luke Greenwood, and Rowbotham, and -the Nottingham eleven with Bignall and Wild, seem quite out of date -now, though Hirst looks promising in this respect. But Gunn, Maurice -Read, Tyldesley, Wainwright, Hirst, Braund, and several others were -and are fully equal in fielding to any that the amateurs can bring to -compare with them. - -It would appear, then, that in batting and fielding there is little -to choose between amateurs and professionals, but in bowling there is -great superiority among the professionals. Of course this superiority, -_cæteris paribus_, is so important that as long as it exists the -professional must win the vast majority of matches. As a general rule -this has been the case, but when Mr. Grace was in his prime, that is, -between 1869 and about 1887, his tremendous skill gave the amateurs the -predominance that, as far as appearances go, does not look likely to -occur again. - -[Illustration: - _From a Painting by_ _W. Bromley._ -_GEORGE PARR._] - -Some good judges of the game have maintained that the common practice, -which has prevailed for some time, of engaging professional bowlers -to bowl to boys at school and undergraduates at the universities, -and to the amateurs generally belonging to clubs, is a bad one, and -that amateur inferiority in bowling is to be traced to this custom. -Something no doubt may be done by practising bowling, but it is -probable that the bowler even more than the batsman is _nascitur non -fit_. Unless there is a natural break and some spin or mysterious -quality which makes the ball hang or kick in a bowler, he can hardly -acquire it. The utmost he can attain to, if he does not possess these -virtues, is experience in estimating the quality of his opponents, and -a modicum of skill in varying length and pace. But these will not avail -him much if the natural gifts of a bowler are not in him by nature. -Even these will go if, as frequently happens in these days of easy -wickets, the bowler gets too much work thrown on him, for the cricket -life of a very fast bowler is not more than six years on the average. - -In the matter of generalship, or the managing of a side, professionals -have hitherto shown very little skill. The professionals themselves -would probably prefer to be led by an amateur. George Parr, Daft, -Emmett, Alfred Shaw, and Abel have at different times acted as -captains, but none are to be compared to Messrs. V. E. Walker, A. N. -Hornby, J. Shuter, and Maclaren. A professional who is captain seems -always to think it proper to give every bowler a chance, whether a -change of bowling is wanted or not, and a natural bias towards members -of his own county is not always successfully resisted. - -From what has been said in this chapter, the reader will be able to -learn that, as far as England is concerned, the relations between -amateurs and professionals stand on an altogether different footing in -cricket from what they do in other games. In Australia, unless we have -been misinformed, most if not all the players who come to this country -earn, on an average of years, a fairly substantial sum by cricket -played over here. They are really professionals, and it is probable -that in their own country they are so regarded. If this is so, we have -the curious fact of a totally different standard prevailing in the two -countries. But this, as far as England is concerned, is not important. -What is important is that there should be some distinct understanding -on the subject, and the present nebulous state of things put an end to. -If it is necessary to have something paid to amateurs, the greatest -care should be taken that nothing beyond _bona fide_ expenses are paid, -and we believe that by the Surrey club this is done now. Not until -there is established some clear and understood principle under which a -true definition of the word “amateur” is arrived at, will the present -unsatisfactory state of things be put an end to, and it is earnestly to -be hoped that some day this will be done. - - -[Illustration] - - - - -CHAPTER VIII - -EARLIER AUSTRALIAN CRICKET - -By the EARL OF DARNLEY - - -The rivalry between English and Australian cricketers, which has been -productive in recent times of so many splendid matches, can now look -back to its starting-point through quite a respectably large number of -years. - -In the year 1861 H. H. Stephenson captained the first English team -of cricketers which visited Australia, and it was seventeen years -later before the seeds then sown had sufficiently matured to allow -the Australians to feel full confidence in their powers to return the -compliment, and to try conclusions with English players on their own -grounds. - -Between these dates, 1861 and 1878, three other English elevens -visited Australia—G. Parr’s in 1863, W. G. Grace’s in 1873, and J. -Lillywhite’s in 1876. Of these four elevens, three were almost wholly -made up of professional players, and the fourth, that captained by -“W. G.,” included five amateurs. Amongst their numbers, however, they -included most of the great players of the day, and the first and -second elevens in point of date each left behind in Australia one of -its members, whose coaching was invaluable to the rising generation of -Colonial players: these two instructors were C. Lawrence, who remained -from the first English eleven, and W. Caffyn, about the best all-round -man of his time, from the second. Many times has the writer heard -striking testimony offered in Australia to the invaluable help given by -these two cricketers in those early days, and certainly they might well -have felt proud of the aptitude of such of their pupils as have come to -us from 1878 onwards. - -The matches in these first four English visits have no very special -points of interest, as they were almost invariably played against -considerable odds. It was, however, plain to all that the standard -of cricket in Australia was greatly improving year by year, and no -one was surprised when it was announced in 1878 that our friends felt -themselves strong enough to send their first eleven to England, to try -their fortunes on level terms. So many Australian elevens have come -and gone since then, that it is difficult now to imagine the intense -interest and excitement which was felt in English cricket circles at -this epoch-making event. The arrival of an eleven which might hold its -own against our best men was up to this time so wildly improbable an -eventuality, that the majority of the English cricketing public could -hardly be brought to believe in its possibility. - -A very short time sufficed to show that there was no mistake about -the capacity of our visitors for holding their own with our best men -on even terms. After a moderate start at Nottingham, where the county -won by one innings and a few runs, came perhaps the most startlingly -dramatic match ever played by an Australian eleven in England, against -a strong selection of the Marylebone Club, including such well-known -performers as W. G. Grace, Hornby, Ridley, A. J. Webbe, A. Shaw, and -Morley. To dispose of such a side for 33 and 19, and win the match by -nine wickets in one day, was a feat that even the warmest admirers of -the Australians had hardly imagined, and from that memorable day may be -said to have begun that intensely keen and interesting rivalry that has -lasted right up to the present day. - -It may be worth while to attempt some slight personal sketch of this -remarkable 1878 Australian eleven, which included several players who -were to be the backbone of future elevens, and which achieved its -successes in some measure by methods to which we in England were as yet -strangers. - -On looking through their batting list, there are names which suggest -plentiful run-getting capabilities. As a matter of fact, however, at -that time the batting was, with one exception, C. Bannerman, of the -most rugged and unfinished description. The above-named exception, -Bannerman, might well have been given a high place among contemporary -batsmen as a fierce-hitting, powerful player, worthy of any eleven for -batting alone, but Blackham, Midwinter, Horan, Murdoch, A. Bannerman, -and Garrett had none of them yet acquired the powers which in after -years were to be theirs in such abundant measure, and the batting of -the whole side, after C. Bannerman, was distinctly of the rough, useful -order. In this connection it may be noticed, however, that although -finish was to be looked for in vain, even at this early stage was -evident that fearless and dogged resistance to adverse circumstances -which has since then successfully extricated many an Australian side -from a tight place, and has always given their adversaries that -uncomfortable feeling of never being quite certain that they have -really got them safely beaten. What an invaluable asset is a reputation -of this sort, and how well and consistently have our Australian friends -sustained this hardly-earned character! - -Emphatically this was a bowling and fielding eleven. In nineteen -eleven-a-side matches, only twice was the 250 exceeded by their -opponents, a convincing record that speaks for itself. Of the four -bowlers, one great name stands out supreme, and who is there that -remembers that year and the ten or twelve that succeeded it, but -must confess that his whole ideas of bowling were revolutionised -by what he saw of Spofforth in the prime of his powers? With -physical qualifications admirably adapted to fast bowling, very -tall, long-limbed, active, wiry, and impossible to tire, Spofforth -had scientifically studied the art of bowling to a most unusual -degree. The hard, true wickets in Australia had even then begun to -exercise a decisive influence on the characteristics of bowling in -that country, and unless a bowler could develop quite exceptional -powers of deception, spin, and break, he was soon reduced to absolute -helplessness. This difference in climate may be said to be the one -element which makes a distinction between cricket as played in the -Colonies and cricket as played in England, and, while its influence -has been decisive in keeping up the standard of Australian bowling to -a very high pitch of excellence, it has been at the same time hardly -less favourable to the formation of a free and good style of batting, a -style far more difficult to acquire when the ground is unreliable and -the climate variable. - -At that time Spofforth’s methods varied considerably from those which -he afterwards employed. He was then as a rule a fast, sometimes -terrifically fast, bowler, with occasional slow ones, the change of -pace being most admirably masked in the delivery. In after years his -average pace was rather over medium, with an unusually big break back -for that pace, while the very fast or very slow ones were the exception -and not the rule. In addition to these types of ball, no man ever -bowled a more dangerous fast yorker than Spofforth, and his armoury -may well be said to have contained as damaging a collection of weapons -as ever taxed the powers of an opposing batsman. Boyle, Allan, and -Garrett made up the bowling strength. Of these Allan, partly probably -through being the possessor of a constitution which suffered greatly -from the severities of our summer climate, never came out in his true -form; his bowling had a fine natural break, and swerved considerably -in the air, and, although not on the whole very successful, he -occasionally showed quite enough of his powers to warrant the great -reputation enjoyed by him in the Colonies. Both Boyle and Garrett -were extremely useful bowlers of the good-length-lasting style, which -carried them through many subsequent years of good performance. - -In wicket-keeping again did English cricketers find that there was -something new to be learnt. Both Blackham and Murdoch showed for the -first time how perfectly possible it was to stand up to the fastest -bowling without a long-stop; and Blackham especially gave promise of -powers that were to make him for some years perhaps the most brilliant -wicket-keeper ever seen. - -The fielding all round and throwing were unusually good, and climate -again may probably be answerable for the fact that Australian elevens, -taken all through, could almost invariably out-throw any English eleven -man for man. - -[Illustration: _THOMAS BOX._] - -From this short description it will easily be seen that they were a -team to be seriously reckoned with, whoever their opponents might -be, and when we look to the completed records of their matches, the -result must be held to be decidedly creditable. By comparison with the -programmes of after years, the relative test of their powers can hardly -be said to be so severe. No really representative English eleven was -encountered, although the full strength of both the amateurs and the -professionals was played separately. At the hands of the Gentlemen they -met with one of their heaviest reverses, but the professionals were -narrowly defeated once, while the other game ended in a fairly even -draw. - -Nineteen matches played, of which the Australians won ten and lost -four, made up a highly satisfactory total, and, in addition, only three -out of twenty-one matches against odds were lost by them. - -It was not a batsman’s year, 1878, but even taking that fact into -consideration, only one innings of over 100 hit against Australian -bowling shows unmistakably wherein lay the chief strength of the -eleven. Mention has already been made of the remarkable wicket-keeping -of Murdoch and Blackham, who for the first time in English cricket -performed their duties without the aid of a long-stop. We think we are -right in saying that Murdoch was at first looked upon as the regular -wicket-keeper of the team, but from that time onward the wonderful -talent of Blackham gained for him the superior position, and his -wicket-keeping for several years was at least the equal of that of any -other competitor that could be brought against him. Standing very close -to the wicket, and of marvellous quickness, he had the happy knack of -invariably showing at his best on great occasions; a batsman too of -a resolute, fearless description, and a very quick runner between -wickets, his play in Australian elevens for many years was no small -factor in their success. - -The composition of this eleven is of especial interest, not merely -because it was the first of the series to come to us, but by reason of -its including some prominent names of men who were to be the nucleus -and backbone of those that were to follow. Blackham, Murdoch, A. -Bannerman, Garrett, Boyle, and Spofforth are names that will frequently -recur in following years, and we shall see how, with their help, the -standard of success rose consistently through the tours of 1880 and -1882, and then, after a slight falling-off in 1884, for reasons which -will afterwards be alluded to, fell gradually away until a revival set -in about the time of Stoddart’s first tour in Australia in 1894. - -The next event of any prominence to be noticed is the visit of Lord -Harris’s eleven to Australia in the winter of this same year 1878. A -fine batting and fielding eleven, but hardly strong enough in bowling -to be really representative of English cricket at its best. Emmett and -Ulyett were the only two professionals included, and for a side so weak -in bowling, they may be said to have made an excellent appearance. One -match only was played against the returned Australian eleven, who were -successful by ten wickets. Four new names appear amongst those chosen -to represent the various Australian sides, all more or less successful, -Palmer, Macdonnell, Massie, and Evans. The last-named cricketer was -about that time at his best, and many and outspoken have been the -regrets that this fine cricketer could never spare the time to appear -much in English _v._ Australian cricket until he was well past his -prime. In both appearance and performance he was thoroughly typical of -the highest class of colonial cricketer. His tall, unusually active, -well-built figure, bearded, bronzed bushman’s face, presented the most -perfect example of the Australian athlete, while his overhand accurate -bowling and really splendid fielding and steady batting made him a -worthy addition to any eleven. - -Against the representatives of the individual colonies the Englishmen -more than held their own, and six matches won to three lost make up a -highly creditable record. - -In the summer of 1880 appeared the second Australian eleven, and -amongst their number several additional names to those who were with us -in 1878. - -Palmer, whose performance against Lord Harris’s eleven made his -inclusion a certainty, appears for the first time, and he has more than -justified his selection by coming out top of the bowling averages in -eleven-a-side matches, according to number of wickets taken, although -Spofforth, who was unable to play in several matches, has the lesser -average of runs per wicket. No prettier bowler to look at than Palmer -ever bowled a ball; a style of delivery that apparently cost its owner -no effort whatever, and, as usual with great Australian bowlers, a much -greater break than the pace of the ball would lead you to suspect. -Strong and sturdily built, his power of bowling a very fast yorker was -unusually great, and was frequently used early in a batsman’s innings -with deadly effect. With such an easy delivery, it is not easy to see -why Palmer’s successes did not continue for much longer than they -actually did, but we may probably look for the explanation in a too -great fondness which he subsequently developed for the fast leg breaks, -which first destroyed the excellent length for which he was famous, -and finally lowered the standard of his bowling altogether. The great -improvement in his batting powers may possibly also in his case, as in -that of many other bowlers, have had something to do with it. His style -in batting was almost as attractively graceful as that of his bowling, -but lacked something of that tenacity which must be added to style to -bring about the real power over the bowlers characteristic of a great -batsman. - -The name of Macdonnell recalls many a dashing, vigorous innings, -perhaps some of the most fascinating displays of hard, but not usually -high, hitting ever seen. This season of 1880 saw him already among -the leading batsmen, with an average in eleven-a-side matches second -only to Murdoch, whose immense improvement as a bat deserves separate -mention. Macdonnell belongs to that small circle of Australian players -who were able by the fierceness of their hitting to practically win -a match by their own unaided efforts when their companions were -comparatively helpless, and this type of batsman, which was one of -the chief features of every Australian eleven up to 1893, seems, -curiously enough, to have almost disappeared. We may not improbably -be able to trace this to the great predominant influence which has -altered the whole character of modern cricket, and, in the judgment -of many, brought about a dull level of too easily performed feats -of run-getting, that only drastic legislation can alter, viz. the -increasing excellence of the artificially prepared wickets. The value -of an exceptional hitter, such as any member of the little band above -alluded to, is far greater when the conditions are difficult. He alone -perhaps can offer any effective resistance when the bowler is revelling -in favourable conditions; but, if the ball comes along easily and well, -it pays far better to determine at all costs to keep up the wicket, to -abandon the more attractive methods of the hitter, and let the runs -come, as they almost inevitably will come under such circumstances. - -A great feature of the cricket of this year was the immense improvement -noticeable in Murdoch’s play; from this time forward he took rank as -one of the greatest batsmen of the time, and perhaps the best of all -the Australian players that have come to us. It is gratifying to see -that, as in the case of our own champion, the ever-vigorous “W. G.,” -Murdoch’s perfect upright style has enabled him to keep up a more than -respectable proportion of his best form through at least twenty-five -years of first-class cricket. This very day in April 1903, the morning -paper tells us that, snow-showers and north winds notwithstanding, -these two grand old cricketers are once more making an excellent -appearance, going in first together at Kennington Oval. Long may they -flourish! Another name that strikes us as appearing for the first -time in these matches is that of G. Bonnor. We have already noticed -the athletic and powerful frames that help our Australian friends so -frequently to distinction in cricket, but how can we sufficiently -admire the really magnificent physique of this giant among cricketers! -6 feet 6 inches in height and between 16 and 17 stones in weight, a -very fast runner and prodigious thrower, we might well search the -country through before we find his match as a splendid specimen of -humanity. Let the reader think over all the men of at all similar -proportions that he has ever met with, and see which of them could -run at full speed and pick up a ball in the long field as he could. -In so big a man this great activity implies a perfection of muscular -development and proportion that is very rarely met with, and to see -Bonnor hit and field at cricket may without exaggeration be described -as the realisation of an almost ideal athletic experience. - -There have been endless discussions as to who has been actually the -biggest hitter at cricket within living memory, but in the writer’s -mind there is no doubt that Bonnor’s extra power gave him the first -place for distance, although C. I. Thornton’s much more perfect swing -made the competition a closer race than their relative physical powers -would lead one to expect. Bonnor, Macdonnell, Massie, Lyons—what -prodigious smacks to the unfortunate ball do these names bring to our -recollection! It will be indeed a bad day for the old game when the -conditions do not give reasonable encouragement to this heroic type of -batsman, and, at all events while Jessop continues to play, we may well -hope that there is no immediate danger of the race becoming extinct. - -[Illustration: - _From a Painting by_ _A. S. Wortley._ -_DR. W. G. GRACE._] - -Taken as a whole, the team showed a decided advance on their -predecessors, and Murdoch and Macdonnell in particular gave many fine -displays of batting. The bowling suffered from the absence of Garrett, -and the failure of any adequate substitute to take his place, and also -from Spofforth’s absence in half the eleven-a-side matches. When he was -able to play, however, his bowling was as irresistible as ever, while -Palmer at once worked his way into the front rank of bowlers. - -A new departure in the programme was made in the match against a picked -England eleven played rather too late in the year, on 6th September. -The weather, however, was all that could be wished at that time, and -a great match resulted in a well-deserved win for England by five -wickets. Murdoch and W. G. Grace were fittingly the batting heroes of -the match, and the time was evidently at hand when the best English -eleven would find its equal in our rapidly improving Australian -friends. Only four matches lost out of thirty-seven played was the -final result, although only eleven of these were eleven-a-side matches, -and the programme did not provide the sterner test of later tours. - -In the winter of 1881 a very strong professional eleven under the -captaincy of Alfred Shaw played a short round of first-class matches in -Australia, and amongst these were two matches against Australia and two -against the Australian eleven which was to come to England in 1882. The -two Australian sides consisted of practically the same players, except -that Evans was not included in the team to visit England. So strong, -however, was that team that it is difficult to say who could have been -advisedly left out to make a place for him. - -The results of these four matches clearly indicated the great strength -of Australian cricket at this time. Two wins and two drawn games -against a side which had Barlow, Ulyett, Selby, Bates, Shrewsbury, -Midwinter, and Scotton to bat, and Peate, A. Shaw, Barlow, Bates, -Ulyett, and Emmett to bowl, was a thoroughly unmistakable performance, -and added immensely to the interest with which the arrival of the 1882 -Australian eleven was anticipated. No absolutely new names had appeared -on the colonial side, but the standard of play had everywhere made -a distinct upward movement, and almost every man of the eleven had -reached the prime of his powers. An opportune alteration of the match -list for that year provided eleven-a-side matches throughout the tour, -a better test, and one likely to keep up the interest and play of the -men more efficiently than a number of matches against odds, which are -no particular honour to win or disgrace to lose. - -A glance at the composition of this famous eleven shows a collection -of very well distributed powers. For batting, Murdoch, now at his -best—and that means no small praise; Horan, a talented, correct -player, who, although not very successful with the first eleven, was -now one of the best in Australia; Massie, Bannerman, Bonnor, Giffen, -greatly improved, and soon to be one of the best all-round players of -the day; Macdonnell, Blackham, and S. Jones. In bowling, Spofforth, -Palmer, Boyle, Garrett, and Giffen—probably as good a company as ever -bowled together in one eleven. Blackham to keep wicket. No wonder that -the cricket critics, whose numbers were rapidly increasing, have never -ceased to dispute whether this eleven or one of those that have come to -us since 1896 was the stronger. - -Unquestionably from 1884 to 1894 the Australian form steadily declined, -but whether the improvement that has since set in has reached or passed -the level of 1882 and 1884, is a question of considerable difficulty to -tackle, and has moreover this recommendation, so thoroughly favourable -to the pronouncement of varied and strongly-laid-down opinions, that -from the conditions of the problem it is impossible that the issue can -ever be really conclusive. Whatever may be the reader’s verdict on this -vexed point, no one can deny that few elevens have ever contained so -many brilliant performers in their own departments of the game. - -The days of a series of test matches had not yet arrived, although -efforts were even then made by those arranging matters to fix dates -for them. Some more years of hammering against the gates of cricket -conservatism were necessary before this most palpably necessary -improvement was instituted. - -The one England match was as usual fixed very late in the season, 28th -August, and for the first time an ever-memorable contest resulted -in a narrow win for Australia by 7 runs. Two very fine elevens -fought it out on difficult wickets, and in the end England failed to -score the 84 that was required of them by the above-mentioned small -margin. Spofforth’s bowling fourteen wickets for 90 runs stands out -conspicuously, but, for so important a trial of strength, what a pity -that wicket conditions should have rendered such figures possible! - -It was curious that, out of four matches lost during the whole tour, -two were against Cambridge University and Cambridge Past and Present. -The other two defeats were at the hands of the Players and the North -of England, and these four defeats make a very small total when placed -against twenty-three victories out of a long series of thirty-eight -matches, while the average strength of the opposing elevens was far in -excess of anything previously met with. - -The winter of 1882 saw a mixed team of amateurs and professionals, -under captaincy of the present writer, start for a tour in Australia. -The all-round strength of the side was very considerable, but only -four of their number had been chosen to represent England in the -previous summer. However, as the remainder included Morley, Bates, W. -W. Read, and Tylecote, the paper form was undoubtedly strong, and -had not illness and accident, especially the unfortunate mishap which -more or less crippled Morley, their only first-class fast bowler, been -unfortunately frequent, an even better record than the respectable -results achieved might have been realised. A rubber of three matches -was played with the victorious 1882 Australian eleven, and after each -had easily won a match, the decisive game ended at Sydney in the -victory of England by 69 runs. - -Cricket enthusiasm was at a very high pitch in Australia at this time, -the first victory of Australia over England having greatly excited -the public mind, and the attendance at the test matches exceeded all -previous records. - -The rubber having now been won by England, a suggestion was made that -another match should be arranged, and one or two players included in -the Australian side who had not been to England with Murdoch. Evans -and Midwinter were accordingly chosen to take the places of Garrett -and Macdonnell, and, although it seemed highly doubtful if this change -was calculated to be for the better, its advocates would doubtless -claim the justification of their choice in the Australian victory which -resulted by four wickets. Fifty-five thousand people were supposed to -have witnessed the play during the four days that the match occupied, -and a new plan was adopted of having a fresh wicket for each of the -four innings. This was necessitated by the peculiar nature of the -Sydney turf, a thick-bladed, flat-growing grass, which looked perfectly -smooth, but wore very badly. - -These four matches showed the Australians hardly perhaps in their best -form, but Bonnor, Bannerman, and, in the last match, Blackham, did some -excellent service in batting, especially the first-named. His hitting -in three out of the four matches was terrific, and most difficult to -deal with, as our English eyes were not so well able, in the very clear -atmosphere of these latitudes, to judge the many high twisting catches -which he impartially presented to various fieldsmen. In an innings of -87 in the fourth match he was supposed to have been missed eight or ten -times, and several of these misses were to be laid to the charge of a -usually very safe fieldsman who shall be nameless. The demoralising -effect of such a succession of disasters on our bowlers and fieldsmen -may be well imagined, and the problem of how long a bowler should -be kept on who is having a chance missed off him nearly every over -presented itself in its most perplexing form to our captain. - -The Australian bowling as usual found itself in safe and capable hands, -in the persons of Spofforth, Palmer, Boyle, etc., while the Australian -summer supplied us with an unusual number of wet wickets, much to the -delight of the sheep-farmers who came from all parts of Australia to -see the games. - -On the English side Steel proved a tower of strength in both bowling -and batting, and Leslie, Barlow, Bates, and Read all well upheld their -batting reputations. Of the bowlers, Barlow and Bates did about the -best work, and the latter performed one or two notable feats in this -line. The want of a reliable fast bowler was many a time sorely felt, -poor Morley, who attempted to play several matches with a broken rib, -breaking down time after time. - -For the first time Queensland was visited by an English eleven, but the -experience, in spite of the extraordinary hospitality and kindness of -the Queenslanders, was not altogether encouraging. The semi-tropical -heat caused several slight cases of sun effects amongst our players, -and the drenching thundershowers necessitated, in one case, small -drains being dug quite near the pitch to allow the water to subside -quickly after the storms. - -Cricket touring in Australia in those days differed from more modern -experiences in several respects. The railways between Adelaide and -Melbourne and Melbourne and Queensland had not yet been completed, so -that most disturbing little sea journeys, lasting about thirty-six -hours, on small and not overclean steamers, had to be undertaken on -several occasions. Nothing more calculated to temporarily disarrange -the health and form of a travelling cricket eleven could be well -imagined, and the railway journeys which have now been substituted must -be far preferable, from the player’s point of view. - -The cricket grounds in the chief capitals were already very good, but -in Adelaide the turf had been too recently laid to have nearly reached -the perfection to which it afterwards attained. In Sydney, the species -of grass which has been before alluded to has now, we believe, been -altered to English grass, then supposed to be quite unsuited to the -climate, with the best possible results. - -No new players of any prominence appeared among the Australians, unless -we make an exception in the case of W. H. Cooper, the Victorian. He had -already played in first-class cricket for some years, and had made a -considerable reputation by his wonderful leg breaks. The usual penalty -attaching to this great power of twist, viz. loss of pitch, always -made him a very doubtful quantity, and he was liable to be ruinously -expensive in the matter of runs. - -The arrival of an Australian eleven in England every second year had -now become quite an established custom, and 1884 saw a strong selection -of players once more with us. The changes in the personnel proved to be -the substitution of Scott, Midwinter, Alexander, and Cooper for Horan, -Massie, S. Jones, and Garrett, and there can hardly be a contrary -opinion that this change was slightly for the worse. Scott certainly -sustained his own part with considerable success, but the displaced -four names proved in the long run to be very difficult to replace -adequately. - -Three matches with England produced the not very satisfactory result -of two drawn games and one win for England, a foretaste of the -indecisive sequences which have stirred up the attempts at legislative -interference in later times. Although unable to win one of the three -matches, the Australians had certainly rather the best of the two that -were undecided. In the first match, at Manchester, England was only -93 runs on with one wicket to fall, after a first innings of 182; and -in the third match, at the Oval, they gave us a very fine display -of batting, winning the toss and making 551, the largest total yet -recorded in these matches. - -[Illustration: _YOUTH WITH A CRICKET BAT_ -(_Supposed to have been Painted about 1780_).] - -Murdoch, true to his character of leading batsman, headed the list -with 211, Macdonnell 103, and Scott 102, while the English bowling was -reduced to such straits that Alfred Lyttelton’s lobs were afforded the -chance of a lifetime, and actually captured the last four wickets for -19 runs! - -When in the first innings eight English wickets had fallen for 181 runs -on a good wicket, the match looked almost over, but with W. W. Read’s -appearance began a notable partnership, which was not broken before 151 -runs had been added to the score. Read’s 117 ranks very high indeed -among the great innings of great matches, and his mastery of the varied -and excellent bowling brought against him was complete. Two wickets -down for 85 runs represented England’s second innings, and Australia -could claim an immense advantage on the match as far as it went. - -The third match, at Lord’s, ended in quite another fashion with a -one-innings defeat for Australia, principally due to a very fine 148 -by A. G. Steel for England, and some excellent bowling by the two -Yorkshiremen, Peate and Ulyett. - -The English representative eleven of the day showed a very high -standard of play, especially in batting. When one finds A. Lyttelton -going in ninth on the list of batsmen, and W. W. Read tenth, the side -may be safely estimated to be as strong in batting as any that has ever -played together. The bowling, on the other hand, did not stand out in -quite such overwhelming strength, although Peate, Ulyett, A. G. Steel, -Barnes, and Barlow are a by no means contemptible selection. On the -whole year’s performances in batting, Murdoch once more emphasised his -superiority, with an average of 30 per innings, 1.7 in advance of his -next competitor, while most of the older hands, in addition to Scott, -came out on the list with good figures. - -Spofforth’s bowling was if possible even more successful than -before—216 wickets, with an average of 12 runs per wicket; with Palmer -second, with 132 wickets for an average of 16 runs. These two, with -Boyle and Giffen, made up an attack strong at all points. - -Eighteen matches won and seven lost does not compare too favourably -with the figures of the 1882 eleven, and this difference was, we think, -exactly to be accounted for by the slight change for the worse in the -alteration made in the old eleven by the substitution of the four new -men before alluded to. - -Although their successes had possibly not quite equalled those of 1882, -the four players who had not been able to come to England were still -in as good form as ever, and Australian cricket at this time was still -at about its highest point. No real symptoms of that gradual decline -which lasted up to 1894 had commenced to show themselves before about -1885-86. - -In the winter of 1884 another strong lot of professionals under -Alfred Shaw visited Australia, and an unfortunate dispute with the -lately-returned Australian eleven deprived most of the chief matches of -their representative character, as the members of the Australian eleven -refused to play in them. However, towards the end of the tour matters -were smoothed over, and three matches were played against Australia’s -full strength. The first, a very fine struggle, was won by Australia by -7 runs, the second by the same side by eight wickets, and the third by -the Englishmen by an innings and 98 runs. The professionals were a very -strong side at all points of the game, and Barnes greatly distinguished -himself by heading both batting and bowling averages, sharing the -batting honours with Shrewsbury and Bates, while the bowling was very -equally distributed among six well-known names, Barnes, Bates, Flowers, -Attewell, Ulyett, and Peel. - -The 1886 Australian eleven in England furnished some names new to -English grounds, and for the first time Evans was able to find the -time for the journey. As it turned out, however, his great reputation -would have been better cared for if he had not been brought over for -the first time when his powers were decidedly on the wane, and both -in batting and bowling he was practically a failure. Jarvis appears -as a wicket-keeper, and a very able colleague to Blackham he has -always proved himself, besides being at times useful with the bat. -J. Trumble, W. Bruce, and M’Ilwraith are the other new names, and -of these, Bruce alone has made much mark in first-class cricket,—a -beautiful fieldsman and thrower, and a pretty, hard-hitting, -left-handed batsman, but one who has never quite succeeded in doing -himself full justice on English grounds. - -The same signs of deterioration that were observable in the 1884 -eleven, as compared with that of 1882, were now more strongly -pronounced. The new men were quite unable to adequately replace -Murdoch, Macdonnell, Bannerman, Massie, Horan, and Boyle, while, to -add to their misfortunes, Spofforth met with a severe accident which -crippled him for some time, and never allowed him to again reach his -proper form during the tour. On the other hand, their English opponents -could command a very strong side, and in place of the dearth of fine -new players which the Australians were experiencing, found ready to -hand several younger players of great promise. The days of Lohmann, -Briggs, and Stoddart were commencing, names that were destined to -furnish a difficult nut for Australians to crack for many a day. -The older men too on the English side were all at the best period -of their play, and Grace, Shrewsbury, Read, and Steel could hardly -fail to put up a big score among them on any given occasion. The only -cheerful feature of a dismal record, in which the nine victories could -only claim a narrow lead of one over the eight defeats, was the fine -all-round form of Giffen. This great player, now at the top of his -game, headed both batting and bowling averages, and was to be from this -time a tower of strength to Australian cricket. Spofforth’s unfortunate -accident came at a time when there seemed every likelihood of his being -quite as successful as ever, but from that time to the end of the tour -his bowling powers seemed to have temporarily deserted him, and that -alone was a disaster to the side of the very first magnitude. Garrett -and Palmer still continued to do yeoman service in bowling, although -rather more expensive than formerly, and both S. Jones and Scott gave -some fine batting displays. - -Of the three matches against England, the first was won by England by -the small margin of four wickets, and each of the other two in one -innings. Fortune had indeed deserted our Australian friends for the -moment, and, worst of all, the absence of promising young players gave -no hope for the immediate future. Yet, if we consider for a moment how -comparatively small had been the amount of first-class cricket hitherto -played in Australia, we may well rather wonder at the remarkable -brilliancy of the players sent to us up to this time, than that they -should now find some difficulty in replacing them. - -Without making invidious distinctions, it may be safely asserted that -in these last two Australian elevens of 1884 and 1886, the loss of -Murdoch’s captaincy was severely felt, as he always seemed to have the -happy knack of keeping his team well in hand and up to the highest -standard of their play. - -Once more in 1886 did a strong team of professionals go to Australia -under the indefatigable Shaw and Shrewsbury. Although beaten twice -by New South Wales, they won four matches out of five against -representative Australian elevens, the other being drawn, no mean -achievement. The days of Turner and Ferris were beginning, and the -former was now rapidly becoming one of the great bowlers of the day. -A beautifully easy delivery and great power of pace, combined with a -quickness of break back that baffled the strongest defence, were the -characteristics of this fine cricketer’s style. Ferris, although not so -attractive in his methods, made an excellent colleague in their bowling -partnership, with his steady left-handed deliveries. - -Lyons for the first time appears among the representative Australian -players. Very big and powerful, he proved a worthy successor to the -great hitters of the earlier Australian elevens, and some of his -hitting, performed with little apparent effort and without moving -the feet, was a wonderful exhibition of sheer muscular force of arm. -Giffen’s loss from illness was a great blow to the Australians, and -some of the older bowlers were now losing something of their skill. On -the other side, the English bowling was very strong, with Lohmann and -Briggs to lead it, and Shrewsbury at the top of his form in batting. - -So popular had these Australian tours now become that in the winter of -1887-88 two separate English elevens visited Australia, one under G. F. -Vernon, and the other under Shrewsbury. This division of forces, which -was for many reasons to be regretted, did not appear to materially -affect their chances of success, as the teams lost only two or three -matches between them. H. Trott and H. Trumble were prominently seen -for the first time this season, and were both destined to take a very -leading part in the games of the next few years. Trumble as a bowler is -probably now second to none, making admirable use of his great height, -and exercising the best of judgment in his admixture of different paces -and flights. Trott, an excellent batsman and useful change bowler, was -always a useful man on the side, but it has been his fine judgment as -captain that has proved him to be so invaluable a member of it. - -The representatives of Australia were met three times by Shrewsbury’s -eleven, and twice by Vernon’s, and all these five matches ended in -English success—crushing evidence of the now seriously deteriorated -form of the Australians. Shrewsbury and W. W. Read gave many fine -exhibitions of batting, and came out more than 25 points ahead of -their nearest competitors in the batting list. Lohmann and Briggs for -Shrewsbury’s side, and Attewell and Peel for Vernon’s, did most of the -bowling with conspicuous success. - -The 1890 Australian eleven for England furnished a surprise in the -return of Murdoch to the headship of affairs, and, in spite of some -obvious disadvantages of increasing age and weight, his form was once -more able to place him at the head of the batting averages. First -of a rather moderate lot must be the estimate of this performance, -and only Barrett besides himself was able to claim an average of over -20, his and Barrett’s being 23 and 22 respectively. Barrett, here for -the first time, was a left-handed bat with dogged powers of defence, -highly uninteresting to watch. Burn, the Tasmanian, a batsman of some -reputation, did not show to much advantage over here, and Walters, a -powerful Victorian, who had proved a great run-getter in Australia -for some years, seemed quite unable to accommodate himself to altered -conditions. S. E. Gregory appears for the first time, and at once made -a name for himself by his wonderful fielding and throwing in from -cover-point or mid-off. The powers of batting which were to make him -so useful a member of most of the Australian elevens of the next few -years were not yet much in evidence. The most of the bowling was as -before entirely thrown on the shoulders of the undaunted pair, Turner -and Ferris, and most admirably did they acquit themselves. 215 wickets -for an average of 12 and 215 wickets for an average of 13 are figures -that speak eloquently of a hard season’s work well performed. Charlton -and Trumble were their assistants nearest in point of performance, -but Trumble, although at that time a steady persevering bowler, had -not yet acquired sufficient mastery of break and pace to be really -dangerous. For the first time the losses of the team, sixteen, exceed -the victories, thirteen, a terrible falling-off from the successes of -ten years ago. Three matches were arranged against the full strength -of England, but only the first two were played, both won by England, -by seven wickets and two wickets respectively, the third match being -abandoned through rain. It was said, not untruthfully, that these two -narrow defeats against strong English sides, especially the latter of -the two, conferred more credit on the Australians than any other of -their performances, but an eleven can hardly be congratulated that has -such a criticism as its chief recommendation. - -In the winter of 1891-92 quite a new plan was carried out, Lord -Sheffield collecting and taking out a strong English eleven, including -once more the veteran “W. G.,” Stoddart, and other fine players. The -eleven, to be really representative of England’s strength, would have -required some additions to the batting, but Grace, Stoddart, M. Read, -and Abel made at all events a strong backbone to the defence, and -the bowling was well up to the highest mark in the hands of Briggs, -Lohmann, Attewell, and Peel. Three matches were played against combined -Australia, the first two being lost by 55 and 72 runs, and the third -won easily in one innings. Of this last match, however, it should be -said that the two sides batted under quite unequal conditions, the -English on a hard dry wicket, and the Australians on one spoilt by -rain. Lyons, Bannerman, and Bruce all did excellent service in batting, -and Lyons’ second innings of 134 in the Sydney match was a very fine -display of hitting. Australian bowling had suffered considerably from -the absence in England of Ferris, and Turner, although still about -the best Australian bowler, was hardly so deadly as formerly. Grace -was able to show his Australian admirers that the eighteen years that -had elapsed since his last visit had little diminished his marvellous -skill, and his average of 44 in eleven-a-side matches brought him -easily to the top, Abel, Stoddart, and M. Read all coming out with good -figures. - -The improved form of the Australians this season added much to the -interest which was felt in the 1893 Australian eleven, who came, -moreover, as a thoroughly representative side, no other Australian -cricketer, except possibly Moses, having any real claim for selection. -An advance on the form of the last few years they certainly exhibited, -but, although the quality of the cricket opposed to them was certainly -of great merit, the summed-up results of the tour, eighteen matches -won to ten lost, cannot be said to show conclusively that all the lost -ground had yet been made up. - -The season of 1893 was exceptionally sunny and fine, so that many -more hard wickets were played on than in an average English summer. -The strain on the bowlers of a travelling eleven was accordingly -severe, and Turner was not able to preserve the unassailed position -of superiority hitherto held by him. On the hard wickets G. Giffen -was perhaps the best bowler of the side, and he is said to have not -unreasonably complained of the invariable regularity with which his -bowling was made use of on the hard wickets, while, on the more -difficult wickets, the other bowlers were able to dispose of their -more easily conquered victims. - -A great improvement is to observed in Trumble both in batting and -bowling, and he had now reached a formidable degree of power in both -departments of the game. Graham made a most promising _début_ as a bat -and fine out-field; indeed, his batting was quite one of the features -of the tour. Another pair of batsmen of most unequal appearance and -batting methods were also very successful, Lyons and A. Bannerman, who -generally went in first together. Some of Lyons’ hitting ranks high -among the recorded feats of big hitting, and Bannerman’s dogged defence -was never more usefully employed during his long career. G. H. Trott, -too, and G. Giffen were both generally useful with the bat, and the -eleven throughout showed a higher level of batting power than had been -seen for some years. - -If we compare this eleven with the strong years of 1882 and 1884, we -should say that the 1893 team would naturally suffer in the absence -of Murdoch at his best, and in the bowling falling somewhat below the -standard of that of the four great bowlers of that day, Turner not -being at his best and Trumble not quite attained to his full powers. - -The English representatives of this year were of great strength. Grace, -Shrewsbury, Stoddart, Gunn, Jackson, A. Ward, W. W. Read, all in fine -form, made an immensely strong batting combination, while an era of -great fast bowlers was arising, with Richardson, Mold, and Lockwood -all now coming to the full possession of their great powers, and -the slow bowling in the safe and capable hands of Briggs and Peel. -It is doubtful if in the whole history of English cricket three such -exceptionally fine fast bowlers as these ever flourished at the same -time, and the bowling of one or other of them influenced the play of -most of the great matches for some years at this time. - -Only one of the three matches against England was played to a finish, -and that resulted in a one-innings victory for England. The other two -both ended in draws none too favourable to the chances of an Australian -victory. - -Many fine innings were played by the chief English players during these -matches, while Graham with 107 at Lord’s and Trott with 92 at the Oval -did great things for the Australians. - -A great drawback to Australian success in a summer so favourable to -hard wickets was the absence of a reliable fast bowler. The days of E. -Jones were now soon to begin, and had he been available at this time, a -great addition to the all-round strength would have been realised. The -unusual wealth of bowlers of this description in the English elevens at -this time made this weakness especially noticeable. - -[Illustration: _AN ELEVEN OF MISS WICKETS._] - -And now, having traced in somewhat cursory fashion the ups and downs of -Australian _v._ English cricket through some thirty-two years of its -earlier existence, we leave the history of its further development at -a time when the present generation of Australian players are beginning -to make their appearance. The process of development between the days -of 1861 and the date of the first Australian eleven, 1878, seems to -have been gradual and steady. With the arrival of that notable eleven -were apparent great possibilities in the future, and, quicker even than -could have been thought possible, came the rapid progress, until the -culminating point of 1882 and 1884 was reached. From that time came the -curiously steady and disappointing decline, till, as we have lately -seen, the 1893 team once more gave promise that the ten lean years -were over, and a new era of prosperity about to begin. Right up to the -present day Australians were now to show themselves fully equal to -meeting our very best on even terms both here and in the Colonies. - -How profoundly this interchange of cricketing visits has influenced -the course of cricket in England can hardly be too much insisted upon. -Without them a representative English eleven would have never been -seen in the field at all, and how great a loss this fact alone would -have been to the cricketing world, both of players and spectators, can -hardly be overstated. - -That our Australian cousins should so soon have been able to tackle us -on even terms, in spite of their vastly smaller population and their -comparatively small number of first-class matches, must always be a -somewhat humbling problem for our cricketing philosophers. Certainly -they have the advantage of a longer cricketing season, and a greater -likelihood of finding the weather sufficiently fine to ensure their -cricket being played on good wickets. In this last factor we may -probably find the key to the whole matter, and, favourable conditions -being their normal experience, we may always look with confidence to -them for a very high level of play, and one that will tax to the utmost -the capacity of our best players. - - -[Illustration] - - - - -CHAPTER IX - -ENGLISH AND AUSTRALIAN CRICKET FROM 1894 TO 1902 - -By A. C. MACLAREN - - -In the autumn of 1894 Mr. A. E. Stoddart, acting upon the invitation -from the New South Wales and Victorian Cricket Association, sailed -for Australia, with a side composed of the following players: A. E. -Stoddart, F. G. J. Ford, H. Philipson, L. H. Gay, A. C. Maclaren, T. -Richardson, W. Brockwell, W. Lockwood, A. Ward, J. Briggs, R. Peel, -J. T. Brown, and W. Humphreys. In the selection of his team Mr. -Stoddart gave general satisfaction, although some well-known names -were missing, which was not surprising, since it is impossible for -all who are invited to see their way to leave home for seven months -of the year. If there was a weak spot in the team, it was generally -admitted to lie in the batting; yet, as events proved, the bowling was -the more unreliable of the two. It should not be forgotten, however, -that bowlers cannot possibly be expected to come out with the same -figures as on our English wickets; and in the same way, it is only -reasonable to expect our batsmen to do even better than on our home -wickets, which certainly do not come up to those of Australia, where -the climate can be depended upon. L. H. Gay, whose performances at -Cambridge were of such excellence that the English skipper invited him -without ever having had the opportunity of seeing him perform behind -the wickets, kept so much below his form, at the outset of the tour, -that the second string, H. Philipson, took his place, and with such -excellent results that the old Cantab never secured a place in the team -at all. The wicket-keeping of H. Philipson had not a little to do with -our winning the rubber. The tour opened none too auspiciously, since -we went down before South Australia, our first big engagement; but -too much importance ought never to be attached to the opening game, -owing to those who have not previously visited Australia being wholly -unaccustomed to the great glare of Adelaide, and to the fast pace of -the wicket. Again, it should not be forgotten that the captain, without -wishing to jeopardise his chance of a win, distributes his bowling as -equally as he can, since there are but two matches before the first -test match takes place, and the men who are not bowling their length -in these early games are given longer turns with the ball than they -would have in a test match. Thus, when a man is found to be in form, -not much use is made of him, unless the game appears to take a turn -against his side; and the necessary amount of trundling meted out to -those out of form may have been the means of keeping off the star -bowler too long. The Australians, when touring in England, work on -very similar lines, to enable them to get the side as well balanced -as possible for the test matches, which is sufficient to prevent them -from quite winning one or two of the early games. In our first innings -at Adelaide, no fault could be found with our batting, since Lockwood, -Ford, Ward, Stoddart, Briggs, and Gay all scored from 38 to 66, whilst -Brown scored 113 out of a total of 477. Our opponents replied with 338, -Darling, whose first big match it was, contributing a fine innings -of 117, whilst Clem Hill also made his bow to the public, being sent -in to bat No. 10, and scoring 20 runs. Richardson, who never got his -length, since he kept over-pitching the ball, was bowled a great deal, -which was only natural, his one wicket costing 83 runs, whilst Peel, -as a contrast, took five wickets for 69; Lockwood had 70 knocked off -him without taking a wicket, and Briggs 74 for two wickets, whilst -Humphreys took two for 62. But in regard to the last-named, it was -apparent to all that he would do little or no good in the first-class -matches, since the Australians treated him with the greatest respect, -refusing absolutely to be drawn; thus the out-fields had little or -nothing to do, and singles and twos, chiefly by placing, were the -result. It caused us no surprise when our captain decided to leave him -out in the eleven-a-side matches. That Humphreys was past his prime, -I for one will not admit, for his bowling was as good as anything he -showed us at home; but, with only three days to finish a game, it is -not surprising that our players, for the most part, played a free game -when pitted against him, whilst the Australians preferred to take no -liberties when such were unnecessary, owing to the games being played -to a finish in their own country. To these altered conditions of the -game do I attribute the failure of the lob bowler, for he used his head -well, and his fieldsmen, upon whom a lob bowler must depend, were all -that he could have wished. During our tour it was very evident that -our opponents intended to do little or no hitting, with one or two -exceptions, and I am of opinion that their policy is the best; indeed, -with the exception of hitting in the air for the purpose of keeping a -man in the out-field, I would have none of it, and would never wish to -see any member of my side attempt the same, excepting always the hitter -of the Jessop or Ford type. It had very nearly escaped my memory that -Humphreys carried all before him in the up-country or picnic matches, -the locals for the most part attempting to hit him out of the ground, -with disastrous results so far as they were concerned. To return to the -Adelaide match, our batting failed hopelessly in the second innings, -although the wicket played well right up to the finish, our opponents -being left with 226 to win, and obtaining the same for the loss of four -men, Reedman, of somewhat awkward style, scoring 83 of the number. -Journeying on to Melbourne, we were more successful, for, always having -a bit the best of matters, we eventually won by 145. The batting was -rather uneven, for Stoddart, Peel, and myself scored no fewer than 350 -out of 416. A. E. Trott bowled far and away the best of our opponents, -taking six for 103; whereas C. M’Leod, of whom much was expected, could -claim but two victims for 89 runs. Beyond his length, there was little -in his deliveries, although later in the tour he bowled a ball which -went away with his arm, and which required very careful watching. Our -opponents replied with a total of 306, Harry Trott coming out best -with a score of 70; but there was nothing which struck us very much in -regard to the batting of our opponents in this innings. Peel did what -little he had to do with the ball very well, taking three for 27, and -Briggs, who had a long turn, came out with the satisfactory analysis of -five for 97. Richardson, however, was far from himself yet, so far as -his bowling was concerned, but I can well remember dropping two easy -catches off his bowling at cover-point, and I was not the only culprit. -The fast bowler’s later successes only gave us a further proof, if any -was needed, of what determination and stamina he was possessed. In our -second innings, Stoddart, 78, again was seen at his best, with Briggs -43, and Peel 165. C. M’Leod came out with the best bowling figures, -taking four for 71. When the Victorians went in to bat, Peel, five for -73, and Briggs, three for 95, were too much for them. H. Trott, 63, and -R. M’Leod, 62, did best. Our first match with New South Wales resulted -in a very easy win for us, after Iredale, in the first innings, -proved himself well worthy of a place in the forthcoming test match, -by scoring 133 in his best style. The batting of our opponents was -very laborious, the total of 293 taking a long time to compile, Peel -bowling no fewer than forty-seven overs for 75 runs and three wickets. -Humphreys had one more trial, but without success. Our total of 394 -was made up of three big innings from Brown, 117, Stoddart, 79, and -Brockwell, 81 run out, the latter playing a beautiful innings. In this -match Howell astonished all by taking five wickets for 44, a very fine -performance, on that excellent wicket at Sydney. C. T. B. Turner, on -the other hand, was far from successful, taking but one wicket for 100 -runs, and on the face of this performance it would have been better to -have played the younger man in the following week, as events proved. -On going in a second time, Gregory was the only one who was able to do -himself justice, Peel accounting for the dismissal of our opponents, -his five wickets costing 64, whilst Briggs took three for 19. Left with -81 to make, Ford soon knocked up 39, and we eventually won with eight -wickets to spare. - -Prior to the first test, we played one more game, and that against a -very poor team representing Queensland, the chief features of the match -being the return to form of T. Richardson, who had the satisfaction -of taking eight wickets for 52 in the first innings and three for -11 in the second, whilst in the batting, Stoddart, 149, Ward, 107, -each topped the century. The time had now arrived for the first test -at Sydney, with both sides in fairly good form. Stoddart lost the -toss to Trott, but so well did Richardson bowl that three wickets -had fallen for 21 before the game had been in progress half an hour, -Trott, Lyons, and Darling all being clean bowled by the fast bowler. On -Iredale and Giffen becoming associated, the game underwent a remarkable -change, no fewer than 171 being added for the fourth wicket; but had -our wicket-keeper, who was standing back to the fast bowling, been in -anything approaching form, no such stand for the fourth or for the -ninth wicket could possibly have been made. Owing to more than one -life, Giffen was batting for some four and a quarter hours, his cricket -being marked by stolid defence. Iredale played a far more attractive -game, his cutting and driving on the off side being excellent. After -Giffen’s departure, wickets fell with fair regularity until Blackham -joined Gregory, whose cricket throughout was of very high order, -his cutting, glancing to leg, and hooking of any short ball being a -treat to witness. For an innings of 201, the chances were few and far -between, and it will always stand out as one of the best innings ever -played in a test match. Blackham too played a great game for his 74, -which went a long way towards the making up of so big a total as 586. -Of our bowlers, Richardson did really well in taking five wickets for -181, considering how many catches were dropped off his bowling. Peel, -without bowling badly, certainly was disappointing, his two wickets -costing 140 runs. Against the huge total of our opponents, we replied -with 325, Ward 75, Briggs 57, Brockwell 49, and Gay 33, being our chief -scorers, whilst Giffen certainly bowled best of our opponents, keeping -a perfect length throughout and using his head well. His four wickets -cost 75 runs only, and bowling, as he did, forty-three overs after -scoring 161, the performance was all the more remarkable. Following on, -as so often happens, we did better at the second attempt, Ward again -playing a splendid innings of 117, and being well backed up by Brown, -Briggs, Ford, and Stoddart. Our total of 437 was a good performance -under the circumstances. Giffen, acting captain in the absence of -Blackham, who had unfortunately damaged his thumb at the close of our -innings of 325, had a very long bowl, his analysis reading, 75 overs, -25 maidens, 164 runs, 4 wickets; yet it could not be urged that he -bowled himself too much, since he always looked more like wickets -than any other bowler. If any one might have been used a little more, -that man was H. Trott, whose style was so different from that of the -other bowlers. With 177 left to get to win, it was expected that our -opponents would knock off the runs on the evening of the fifth day, -but so slowly did they play that 64 were still required when stumps -were pulled up for the day. Considering that heavy clouds were seen on -the horizon and that Richardson had to leave the field after bowling -a few overs, owing to having contracted a chill, it was all the more -surprising that Giffen and Trott should have played in such pottering -fashion on the fifth evening; and, without any exaggeration, no forcing -tactics were necessary to enable the Australians to get the runs that -evening. At the close of play on the fifth day, 113 runs had been -scored for the loss of but two wickets; then, owing to very heavy -rains in the night, the wicket was wellnigh unplayable on the last -morning, with the result that Peel and Briggs were too much for our -opponents, the last eight men being sent back for 53, leaving us with -a margin of 10 runs. Peel and Briggs were seen at their very best at -the close, when the fates favoured us; but small as the total was, it -would have been still less had not I, and later Brown, each missed a -catch. Against these mistakes, however, there was an exceptionally fine -catch by Brockwell, which sent back Darling, and which had as much as -anything to do with our victory. - -The second test match at Melbourne resulted in another victory for us -by a majority of 94 runs, after our opponents had won the toss and -decided to put us in to bat. With such bowlers as Turner and Trumble -against us, on a difficult wicket, it was not surprising that our total -was a poor one, the whole side being sent back for 75. Turner took five -wickets for 32, whilst Trumble secured three for 17, after Coningham -had commenced the attack and had quickly got rid of two of the first -batsmen. As often happens, the wicket dried at a great pace, with the -result that we were bound to get wickets quickly on the afternoon of -the first day’s play, if we were to hold any chance of winning, since -it was patent to all that the wicket would be perfect on the following -morning. Tom Richardson, thoroughly grasping the situation, fairly -revelled in the importance of the occasion, taking five wickets for -57, and those good wickets were captured on a much-improved pitch. -This fine performance on the part of the fast bowler enabled us, in -the place of our opponents, to bat on a good wicket next day, with the -result that our captain fairly excelled himself by scoring the huge -total of 173, exercising much self-restraint throughout his long stay -at the crease; and thanks to this fine display, and to the general -consistency of the batting, we totalled 475. When our opponents went -to the wickets for the last time, so well did Trott and Giffen play -that 190 was on the board for the loss of but one batsman. At this -stage of the game a wise move on the part of Stoddart, in handing the -ball to Brockwell, brought about an extraordinary change, Giffen being -easily taken at point in attempting to play a ball to leg which went -away with the bowler’s arm, and immediately afterwards Trott, who had -played capital cricket for 95, being very well caught and bowled low -down by the same bowler, Brockwell. With the exception of Bruce, who -hit freely for 54, no other batsman withstood the attack of Peel and -Brockwell, a victory for us resulting. In regard to this match, I have -always thought that for downright good cricket it was not to be beaten. -The wonderful bowling of Richardson in the first innings, together with -that short, sharp piece of work on the part of Brockwell, will ever be -dear to our memory, when the fine batting of Trott and Giffen seemed -almost certain to reap the reward of a win for the Colonials; nor will -it be possible to forget the great effort on the part of our captain, -whose long innings never lacked sparkle, even if the importance of the -occasion demanded all his patience. - -[Illustration: - _From a Drawing by_ _N. Wanostrocht._ -_THE HON. SPENCER PONSONBY._ -(_Right Hon. Sir Spencer Ponsonby-Fane, G.C.B._)] - -The third test match, at Adelaide, was disappointing from a spectator’s -point of view, since on a perfect wicket our opponents were dismissed -for 238, of which number no fewer than 79 were made by the last two -men, A. Trott and Galloway, whilst our effort resulted in the paltry -total of 124, the wicket for both teams being in a good run-getting -condition. On going to the wickets a second time, our opponents played -in something approaching their proper form, scoring 411, Iredale -claiming 140, a very fine innings, whilst A. Trott again carried his -bat for 72. Our second venture proved no better than the first, the -whole side being sent back for 143, A. Trott meeting with extraordinary -success in taking eight wickets for 43; and seldom, if ever, has any -one met with such success as did the younger Trott with bat and ball -in this test match. Our failure was due, to a very great extent, to -the excessive heat, which deprived us of all chance of a good night’s -rest throughout the match, but at the time the match was played I -have no hesitation in giving it as my opinion that our opponents were -considerably the better team, and thoroughly deserved their victory. - -Curiously enough, the fourth test match, at Sydney, like the first -game, was spoilt by rain, and on this occasion the Australians -extricated themselves from a very awkward position as only good men -can. On winning the toss, Stoddart decided to put his opponents in -first, a move which we, to a man, considered the right one, and up -to a certain point all went very well, six of our opponents having -been sent back for 51. Then, however, an extraordinary exhibition of -forcing tactics at the outset, to be followed by more careful play, on -the part of Graham, entirely altered the aspect of affairs, no fewer -than 284 being on the board at the close of the innings, A. Trott -once again playing admirable cricket for 86 not out. When the game -was resumed on Monday, there had been so much rain overnight that the -wicket was quite unplayable, and instead of having the firm wicket we -had expected to bat upon, we found the pitch to be impossible, with -the result that we were dismissed twice for the small totals of 65 and -72, Turner and Giffen doing what they liked with the ball. Had Graham -been dismissed cheaply, we would undoubtedly have batted for the last -two hours of the first day, the only occasion of the wicket being in -favour of run-getting throughout the match. In that case we should very -likely have won, since our opponents would have had a bad wicket for -their second strike. In my opinion, Graham’s performance in scoring 105 -was one of the finest things that have ever happened in test matches, -coming in as he did when the wicket was at its worst, and going right -out to the bowling from the commencement of his innings, hitting to -all parts of the ground, until the wicket gradually improved, when he -settled down to a sounder game; nor should A. Trott’s fine score be -overlooked, although the wicket then had improved. - -The final test game, at Melbourne, which was to decide the rubber, was -one of the very best fights in which I have taken part. On winning the -toss the Australians certainly gained an advantage, for the wicket was -in perfect condition for long scores, and thanks to consistent scoring -throughout the team, the good total of 434 was run up against us, to -which number Darling 74, Gregory 70, and Giffen 57, were the chief -contributors. Considering that H. Trott also made 42, and that several -others got going, it was perhaps astonishing that more runs were not -obtained, but Peel, Richardson, and Briggs all kept pegging away in -their best style, and few runs were given away. Our start was not too -good, four wickets being down for some 120 runs; Stoddart alone, in -scoring 68, playing up to form. On Peel joining me, 162 were added -for the fifth wicket, a stand which caused it to be anybody’s game. -Unfortunately, the tail end did little, and we finished the innings 29 -runs to the bad. Of the Australian bowling, H. Trott did far better -than any other bowler, his four wickets costing 71 runs only, and I -have always thought that had he bowled more in the tests there would -have been a different tale to tell about these games. Turner might -have been very useful, and his exclusion caused a lot of criticism -at the time, and rightly so, too, we having the greatest respect for -him as a bowler. Still, it is very easy to be wise after the event. -In our opponents’ second innings, wickets were always falling with -fair regularity, thanks to Richardson putting in some sterling work, -whilst Peel kept them playing. Darling, Giffen, and H. Trott, all of -whom had done very well in the first innings, again played well, but -the rest were very disappointing from a Colonial point of view, and -the fact that a dust-storm made itself felt was scarcely a good enough -excuse to account for the want of success on the part of so many. -Richardson’s performance in taking six wickets for 104 was one of which -he might well feel proud, but to thoroughly appreciate such work one -should be on the spot, for there is a certain indescribable charm in -watching such a man. C. T. B. Turner and J. T. Hearne, in the same -manner, have always had their admirers. With 297 left for us to get -to win, our task was no light one for a fourth innings, and it became -no easier when Brockwell was sent back after scoring 5. Next morning -H. Trott succeeded in getting the skipper out l.b.w. from the first -ball bowled, and our position became desperate. As all the cricketing -world knows, Brown and Ward now made their never-to-be-forgotten stand, -the first-named from the commencement of his innings going for the -bowling in a manner which had seldom, if ever, been seen before on the -Melbourne ground. Driving along the ground and over the in-fields’ -heads, together with the short-arm hook of any ball at all on the short -side, were his chief methods of scoring, and he treated all bowlers -alike. Ward in the meantime was playing his usual patient game, -without failing to score whenever opportunity presented itself, and -his effort was second only to Brown’s. Not until he had scored 140 was -Brown sent back, and, disappointed as the spectators must have been, -yet they could not resist giving him a splendid reception on his return -to the pavilion. Ward, too, was equally well received when he had the -misfortune to be sent back only 7 short of the century. With 30 odd -runs only left to get to win, Peel and myself were together when the -number had been scored. This was certainly one of the grandest matches -ever witnessed, and for downright good cricket from both teams I place -it in front of all the test matches in which I have taken part. If we -had any luck in the game, it was in the Scotch mist on the last day -of the match, which helped to put the dust together on the pitch, and -enabled the wicket to play as well as it did on the first morning of -the game. It was remarked by not a few at the time that seldom did -the best batsmen all come so well out of the bag together on such an -important occasion, and it certainly was exceptional that the five men -in form should have scored as follows—the two innings being added -together: Ward 125, Brown 170, Stoddart 79, Peel 88 for once out, and -myself 140 once out. - -I have gone rather fully into details in regard to the 1894-95 tour -in Australia, for the purpose of laying the foundation of my work. -In 1896 it was the turn of our opponents to visit our shores, and H. -Trott brought over a far better combination than many expected after -reading the criticisms of some of the experts in Australia. It has -always remained a mystery to me and many others why A. E. Trott was -left behind, after all his good work against us in the Colonies, for -he was in those days unquestionably a greater player than in any one -of his English seasons’ cricket. The team did a great deal better than -expected, for not a single county defeated them, although two out of -the three test matches went against them. In H. Trott they had as fine -a leader as ever captained an Australian, or, for that matter, any -other team; never missing an opportunity throughout the many phases -of the game, he had his men well in hand from the commencement of the -tour, and his quiet manner, together with a never-ruffled temper, won -him the esteem and respect of opponents and comrades alike; indeed, -it is no exaggeration to say that no team from Australia ever pulled -quite so well together as did that of H. Trott. Possibly Trott’s -excellence as a captain lay in the fact that he always appeared to -know exactly what bowler to use against each batsman, added to which, -he never gave batsmen any presents of runs by having a fieldsman in -a useless position. Although there was nothing very startling about -the batting, yet it was very well balanced, no fewer than seven of -the side obtaining over 1000 runs, in a season when the wickets in -August were most difficult. Gregory, Darling, Hill, Iredale, Trott, -and Giffen all had their admirers, whilst Kelly kept wicket in his -best form throughout a long and trying tour; and but for coming -immediately after such an artist as Blackham, more notice might have -been taken of his excellent work. The variety of the bowling had not -a little to do with the success of the team, always remembering how -well it was handled, whilst we must not lose sight of the fact that -each fieldsman had every confidence in the bowler, occupying at times -the most daring positions under the very nose of the batsman, which -often resulted in the downfall of a wicket, without the said fieldsman -ever running much risk of an accident. The simple reason was that the -bowler always knew what his men were working for, and never gave them -away by an overtossed or by a short-pitched ball. The Australians, -generally speaking, have always appeared to me to know better than -we do how a batsman is the most likely to be defeated, and on their -side there is more of that mutual understanding between bowler and -fieldsmen that is so valuable. M’Kibbin, Trumble, Jones, and Giffen -all took over 100 wickets, and if the first-named came out with the -best analysis, Trumble took far more wickets, and could boast of never -having a bad day, for if the wicket was suitable for small scoring, he -never failed to do all that was asked of him, and if I had to name one -for excellence of length, I should without hesitation name Trumble of -all bowlers it has been my pleasure to see or play against. Jones’s -pace secured for him many wickets, and if some expressed a view that -his action was, to say the least, doubtful, there were others who -considered his bowling on this tour fair, and I certainly never saw -anything wrong on the occasions on which I played against him in -England. Giffen had the distinction of scoring 1000 runs and taking 117 -wickets, a great achievement, considering the many times he has visited -us. In fielding the team more than held their own, for Gregory at cover -was always a treat to watch, whilst Iredale at the time had no superior -in the out-field, and Hill and Darling possessed the safest of safe -hands, in whatsoever position they were fielding. Added to this list -of honour must be the name of Jones, who did many brilliant things at -mid-off. In regard to returning the ball to the wicket from any part of -the field, the Australians have always, since I have known them, given -us a long start, the ball being returned more accurately and, what is -equally important, more swiftly. We naturally have our shining lights -in this respect, but as a team the Colonials show themselves off far -better than do we in the field. In regard to the test matches, the -first of the series, which was played at Lord’s, was rather peculiar, -since our visitors, playing a long way below their proper form, were -dismissed for 53 on a wicket which could have had little the matter -with it, after the total of 292 made against them. Richardson and -Lohmann were the two bowlers to carry all before them, but the aversion -the Australians have always had to the ground at headquarters may have -had not a little to do with the poor display of their batsmen. On our -batsmen going to the wickets, those two sterling veterans, W. G. Grace -and Robert Abel, after the dismissal of Stoddart, played so finely -that the game appeared to be at our mercy; but the tail end did not -do quite so well as expected, and the total of 292 was the result. -There was nothing in the bowling of the Australians worth commenting -upon. It was in the second innings that our visitors showed such good -form, when the game appeared too far gone to give them any chance of -a win. All the more credit then to the captain and Gregory for their -great stand of 221, which caused their side to have a lead of 44 runs -with six wickets to fall after the dismissal of Gregory; and had the -end batsmen taken as much getting out as usual, it is quite possible -that they would have won, since there was a lot of rain on the second -evening of the match. As it was, many of our supporters were dubious -as to the result when we were set 111 to get to win, on a wicket -which had been affected by rain. The runs, however, were hit off for -the loss of four batsmen, thanks chiefly to Stoddart and Brown; but -had all the chances been accepted, there is no doubt that the game -would have been closer. Every one was delighted with the fine batting -of Trott and Gregory, many being of opinion that it was the finest -exhibition ever witnessed in a test match; the Englishmen, however, -were very confident that Trott was caught by Hayward with his score -at 61. This was the occasion of the crowd encroaching on the field of -play, which handicapped our opponents not a little. The second test, at -Manchester, resulted in a meritorious win for the Australians, after -they had won the toss, and always appeared to hold the trump card in -a game which was played throughout on a perfect wicket—in fact, a -wicket after the heart of the Colonials. Thanks to Iredale, who started -very shakily, but later played a beautiful innings, and Giffen, who -played his usual game of soundness, a total of 412 was run up against -us. Iredale played a fine game for his side in compiling 108, most of -his runs being obtained by crisp cutting and driving on the off side. -With the exception of Trott, no one else bothered us much, in spite -of the big total made against us. Richardson put in some of his best -work in obtaining seven wickets for 168, bowling as he did no fewer -than sixty-eight overs. Our batting in the first innings was as feeble -as that of our opponents had been excellent, for with the exception -of K. S. Ranjitsinhji and Lilley, who scored 62 and 65 respectively, -no one showed any form at all. The wickets were very equally divided -amongst our opponents, of whom possibly M’Kibbin, who was left out at -Lord’s, bowled best. Following on, the batting of the side again failed -most ignominiously, with one exception, and that was the wonderful -display of K. S. Ranjitsinhji, who scored no fewer than 154, and at -the finish was not out. His performance was without doubt the finest -in the match, playing as he was throughout his long stay at the wicket -a losing game—and every cricketer knows what that means. His cutting -and leg-glancing will never be forgotten by those who were lucky enough -to be there. The miserable failure of all others, excepting Stoddart, -was inexplicable, since the wicket remained true throughout the game. -M’Kibbin again came out with the best analysis, and had he played at -Lord’s, we might not have won so easily as we did. On the Australians -going in to get 125 to win, so well did Richardson bowl that the -runs were not hit off until seven wickets had fallen, and when No. 9 -batsman, in the shape of J. Kelly, joined Trumble, 25 runs were still -required to win. One cannot speak too highly of the coolness exhibited -by both men, who came through the trying ordeal most creditably. -Richardson’s bowling performance in this innings will be remembered -by all who can appreciate fine bowling, for, working his utmost for -three solid hours, he took six wickets for 76 runs, on a wicket which -remained good up to the finish, and I have always thought that this was -one of the best things ever done by a bowler in a test match—all the -more the pity that the combined effort of K. S. Ranjitsinhji and the -Surrey express did not meet with its just reward of a win for the Old -Country. The decider at the Oval naturally aroused a lot of enthusiasm, -but unfortunately the weather was not propitious, a commencement not -being possible until five o’clock on the first day. Our winning of -the toss meant practically the winning of the game, for the pitch was -in such a state of wet that it was all in favour of the batsmen, and -when stumps were pulled up for the day 69 runs were on the board for -the loss of W. G. Grace. Next morning the wicket was unplayable, with -the result that Trumble carried all before him, taking six wickets -for 59, the majority of which were made on the previous evening, when -the wicket was all against bowling and fielding, and I consider our -opponents were justified in criticising the action of the umpires in -commencing on the first evening. So badly did our men bowl on the -treacherous wicket before lunch that 70 went up with Darling and -Iredale unseparated. Afterwards Jack Hearne went right through the -side, taking six wickets for 41, keeping an impossible length, and -making the ball do just enough without too much. Peel really was the -culprit before lunch, it being the only occasion on which I ever -remember him failing to do well when all was in favour of the bowler. -Darling played a fine game for his score of 47, and, thanks to his -and Iredale’s effort, the Australians finished off their innings but -26 behind us. In our second innings Trumble again did what he liked, -taking six wickets for 30, the whole side being out for 84. On the last -morning of the match, with our opponents left with 111 to get to win, -the pitch had dried considerably, but Hearne was always able to get -enough spin on the ball to beat the bat, and the quick break was too -much for the Australians. As Peel also bowled in his very best form, -the result was one of the most extraordinary processions to and from -the wicket by the batsmen, nine wickets being down with 17 only on the -board. M’Kibbin, the last man, hit up 16, so that the total realised -44—and yet we are told that wickets are not broad enough! This match -was the occasion of the professionals holding out for higher payment -than £10, and then withdrawing from their position. That they had right -on their side was proved by the increase of pay from that date in the -test encounters, and it is not generally known that their request for -higher payment was not sprung upon the Surrey committee at the very -last moment. Considering the strain of these big matches upon the -players, it cannot be said that they do not deserve the £20 now given -to the professionals. - -[Illustration: _A CRICKET SONG._] - -[Illustration: _A LYRIC OF THE CRICKET FIELD._] - -The second team that A. E. Stoddart took to Australia consisted of -the following: A. E. Stoddart, K. S. Ranjitsinhji, J. R. Mason, N. F. -Druce, A. C. Maclaren, T. Hayward, T. Richardson, J. Briggs, W. Storer, -E. Wainwright, G. Hirst, J. H. Board, J. T. Hearne. On the eve of the -first test, at Sydney, our troubles commenced, the trustees taking it -upon themselves to postpone the match until Saturday, from Friday, -the original date of the fixture. This, of course, they had no right -whatsoever to do; in fact, the Melbourne Club telegraphed to the Sydney -trustees that the game must take place on the original date fixed. -Their sole reason for the postponement was to prevent disappointment -to the up-country people, since there had been a lot of rain. We -naturally were indignant at the decision, since it was made without -any one being consulted on our side, and the first we heard of the -postponement was during dinner on Thursday night, when one of us saw -an announcement outside a public-house, to the effect that the match -was put off. By putting the match off until Saturday, the trustees were -making it absolutely a game of chance, just what they said they were -trying to avoid, since the captain who won the toss on Saturday would -undoubtedly have put his opponents in first, and, with fine weather, -the wicket on Monday would have been perfect for batting, after the -Sunday intervening. As it happened, the pitch was quite fit to commence -at twelve o’clock on Friday, the umpires being of that opinion. There -is no doubt that the alteration was made solely for the purpose of the -gate, and with no intention of doing us a bad turn. Still, it would -have been better had those responsible for the blunder admitted their -mistake at once, instead of trying to make stupid excuses, and giving -ideas to the press which were scarcely complimentary to us. Owing to a -merciful providence, it rained all Saturday, and consequently got the -trustees out of a mess, the match being started on Monday on a perfect -batsman’s wicket. Unfortunately our captain had the sad misfortune to -receive a cable from home announcing the death of his mother on the -Friday morning, which kept him out of all the test games, and naturally -caused him to be unable to show anything approaching the brilliant form -of his previous tour. The first test was an extraordinary walk-over -for us, and yet we never looked like winning another game, so far -as the tests were concerned, afterwards, unless we except the last -game at Sydney. After Mason had been sent back cheaply, Hayward and -myself stayed some considerable time together, and our stand was -well followed up by Ranjitsinhji, 175, and Hirst, so much so that -we totalled 551. On getting our opponents in for the last one and a -half hours on the second day, Richardson and Hearne bowled so well -that, after the cheap dismissal of their best batsmen, they were never -able to recover their lost ground, although Trumble and M’Leod made a -magnificent effort at the finish of the first innings. Following on, -314 to the bad, the Australians did far better, Darling playing a grand -innings of 101, whilst Clem Hill put together 86 in his best style. -The remaining batsmen played very disappointingly, with the exception -of Kelly, the score reaching 408, leaving us 96 to win, which were hit -off for the loss of Mason’s wicket. Ranjitsinhji played a wonderful -innings, considering how ill he had been, only having got out of bed -on the Sunday morning, when he went for a drive. He was just able to -last out the hour’s batting he had on the Monday evening, and next -morning played, especially towards the close of his innings, when his -strength was leaving him, a regular forcing game. In the second test, -at Melbourne, owing to the game being played on a new piece of turf, -which the groundsman was most anxious to avoid, whatever chance we -might have had was taken from us. The wicket opened out to such an -extent that one could put one’s fingers into the cracks on the pitch, -which meant that the ball was always doing something which it had no -right to do, getting up or keeping low according to the angle at which -it struck the crack. The Australians were very fortunate, under the -circumstances, in winning the toss and batting on a perfect wicket on -the Saturday. They made such good use of their luck that 520 were -scored, of which number C. M’Leod made 112, whilst Hill, Gregory, -Iredale, and Trott all showed excellent form, scoring 58, 71, 89, and -79 respectively. Our bowling was thoroughly collared, and even had -the wicket remained good, I do not for a moment consider we were good -enough to win, after the excellent start of our opponents. Our score of -315 was very creditable. As previously explained, the heat of the sun -on Saturday and Sunday caused the ground to crack, the wicket previous -to the test match having been covered up from the sun’s rays for a -fortnight. Ranjitsinhji, Hirst, Storer, Druce, and Briggs all played -well for their runs, although the ball kept getting past their defence -occasionally, as was only natural. On our following on, with the wicket -getting worse, we were all dismissed for 150, a small score for which -we were prepared, Noble and Trumble only having to keep a length, -whilst the wicket did the rest for them. - -At Adelaide, the strong light of which city our men dislike as much -as the Australians take exception to the bad light of Lord’s, we went -down before our opponents most decisively, they thoroughly outplaying -us. Joe Darling opened the ball with a clipping innings of 178, his -driving being very powerful throughout, and, as Hill scored 81 with -him, the Adelaide people were rightly delighted with the success of -their two men, the score eventually reaching 573, of which Iredale -again took 84 in his approved style. Hayward and Hirst alone of our -men played good cricket, the total being 278 when all were sent back, -Howell doing most of the damage on an excellent pitch. Following on, -we did no better, Ranjitsinhji and myself being the only two to bother -our opponents, who gained a meritorious win by an innings and 13 runs, -proving beyond all doubt that we beat them at Sydney before the eleven -had struck form, our first test in the Colonies generally being the -least difficult to win, for this reason. Noble and M’Leod divided the -wickets, and in the former our opponents had unearthed a bowler of the -first order. It was very evident that they were now on the top of their -form, and our chances of another win in the tests were not too rosy. -At Melbourne the fourth test resulted in a further easy win for our -opponents, after they had commenced their innings very inauspiciously, -losing six wickets for 57, when Hill and Trumble dug their side out of -a nasty hole, 165 being put on for the seventh wicket. Hill played his -finest innings of the season; the fact that the total reached only 323, -of which his contribution was 188, speaks for itself, and it is quite -possible that the South Australian was at his very best about this -time. Trumble once again came to the rescue, and I cannot bring to mind -any player who has so often come off at a pinch. Richardson and Hearne -divided the wickets practically, and our bowlers did all that could -have been expected of them. When it came to our turn to bat, every one -appeared to be out of form, the total reaching 174 only. Whoever was -put on to bowl, a wicket resulted, the batting being feeble in the -extreme. Following on, we did very little better, as those who appeared -to get going were sent back when we were commencing to hope for better -things, and our opponents had no difficulty in obtaining the required -number, 115, to win, losing two wickets in the process. In this match -we were completely outplayed, after we had obtained a flattering start, -and I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that this combination -was well in front of any other against which I had played in the past, -even as it was in front of the team that we met in 1901-2. Sydney -appeared more to our liking than did other places, if our cricket was -any criterion, for we certainly did better on this ground, which has -not quite the same fiery life possessed by other Colonial grounds. -In the last test our form was better, since, on winning the toss, -we put together 335, and then dismissed our opponents for 96 less, -Richardson putting up a capital performance by obtaining eight wickets -for 94 runs. We completely broke down in our second innings, being -all disposed of for 178, Trumble and Jones doing the mischief. As our -opponents had 276 to get to win, the match was by no means lost, so far -as we were concerned, and as we got M’Leod and Hill out at once, our -hopes were raised, but Darling soon put the issue beyond doubt, hitting -out most viciously from the commencement of his innings, although it -should be mentioned that, with his score at 40, our fast bowler, as -well as the wicket-keeper, was confident he was out l.b.w. But the -umpire thought otherwise. On the other hand, Ranjitsinhji was given -out l.b.w. for an appeal from point, when he was most confident he -played the ball—a misfortune which, coming as it did immediately after -my dismissal, had a great bearing on the result of the game. But I in -no manner wish to insinuate that the umpire made a mistake in either -case. At the finish our opponents won handsomely by six wickets, a very -meritorious victory, once more proving, if any proof was required, -that they could extricate themselves from any position, however -difficult; and only a really great side is able to do such a thing -with consistency. Their performances of this tour in Australia were so -full of merit that I, for one, began to doubt our ability to beat this -little lot in our own country, and was not slow to communicate my fears -to better men than myself on my return; so that the result of the next -Australian tour in England came as no surprise to most of us. - -When Darling brought over the same team which defeated us in Australia, -a good time, so far as their cricket was concerned, was predicted by -all of us who had knowledge of their excellence in their own country; -and after the first test match, played at Birmingham, it was admitted -on all sides that we had not exaggerated their merits. On winning the -toss in the first game, it took them a whole day to compile 252, which -slow and over-careful play just cost them the match. Hill, Darling, -Noble, and Gregory all played well against a not very powerful bowling -combination, and more runs ought to have been made. Of our lot, -Ranjitsinhji and Fry alone played good cricket, and our opponents were -able to claim a lead of 55. On going to the wickets a second time, -they put together 230 for eight wickets, when they declared; and but -for Ranjitsinhji, who played a perfect innings in his own inimitable -style, the Australians would have won, the Sussex amateur carrying his -bat for 93. At Lord’s there were many changes—too many, I should say; -for Jessop, Townsend, Lilley, Mead, and myself took the places of W. -Gunn, Storer, Hirst, J. T. Hearne, and W. G. Grace, the latter having -telegraphed for me. On winning the toss on a fast wicket, we were all -out to Jones before we could turn round, with the exception of Jessop -and Jackson, who made 51 and 73 respectively, the total reaching 206, -a poor one on that fast wicket. Owing to Hill and Trumper, who fairly -collared our bowling, our opponents collected the big total of 421 -against us, the two named scoring 135 each, Trumper being left to -carry his bat. Both played magnificent cricket, and with the exception -of Noble, 54, no one else did anything. In our second venture we did -little better, scoring 240, Hayward, Jackson, and myself alone doing -anything, the wickets being divided up amongst five bowlers, thus -showing the variety of attack at Darling’s disposal. The 28 required -to win were hit off without loss, and from this point onwards to the -end of the tour our opponents preferred to play not to be beaten -rather than to lay themselves out for a win, and under the existing -conditions one could scarcely blame them. At Leeds, on a wet wicket, -the Australians were disposed of for 172, Young bowling extremely -well, but with provoking bad luck, since he beat the bat times without -number without hitting the wickets. Worrall hit well for his 76, but -the boundary was far too short a one, some of his mis-hits going over -the heads of our out-fields. Briggs was seized with an attack after the -first day’s play which unfortunately kept him out of the field for more -than a season, and we were much handicapped in the second innings of -our opponents, when our first two bowlers required a rest. They were -unable to get it, however, and Trumble and Laver pulled the match out -of the fire; and if both were in difficulties at times, they played a -fine game for their side. Hearne bowled in magnificent form, as also -did Young. Owing to rain, there was no play on the last day, when we -required 158 to win, with all our wickets to go down. Hill was unable -to play any more cricket after this match, being in the hands of the -doctor. At Manchester—thanks to a wonderfully sound innings on the -part of Hayward, who scored 130 when things were not looking too rosy -for us, an effort that was well backed up by Jackson and Lilley—we -scored 372, and on our opponents going to the wickets, owing to -Bradley bowling with much fire, they were cheaply dismissed for 196. -Young, who was suffering from a bad knee, took four of the remaining -wickets. Following on, with our bowlers literally fagged out, it was -not surprising to find our opponents masters of the situation, scoring -346 for seven wickets, when they declared. Worrall, Darling, Trumper, -and Noble played in their best form, the latter in particular playing -a great game for his side, but a game which, owing to its slowness, -was not appreciated by the large crowd, disappointed with the turn the -match took. With an hour left for play, our batsmen went in to have a -hit, for the sake of giving the crowd a change, and it was surprising -to find so many people weighing up our chances on what took place in -that last hour’s play, which ought to have been ignored. This was -the third drawn game out of the four matches played, and those of us -who knew the manner in which that Oval wicket had been pampered with -patent stuffs, etc., thought it the last ground in the world to finish -a test match on in three days, with one side laying itself out not -to be beaten. We compiled the huge total of 576, and as the last six -men had instructions to be out in less than an hour, one might well -have wondered what the score would have been had all got as many runs -as possible. Hayward again played a fine innings of 137, and Jackson -was at his best for 118, 185 being put up for one wicket, a record by -15 for a first-wicket stand in a test match, W. G. Grace and Scotton -having held it up to that time. At the end of the day’s play 435 -appeared on the board for the loss of but four batsmen. Next morning, -however, each player had to get out to give our bowlers a chance, if -we were to win the match. Our opponents did well in scoring 352, after -their somewhat trying experiences of the day previous. Gregory played -a masterly innings of 117, and with his captain, who made 71, saved -his side from a defeat, when nothing better than a drawn game awaited -them. Lockwood, who had been more or less a cripple throughout the -season, showed us all what we had missed by our inability to play him -by taking seven wickets for 71 on this perfect pitch, bowling no fewer -than fifty overs, a performance which caused his leg to give way again, -and which prevented him from letting himself go in the second innings, -when our opponents always appeared to have the game saved. But had -Worrall been caught early on, it is possible we might just have got -home. In the last half-hour the wicket commenced to go, but it was too -late for our chance, although Rhodes in that time bowled beautifully, -taking three wickets in very quick succession. At the drawing of stumps -our opponents had four wickets still to fall, and were 30 runs on. -So ended the tour, and out of five test matches no fewer than four -were left drawn. It is not astonishing to find so many who are to-day -playing for England wishing for fewer test games, and to have them -played out; and yet the same order of things continues, gate-money -alone, so far as can be gathered, standing in the way of a much-needed -alteration in the test games. - -In the autumn of 1901 the Australians honoured me with an invitation to -collect a team, but owing to the action of the Yorkshire committee in -not allowing their professionals to accept my invitation, the bowling -question was made a most difficult one for me to tackle. Thanks to all -other county committees giving me all assistance possible, a side was -collected, and had one of our bowlers, in whom I had every confidence, -only remained sound, it is quite possible that we might have come back -victorious, for, after winning the first test at Sydney, we had the -match at Adelaide three parts won when Barnes broke down at a time when -the wicket had crumbled badly at one end, and when he was the only one -who could hit the spot. On that occasion the two left-handers, who made -all the runs, if we except a fine innings of Trumble, were the only two -who could have put us down, owing to this spot being, of course, on -the wrong side of the wicket for their batting, looking at it from a -bowler’s point of view. At Sydney we headed our opponents on the first -innings in the fourth test, and in the last match, at Melbourne, we -only went down by 32 runs, after having to bat on a wet wicket. That we -were unable to stay our games out, especially in the later stages of -the tour, was scarcely surprising, since we were practically without -two of our bowlers for more than half of the time, which meant that -those who were left had far more trundling than was conducive to their -strength. In the first of the tests, at Sydney, thanks to a good start -on our part, we ran up a total of 464, Hayward, Lilley, Braund, and -myself all getting going. On our opponents going to the wickets, so -well did Barnes bowl, as also Braund and Blythe, that only 168 runs -were on the board when the last man was sent back. Following on, our -opponents scored but 4 more than in the first innings, and we were left -easy winners, Braund and Blythe bowling as well as they ever did in -their lives. Before the match at Sydney commenced, Blythe unfortunately -sprained his hand, but it was not until that game was finished that he -really felt any pain. The leading surgeon in Australia advised rest -for some considerable time, but the Kent professional thought that the -hand would not suffer much, especially taking into consideration the -fact that the wicket was all against long scores, so he took his chance -in the second test at Melbourne. On winning the toss, I decided to put -our opponents in, and had Barnes been able to bowl in the mud only half -as well as he had previously done on the fast wickets, our opponents -would not have scored 100. As it was, they only put together 112, but -Blythe found that spinning the ball gave him all the pain which the -doctor had predicted he would suffer, and Barnes bowled very short -throughout, notwithstanding the fact that he took six wickets for 42, -which really was not a great performance on that unplayable wicket. -When our turn came to bat, our effort resulted in 61, of which Jessop -claimed 27. Before the day was finished we got rid of five of our -opponents in their second innings for 48, and had none the worst of the -match. Next morning, however, with some of the best batsmen still to -come in, Hill played on the top of his form on what was now a batsman’s -wicket, scoring 99 before Braund beat him, whilst Duff, who had batted -out and out the best in the first innings, went one better by scoring -104 in his first test match, both players being seen quite at their -top game. Had a chance been accepted, Armstrong, who helped Duff to -add 120 for the last wicket, would not have received a ball. After our -early wickets fell, rain made it impossible for the remaining batsmen -to make a fight of it, although Tyldesley played fine cricket for his -66. It is only fair to state that, rain or no rain, our opponents -always appeared to have the game safe after luncheon on the second -day. Noble in our first innings took seven wickets for 17, making the -ball do everything but talk, whilst his performance in the second -innings was very little inferior, when he captured six for 60. Trumble, -who bowled an excellent length, took the remaining wickets in both -innings. In the third test, at Adelaide, a lot of runs were obtained, -considering the wicket was by no means perfect; but the bowlers on -both sides were not seen at their best, from various causes. Noble was -suffering from a strain, and Trumble was far from himself, which had -a good deal to do with our total reaching 388, out of which number -Braund, who played a beautiful innings, scored 103, whilst Hayward was -also at his best in compiling 90, and Quaife chipped in with a very -useful 68. Our opponents replied with 321, Hill coming out best with -98, being well backed up by Trumper 65 and Gregory 55. Of our bowlers, -Barnes broke down, after bowling seven overs, at a time when he looked -very dangerous; but Gunn came along in great style, taking five for -76, and Braund also did well. After obtaining 200 for five wickets -in our second innings, a dust-storm, which did us no good, but which -brought enough rain to eventually do the wicket good, stopped play for -the day. Continuing, we added another 40, Barnes being unable to bat -and Trumble bowling in good form. Wanting 315 to win, our opponents, -thanks to the two left-handers, who made 166 between them, and a -fine effort on the part of Trumble, claimed a great victory by four -wickets; but we were very unlucky in losing the services of Barnes, -who on that wicket could not have helped bowling well. It should not -be overlooked that the left-handers were batting on a good wicket, -whereas right-handers had to face a crumbled spot outside the off -stump. At Sydney we again claimed a lead on the first innings, Hayward, -Tyldesley, Lilley, and myself all getting runs, whilst Saunders, -Trumble, and Noble divided the wickets. On the second day Jessop, -bowling at a great rate, succeeded in getting four good men caught in -the slips; but Noble and Armstrong mended matters next morning. In our -second innings, with a lead of 18, we went out one after the other in -most surprising fashion before the bowling of Saunders, who carried all -before him on a perfect pitch, our effort resulting in the paltry total -of 99. Our opponents had no difficulty in making 121 for the loss of -three wickets. In the last match, at Melbourne, on a difficult pitch, -we disposed of our opponents for 144, Hayward and Gunn meeting with -success. We replied with 189, thanks to Jessop, Braund, and Lilley, -but Trumble was too much for most of us. In their second innings -our opponents pulled themselves together, and with Hill and Gregory -in form the total reached 255; and as more rain fell on our going to -the wickets, our task was a difficult one. In the end we had to put -up with a defeat by 32 runs, our total of 178 being very creditable -under the circumstances, since we had much the worst of the wicket, -on which Noble was seen at his best. Thus ended a tour which was not -too successful from our point of view; but with the exception of one -match, all the test games were very close ones, and it was admitted on -all sides that no team ever fielded in more brilliant style than did -ours. Jessop did some marvellous bits of work in every match, whilst -Jones, Braund, Tyldesley, and Quaife all were at their best. Lilley did -his work well behind the wickets, but was unfortunate in this respect, -that if he made a mistake, which wicket-keepers are bound to do, it was -generally a costly one. - -The team which Joe Darling brought over in 1902 was, in my opinion, not -quite so strong as some of us thought, although nothing like so weak -as some people in Australia tried to make us believe. Possibly they -had the best of the luck in regard to the weather in the big matches; -but there was no getting away from the fact that whatever the fates -gave them they made the very most of, never allowing a chance to slip -through their fingers in any of the games in which I played against -them. There was no fortune in losing the services of Trumble for the -first six weeks or so of the tour, in consequence of an accident at -the nets, which necessitated a free use of Noble in the bowling -department in the early matches. At Lord’s, too, during what little -took place, they were far from themselves, as far as their health was -concerned; but from that match to the finish of the tour they never -looked back, and it is quite possible that the reappearance of their -reliable bowler, Trumble, was a far better tonic than any of the -medicines they were taking for influenza. In regard to the bowling, -Darling may not have had too much, but the variety, together with -the consistent good form of those bowlers at his disposal on the wet -wickets, was quite sufficient to dispose of the best batsmen playing -against them in all the matches of the tour. Jones could scarcely be -expected to do well on the wet wickets, and naturally his figures are -nothing like so good as on previous occasions. Trumble always made it -as near a certainty as possible that few runs would be made against -him, provided the wicket gave him the slightest assistance, thanks to -his accuracy of length, together with his wonderful knowledge of each -batsman pitted against him, which he used to the full, and to me he -appeared to bowl almost better than ever. If Noble was not quite so -consistent as previously, he can excuse himself on the ground of the -extra effort required at the commencement of the tour in the absence of -Trumble; but when he was to be caught at his best, as in the test at -Sheffield, he carried all before him, and I still think he bowls a more -difficult ball than any other bowler to-day. That Saunders was included -was a very good thing for our opponents, since his great break from -leg on the wet wickets made it very difficult for the batsmen to -score off him, even if his length was indifferent, as was the case at -Manchester in the test game, when it was impossible to get him away -on the leg side of the wicket. In his case it was a triumph for the -selectors, since, with one exception, his performances in Australia -scarcely led one to believe that he would do so well as was the case. -Howell was far from well, added to which he was the recipient of most -painful news from his home, which was quite sufficient to prevent him -from showing any of his old brilliance. The fielding of the team was -of the greatest use to the bowlers, since mistakes were few and far -between. Hill, Hopkins, and Duff, in the out-field, were very safe, -whilst their return of the ball to the wicket was, as usual, most -accurate and far ahead of our style. Of the others, Noble at point was -very clever, and Gregory was as neat and clean in the picking up and -return of the ball as ever. Joe Darling handled his team admirably -throughout, whilst the entire absence of discord, together with the -many denials of pleasures which one and all underwent, proved how well -he was fitted for his post. Of the batsmen, Trumper stands right out -by himself, and I can pay him no higher compliment than saying he has -only done what I have always thought he was good enough to do. His -cutting of the ball, which was always placed to beat the fieldsman at -third man, was admirable, as was his hooking, chiefly by wrist work, -of the short ball. His driving, too, was not the least conspicuous -feature of his batting. The pace he always went at at the very start -of his innings frequently demoralised the bowler, and to his rapid -commencements, especially at Manchester and Sheffield, in the second -innings, do I ascribe the poorness of our attack in the majority of -the test games. Hill played many fine innings, but I thought he was -a great deal more aggressive, for which his defence had to suffer, -causing the bowlers less difficulty than used to be the case in -obtaining his wicket, although I do not wish to insinuate that he is -not now one of the world’s greatest batsmen. Darling lost a little of -his old form, although he gave us flashes of his former brilliance, -as in the test match at Manchester. May be the cares of captaincy -told on him slightly, at which I do not wonder. Noble was only just -beginning to enjoy himself with the bat when the tour was at an end, -although he made 284 against Sussex, the highest score of the season. -Of the new men, Duff proved himself to be a capital man to accompany -Trumper to the wickets, being possessed of excellent defence, with a -slicing sort of cut which brought him in many runs. Hopkins takes all -the risks of an Englishman, being specially fond of the hook stroke, -and it is safe to predict that he will continue to improve, although -he would be the first to admit that, if he is to bowl, it must not be -until several others have failed first. Armstrong did well all round, -adopting a somewhat defensive game, with an occasional straight drive, -very powerfully executed, and if he has a weak stroke it is the ball -between his legs and the leg stump that he does not care about. Kelly -was really excellent behind the stumps, and if occasion arose he was -generally good for some runs. A great feature of his wicket-keeping -was his absolute fairness of appeal; and this remark applies to the -whole team. In regard to the test games I do not intend to write much, -since they are all still fresh in our memory. The weather was very -unsatisfactory, the two first games being drawn, whilst in the three -finished games, at Sheffield, Manchester, and the Oval, rain was of no -use to our chances of a win, generally managing to come at the wrong -time for us; but this is all in the game. Had it remained fine, I feel -very confident that three days would not have been sufficient to finish -the matches; and in my opinion the addition of half an hour, which -necessitated the luncheon interval being taken at 1.30, handicapped the -bowler, since 4-1/4 hours were left for play afterwards—a very long -spell when no interval for refreshments was allowed. A rest, however, -was agreed upon later, with good results too, as the bowler generally -obtained his wicket after the interval. The first test, at Birmingham, -ended disappointingly, for after a very poor start on our part, which -Tyldesley and the Hon. F. S. Jackson set right, we scored 376 for nine -wickets, when we declared our innings closed. Tyldesley played a fine -forcing game for 138, and from the time when the Hon. F. S. Jackson and -he got together, everything went right for us, Hirst, Lockwood, and -Rhodes all playing excellent cricket. Owing to the rain which followed -our innings, our opponents had very little chance of drawing level, -but no one was prepared for the poor display of their batsmen, the -whole side being sent back for 36. Rhodes did what he liked with his -opponents, although the ball was not turning to any great extent, as -the wicket was quite on the wet side, and by no means unplayable. The -Australians adopted a hitting game, but the first attempt at a drive, -no matter whose it was, ended disastrously, without exception. Hirst -also did well, his three wickets costing 15. Rhodes had the excellent -analysis of seven wickets for 17, his bowling being very accurate, -whilst he suited his pace to the wicket admirably. Owing to more rain, -only half an hour more play took place, the Australians losing two -wickets for 46. There is no doubt in my mind that our opponents were -nowhere near their proper form at this time, and that the team without -Trumble was something like cod-fish without oyster sauce. At Lord’s -there was another disastrous start, which righted itself, when copious -rain put an end to further play. At Sheffield we had a great game. Our -opponents, winning the toss, did fairly well in compiling 194, Noble -making the highest score, 47, whilst Barnes, who came in for Lockwood, -bowled best of our men on a wicket possessed of considerable life. It -suited his style of bowling admirably, and he took six wickets for 49. -Braund did what little he had to do very well, commencing by clean -bowling Trumper for 1. It has been stated that a grave mistake was made -in leaving Lockwood out; with those of that opinion I do not agree—and -no one has a higher opinion of the Surrey bowler than myself. In the -week before the test match he secured but two wickets, and one of those -occasions was the match against Lancashire, whilst the other game was -that against Yorkshire. It was not Lockwood at all who bowled at Old -Trafford. At the end of the first day’s play we had scored 102 for -five wickets, but owing to a sharp shower in the night, the wicket was -soft on the top the next morning, and our last five men added but 43. -After the heavy roller had been over the pitch it played beautifully, -all devil having been taken out of it, which made the one man Barnes, -who had been so successful in the first innings, practically harmless, -since he has never been seen to advantage, in big cricket, with -the fire out of the wicket. Hill and Trumper went along at a great -pace, all our bowlers catching it, F. S. Jackson securing both their -wickets, but not until Trumper had made 62 and Hill 119. Well as both -men played, the bowling in this innings, as in the first innings at -Manchester, was, to say the least, very moderate. With the exception of -Hopkins, no one of the remaining players caused much trouble, Rhodes -finishing up by taking four wickets in 19 balls. But those of us near -the wickets knew why, for F. S. Jackson, who had kept an excellent -length for some time at that end, suddenly made two balls nip back very -quickly, and then the left-hander was immediately brought on. In fact, -the moment the wicket broke up at that end, Rhodes made full use of his -opportunity, as did the Australians when they got us at the wickets, -Noble on the last day, from the end which Rhodes had bowled, being -every bit as difficult, and taking six wickets for 52. It was only -due to Jessop’s hitting that we scored 195. As I had the luck to stay -there as long as any one, I know what I am writing about, and I have -no hesitation in saying that the wicket suddenly went all to pieces -from the moment that Jackson made the ball turn quickly. Noble also did -this to some purpose, making it kick up, too, very sharply, as on the -occasion when Jackson was bowled off his chest. In our second innings -I do not blame our batsmen in the least. Noble was seen at his best in -both innings, whilst Saunders did as well as he in the first innings. - - -[Illustration] - - - - -CHAPTER X - -UNIVERSITY CRICKET - -By HOME GORDON and H. D. G. LEVESON-GOWER - - -To thousands who have never been near the banks of the Cam or the -Isis, “the ‘Varsity match” forms one of the episodes of each recurring -year. It is a social festival; perhaps, also, it is the last great -manifestation of cricket as a game, and not as a money-making business, -which is to be found among first-class fixtures. But the University -match is more than this, for it is the Mecca of all who have gone -down from Oxford or Cambridge, the opportunity for the renewal of -former acquaintances, possibly the only occasion when you come across -those who were amongst your greatest friends in the day of _arcades -ambo_. It is good to meet old comrades, good to hear the ring of the -old jests, good to see how time is treating those who are your own -contemporaries—ay, and good to give one kindly thought to those who -have drifted to all the quarters of the Empire, and to remember those -who have been removed from us by Death. - -The University match is, however, more than an excuse for reunion. -It is the battle of the “Blues,” the struggle between eleven picked -representatives of Oxford and the eleven contemporary delegates of -Cambridge. All old University men, and all the undergraduates of -to-day, with their families, relations, and friends, young and old, -unite in shouting for their own side. It is as cheery a display of -enthusiasm as one could care to show to that hypothetical individual, -“the intelligent foreigner”—the foreigner one really encounters being -“a chiel amang us takin’ notes” for hostile purposes. But little care -we for international complications when Blue meets Blue. It is a grim, -grand struggle for mastery, and some illustration of the evenness of -the fight can be gathered from the fact that after sixty-eight contests -Cambridge should only lead by four. - -But the value of the University match exceeds all yet indicated, for -it is the supreme and unsullied manifestation of genuine amateurism. -When cricket is degenerating into a business, when too many eke out a -pseudo-amateurism in unsatisfactory ways, when individuals play for -their averages and sides play against the clock, we hail the University -match as the recurrent triumph of the true amateur, the keenest, -manliest, most entrancing, and most spirited match of the year—and -likewise the one haloed by the richest traditions. All these views are -apt to be forgotten when county committees are clamouring for valuable -Blues to neglect their University trial matches in order to help their -shires in championship fixtures. That is why this article is heralded -by a pæan of genuine enthusiasm, and it is this that we would say to -undergraduates in years to come—you may represent your county as long -as your purse and your skill permit, but no living man can participate -in thirty-six matches for Oxford or for Cambridge, nor more than four -times meet the opposing Blues. Therefore, take University cricket as -the happy fruit of early manhood, and believe that nothing in after -years is quite equal, quite identical with its delightful experiences. - -With these preliminary observations concluded, let us first see where -the game is played. Of course the University struggle is at Lord’s, and -probably every one who reads the present volume, even if he has not -been himself to headquarters, has a pretty good idea of what the ground -is like. Even in the last twenty years it has undergone a number of -changes in order to bring it to the level of latter-day requirements. -Of course the original picturesqueness of the surroundings has been -impaired. The present pavilion has been ingloriously compared to a -railway station. The extension of the grand stand has rendered all the -north side unsightly, and the huge mound at the south-east corner looks -like part of the auditorium at Earl’s Court. Even the tennis-court has -been shifted. But all said and done, 15,000 people can get a decent -view of the game at Lord’s, and the turf itself has been improved -beyond measure. Time was when the pitch at Lord’s was proverbially -treacherous, and old scores bear eloquent testimony to this. To-day -a superb wicket can be provided for a big match, one equal to any in -England, despite the fact that comparatively few drawn games take place -at St. John’s Wood. - -[Illustration: - _From a Aquatint by_ _Francis Jukes._ -_SALVADORE HOUSE, TOOTING, SURREY._ -(_After a Drawing by John Walker, end 18th Century_).] - -[Illustration: - _From a Drawing_ _by Crowhurst._ -_CRICKET GROUND, TODMORDEN._] - -So much for the meeting-place. Now for the trial-grounds of the rival -Blues. In this respect, Oxford had far more difficulty than their -rivals. The earliest grounds used by the Dark Blues were those of the -Bullingdon Club and of the Magdalen College School. The Bullingdon -ground, on the site of the present barracks, was at a goodly distance -from the town, but possessed some of the finest turf in the kingdom. -The Magdalen ground was a part of Cowley Common, and this was the -first enclosure ever leased to the Oxford University Cricket Club. -With a few individual digressions, there the bulk of the home fixtures -were contested until, in 1881, the University settled down on its own -admirable ground in the University Parks. A hard, fast pitch could be -obtained, in a central situation, with an excellent practice-ground -always available, while a commodious pavilion, exactly behind the -wicket, affords those in authority, and the legion who love to give -gratuitous advice, an admirable position from which to watch the -trial matches. Though not as yet dealing with the fixtures, it may -be broadly stated—without fear of contradiction—that the Oxford -eleven has displayed far more cohesiveness since it has acquired a -permanent establishment. Of course the fact that no gate-money can be -taken militates against the quality of the professionals engaged on -the ground-staff. It is a rule that only one home fixture shall have -a charge for admission, and then the match is played on one of the -College grounds, generally Christ Church, which affords the greatest -accommodation. When the Australians come, their game is invariably the -one selected. In other seasons it is usually a county match. - -Cambridge have been far more fortunate in the matter of a ground. The -University originally played on Parker’s Piece—a huge village green; -but in 1848, at the instigation of Lord Stamford and Lord Darnley, -who considered the ground too public, as well as the tradition that -the M.C.C. refused to appear again, because of the ill-mannered chaff -of the spectators, F. P. Fenner induced the University to move to his -spacious ground. The original pavilion, not built until 1856—and -then at the trifling cost of £300—was replaced in 1875 by a handsome -structure on which over £4000 has been expended. The University -eventually obtained Fenner’s on an admirable lease, and the ground can -be regarded as one of the finest in the country. Level and true, the -pitch does not take the heart out of a batsman, while a bowler obtains -all reasonable assistance. In estimating modern University cricket, it -may be fairly considered that all undergraduates have every opportunity -to train up to the best possible standard to which they can attain, and -that, so far as expenses and wickets are concerned, they have, in the -phrase of Mr. W. S. Gilbert, “nothing whatever to grumble at,” either -at Oxford or Cambridge. - -In the view of the writers of the present section, there is no need -to dilate at great length on the earlier history of the cricket at -the two Universities. The old matches have been replayed by a score -of pens since the stumps were originally drawn. I am not saying they -were not as admirable as those of later years—indeed, I would at a -pinch rather argue on the other side. But I do believe that those who -will read the present volume take more interest in the cricket of the -last twenty-five years than they feel in that of previous generations. -Therefore it is not from want of appreciation that I deliberately incur -the charge of treating in a condensed form the early battles of the -Blues. Were a volume at my disposal, instead of a chapter, I would -gladly act in a very different fashion. - -The University match was at first a friendly game rather than a serious -contest. Numbers of people would be surprised at being told that Oxford -had not always met Cambridge at Lord’s. But though the first match -took place at St. John’s Wood in 1827, no less than five have been -fought out at Oxford, either on the Magdalen, Bullingdon, or Cowley -Marsh grounds, four of which were won by the home side. To this may -be appended the following indications of the haphazard nature of the -game. In 1836, when there had been no University match for six years, -Cambridge lost by 121 runs, with two men absent; why, no contemporary -troubled to set forth. In 1838 began the regular succession of annual -encounters, but in a game won easily by Oxford there was one man absent -in three out of the four innings. Next year, when Cambridge won by -an innings and 125 runs—the top score in an aggregate of 287 being -70 by Mr. Extras, followed by 65 by Mr. C. G. Taylor—the losers not -only played one short throughout the match, but history does not even -give a reason, nor does tradition state who the eleventh man should -have been. Of the 46 wides sent down by Oxford, it was said, “the -bowlers evidently at times lost their temper at not being enabled to -disturb the wickets of their opponents.” But the greatest proportion of -extras had been in 1836, when these amounted to 63 in Oxford’s second -total of 200, and 55 in Cambridge’s first of 127, with 149 extras in -an aggregate of 479. Against this must be set only 24 extras in an -aggregate of 751, a creditable feature of the game of 1885. - -Among the early giants for Oxford may be cited Mr. Charles Wordsworth, -subsequently Bishop of St. Andrews, who bowled fast left-hand lobs -twisting in from the off. To him appears to have been due much of -the organisation of the big match. The earliest cricketer from Oxford -chosen to play for the Gentlemen was Mr. H. E. Knatchbull. A good many -of the Dark Blue triumphs mid-way in the ‘forties were ascribed to the -very fast round-arm bowling of Mr. G. E. Yonge, who, in five matches -_v._ Cambridge, removed the bails thirty times, in all capturing -forty-three opponents. This is the parallel of the terrific devastation -wrought by that very fine bowler, Mr. A. H. Evans, who sent back -thirty-six Cantabs for 13 runs apiece, twenty-two being clean bowled. -Admit, too, the prowess of Mr. G. B. Lee, who in 1839 took nine of the -ten wickets and scored a fifth of the Oxford aggregate. He was for -many years Warden of Winchester College, and his death, which occurred -on 29th January last, was deeply lamented by a great host of friends. -The first of the cricket “families” who have made immortal names in -University cricket was the Riddings. When two of the brothers played -for Gentlemen _v._ Players in 1849, the elder long-stopping and the -younger wicket-keeping to such tremendous bowling as that of Mr. G. -E. Yonge and Mr. Harvey Fellowes, tradition says that nothing was -seen like it until Mr. Gregor MacGregor put on the gloves to take the -bowling of Mr. S. M. J. Woods. In 1849 the Gentlemen won by an innings -and 40 runs, the biggest victory until 1878, and one mainly due to the -Oxonian combination. - -The next family was that of the Marshams, a triumvirate whose -achievements have been mentioned by every successive generation of -Oxonians, and to which Cambridge could offer no parallel until the era -of the Studds. Mr. A. Payne was a very fast bowler; so was Mr. Walter -Fellowes. Among batsmen come Messrs. Reginald Hankey and W. H. Bullock, -but towering above them stands Mr. C. G. Lane, whose name is enshrined -among the pristine heroes of the Oval. Nor prior to 1860 must the -prowess of Mr. Chandos Leigh, Mr. Arthur Cazenove, and Mr. W. F. Traill -be forgotten. - -[Illustration: _CRICKET AT RUGBY IN 1837._] - -[Illustration: _CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS PLAYING CRICKET IN -1842._] - -The Light Blue giants up to this time had also been notable. The -earliest of great fame is Mr. C. G. Taylor, a batsman of great repute, -an old Etonian, who was an adept at nearly every sport. With him must -be associated Mr. J. H. Kirwan, a very fast amateur bowler, “with a -low delivery which approached a jerk, but was allowed.” No matter how -he was hit, he persisted in keeping his fieldsmen behind the wicket, -ready for catches. Mr. T. A. Anson appears to have been the earliest of -the famous Cambridge stumpers, but his renown pales before that of Mr. -E. S. Hartopp, “the only man who could stop the famous fast deliveries -of Mr. Harvey Fellowes with any degree of certainty.” What that meant -on the old-time bad wickets may be estimated by the fact that, when -there was some discussion about pace, it was the unanimous consensus of -those old enough to judge that Mr. Fellowes had never been equalled for -lightning speed. Eton provided the next Cambridge bowler of importance, -Mr. E. W. Blore, whose pace was slow, with an excellent length. More -famous, of course, is Mr. David Buchanan, who in his University days -was a fast left-handed bowler. By the way, he himself confessed that -he would not remain a fortnight “kicking his heels about” in order -to play in the University match of 1851. His marvellous prowess with -the ball was altogether apart from his undergraduate career, though -he captured six Oxonian wickets in 1850. Mr. Mat Kempson, who hailed -from Cheltenham, was a clever fast bowler, with so much spin on his -ball that he was the only cricketer George Parr could not hit to leg. -It is said that while he and Canon J. M’Cormick were together, they -never lost an eleven-a-side match at Cambridge. The feat of Mr. M. -Kempson and Sir Francis Bathurst, bowling unchanged for the Gentlemen -against the Players, has only been equalled by the two Cantabs, Messrs. -S. M. J. Woods and F. S. Jackson, in 1894, and by A. H. Evans and A. -G. Steel, who, in the Gentlemen _v._ Players match in 1879, dismissed -a strong side of players for 73 and 48, both being then in residence -at their Universities. Mr. E. T. Drake, with bat and lob bowling, was -esteemed by his contemporaries as only second to Mr. V. E. Walker. - -The name with which Cambridge cricket will be historically associated -in the nineteenth century is that of Mr. Arthur Ward. He weighed 20 -stones when he played for Cambridge, and was so much chaffed by the -crowd at Lord’s that in 1854 he managed the match from the pavilion. -But to him is due the acquisition of Fenner’s, where he reigned as an -autocrat, despotic but delightful. He has been even as much to his old -University as Mr. Thomas Case, wise, vigilant, and full of foresight, -has been to Oxford cricket. The twain will never be forgotten, and -unborn generations should breathe benedictions upon them. - -Two successive secretaries of M.C.C. represented Cambridge in 1854. One -was that delightful personality and sturdy hitter, Mr. R. Fitzgerald. -The team he took to America in 1872 was the parent of many tours in -many climes, all enjoyable, if not of such public importance as the -great expeditions to Australia. He was succeeded at Lord’s by his -friend of many years’ standing, Mr. Henry Perkins, who is to-day cheery -in his honoured retirement after twenty-one years’ work, the full -value of which was not entirely appreciated by the younger generations -of M.C.C. until afterwards. In his day he must have been a keen good -cricketer, and, considering how little he watched the modern game, and -then always behind the pavilion windows, it is marvellous how he could -so skilfully diagnose the skill of players. His kindness to quite young -fellows fond of the game is one of those traits to which enough justice -was not done at his retirement, possibly because the tributes came from -older friends. It may be noted that Mr. T. W. Wills, who represented -Cambridge _v._ Oxford in 1856, was never in residence. The group of -cricketers who went up from Brighton College will always be memorable. -In 1860 for Cambridge appeared Messrs. G. E. Cotterill, Denzil Onslow, -A. E. Bateman, and E. B. Fawcett, as formidable a quartet as could -be desired. Mainly owing to the spinning slow bowling of Mr. H. M. -Plowden, the Cantabs won by three wickets on a soaking ground, with two -of the best Oxford men too unwell to play. - -The next eighteen years can be regarded as the mid-Victorian section -of University cricket. Preeminent from 1862 to 1865 was Mr. R. A. H. -Mitchell, then absolutely the finest amateur bat in the country. He -averaged 42 in seven innings against Cambridge, though his highest -innings was only 57. He was a wonderful bat, timing the ball with -something of the judgment of “W. G.,” though, like the champion, he was -_never_ quite happy facing Alfred Shaw. Possibly no other amateur ever -hit so well to leg, and he has the distinction of being the earliest -of the great captains who developed the game according to our modern -ideas. It was he, too, who gave Oxford four successive victories after -four previous reverses. After he went down, Oxford had no star for some -seasons, except that Sir Robert Reid proved as nimble behind the sticks -as he has since been successful at the Bar and in Parliament. - -Cambridge in the same period had more men of mark. At the outset -there were the erratic but devastating deliveries of Mr. T. Lang, -who captured in all fifteen Oxford wickets for 84 runs, and for his -University has the magnificent figures of forty-six wickets at a cost -of 5.54 apiece. Then too flourished Lord Cobham, of whom Mr. Clement -Booth—a veteran not given to rash assertions—states, “He was -absolutely the best all-round cricketer I ever played with.” Note that -Mr. Booth actually participated in first-class cricket—fine steady -bat that he was—until 1887, and still keeps up his interest in the -game. To collaborate with these three were Messrs. H. M. Marshall, A. -W. T. Daniel, H. M. Plowden, an excellent slow bowler, and W. Bury, -“who never missed a catch.” Truly was it said that the 1862 eleven was -not surpassed until that of 1878. It will be noted that Cambridge was -now enjoying the era of the Lytteltons, G. S., the second brother to -Lord Cobham, coming up in 1866, and showing wonderful nerve in a trying -finish in the following year. It was then the turn of the Light Blues -to win for four successive encounters. Much of this was due to the -great command of that eccentric free-lance Mr. C. A. Absalom over the -ball. He was outside all laws of cricket convention, among other ethics -of his being that a half-volley on the leg stump was the best delivery -with which to attack a fresh batsman. Altogether he took one hundred -wickets for 14 runs each as an undergraduate, and twenty-two wickets -for 247 runs in his three encounters with Oxford. Of course he was -utterly unorthodox as a bat too, but his hard hitting produced quite -a respectable figure in the average-sheet of the Light Blues. Of his -acrobatic agility in the field, it is safe to say that never will its -like be seen again. - -Slightly senior to him was Mr. C. E. Green, the father of Essex -cricket, and hardly had he gone down than Cambridge possessed one -of the most remarkable groups of attractive players to be noted in -our annals. This was in 1869—known, by the way, as the University -wicket-keepers’ match, as the two stumpers, H. A. Richardson and W. A. -Stewart, between them annexed fourteen out of the forty wickets. In -that year Messrs. C. I. Thornton, W. Yardley, J. W. Dale, W. B. Money, -H. A. Richardson, and C. A. Absalom all played for the Gentlemen. Of -these, the repute of Mr. C. I. Thornton as a stupendous hitter has -not even been dimmed by that of Mr. G. L. Jessop himself. For about -thirty years “Buns” went in to slog, and undoubtedly succeeded. Some -day, perhaps, when feats of hard hitting are collected, an adequate -catalogue of his amazing feats may be presented. They will certainly -prove unparalleled, and if others have hit as hard, possibly no one -ever _drove_ with such mighty impetus. Nor, in even this brief allusion -to his connection with University cricket, must it be forgotten what -service he annually rendered in collecting strong scratch teams for his -visits. It should be put on record that his two fine scores of 50 and -36 were made against Oxford in 1869 by steady defensive cricket. - -Of “Bill of the Play,” it is difficult for us, who never saw him -bat, to adequately write, when so many of our readers have been more -fortunate. A very eminent judge, however, supplies this note:—“Yardley -comes next to ‘W. G.’ among amateurs. Ranji may have produced new -strokes, notably that astounding ‘hook,’ but his physique never -gave him that impressive _command_ over the ball which was the -characteristic of the elder Cantab. Yardley possessed all the grace -of Palairet, with a strength equal to that of Ulyett. I should regard -him as the perfection of really beautiful batting accompanied with -remarkable power. He played all round the wicket, but he was stronger -on the leg side than modern bats.” - -To Mr. Yardley belongs the unique distinction of having made two -centuries in the University match, 100 in 1870 and 130 in 1872, the -former being the first made in the game—oddly enough, at a time when -he was supposed to be out of form—and the latter the highest, until -Mr. K. J. Key passed it with his 143 in 1886. Mr. J. W. Dale was a -stylish, pretty bat, while Mr. W. B. Money, besides being a clever lob -bowler, was a good and often aggressive bat, though from nervousness -he failed to do himself justice against the rival Blues. To all -generations of cricketers, the Oxford and Cambridge match of 1870 will -be known as “Cobden’s game,” despite the first recorded century. It -was also true that the hat trick had also never been performed in the -match, and Mr. F. C. Cobden now achieved it under almost miraculous -conditions. Mr. Cobden bowled a good fast ball of the average type, -nothing marvellous, and it is this one feat which has immortalised him. -Oxford had a fine eleven, the match being a genuine battle with giants -on both sides. The Dark Blues, to begin with, possessed in Mr. C. J. -Ottaway one of the coolest and most skilled of defensive batsman. He -belonged to the race of University stonewallers (the apotheosis of -which was Mr. Eustace Crawley, who was an hour at the wicket without -scoring, and in his second innings was another hour before he “broke -his specs,” amid stentorian applause, only to be out with the very -next ball, though the year before he had scored a century). Mr. A. -T. Fortescue was an excellent, watchful bat, Messrs. Pauncefote and -Townshend were useful, Mr. Walter Hadow a dangerous run-getter, and Mr. -E. F. S. Tylecote a sound, clever batsman, and so fine a wicket-keeper -that he has put on the gloves creditably in test matches. Moreover, -that good bowler, Mr. C. K. Francis, was a bat that had to be reckoned -with. On fourth hands Oxford needed 179 to win, and with Messrs. -Fortescue and Ottaway scoring steadily, and Mr. Tylecote playing good -cricket, the match looked a very hollow affair, despite the excellent -bowling of Mr. E. E. Harrison-Ward. - -Over the concluding incidents there is some conflict of evidence, but -it seems probable that the fact of an extension of the playing time -having been agreed to affected the finish, the light becoming bad. -When Mr. Ottaway was dismissed, Oxford needed 19 to win, with five -wickets to fall. Subsequently Messrs. Townshend and Francis were sent -back, but only 4 runs were required, with three wickets to fall. Then -came Mr. Cobden’s sensational and renowned over. Off the first ball, -Mr. F. H. Hill, who was well set, made a vigorous stroke which was so -well fielded by Mr. A. Bourne that only a single was scored. Off the -second ball Mr. S. E. Butler was sharply annexed by the same opponent. -Mr. T. H. Belcher was bowled by the next delivery, and it is even now -controversial whether clean or off his pads. Finally, in came Mr. W. A. -Stewart, who was, under the circumstances, naturally extremely nervous, -and the victorious bowler at once removed his bail, amid a scene of -frantic excitement. - -Wonders now come in battalions, for in the very next University -encounter was performed another feat never again or before achieved -in this especial match. This was the capture of all ten wickets on -a side. Whether much of the success was due to the ground is beside -the question. The fact remains that Mr. S. E. Butler took all the ten -Cantab wickets at a cost of 38 runs, and then claimed five more for -57. He was a fast bowler, who on this occasion found a spot which made -the ball keep very low, and on a difficult pitch he was absolutely -unplayable. Oxford this season had the benefit of the fine batting -of Lord Harris, the man who, next to Lord Hawke, has probably done -more for cricket than any one else. He was a stylish, attractive bat, -with brilliant strokes and great driving power. Few batsmen have -performed better against fast bowling; but his prowess ripened by his -association with Kent rather than in his University days. Still, the -Cantabs possessed the bulk of the new cricketers. Mr. W. N. Powys, a -rather fast left-handed bowler, had the splendid figures of twenty-four -wickets for 153 runs, while the two Etonians, Messrs. George Longman -and A. S. Tabor, acquired high repute as batsmen. The former was -the more attractive, comparable in a later generation to Mr. Norman -Druce, while the latter, though more cramped, also might have been the -more difficult to dislodge. In 1872, both being freshmen, they were -the earliest who ever put up a century for the first wicket in the -University match. - -The next triumph of Oxford came in 1875. This was due to Mr. A. W. -Ridley, whose lobs were preternaturally successful at the crisis. -Both sides carried men famed in the game. Mr. A. J. Webbe has in some -measure occupied a unique position. Apart from his high repute as a -batsman, he has devoted himself with assiduity to cricket at both -Oxford and Harrow, in many ways materially influencing cricket, apart -from his illustrious connection with Middlesex. Others to be noted were -Mr. Vernon Royle, possibly the grandest field who ever donned flannels, -Mr. W. H. Game, a big hitter, apt to prove disappointing, and Mr. T. -W. Lang, who, besides being an admirable bowler, had trained into a -very useful bat. Mr. Ridley as a bat, too, was a delightful exponent of -the best Etonian traditions. Cambridge, however, enjoyed the services -of some wonderful cricketers. In his quiet, patient, yet admirable -method, how few can have excelled Mr. A. P. Lucas! Seven-and-twenty -years after the match in question, a junior among the last Australian -team expressed his opinion that Mr. Lucas was among the first flight of -English batsmen of to-day. One critic has judiciously remarked that he -never attempts to place a ball, or he would have scored three times -as many runs, but for sheer accuracy who can ever have surpassed him? -A colleague was Mr. Edward Lyttelton, most famous but one of all the -family—a fine bat, remarkably free, a magnificent field anywhere, with -heart and soul in the game. Mr. F. F. J. Greenfield, unorthodox but -capable, was another useful man, and the bowling rested mainly on W. S. -Patterson. - -The sensation of the match in which all these participated was in -the close finish. Cambridge, needing 174 to win, had reached 161 for -seven wickets, everything having gone in their favour until Mr. Webbe -caught out Mr. Lyttelton in the country, a catch which many judges -still watching the game think was the finest they ever witnessed. Mr. -W. H. Game persuaded his captain, Mr. A. W. Ridley, to go on with lobs -at this crisis. “It was much against my own judgment. My first ball -got rid of W. S. Patterson; then Macan came in and made a single off -the next. This brought Sims to my end, and he hit my third ball clean -over my head for four. Lang then bowled against Macan, who kicked a -leg-bye, and afterwards a no-ball made it seven to win. It was now that -Sims was caught, and Arthur Smith came in. He looked rather shaky, -and no wonder. He managed to keep his wicket intact for two balls, -but my third bowled him, amid terrific excitement.” Thus Mr. A. W. -Ridley himself, in reply to the request for his own reminiscence for an -article in the _Badminton Magazine_. His modest impression deserves to -be resurrected here. Mr. Edward Lyttelton has stated that the ball with -which the victorious lob bowler dismissed each of his victims was “a -straight low one on the leg stump which did not turn an inch.” Of the -match in 1876 it may be stated that Mr. W. S. Patterson was the first -“centurion” to be undefeated, and Mr. W. H. Game, the first Oxonian to -run into three figures against Cambridge, though in the following year -his example was followed by Mr. F. M. Buckland. It may be pointed out -that Oxford from 1871 to 1875 and Cambridge from 1876 to 1880 each won -four victories, interrupted by one defeat. In 1876 each University had -won an equal number of matches.[5] - -1878 was the first year of modern cricket as generally accepted, but -it was hardly more notable for the first visit of the Australians -than for the unrivalled ability of the Cambridge eleven. They played -eight matches, and won them all, a result as much due to magnificent -fielding as to any other cause. Of course the phenomenal agency was the -marvellous skill of Mr. A. G. Steel, but this great exponent of every -department of the game was admirably backed up by the whole side. They -opened by defeating Mr. C. I. Thornton’s eleven, which included Dr. W. -G. Grace and his younger brother, as well as Mycroft and Midwinter, by -79 runs, though 90 runs behind on first hands. Single-innings victories -were gained over M.C.C. and the Gentlemen, while Yorkshire was disposed -of by a margin of ten wickets. Migrating to the Oval, Surrey fell to -the tune of an innings and 112, while M.C.C., strongly represented at -Lord’s, were left in a minority of 106. Although Messrs. A. J. Webbe -and A. H. Evans appeared for Oxford, the University match was felt to -be one-sided, and so it proved. Mr. A. D. Greene took four hours and -ten minutes to get 35 runs, while in the second effort Messrs. A. G. -Steel and P. H. Morton sent the whole side back for 32. Finally the -Cantabs, though deprived of the great services of Mr. A. P. Lucas, beat -the Australians before lunch on the second day by an innings and 72 -runs. In emphasising this startling succession of victories, it ought -to be pointed out that only once did opponents exceed a total of 127, -and then the aggregate was only 193, while six sides were dismissed for -less than 70 runs apiece. - -Now for the doughty team which Mr. Edward Lyttelton led so admirably. -Be it noted that he was the only Englishman who in 1878 scored a -century against the Australians. To him, and to Mr. A. P. Lucas, -allusion has already been made. To do adequate justice to the great -game always played by Mr. A. G. Steel is beyond our pens. Suffice -it to say that the true panegyric lies in his magnificent record. -In connection with Cambridge in 1878, he headed both tables, taking -seventy-five wickets for 7 runs apiece, and averaging 37 for an -aggregate of 339. At that time his bowling was incomparably difficult, -mainly because of the way he used to vary his “pitch and break.” Never -did any attack need such careful watching. His batting, of course, -reached its climax in that superb 148 _v._ Australians at Lord’s in -1884, and its most brilliant piece of fireworks when he went in ninth -at Scarborough, and scored a century while the others made 7. But it -was not even his skill which made Mr. A. G. Steel so great. It was his -masterly and inspiriting confidence, together with an unparalleled -grasp of the game, which made him the greatest amateur after “W. G.” -that we have looked on. - -Following him must come Mr. Alfred Lyttelton, a great wicket-keeper, -who would have been greater still, had he not appeared in the -transition stage between long-stopping and standing up to the bowlers. -He was also a really free and attractive bat, who could force the -game well. Mr. P. H. Morton would nowadays be regarded as only a -medium-paced bowler, whose difficulty arose from the speed at which -his ball came off the pitch, whilst it was doing a great deal. His -career in cricket was practically bounded by his time at Cambridge, in -connection with which his bowling will always be worthily remembered. -Mr. Herbert Whitfeld proved somewhat of a stonewaller type, shaping -with admirable correctness, and in the field has known no superior. -Hon. Ivo Bligh (now Lord Darnley) only lacked good health. As a bat he -was an almost perfect exponent of Etonian traditions, so long as he -could play forward. We are of opinion that his cutting was at times -harder than that of any other amateur. Mr. D. Q. Steel had his days; -batsmen of his reckless temperament must have a heavy percentage of -failures. But for fine play all round the wicket, when he was in the -vein, he could be commended as a positive peril to any opponents. -Mr. A. F. J. Ford could hit “high, hard, and often,” bowl a useful -change, and catch opponents in the slips with the facility and length -of reach subsequently displayed by Tunnicliffe. Mr. L. K. Jarvis was -an attractive bat, but was a good deal more dangerous on a fast wicket -than a slow. Finally, Mr. F. W. Kingston, who could put on the gloves -with considerable credit, was a sound, careful bat, who used to play -the old “draw” stroke with notable ability. But after all, it was the -cohesion and the fielding which made 1878 _the_ Cambridge eleven _par -excellence_. - -Not much noteworthy happened in 1879, a season that maintained its -unpleasant record for wetness and chilliness until 1902 relegated -all previous experiences into mere episodes. But 1880 saw the Studds -following the Steels and Lytteltons into the Cambridge eleven. There -was always an element of uncertainty about Mr. G. B. Studd, but he -was often a really brilliant bat and brilliant field at cover-point. -As for Mr. C. T. Studd, he is the greatest amateur between Mr. A. G. -Steel and Mr. S. M. J. Woods. Few men have ever played cricket with -such accuracy. Those who have seen J. T. Hearne pitch ball after ball -with mechanical precision at Lord’s can realise how Mr. C. T. Studd -used to bowl, only slower. His batting was never perhaps so sound as -that of Mr. C. B. Fry, but that is the nearest contemporary type; only -the style of Mr. Studd was one absolutely satisfactory to witness. The -game sustained a national loss when he left it to undertake missionary -labour in Asia. Mr. J. E. K. Studd, who came into the Cambridge -eleven a year later, thus establishing a record of three brothers -all simultaneously playing for their University, was never so good -as either of the others, but he was a hard-working cricketer, and a -difficult bat to dislodge, while his punishing powers were of no mean -order. - -In 1881 both teams were powerful, the public opinion that Cambridge -were far the stronger being quite properly reversed. Three innings of -the match were moderate, principally because the Cantabs all drew away -from the fast bowling of Mr. A. H. Evans, who claimed thirteen wickets -for 10 runs apiece. But the grandest feature was the innings of 107 -by Mr. W. H. Patterson, who carried his bat clean through the second -Oxford innings, although suffering from a badly-injured hand. It was -one of the greatest innings ever played at Lord’s, and foreshadowed -the fine service he subsequently rendered to Kent. That brilliant -disappointment, Mr. C. F. H. Leslie, whose phenomenal batting at Rugby -evoked anticipations never realised, played a splendid innings of 70, -his partnership with the old Harrovian arresting the succession of -Cantab victories, which were destined to be resumed for the next two -years. A conspicuous Oxonian recruit was Mr. M. C. Kemp, a capital -wicket-keeper, and a most lively, not to say venturesome, bat, and -a wonderful judge of a run. But it was his exciting personality and -wonderful enthusiasm which made him of such moral value to any side. -That attractive Wykehamist bat, Mr. A. H. Trevor, unfortunately elected -to watch rather than to play cricket after he went down from college. - -[Illustration: - _From a Water-Colour, attributed to_ _G. Cruickshank._ -_THE CORINTHIANS AT LORDS IN 1822._] - -1882 saw a striking contrast between the treatment meted out to -the two Universities by the greatest of all Australian teams. Mr. -Murdoch’s combination opened their campaign on the Christ Church -ground, and the Colonial who took first ball scored 202. This was that -magnificent batsman, Mr. H. H. Massie. Mr. E. D. Shaw alone of the -home side could offer much resistance, as was also the case in the -first innings against Cambridge. Although this match was on 15th May, -ten Oxford blues were on the home side, the eleventh man being that -energetic, if erratic, bowler, Mr. C. J. M. Godfrey. Cambridge gave -a vastly different exhibition. Mr. C. T. Studd signalised his first -appearance against an Australian eleven by scoring 118 and taking -eight wickets. The triumvirate of brothers were responsible for 297 -out of 393 from the bat, and thus had a large share in the triumphant -victory by six wickets, the only defeat of the Colonials till 11th -August. The slow bowling of Mr. R. C. Ramsey, an old Harrovian, himself -a Queenslander, had also much to do with the success, for he claimed -twelve wickets for 179 runs. On 17th August, for the first time, -Cambridge Past and Present met the Australians, and, after one of the -most spirited contests, effected a victory by 20 runs. The bowling of -Mr. A. G. Steel and Mr. C. H. Alcock—who never obtained his blue—and -fine batting by Mr. Alfred Lyttelton against Messrs. Spofforth and -Boyle at their deadliest, were the main agencies. That phenomenal 66 -of Mr. G. J. Bonnor, compiled in half an hour with four sixes and -six fours, was one of the most astounding things ever perpetrated -in cricket. The University match was a good one, including a really -artistic 120 from Mr. G. B. Studd, fine form in both departments from -his more illustrious brother, and an innings of great force from one -of the hardest hitters who ever played at Lord’s, Mr. Henery, a man -of iron strength though diminutive physique. Lord Hawke, then merely -an energetic and interesting bat, was not in his University days so -valuable a cricketer as afterwards. Indeed, his powers steadily ripen -with years, and in 1902, at the age of forty-two, he batted at the Oval -in grander style than ever before, although down at Taunton they say -his 126 against Somersetshire was the best innings of all. Long may he -continue to advance. The day of his retirement will prove a sad blow to -cricket throughout the country. On the Oxford side, Mr. J. G. Walker -was nothing like the fine bat to which he afterwards trained on, but at -point he has rarely been matched, save by Dr. E. M. Grace. - -Though Cambridge won in 1883, the side was by no means phenomenal. Mr. -C. W. Wright, who was remarkably effective during his residence at -Trinity, was the “centurion,” and Messrs. C. T. Studd and C. A. Smith -were responsible for the attack. The latter was a vigorous, bustling -cricketer, whose curious method of approaching the wicket has rarely -been emulated. Of the Oxonians the most notable newcomer was Mr. H. -V. Page, a bat with fine nerve, and an equally fine “pull” stroke, -keen field, and by no means bad bowler, perfectly indifferent to -punishment. Considering that the phenomenally stubborn Mr. C. W. Rock -obtained his blue in 1884, most imperturbable of bats, and destined -a year or two later to be about the best contemporary amateur bowler -(of moderately medium pace, be it mentioned), and further, that two -notable county captains, Messrs. H. W. Bainbridge and F. Marchant, both -old Etonians, came into the eleven, it is hard to say why Cambridge -was so poor. But the fact remains, they were somewhat of a slack side, -and neither of the Etonians was then the masterly exponent of batting -which in diverging ways they subsequently became. Oxford had a big -repute, including the sensational presence of Mr. (now Sir) T. C. -O’Brien, who, having gone into residence solely to get his blue, had -the memorable misfortune to bag a brace. Mr. B. E. Nicholls, a senior -from Winchester, was perfectly extraordinary in the slips; against the -Australians, for example, he nipped no less than seven catches. But -the comparative falling off of the two Universities can be gathered -from the fact that no one from either team represented the Gentlemen -against the Colonials in either match, though three Oxonians were on -the victorious side against the Players at Lord’s. - -The Cambridge victory of 1885 was due to some Oxonian half-heartedness -in shaping at Mr. C. Toppin at the outset, and to a partnership of 142 -by Messrs. C. W. Wright and H. W. Bainbridge, who just ran into the -coveted three figures. Cricket was played to a different tune next -year, when two great Oxonians effected a stand of 243. The heroes of -this were Mr. K. J. Key and Mr. W. Rashleigh. The burly successor to -Mr. J. Shuter as Surrey skipper was in his third year, and at that -time was a singularly fine bat. It may be confidently asserted that no -other amateur of the present generation has so triumphantly exploited -the “pull,” and he played the game with cheery energy. Mr. Rashleigh, -who at Tonbridge had been as sensational as Mr. Leslie a few years -before at Rugby, did great things for Kent, but nothing better than -this fine display. Those who note with bewilderment that no one else -ran into double figures in the Oxonian total of 304 ought to be told -that the side purposely played themselves out. Finely as Mr. Bainbridge -again played (his scores were 44 and 79), his side was hopelessly -unsuccessful, but the absurdity of playing Mr. C. M. Knatchbull -Hugessen remains to all time the biggest blunder in University -selection, for there was already a deft stumper in Mr. L. Orford. -Both that match and a year later that genial sportsman and capable -cricketer, Mr. E. H. Buckland, bowled best for victorious Oxford. - -The match of 1887 is known as “the last choice game.” The eleventh -place in each team was only filled at the latest possible moment. The -Light Blue final selection, Mr. Eustace Crawley, scored 33 and 103 -not out, and the Dark Blue one, Lord George Scott, contributed 100 -and 66. Oxford fielded superbly, and their new wicket-keeper, Mr. H. -Phillipson, was absolutely one of the finest who has ever donned the -gloves, and it is a great pity that his impetuosity and tremendous -punishing powers overpowered his otherwise remarkable capacity as -a bat, which at Eton caused him to be regarded as exceptionally -excellent. Deplorably weak bowling on both sides left the Light Blues -in the minority only because of their liberality in the matter of -dropped catches. - -In 1888 Cambridge obtained the assistance of two amateurs whose -combined services will be remembered as long as the game is played. -These were of course Messrs. Gregor MacGregor and S. M. J. Woods. -Undoubtedly in his prime the Scotchman has never had a rival among -amateur wicket-keepers, except Mr. Blackham. The way he used to take -Mr. S. M. J. Woods, the way too in which he handled the deliveries -of Mr. C. J. Kortright for the Gentlemen, will never be forgotten by -those who witnessed them. He was also a stubborn bat, who came off when -things were at their worst, and he remains one of the distinguished -cricketers of his lengthy period. Even more emphatically can this -be remarked of Mr. S. M. J. Woods. The value of his bowling may be -gathered from his analysis in his seven University innings, when his -victims were 36, at a cost of under 9 runs apiece; moreover, for -Cambridge he annexed 190 opponents at a cost of 14 runs each. To say -that he was a terror is but to be truthful. His great break back, in -combination with great pace, with a magnificent slow ball, made him for -many years unrivalled as a fast bowler. A magnificent field, gathering -the ball as he rushed in to meet it, and a great hitter, in those days -somewhat less judicious than when so serviceable to Somersetshire, he -combined all the aptitudes of a redoubtable cricketer. As a combination -of bowler and wicket-keeper, in University cricket, Messrs. Woods -and MacGregor have no parallel. But as often happens, the two stars -gathered some notable men into their constellation. - -Senior among these must be named Mr. F. G. J. Ford, youngest and -best cricketer in a family of sportsmen. Like all big hitters, more -especially perhaps left-handers, he was uncertain. During his four -years at Cambridge he was not, except at Brighton, the terrifically -punishing bat he subsequently became. But he was in those days a very -useful bowler, as well as a formidable run-getter. Mr. R. C. Gosling, -an excellent bat of the Eton type, actually was not dismissed by Oxford -until his third University match, a curious feat for a man going in -seventh. Another Etonian bat, but essentially fast wicket player, was -Mr. C. P. Foley, who fairly won the match of 1891 by his steadiness. -An even better bat was Mr. R. N. Douglas, whose play was freer than -subsequently for Middlesex, and who was always attractive. Mr. E. -C. Streatfield would have taken prominent rank, had he really cared -more for the game. Batting with a trace of the style which made him a -capital racquet-player, he could lay about him with perilous rapidity, -whilst his fine bowling claimed five for 14 when Oxford was dismissed -for 42, and his ball removed the bails each time. It would be idle -to suggest that at Cambridge Mr. D. L. A. Jephson showed much of the -great ability he subsequently developed. Indeed, he only once scored -50, and his over-arm bowling was far below the standard of his later -lobs. But his fielding was invariably excellent. Mr. A. J. L. Hill was -an excellent all-round cricketer. His placing was always excellent, -and his dash in meeting the ball, and when bowling his capacity for -suddenly sending in a ball which whipped back unexpectedly quick, -proved that he was of value in all departments. Finally comes Mr. F. S. -Jackson. Possessing a huge school reputation at Harrow, he did not at -first effect any sensational cricket. A steady fast bowler and sound -bat, was perhaps all that could be reported until his third year, when -he became captain, and signalised his skipperdom by heading both tables -of averages. In 1893 he improved materially on his batting figures, and -was by this time recognised as the great cricketer whose finest triumph -was his batting at the pinch in the test matches of 1902. A phenomenal -self-reliance has always characterised his play, but it is certain -that since Mr. S. M. J. Woods no such fine all-round amateur has come -into prolonged participation in good matches. - -It may be noted, with reference to a contemporary cry of the difficulty -of freshmen in getting their blues, that in 1890 there were five -vacancies in the Cambridge eleven, and the five freshmen who appeared -in the first match, _v._ C. I. Thornton’s eleven, all obtained their -colours. These were Messrs. R. N. Douglas, E. C. Streatfield, D. L. A. -Jephson, F. S. Jackson, and A. J. L. Hill. In the second innings of the -game just mentioned, Mr. S. M. J. Woods took all ten wickets for under -7 runs apiece, after capturing five for only 19 runs in the first. -Going to Brighton that year, Cambridge scored 703 for nine wickets, the -chief scores being: Mr. F. G. J. Ford 191, Mr. G. MacGregor 131, Mr. C. -P. Foley 117, Mr. R. N. Douglas 84 and 62, and Mr. F. S. Jackson 60. -Next year the Light Blues against Sussex totalled 359 and 366, without -an individual century. In all probability no University ever had such -strenuous games with a county as Cambridge about this period played -with Surrey, then in the zenith of their fame. - -Now occurs the opportunity to refer to two incidents which created an -enormous sensation, and eventually led to an alteration in the law -of following on. The facts can be briefly put. Oxford in 1893 needed -8 runs to save the follow-on, when the last men were at the wicket. -The Cambridge captain, Mr. F. S. Jackson, instructed Mr. C. M. Wells -to bowl a no-ball to the boundary, and after the batsman, Mr. W. H. -Brain, had covered a very wide ball, to send down one even more off -the wicket. In 1896 Oxford needed 12 runs to save the follow-on, when -Mr. R. P. Lewis, a notoriously bad bat, came in eleventh. Mr. F. -Mitchell then told Mr. E. B. Shine to bowl two no-balls, each of which -went to the boundary for four, and then a ball which scored four for -byes. The hostile demonstration from the pavilion was one of the most -demoralising ever heard on a cricket ground. In sober truth it must be -confessed that the captains were within their legal rights in ordering -unprecedented action to obviate the possibility of their opponents -purposely getting out. Yet all that is not forbidden by law cannot -be perpetrated without censure. Having written so much, we prefer -to pass on, glad to have briefly finished our allusion to the only -unpleasantness in the long series of University matches. - -[Illustration: _A MATCH IN 1805._] - -Oxford now demands some attention, for Cambridge has latterly held -the chief place in these pages. Mr. M. R. Jardine was not successful -until his fourth season, when he amassed a valuable 140, thus redeeming -long-deferred expectations. Yet at all times it was felt that the -runs he saved by his wonderful fielding were of more value than those -he made from the bat. Two cricketers who have been before the public -ever since, and who in different ways have proved notable exponents of -batting, are Messrs. E. Smith and L. C. H. Palairet. The latter must to -the present generation be the pre-eminent example of distinction and -graceful perfection. Mr. Ernest Smith has always been a redoubtable -and rapid run-getter, making his scores without apparent exertion, yet -contriving to entirely baffle the opposing captain by the pertinacious -skill with which he places his rapid hits. As a fast bowler he enjoyed -days of great success, and was always efficient in the field. A senior -from Winchester, only participating in one University match, was Mr. -V. T. Hill. Left-handed, and possessing much of the dash and vigour of -Mr. H. T. Hewett, he hit 114 in 1892 in a fashion which frankly earned -the epithet sensational. Possibly owing to the exceptional interest it -always arouses, the encounters of the Blues have produced a remarkable -number of notable innings, but none surpasses that of Mr. Hill in -vigour and “fireworks.” It was altogether a great game, that of 1892. -Oxford, having lost Mr. Palairet and Mr. R. T. Jones without a run on -the board, amassed 365. Cambridge, in a minority of 205, followed on, -and put their opponents in for 186, which were knocked off with five -wickets to spare. - -New men coming into the teams about this time were not less excellent -than their predecessors. Cambridge in 1893, in his third year, tried -K. S. Ranjitsinhji, who was third in the averages, his chief scores -being 40, 55, 38, 58, and 40. Mr. J. Douglas, a capital bat, with -a delightful way of scoring neatly off all bowling alike, used in -those days to bowl slows which obtained a fair number of wickets. -Mr. A. O. Jones, carefully coached by Arthur Shrewsbury, of course -showed barely a glimpse of the great powers he subsequently displayed -for Notts. Mr. L. H. Gay was a wicket-keeper altogether above the -average, who had singular ill-luck in finding so many of his terms at -Cambridge tally with those of Mr. MacGregor. He was a lively hitter, -whose wicket was uncommonly hard to obtain. One graceful bat remains -to be mentioned, Mr. P. H. Latham, who, good as he was, ought to have -been still better, and would have been if he could have resisted the -temptation to lash out at an insidious slow. Treading on the heels of -these came another remarkable group of bats. The brilliancy of Mr. N. -F. Druce has hardly been excelled. His batting was once described as -“the champagne of cricket,” and certainly the epithet is deserved. -Practically his connection with the game ceased after his residence -at Trinity Hall, except for one tour in Australia; so it is the more -necessary to emphasise how very fine, as well as captivating, was his -method of run-getting. It may be added that he has the highest average -of any Cantab, namely, 52.47 for an aggregate of 2414, and _v._ Mr. -C. I. Thornton’s eleven amassed 227 not out, the highest score ever -made at Cambridge, the opposing bowlers including Mr. F. S. Jackson, -Hirst, Woodcock, and Hearne. Mr. W. G. Druce never attained the same -standard as his more famous brother, but he was a valuable run-getter -and also a most useful wicket-keeper. Mr. F. Mitchell, despite a -remarkable start, did not in his University cricket display the form -which culminated in his great batting of 1901. Mr. T. N. Perkins was -a notably punishing bat, but the great Cambridge weakness lay in -the miserable quality of the attack. Oxford in this respect was not -much stronger, though Mr. G. F. H. Berkeley in his day was above the -average. At this period, which coincides with that when one of the -present writers heartily enjoyed his own University career, there were -some distinguished bats to be added to those noticed above. Prominent, -of course, was Mr. C. B. Fry, in those days a much slower run-getter -than when he amassed those six consecutive centuries for Sussex. Mr. -R. C. N. Palairet was often a formidable scorer, and when he and his -brother went in first for Oxford _v._ Cambridge in 1893, it was for -the first time since 1878 that two brothers had done so for the senior -University; it had then been the two Webbes. Cambridge furnishes only -one such incident, the case of Messrs. G. B. and J. E. K. Studd in -1882. Mr. G. J. Mordaunt was a capital bat and an absolutely beautiful -field in the country, the amount of ground he covered and his rapidity -in returning the ball being quite extraordinary. To these must be added -that attractive bat, Mr. H. K. Foster, with his graceful strokes, some -of them learnt in the racquet-court. At least one prominent judge -maintains that his forlorn effort of 121 on fourth hands in 1895 was -the superb gem of the whole series of big University scores since -1878. His efforts for Worcestershire have shown how little of a lucky -accident was this brilliant achievement. Few sounder bats ever appeared -than Mr. P. F. Warner, and if more prolonged praise be not added, it -is only because the warm friendship and admiration of the two writers -regard it as superfluous. His scores have been made in many climes, but -the best of them all have been compiled at headquarters. - -In 1901, one of the present scribes contributed to an article written -for the _Badminton Magazine_ by the other the following account of the -close finish of the University match of 1896, and it is felt that no -more sincere record could now be penned; hence its partial quotation is -perhaps pardonable:— - -“The last choice, not made until the morning of the match, lay between -G. B. Raikes and G. O. Smith. Now as the attack was rather tender -(P. S. Waddy was the only real ‘change’ to F. H. E. Cunliffe and J. -C. Hartley), it was universally thought that the former as a bowler -should have the preference (he had played in the two previous years); -but he was bowling none too well at the time, and eventually the -decision was in favour of strengthening the batting. As events proved, -this selection settled the match. Cambridge batted first, Burnup and -Wilson making a long stand; Bray hit confidently at the finish. I -think, however, it speaks well for Oxonian fielding, that on a fast -true wicket, against only four bowlers (C. C. Pilkington also went -on), it took six hours to amass 319, Mordaunt’s work in the country -being especially fine. We did none too well in the first innings, and -owing to the no-ball incident we saved following on. This incident, to -my mind, was an error of judgment. The Cambridge eleven had not had a -long outing, the discrepancy of 120 is a lot in a ‘Varsity match, and -to follow on between five and seven is not to enjoy the best of the -day’s light at Lord’s. At the same time, the reception Cambridge had -at the hands of the members of M.C.C. was unpardonable, and certainly -prejudiced their play in the second attempt. Whilst saying so, I am -not detracting from Cunliffe’s performance, who, for the first hour, -bowled better than he ever had before. Norman Druce, the best bat on -either side, stemmed disaster. So with two wickets in hand Cambridge -on the second evening led by 217, and directly play ceased rain fell -heavily. However, that rain proved our godsend, for a light roller on -it, binding the wicket together, made it better than at any previous -time in the match, which was saying a good deal. Eventually Oxford -was left with 330 to win, and up to that time the highest total ever -recorded on fourth hands in the University contest was 176. A bad -start was made, for at luncheon three good wickets were down for 81, -Mordaunt, Foster, and Warner being disposed of, the latter having -the unique experience of being twice run out in a University match. -With Pilkington and G. O. Smith together, it dawned on the Oxonian -supporters that, after all, victory was not out of the question. From -this time, helped by a few errors in the field, we never looked back. -I had an enjoyable partnership with the hero of the game, and before -I was caught at the wicket, a possible victory was in sight, for the -sting had gone out, to a great extent, of the Cambridge attack (G. L. -Jessop, C. E. M. Wilson, E. B. Shine, and P. W. Cobbold). Bardswell -followed me, full of confidence, and hit with bland imperturbability, -scoring the winning stroke, being missed off it, by the way, by Burnup. -Of G. O. Smith’s innings of 132 it is impossible to speak too highly, -and he thoroughly deserved his memorable ovation, the whole pavilion -rising and cheering him. All said and done, looking back, apart from -unbounded admiration for his prowess, the great factor of Oxford’s -success was undoubtedly the fielding. We had precious little bowling, -and conventional fielding would have given us no chance. The game was -won by the work of the eleven in combination, and if only the fielding -in first-class matches were what it should be, drawn games would be -very rare. Reform the fielding, and then the laws of the game will need -but little reformation.” - -By this time it will have been noticed that the Light Blues had been -reinforced by that prince of hard hitters, Mr. G. L. Jessop, who was a -tearaway bowler to boot, and that admirable batsman, Mr. C. J. Burnup, -the new Kent captain. The succession of clever Cambridge wicket-keepers -was kept up by Mr. E. H. Bray, than whom no one ever kept his hands -closer to the sticks. After this, for the next few years University -cricket undoubtedly fell a little flat. It was overshadowed to an -unfortunate extent by the more absorbing interest evinced in county -cricket. There were excellent cricketers on each side, but the teams -were not so cohesive as that of 1896, had not the same proportion -of really prominent amateurs as heretofore, and—here is the chief -point—the idea had become prevalent that the keenness of the game was -relaxed in the trial matches. So thoroughly was this re-established in -1902, so keen was the big match that year, and so bright the prospects -of the game in the immediate future at both Universities, that it is -permissible to frankly state so much, and to regard the years between -1896 and 1902 as ebb years, in comparison to the onward flow from 1889 -to 1896. - -But there was one gorgeous piece of cricket performed by the greatest -of recent undergraduates. Mr. R. E. Foster, the one batsman since Mr. -Norman Druce equally perfect to watch, played in 1900 a score of 171, -a new record in the match, the previous best contribution having been -Mr. Key’s 143 in 1886. An eye-witness wrote in that cricketer’s Bible, -_Wisden_: “The innings was not only a great one in a numerical sense, -but was in every way a magnificent display of batting. He only took -three hours and ten minutes to get his runs, and, so far as anyone -noticed, he did not give a single chance. Apart from the fact that he -once failed to bring off a more than usually daring pull, and that just -before he was out he made a dangerous stroke beyond mid-off, we did -not see any fault in his play. As a matter of record, it may be added -that he hit twenty-four fours, three threes, and thirteen twos. Hitting -more superb than his can scarcely have been seen since Yardley played -his great innings of 130 in 1872. He was equally strong all round the -wicket, driving magnificently on the off side, pulling with the utmost -certainty, and making any number of late cuts that were as safe as they -were effective.” It will be remembered that ten days later he followed -this up by scoring two separate hundreds for Gentlemen _v._ Players at -Lord’s, a feat never performed in this match by any other cricketer -appearing for either denomination. His average for Oxford was 77 for an -aggregate of 930, and he led his team through a victorious season, as -five matches were won, none lost, and four drawn. - -Of other undergraduates, Mr. B. J. T. Bosanquet worked hard, getting -a good many wickets and scoring with reliable consistency. A superb -wicket-keeper was produced in Mr. H. Martyn, for with a style that was -a model of neatness, he was particularly strong on the leg side, as -well as a forcing bat. Not nearly enough credit was given to Mr. C. H. -B. Marsham for his exceptionally meritorious century on fourth hands, -and in disadvantageous circumstances, in the University match of 1901. -It was not until a year later that he came to be generally recognised -as a batsman of judicious temperament, possessing a very pretty knack -of placing the ball hard on the off side. On contemporary Oxford it -would be unfair to pass judgment, but it is at least permissible to -express the belief that Mr. W. H. B. Evans (nephew of the once-renowned -bowler) will fulfil our high expectation, and that Mr. W. Findlay is -one of the best custodians of the sticks to be found in current cricket. - -Turning to Cambridge, the brothers Wilson have emulated the feat of the -brothers Foster at Oxford, and each scored a century in the University -match. The elder, Mr. C. E. M. Wilson, in his four University matches -scored 351, with an average of nearly 44, and took twelve wickets at -a cost of 21 runs apiece. The younger, Mr. E. R. Wilson, in a similar -series of fixtures, averaged 42, with an aggregate of 296, and captured -nineteen wickets for less than 22 runs each. These meritorious figures -were achieved by steady cricket, which never pandered to a gallery, -never took a risk, nor for one moment became really brilliant. For -comparison, it may be added that Mr. R. E. Foster averaged 48 for a -total of 342. Of the other Cantabs, Mr. T. L. Taylor, of course, has -been the soundest and greatest bat. Indeed, on a wet wicket he has -rarely had a superior. Mr. S. H. Day has proved himself to be amongst -the best of young cricketers, and Mr. E. M. Dowson with bat and ball -has done yeoman service. As a singularity, it may be mentioned that in -1902 Mr. E. F. Penn reappeared in the eleven, after being two years -absent at the war. - -To mention the legion who have passed from their University eleven into -that of the Gentlemen would take up too much space, but it may be of -interest to give a list of those who have represented England in the -test matches at home:— - - OXFORD CAMBRIDGE - - Lord Harris (Eton). A. P. Lucas (Uppingham). - Sir T. C. O’Brien. A. G. Steel (Marlborough). - E. F. S. Tylecote (Clifton). A. Lyttelton (Eton). - C. B. Fry (Repton). C. T. Studd (Eton). - L. C. H. Palairet (Repton). G. E. MacGregor (Uppingham). - F. S. Jackson (Harrow). - K. S. Ranjitsinhji. - G. L. Jessop. - A. O. Jones (Bedford). - - Batting—25 inn., 404 runs, 69 inn., 2316 runs, 33.39 - 16.4 average. average. - - Bowling—18 runs, 0 wicket. 1265 runs, 36 wickets, 35.5 - average. - -And further, one of the writers, who is in the habit of perpetrating -statistics, has made out that against Australians in this country, in -eleven-a-side matches, Oxonians (past and present) have scored 10,439 -runs in 527 completed innings, averaging 19.426 per innings; and -Cantabs (past and present) have scored 17,834 runs in 924 completed -innings, averaging 19.276 per innings. The Oxford bowlers have claimed -270 Colonial wickets at a cost of 6202 runs, thus costing 22.282 runs -apiece; but the Cambridge bowlers, though they captured 392 wickets, -did so at an expense of 43.36 runs apiece, the aggregate being 16,892. - -Passing from figures to matches, it may be as well to sketch the -programme of each University season. Directly term commences, usually -in April, when the weather is miserably cold and wet, and no one -has had any practice, comes the Seniors’ match. As the object of the -executive is to find new bowlers, it is obvious that the bowlers in -this game are none of the best, even judged by the low standard of -amateur attack. There is, as a rule, a large amount of heavy scoring, -but the fielding is slack, and the fixture is invested with little -real keenness. Far more enthusiasm is aroused by the Freshmen’s match. -Here is the pick of the public schools of the year before, with a -stray candidate from a colony or a private tutor’s. The cricket is -not co-operative, for each is trying to make a good impression “on -his own.” In the heat of modern competition, it is particularly -difficult for a batsman to obtain his blue as a freshman. With bowling -it is different, but the captain is prone to wait till the promising -undergraduate has acquired some experience in county cricket. Other -trial games are XII. _v._ Next XVI., the XI. _v._ XVI. Freshmen, -“Perambulators” _v._ “Etceteras.” The “Perambulators” are composed -of those who come from Eton, Winchester, Harrow, and Rugby, whilst -“Etceteras” are selected from those from other schools. Then come the -University fixtures. The opening is against a Gentlemen of England -team, of which one of the present writers has latterly had charge—a -very pleasant game for all concerned, and one provocative of no little -curiosity to see how the new men shape. As a rule a couple of counties, -M.C.C., and latterly Dr. Grace’s club, with the Australians, if on -tour, form the rest of the home fixtures. Thus far the University -captain has probably been varying his side a good deal, and has had one -or two extra places available for trials, because blues may be in the -schools. But by the time the out matches begin, if the eleven be not -pretty well together, matters cannot be altogether favourable. Good -cricket at the Oval and heavy scoring at Brighton are the preludes -to the final trial _v._ M.C.C. at Lord’s. Half the Oxford eleven now -never play in this latter engagement, and it must be said that there -is some reason for this, for whereas Cambridge get a clear three days’ -rest before the ‘Varsity match at the Oval, Oxford sometimes only -get one day. The final place is often a matter of the most dubious -difficulty. There are often two men whose merits are almost equal, and -the decision, if wrong, may ultimately ruin the big match. - -What a game it is, Oxford _v._ Cambridge, unrivalled for its sporting -keenness, and if it has proved a triumph to many, it has also been -a game of cruel disappointment in those who have been expected to -do best. The importance of the match to the funds of M.C.C. can be -gathered from the annual balance-sheet of the club, and considering -the difficulty of affording sufficient money for professionals and -other expenses at the Universities, it may be open to the consideration -of the committee if it would not be judicious were the premier club -to increase the amount of the annual donation to the rival centres -of education, whose delegates provide such an immense share of the -club revenue. If the University match were to be removed from -Lord’s—_absit omen_—it is obvious that the club in St. John’s Wood -would suffer far more than either Oxford or Cambridge. Such an exodus -is not probable, but the old order changes, and it would be wise as -well as generous if the committee could give more lavishly where it -receives so bountifully. - -A survey of all the University matches seems to authorise two -deductions: Firstly, that, all else being equal, it is better to -choose for places in University teams men who have already played -before a crowd, because nervousness is so apt to overtake the novice -when participating in this fixture. Secondly, that the presence of a -formidable fast bowler is the best agency for victory. Matches, as a -rule, have gone to the team which backed up a destructive attack with -competent fielding, and there seems no reason why in this respect -history should not repeat itself. We may be permitted to conclude with -an expression of the sincere hope that University cricket may maintain -its high position, and that the big match will remain something in -which all the Empire shall continue to take legitimate pride and -interest, because it is the contest between the best of England’s youth -fought in true sporting fashion. - - -[Illustration] - - - - -CHAPTER XI - -COUNTRY-HOUSE CRICKET - -By H. D. G. LEVESON-GOWER - - -I have not the least idea where my genial editor is going to put the -present chapter in this book, but I am willing to wager that it will -prove the lightest and most frivolous in his team. In the literary -menu I sincerely hope some one will find it the savoury of the meal, -because personally I like savouries best, and naturally I prefer my -own chapter to any other—parenthetically, I have not seen any of the -rest, except the one which I had a share in writing. No one has perhaps -played more country-house cricket than I have, and certainly no one has -derived more enjoyment from the matches. So I can write with agreeable -memories. But as the games are the least formal in the whole range of -cricket, therefore I feel this chapter needs no apology for being a -trifle desultory. We are now taking our ease after dinner, and chatting -in quite a happy-go-lucky way. - -“What good times I have had in country-house cricket, to be sure,” -ought to be the observation of any one who has had much to do with such -games. If not, there has been something wrong with the individual. So -he is not you, gentle reader, and, if that is the test, most certainly -he is not me. - -All the same, I have not enjoyed the prime of country-house cricket. -That must be a tradition among my seniors. Don’t you know the type of -jolly old buffer, aged anything between fifty-five and seventy, with a -big voice, bigger presence, and cheery disposition, when the gout does -not give him a twinge, who lights a cigar, pulls down his shirt-cuffs, -and has a twinkle in his eye at the very mention of country-house -cricket? - -Men of this type made country-house cricket a thing of gorgeous -merriment. Possibly at college they had paid more attention to May Week -than to Plato, and to Eights Week than to Smalls. But they played for -their runs in life as keenly as they tried to make them at cricket, -and if they are not on the roll of fame, their names are in letters -of gold on the list of English gentlemen. And mark you, it’s no light -thing to be a real English gentleman. A goodly number of those who call -themselves such don’t behave as such, perhaps have no conception of the -true decencies of that most honourable walk in life. But that’s another -story, and my theme is cricket. - -Moreover, I am not an old buffer, and I am going to have my say in this -chapter. So having patted the elder generation admiringly on the back, -I shall confine myself to my own. - -Therefore I am compelled to repeat that, as far as I can judge, the -palmy days of country-house cricket were before my time. I have had a -rattling good experience myself, but each year I see some perceptible -shortening in of the amount of this class of cricket. Not that there -is not enough for anybody, in all conscience, so long as he is in the -swim. But it is more difficult to get just the right men to play, and -just the right places to play at. No one who ever met me would bring up -any charge of pessimism. I am merely stating a fact for the benefit, -say, of school-boys of to-day, who may not be able to get quite such a -golden time in just the same way as I and scores of my contemporaries. - -[Illustration: - _From a Picture by_ _John Collet._ -_MISS WICKET AND MISS TRIGGER._ - “Miss Trigger you see is an excellent shot. - And Forty-five Notches Miss Wicket’s just got.” -] - -The multiplication of clubs has not only spoilt to some extent the -fixtures of the elder clubs, but also prevents the younger ones -from getting exactly the matches they want. The next detrimental is -the multiplicity of first-class fixtures. In 1881 there were about -eighty such matches. Last year 154 matches were played in the county -competition, and there were quite seventy others which had claims -upon the compilers of statistics. The ratio of time available for a -genuine amateur good enough to play in matches of this standard to -snatch for the relaxation of an off-day country match therefore differs -perceptibly. Moreover, there is an even worse obstacle, and it is that, -nowadays, gentlemen take up professions much earlier. Men who are -going to practice at the Bar can no longer afford to be idle during -several summers after they have come down from the University. If they -are going into business, into the City or on the Stock Exchange, it -is, to-day, at the earliest possible date, not at the latest. Truly -the old order changes, for formerly where a young man might laugh and -disport himself in the days of his youth, now he must work to earn a -living wage in the struggle for life. Fourthly, there is the insidious -beguiling of golf, which attracts many a man from Saturday cricket. All -these changes are marked on the sheet which records the difficulties of -country-house cricket. - -Going one step further, look at the Herculean task of collecting a -team. You must offer good enough matches to get the aid of really good -cricketers; and even then the bulk are off on tours. A mere village -match, be it ever so cheery and enjoyable, will not induce a man to -travel a long distance, to come to a strange place, where he knows no -one but his skipper. It is not human nature in the twentieth century, -and nowhere does human nature come out more plainly than at cricket. -Show me the spirit in which a man plays a cricket week, and I will tell -you his character; it is often easier to gauge than his true form, -which may be affected by ill-health or adverse weather, or even genuine -bad luck. A great deal too much is heard about luck in cricket. I do -not say it does not exist. For example, I would say Haigh had shocking -luck in not being chosen in a test match in 1902, and that Mr. J. H. -Brain had a real spell of bad luck when he scored 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 2 in -Oxford _v._ Cambridge and the two Gentlemen _v._ Players matches of -1885, when at the very top of his form. But for the most part “luck” is -made the excuse for other things at cricket. - -Let me sketch an ideal week of country-house cricket, such as I have -myself experienced several times. People are asked to stay in the house -who are all previously acquainted with one another, thereby removing -any stiffness and undue formality. There have been cases where, from -almost undue kindness, host and hostess have had a house full of -cricketers, many of whom they do not personally know, and the guests -themselves, however much they enjoy themselves, must be conscious of -the feeling that they are practically staying in a hotel, so little do -they really come in touch with their hospitable entertainers. I do like -a hostess to act as mother to the team, and for the old sportsman who -entertains us to stand umpire. A bevy of nice girls are needed to keep -us all civilised, and the merriment is then tremendous. Perhaps if a -match is over early there is a ladies’ cricket match. Anyhow, there is -a dance one night. On the others, songs, games, practical jokes, any -amount of happy, innocent nonsense, as well as perchance a flirtation -as hot as it is hopeless. Boy and girl alike know they may never meet -again, but they won’t waste time meanwhile. Another of the charms of -country-house weeks, if you are invited to the same one regularly, -is that year by year you meet a group of very nice people you never -perhaps see at any other time, but who inspire you with sincere regard. -“Don’t you remember?” and “How’s so-and-so?” enable you in five minutes -to pick up the old threads. - -These form the background. The cricket itself ought to be of sufficient -importance to interest everybody, but not be allowed to degenerate into -an infatuation, and therefore a nuisance to the fair sex. The ground -ought not to be too good, for a perfect pitch takes the heart out of -the bowling, and long scoring can be over-indulged in. All the four -totals over 100 and under 200 was A. G. Steel’s ideal game, and it is -about the best. The games should have local interest, and should if -possible bring over one or two cricketers known to the house party. -As for the cricket lunches, most delightful of all Benedick meals, on -no account let hospitality spoil them. Champagne lunches are being -horribly overdone. Men do not play good cricket on Perrier Jouet, -followed by _creme de menthe_, with two big cigars topping a rich -and succulent menu. No, give us some big pies, cold chickens, a fine -sirloin of English beef, and a round of brawn, washed down by good ale -and luscious shandygaff. That is all that cricketers want, and kings -only fare worse. If the county folk drive over in the afternoon the -host is afforded an opportunity of providing an enjoyable diversion -for his neighbours. It is quite true that lots of men, unless they -know that they will be extremely well done, infinitely prefer to be -put up at a hotel in the nearest town. But that is partially because -of their bachelor shyness, and partially because they fear they will -be too hampered both in the matter of taking their ease and also about -tobacco. Formerly it was the exception to smoke, now the exception is -not to. I remember when Smokers _v._ Non-Smokers was played at Lord’s. -The former eleven all took the field with cigarettes in their mouths, -and freely declared that some of their opponents had not been lifelong -total abstainers in the matter of tobacco. It was a rattling good game, -all the same. Those big amateur matches at Lord’s had something of the -charm of country-house cricket on a large scale, thanks to a slight -relaxation of formality and a good deal of cheery hitting. The best -of these functions was the I Zingari jubilee match, when the famous -wanderers opposed the Gentlemen of England in 1895. - -In connection with the immortal gipsy club, it is interesting to quote -its motto, “Keep your promise—keep your temper—keep your wicket up.” -Founded in 1835 under the title of the Beverley Club, it was renamed -by Sir Spencer Ponsonby Fane, who with the late Mr. Lorraine Baldwin -and my own uncle, Mr. Chandos Leigh, will be for ever associated with -its welfare. The rules are unique, and a trifle whimsical; for example: -“Entrance be nothing, and the annual subscription do not exceed the -entrance.” At the election of a new member, it was enjoined that the -candidate should take his stand at the wicket with or without a bat, -as the committee may decide. Being a vagrant body, the I Zingari have -never boasted a ground of their own, and it is a pity that more serious -cricket should have lessened the importance of their chief matches. - -Now, having announced that I am going to be desultory, I propose to -reel off a batch of anecdotes. The bulk will be anonymous, which is a -pity, because individuality always gives point to a tale, but I have no -wish to hurt any one’s feelings. - -Some years ago, at the period known as “when we were boys together,” -the late Lord Leconfield one summer holidays had a boys’ cricket week -at Petworth, having teams of Sussex, Surrey, and Hampshire youngsters -to play. He daily entertained all the teams at dinner, which, by the -way, was served on silver plates. Suddenly, in one of those silences -which sometimes fall on assembled eaters, a big lad shouted, loud -enough to be heard even by the late Lord Leconfield himself, “I do -hate eating off these beastly tin plates; in a decent house like this -they might give us china ones.” This lad never proved good enough -for first-class cricket, so please do not father the tale on to any -prominent run-getter. - -A certain amateur of a team staying in a country house, who was a -bit of a wag, by the way, much annoyed the rather pompous host by -addressing the family butler as “waiter.” The skipper of the team -remonstrated, but with no result. At breakfast the cricketer in -question never seemed able to get the right dish; if he meant eggs, he -received kidneys, and so forth. This was because, the menu being in -French, he used to point at random to some item, not wishing to betray -his ignorance of the language. On the last morning of the week, when -the usual bill of fare was brought to him, he retorted in stentorian -accents, “Rats to you, waiter; I’ll fetch it for myself.” - -I have had so many happy years of comradeship with “Plum” Warner that -he must forgive me if I spin a yarn or two about him. I was in the -habit of taking an eleven each year against Mr. Charles Goschen’s team, -an ideal country-house cricket match. To my dismay, for I was always -anxious to win, we were once decidedly weak in bowling, and we knew -Warner was playing for Mr. Charles Goschen’s eleven. So after grave -consultation we decided that, as we were never likely to bowl him out -by fair means, we would do it by foul. We pressed on him to accept an -invitation to stay overnight before the match. Now, my old friend is -most abstemious, but on this occasion the far-famed claret of our -host, dexterously administered by the opposing team, had considerable -effect. He was earnestly solicited to give his opinion on every vintage -we could find, and the spoon might have stood up in the whiskey dashed -with soda which was mixed for his nightcap. On the morrow, when he was -out before he ran into double figures, we decided that Bacchus was the -best bowler on our side. - -The next story is not a country-house cricket story at all, but as it -is new in print, it may be allowed to slip in. It happened when I was -captain of Oxford, and I think the match was against the Australians. -Those who merely study cricket scores may not be aware that Warner has -a high opinion of his own persuasiveness as a change bowler. His actual -figures for life up to 1902, in first-class cricket, drawn from Mr. -Home Gordon’s _Cricket Form at a Glance_, are only three wickets for -196 runs, which only shows how bad is the judgment of modern captains. -If he had been permitted the persistency of K. S. Ranjitsinhji, he -would probably have captured more wickets. Last season, when he was -captain, he failed to disturb the bails to the tune of 51 runs, which -proves his modesty. I have known captains go on to bowl first and stay -on through the whole innings, but of such certainly is not my old -friend. However, in the match in question, when our opponents wanted -about six runs to win, and I don’t know how many wickets to fall, -I chucked the ball to “Plum.” “Ridley and Cobden won’t be in it,” -observed one of the fieldsmen, and in memorial was written this rhyme:— - - Little Plum Warner stood in a corner, - Thinking he’d like to bowl. - The captain said, “Hum, - I _will_ put on Plum, - He may get me out of this hole.” - -But sad to relate, he did not. - -Captain Trevor, the popular “Dux,” used to tell a cheery story about -the demoralising effect of first-class cricket. Mr. A. S. Archer had -been a big scorer for the Incogs; then he went with Lord Hawke’s team -to the Cape, and on his return had changed his style, and could score -no more. Captain Trevor plucked up courage enough to suggest he should -forget that he had ever “figured in averages,” and should play in the -old way. - -“You want the golf shot?” - -“If you please.” - -“And the tennis scoop towards third man?” - -“Certainly.” - -“And a pull?” - -“Three in each over.” - -“Right.” - -He went to the wicket and made ninety without a chance that was -accepted. - -[Illustration: _A COUNTRY HOUSE CRICKET MATCH._] - -Any one who has much to do with getting up matches can tell eloquent -tales about being chucked. Perhaps nobody quite appreciates the force -of the parable in which they all with one accord began to make excuse, -until he is running a cricket week. This telegram was positively sent -by the man on whom everything depended, “Can’t come; am summoned on a -jury.” The wretched captain retorted, “Rot, you are not a householder,” -but he had to fill the vacancy. Not long ago Mr. A. D. Whatman, wrote -begging forgiveness, but the fact was, he was off fishing. As for the -accident which keeps a man who is passing through town “laid up and -unable to come on,” it is nearly as ancient and as annoying to the -manager as that hoary chestnut, “prevented by an illness in my family.” -However, these things will occur in the best-arranged teams. - -There is a comfort and ease about country-house and minor cricket, -which you do not get in the charmed circle of first-class matches. The -good-humoured chaff is most healthy, and certainly tends to prevent -mannerisms, into which many engaged in prominent cricket find they are -apt to drop. Also the search-light of publicity is conspicuous by its -absence. - -Next, I would like to quote a story which my old friend Mr. C. W. -Alcock relates, and which, I fancy, he personally overheard on a -tram: “No, Bill didn’t get much out of his day’s cricket. He had to -pay eight bob for his railway fare, and lost ‘is day’s screw, and was -fined a shilling for being late next morning, and ‘e didn’t get no -wickets, and ‘e missed four ketches, and ‘e got a couple of beautiful -blobs. He did feel sold, he did.” If anybody observes that is what -can be euphemistically described as a chestnut, my retort is, that -it will be new to a great many people. Certainly we all thought the -story of Mr. “Buns” Thornton making a mighty slog, and Mr. Bonnor -subsequently observing that he had a sister who could hit as hard, -was a hoary veteran. You will remember Mr. Thornton’s reply: “Why not -bring her over and marry her to Louis Hall? You could then combine the -two styles.” That was said at Scarborough, but this very story in the -cricket week of 1901 in that very town was hailed as a diverting and -fresh anecdote. Wherefore I take courage to proceed in my own garrulous -fashion. - -Among the pleasantest of all country matches are the military weeks. -The play is brisk, hard hitting, keen fielding, usually a Tommy who -sends down expresses which it is a treat to cut to the boundary, and, -of course, the most unbounded hospitality and good-fellowship. Then -there is always the regimental band in the afternoon, and one can do -a little dance step to beguile the tedium of fielding, or should you -be dismissed for one of those conspicuous oval blobs, it is at least -consoling to retire to a tune from the last musical comedy. And of -course, at soldier fixtures, all the ladies of the garrison muster in -their brightest frocks, and I can truthfully say that a match where -none of the fair sex are spectators loses one ray of sunshine for me. -The follies of girls who do not understand the game may sound funny -set down in printer’s ink, but spoken by merry lips, they only provoke -laughter, while, as a matter of fact, lots of ladies understand cricket -quite as well as most of men do; moreover, they are singularly quick -at noticing idiosyncrasies in the players. - -School tours are splendid things at the beginning of the holidays. -Eton Ramblers, Harrow Wanderers, Marlborough Blues, Old Malvernians, -Uppingham Rovers, Old Cliftonians, and last, but chief in my eyes, -Old Wykehamists—the very names cause a glow at our hearts. There you -get boys leaving school playing side by side with a schoolmaster or -two as comrades, and no longer _in statu pupillari_. The former gain -confidence, the latter rub off the corners which may have become rather -sharp during the half, and both are leavened by a further batch of old -boys who have names still respected at the school. The cricket is keen, -and the talk over the pipes after dinner is clean, healthy, and tends -to put them all on good terms with one another. - -I purposed to have written quite a valuable treatise on clubs, but -when I dipped into the books, I either found that the serious matters -would be dry-as-dust at this stage of my article, or else that it -was difficult to collect information. So I shall merely emphasise -the cordiality of the sides which do battle each summer. I Zingari -come first to my thoughts, for not only have I the honour to wear -the red, yellow, and black, but my uncle, Mr. Chandos Leigh, is one -of the presiding potentates—more power to him. No longer do these -wanderers figure on the card of the Canterbury Week, but it is still -their festival. Theirs is the big tent, theirs the admirable theatrical -performances, and theirs the true traditions of the historic Week. -It is the most delightful function in county cricket to-day, just as -it was formerly the greatest boon in old-time cricket. I feel that -some of the graceful irresponsible matches which were contested at -Prince’s in the ‘seventies still cast a pleasant reflection on the Week -at the old minster town. Also, I heartily wish I Zingari could revive -that one-time match _v._ Gentlemen of England at Scarborough, but the -difficulty of collecting competent sides seems insurmountable. But -let no one think I Zingari do not keep up their pristine value. Have -they ever had a finer record than in 1902? It reads: matches played, -29; matches lost, 1, Silwood Park winning a one-day game by 46 runs. -So I think the spirit of I Zingari can look very beaming when she is -pleasantly embodied for the epilogue of the Kent festival. - -It is impossible to run over the list of clubs. Free Foresters, of -course, recurs to memory—cheery, bright, with a military leaven, under -the admirable guardianship of Mr. E. Rutter. Their annual volume yields -an admirable statement of bustling, hard-fought cricket on many welcome -swards where reporters do not scribble nor the public give heed. -Amateur cricket owes a great debt to them, and also to the Incogniti, -in which the present governor of Jamaica has taken such keen interest. -With varying sides, but unvarying good-fellowship, these pilgrims of -cricket show how many withstand the attractions of golf, and prefer to -drive the leather rather than the Haskell. - -Each University has one club noteworthy to the community at large. -Cambridge boasts the Quidnuncs, the cap of which is so familiar in -county matches, because hardly any old blue seems to wear his ‘Varsity -colours. Against Yorkshire at Lord’s in August 1902, four of the -Middlesex side wore those colours of dark blue with the narrow blue -stripe, these being Messrs. Cyril Foley, C. M. Wells, R. N. and J. -Douglas. Though it is limited to fifteen members in residence at -Cambridge, practically everybody who is tried for the eleven appears to -outsiders to be entitled to wear the caps, though no undergraduate in -his first year is eligible. - -Of the Harlequins I must write more briefly than I should like. They -are very dear to me, and I had the honour in 1902 of being elected -Vice-President in succession to Mr. A. J. Webbe, who became President -in consequence of the death of Mr. C. J. B. Marsham, who had occupied -the position since the foundation of the club in 1845. One annual -meeting is held each year on the first day of the match with the -Gentlemen of England, when the elections take place. Only seventeen -members may be in residence, and no one can be put up as a candidate -until his fourth term. There is always one pleasant function, the -dinner given by that keenest supporter, Mr. T. B. Case. If the -Harlequins do not play so many matches as of yore, it must not be -ascribed to lack of enthusiasm, but to the more lengthy programme -of the Authentics, who possess a wider range of selection. The -Harlequin cap, in its bold contrast, has been seen on every ground, -and at Lord’s, to the end of their keen careers in the field, it was -invariably worn by two very fine Oxonian cricketers who never obtained -their colours, Messrs. T. S. Pearson and J. Robertson-Walker. Of yore, -half the Oxford eleven used to be seen arrayed in the coloured shirt of -the Harlequins, which was gaudy when new and looked shabby when it had -been for a short period the sport of the elements. I am not speaking by -book, but my impression is that Mr. “Punch” Phillipson and Mr. J. H. -Brain would be the two last who have donned the garment in first-class -cricket. Long life and unabating good fellowship to Harlequins, present -and future! There is every sign that the wish is destined to be -fulfilled. - -The Authentics Cricket Club was founded by Everard Britten-Holmes, in -November 1883, who, from its birth in Brazenose College, Oxford, has -acted as its Hon. Secretary to the present day (1903), G. R. Askwith of -B.N.C. being its first Hon. Treasurer, then followed by H. Acland-Hood -of Balliol (1884-89). During the summer of 1884, arrangements were made -to tour during the summer vacation, and what was at first but a week’s -cricket, has become one of several months, and a membership then of 19 -has become one of nearly 800. - -During the winter of 1885, it was decided to place the club upon a more -solid and active basis, and a large gathering of prominent ‘Varsity -players and others was held at Oxford, a question at that time coming -up, as a suggestion, to include Cambridge ‘Varsity players and others, -when it was unanimously resolved and carried, that the club be called -“The Oxford University Authentics,” and confined to members of Oxford -University only. Special rules were drawn up for membership, etc., -and many matters of detail arranged. More important matches were -played during the summer vacation, with a view of unearthing latent -cricket talent, and giving members an opportunity of being brought -more prominently before the cricket authorities at Oxford, and their -respective counties—an opportunity they could not otherwise then have -had. Above all, it had in view the keeping of old ‘Varsity cricketers -of the past in touch with the present, and the present in touch with -the future. Professor Case of Corpus Christi College—the well-known -old Oxford cricket blue of 1864, 1865, and 1867—readily consented to -become the President, and took much interest in the club, and to him we -owe its motto: “By Jove’s authentic fire.” It may be mentioned that the -name “Authentics” was given to the club by the founder, who, being a -musical enthusiast, coined the word “Authentics,” as from an authentic -cadence in music, and as derived from the Greek [Greek: authenteô], “to -rule”; and from Professor Case’s happy thought the colours of the club -were suggested—“Blue” for the sky, “Blood Red” for Jove’s arm, and -“Old Gold” for the lightning. - -Reverting to country-house cricket—aye, and the observation does for -all club matches—the great aim is to induce those participating in -first-class cricket to don flannels in the minor game. There is one -great inducement, and let all managers take note of it. Tempt the -crack amateur by offering him plenty of opportunity to bowl. In county -cricket the amateur, with not a dozen exceptions in 1902—all I recall -are Messrs. F. S. Jackson, D. L. A. Jephson, E. M. Dowson, E. E. Steel, -J. R. Mason, W. M. Bradley, G. H. Simpson Hayward, W. W. Odell, C. M. -Wells, H. Hesketh Pritchard and B. J. T. Bosanquet—field out while the -professionals conduct the attack. To most amateurs bowling is a joy -all the sweeter for its rarity. The amateur will not resist the bait, -and will come if he possibly can. There is no cricketer so easy to get -on with, or who makes a house match go better, than a distinguished -amateur. The bulk are absolutely without “side,” and having learnt the -sterner discipline of first-class cricket, absolutely revel in their -sporting holiday, while the effect of their presence on the rest of the -side is electrical. - -With that I conclude. I could write more, if I ventured to trespass -further on your attention. Should I have had the good fortune to divert -and not to bore, I shall consider myself the luckiest in this band of -writers, and after all, I have had the best of all topics. So, hurrah! -and long life to country-house cricket! - -[Illustration: _From a Painting by Louis Belanger, belonging to H.M. -the King._ -_A VILLAGE MATCH IN 1768._] - - -[Illustration] - - - - -CHAPTER XII - -VILLAGE CRICKET - -By C. F. WOOD - - -Constant readers of the _Pall Mall Gazette_ will not have missed a -most amusing article on “Yokels at Cricket,” which appeared over the -initials “R. E. M.” during the summer of this year of grace 1902. With -a felicity of exaggeration which would do credit to Mark Twain, the -writer describes his experiences on a pitch where the blocks were too -large to begin with, and too numerous; where all that could be said -of the fielding was that the men in the lost-ball region did their -ferreting well; and where the fast ball shot, rose five feet, and shot -again. Sometimes, he pathetically adds, the five-feet rise came last. - -Something of this kind possibly still exists in the remoter parts of -our sportive country, but as it is my intention in the present paper -to set down nothing about village cricket that has not come within the -scope of my own experience, I must forego at the outset the attractions -of these humorous irrelevancies, and speak the truth as far as I know -it, even at the risk of making my contribution to this historic work -unnecessarily serious. - -For the same reason I must deny myself the pleasure of dishing up once -more the innumerable funny stories about village cricket that appear -periodically in books of this kind; and I have further registered a -solemn vow to leave the top-hat period severely alone, and make no -reference to Fuller Pilch, Caffyn, Mynn, or any other belted heroes -of prehistoric days. So what it comes to is this: I am going to put -down here my own experiences and opinions of village cricket as it is -played to-day by my own village eleven, of which I have the honour to -be captain, and if the result turns out unsatisfactory and of little -interest, kindly believe that the fault lies in my incapacity of -expression, not in any lack of excitement in the cricket. _That_ at -least is beyond reproach. - -Please don’t think from the above that, unlike the heroines of most -of our modern stuffy plays, our club has no past! On the contrary, -I have before me now the accounts of our village club right back to -29th July 1865, when we expended the sum of £1: 7s. in the following -irreproachable manner:— - - Umpire £0 10 6 - Dinner for ditto and scorer 0 8 0 - Six _Bell’s Life_ papers 0 1 0 - Stamps 0 1 0 - Ball 0 6 6 - ————————— - £1 7 0 - -Four shillings apiece for the umpire’s and scorer’s “dinner” may seem -expensive in these modern half-crown days, but judging from the next -entry, we can only consider it an exceptionally moderate occasion. On -21st September of the same year, when, if we may judge by 1902, the -summer was just beginning, the same entry reads:— - - Dinner for ditto, scorer, and beer £0 11 0 - -Whether the extra 3s. represents the amount of liquid refreshment -required by the umpire and scorer alone, or in conjunction with those -acting in similar capacities on the other side, whose integrity they -thus thought to drown, does not transpire from the account. - -All these and many other like interesting matters are at the disposal -of the gentleman who may still do for Kent cricket what Lord Alverstone -and C. W. Alcock have done for Surrey in their _Surrey Cricket_, just -published; but I must not break through my self-imposed rule and -enlarge any further on these exploits of bygone days. Good old Kent! -Where is the historian that shall do justice to your past glories? Or -is it that the part is after all greater than the whole, and that when -Philip Norman finished _West Kent Cricket_, there was nothing left -unsaid? - -Now of all the various sorts of cricket that are played in and out of -this country, I am prepared to maintain against all the writers in this -or any other book that village cricket is at once the most amusing -to watch, the most exciting to play, and of the greatest educational -value to the English race. Notice, I do not call it the most scientific -form of the game, though there is a special sort of science required -to finish a match between 3 and 7 P.M. every Saturday afternoon! Let -us first compare it, from a spectator’s point of view, with county -cricket; and it will help to emphasise my point if I quote one or two -reports of county matches culled at random from the daily press in -August this year:— - -Notts _v._ Kent, at Nottingham. “Kent, holding a lead of 91 runs on -their first innings, did not hurry themselves unduly in their second -venture. Dillon took forty minutes to register a couple of singles”! - -Leicester _v._ Sussex, at Brighton. “On Saturday, Dr. Macdonald was -in three hours and three-quarters for 48 runs, having in the previous -innings made 33 in about two hours. In other words, he was batting five -hours and forty-five minutes for 81 runs”! And the poor reporter adds -drowsily, “It was a terribly monotonous performance.” - -Is not this a veritable caricature of cricket? Why, rather than watch -such a game drag its dreary trail over three summer days, I would vow -never to go near a ground again, and take to German skittles. Compare -this “terribly monotonous performance” with the compressed interest -of a whole match completed in four hours on a village green, with the -supporters of each eleven shouting each other down, as the sun sinks -all too rapidly in the western sky, and both runs and wickets are -freely given away as the excitement rises to fever pitch. Which would -you rather do, candid reader, if you had the choice? Stand on your hind -legs in the field all one day, sit and smoke your tongue sore in the -pavilion all the next, with a chance of getting a knock on the third, -or join our village eleven on Saturday afternoon, and have four certain -hours of unadulterated joy? Well, most of us would choose the county -eleven, I suppose, though we should find it weary work. - -But here it strikes me I am poaching on other people’s preserves, and -before I commit the indiscretion of mentioning country-house cricket, -which is a subject my friend Mr. H. D. G. Leveson-Gower is treating in -his usual masterly way, let me hasten back to my own little corner, -from which I was an ass to stray. - -And yet, having gone so far, I ought perhaps to explain why I consider -village cricket to be of so great an educational value to our race. -And by education I do not mean the mechanical stuffing of an unwilling -agent with knowledge for which he can never have any possible use, -but rather the formation of all those characteristics which help to -build up what we call a man—pluck, temper, self-restraint, respect -for others, abnegation of self, _et hoc genus omne_. Now the people -who play first-class cricket are divided into two categories—those -with means and leisure who play for love of it and because they are -good at it, and those who play because they are good at it and can -make a living out of it; and though most of the above virtues can be -cultivated to a certain extent in a team made up of these two classes, -yet it is certain that the same spirit does not animate an eleven of -amateurs and professionals as will work wonders in a village team made -up of every rank in life, the parson, the cobbler, the squire’s son, -and the blacksmith, all playing on an absolute equality, all playing -for their side and not for themselves, all playing for glory and none -for averages or talent-money. - -And now I really must tell you a little about our own village club. In -the old days we always used to play on the Common, where the turf was -excellent and the boundaries out of sight; but as London got nearer and -nearer, and every train belched forth a volume of trippers right across -the ground, we had to shift our quarters, and for £10 a year we now -have a large but not exclusive interest in a ten-acre field. A large -square, capable of providing about a dozen good wickets during the -summer, is enclosed with posts and chains, and the patient labour of -our groundman and umpire (who in his leisure hours is also a shoemaker -and a lamplighter) is year by year producing better results. For -although it is unwise to have a perfect pitch for half-day cricket, -yet, on the other hand, it must not be dangerous, and with the limited -means at the disposal of a village club, the happy medium is not easy -to attain. As the seasons roll on, patches are repaired with turf -“sneaked” from the Common, weeds are removed (some of them), manure -and fine soil is bush-harrowed in, seed is sown, and every summer we -congratulate ourselves that, if not yet quite like the Oval (which we -do not want it to be!), at all events our ground is the envy of our -neighbours. I should add that this year (1902) we had a whip-up and -laid the water on, but only used it twice! - -Perhaps, in connection with our wicket, I may be allowed to recount a -little reminiscence, still fresh in my memory, of the days when the -pitch was not what it is now. A short-tempered and fiery member of an -opposing team was batting, as he always did, in spectacles, when a -rising ball from our local Lockwood hit him right in the face. Seeing -what I supposed was his eye drop out on the pitch, I dashed forward -to field and return it, only to discover one glass of the spectacles -unbroken on the turf. Beyond a cut on the bridge of his nose, the man -had suffered no hurt, but it was long before he paid us another visit, -or the scorched grass recovered from his language. - -It is not necessary, but it is useful, to have some sort of a pavilion, -even for Saturday afternoon matches, and we were lucky to get, some -five or six years ago, for the cost of removal, an old Norwegian -house, built of wood, with a corrugated iron roof, which suited -our purpose admirably. It originally consisted of three rooms, two -bed-rooms and a sitting-room between, and, by putting all the windows -in the side facing the ground, altering the doors, and fitting up the -interior with lockers, washing-places, store-room for the groundman, -bat-racks, etc., we have quite sufficient accommodation for our -purpose. We are also the proud possessors of a tea-tent, where every -Saturday throughout the season, when there is a home match, our kind -lady friends provide our opponents and ourselves with an excellent tea. -This smacks perhaps of luxury, and wastes a little time, but you must -remember that our matches are nearly always over before the time for -drawing stumps arrives, and it is a great attraction for those of us -who do not always get such a good tea for nothing! But more than this, -it makes our weekly matches a cheery social gathering, it provides an -enthusiastic gallery of lady friends and admirers, and thus adds a -charm to the natural beauty of our ground which we should be extremely -sorry to lose. In fact, I attribute much of the prosperity of our club -to the kind interest of the ladies in the village, who do so much for -us, and I should like to see their excellent example more generally -followed elsewhere. - -Well, now we have got our ground, our pavilion, and our tea-tent, what -about our officials and our members, and the all-important question of -“subscription”? We have a president, captain, vice-captain, secretary, -treasurer, and a committee of six members, all being elected fresh -every season at the annual meeting. However, so far as my five years’ -experience goes, no change has been made except to fill up vacancies -caused by death or removal, and the meeting is a merely formal affair -where we re-elect each other _en bloc!_ The president in our case has -always been the _persona_, or parson, of the parish, and where there is -a curate, he is the best man, in my opinion, for the secretaryship. The -advantages of this arrangement are obvious, for he is probably the only -gentleman in the place who is there all day; he knows where all the -villagers live, and it is easier for him than any one else to go round -and get up the teams. For however much you print on your match-cards -that “members wishing to play in any match should send in their names -to the captain before Thursday evening,” or words to that effect, the -fact remains that no villager has ever yet been known to _offer_ to -play; and though a man may be thirsting for a place in a certain match, -and would be seriously hurt if he were not asked, yet the only reply -he will make to your pressing invitation is a half-hearted, “Well, I -don’t mind if I do”! _But_, if the curate is not a good player, he -should content himself with his secretarial duties, and not appear in -the field. However excellent he may be in other ways, if he cannot -hold a catch or keep his bat decently straight, he ought not to give -the enemy occasion to blaspheme. As Dean Hole says in answer to his -own question, “Is it right for a clergyman to hunt?” “On one immutable -condition—_that you ride straight to hounds_.” We limit our committee -to six members, chosen from every walk in life—a merchant, a farmer, -a solicitor, a gardener, and so on—and in the diversity of opinions -there is sometimes much wisdom. As a matter of fact, I have never found -gardeners, as a class, of very much use in connection with cricket. -They may know a little about turf, but, barring a few exceptions, they -do not make good players. The reasons are not far to seek. From the -very nature of their work, they have fewer opportunities than others -of taking part either in practice or matches: in summer, there is -always a lot of mowing, watering, and so on to do, and when a man has -been working with his back, arms, and legs all day, he feels little -inclined for more violent exertion. This too is probably why they are -slower in their movements and clumsier with their hands and feet than -most other people. But at least they take their waistcoats off, which -a stableman never does. Now, why is that? It is almost a rule without -an exception that a man who works in the stable in trousers, belt, and -shirt, adds a waistcoat to his outfit before he goes in to bat. Still, -waistcoat or no waistcoat, he is generally bright and quick, and with -practice makes a smart field. Perhaps the best village cricketers, -taking them all round, are recruited from the ranks of carpenters, -footmen, blacksmiths, and schoolmasters, rather than from the stables -and the gardens, but in any case it’s more than half the battle to get -them young. There must be disappointments, of course. Some of the most -promising boys lose their interest in the game when they think they are -men, and become loafers; some go out to work in other places, and the -team knows them no more; but you are amply repaid if two or three of -one generation at last find their strength, and after a year or more of -painstaking duck-eggs suddenly blossom out into consistent scorers, to -the no small astonishment of their friends and their own huge delight. -Don’t think from this that we set too much store by good batting. On -the contrary, all our matches (and other people’s too!) are won or lost -by fielding, and I can never tell my men too often that it does not -do to give your opponent two, or even three, lives, when he has made -up his mind to take yours at the very first opportunity. Only, as at -golf the good drive gives one the greatest pleasure, though the high -approach may be the prettiest shot, and the deadly put wins the hole, -so at cricket the greatest pleasure of the greatest number is to make -lots of runs, though they may not be wanted, when a good catch in the -deep field or a smart return may win the match. - -[Illustration: - _From a Sketch by_ _Robert Seymour._ -“_OUT, SO DON’T FATIGUE YOURSELF, I BEG, SIR!_”] - -[Illustration: - _From a Water-Colour by_ _J. Hayllar._ -_A CRICKETER._] - -I mentioned just now the ominous word “subscription.” The question of -finance is one which must enter to a large extent into the prosperity -of a village, or any other, club, and happy those who have enough cloth -to cut to ensure their coats fitting! In our own case we generally -seem to have succeeded in making both ends meet, though, as will be -seen from the following typical years’ figures, times were not always -prosperous:— - - 1867. Receipts £34 4 0 Expenses £34 0 6 - 1877. ” 18 1 0 ” 17 0 2 - 1887. ” 14 1 11 ” 12 7 6 - 1897. ” 31 5 2 ” 34 19 6 - 1902. ” 47 8 6 ” 38 11 5 - -I ought to add that these amounts represent only annual subscriptions -and current expenses, and do not include special collections made for -special purposes, such as enclosing the pitch in posts and chains, -laying on the water, and so on. If a “round robin” is not sufficient -to cover these extras, I generally find a good village concert in -the winter is sufficient to wipe off any deficit. We have a minimum -subscription for the villagers of 2s. 6d. a year, which is readily paid -when they find it is a _sine qua non_; but the rule must be rigidly -enforced, even to the exclusion of your best bowler, if he prove -refractory! The amount collected in this way is of course trifling, yet -without it I believe the club would very soon stop for want of members; -for it is the experience of all who have many dealings with their -village neighbours, that they do not value or take any interest in the -thing which costs them nothing. Free education has been a sufficient -curse to our villages without giving them free cricket too! The rest -of our income is collected by the lamplighting, shoemaking, groundman -and umpire, who goes round with a book to all the houses in the parish -at what he considers the psychological moment, generally after dinner -in the evening; for which extra labour he is accorded a commission -of 1s. in the pound collected. The details of expenditure require -no elucidation; they are the same in all cricket clubs; only the -healthy countryman, with plenty of muscle, but no skill to apply it, -will require at least twice as many bats every season as an ordinary -cricketer. And mind you, they don’t go at the edges; they come right in -half. Is it the stiff wrist? But when all is said and done, what fun it -is! I have played most sorts of cricket—country-house cricket, club -cricket, touring with my old school eleven, and so on, and once I even -appeared for the county second eleven, when I was run out by a local -tradesman before I had a ball; but none of them ever touched village -cricket for pure, unadulterated amusement. My earliest recollection -takes me back to a pretty little ground not far from Croydon, where -a local schoolmaster enjoyed a great reputation as a demon underhand -bowler. It was not so much the pace or the pitch that proved so -disastrous to the batsmen, as the man himself. He _looked_ destructive -from the moment he began his run, and as soon as the ball was delivered -he used to ejaculate fiercely, “That’s got yer!” Whether such a remark -at such a critical moment was entirely in accordance with the customs -of the game, it never entered our heads to inquire; we only knew it -generally had the desired effect. - -It was on this same ground, I remember, that Edward Norman, one of a -distinguished family of Kent sportsmen, coming in last when his side -wanted six runs to win, hit the first ball he received, a straight one -well up, clean out of the ground to square leg, over the boundary road -and a high wall into the kitchen garden of the local squire. - -Here too the head gardener of the same squire annually disports himself -in spotless white, to his own huge gratification and the vast amusement -of his numerous underlings. Not that they would dare to smile while -the august eye is on them, for he is an autocrat in his way, and can -both look and say unutterable things. Once, I remember, when he was -taking part in a Married _v._ Single match, one of the under-gardeners -had the misfortune to clean bowl him for a duck. He looked first at -his shattered wicket, then at the spot where the ball had pitched, and -proceeded to march solemnly towards the trembling and penitent bowler. -We held our breath, fully expecting that some fearful tragedy was to -be enacted, and that, having first brained the poor man with his bat, -he would follow it up by giving him the sack on the spot. But when he -had reached the middle of the pitch, he pulled himself together in the -most dignified way, merely remarked, “Well bowled!” and stalked off to -the pavilion. So even in his moment of defeat he was superior to most -of us, for I have noticed it is generally considered etiquette in this -class of cricket to _run_ to shelter as fast as you can, if you have -taken no exercise between the wickets. - -[Illustration: _VILLAGE CRICKET IN 1832._] - -[Illustration: - _From the Painting by_ _R. Wilson, R.A._ -_CRICKET AT HAMPTON WICK._] - -It would be in the highest degree imprudent for any one in my position -to say a word against country umpires. And, to give them their due, I -have almost always found them, in what some would call these degenerate -modern days, to be as accurate and as honest as their brethren in more -exalted spheres; but there are brilliant exceptions! “To play eleven -men and an umpire” is, I am told, a chestnut in Gloucestershire, and -one story I can vouch for certainly bears out the theory. It was a -match between two old-standing village rivals, and contrary to custom, -the visiting team turned up with twelve men, owing to the unexpected -arrival of a fairly good player. Another member of the team, conscious -of his own weakness, but with perhaps more cunning than good-nature, -promptly offered to stand down, “for,” said he, with a sly wink to his -captain, “I can be of more use to the side if I umpire!” That comes -from Gloucestershire, but it is easily beaten by the remark of the real -umpire in a village match in Oxfordshire last August. “How’s that?” -shouted the wicket-keeper proudly, as he captured the ball straight off -the edge of the bat. “Not out,” said the umpire, “_but it was a damned -fine catch if he hit it_.” I do not wish for a moment to insinuate -that our friends in the north are not always the good sportsmen we -believe them to be, so we will put the following tale under the head of -“exceptions.” The match, a two-day one, was being played at Whitehaven, -in Cumberland; things had gone badly with the home team, and all the -morning of the second day the local umpire had been engineering -his opponents out in the most courageous way. But to everybody’s -astonishment, when a confident appeal was made against the last man on -the side, he gave him “Not out.” Struck by this sudden conversion, a -friend asked him what the meaning of it was. “Well,” he said, “if I’d -a given ‘im out, they wouldn’t ‘a stayed to loonch, and my father does -the caterin’”! - -In one of the keenest matches I ever took part in (it was on the 16th -of August 1902, and we won by four runs), two men of the opposite side -were batting, one a very fair bat, and dangerous when set, the other -a dubious quantity at all times. The bowler sent down a fast one to -leg which the wicket-keeper failed to stop, and both men started for a -bye. Meanwhile, short slip, backing up, had stopped the ball, and threw -the near wicket down, while both men were apparently in the middle of -the pitch. The good batsman refused to go, and the indifferent one -apparently held no views on the subject, but stayed where he was, while -the two umpires (I blush to record it) gave, almost unasked, an opinion -favourable to their respective sides. Party feeling was running high, -but I never allow any discussion in the field, and it was properly left -to the umpire at the end where the wicket had been broken to give a -decision. Unfortunately, it was their umpire, and the weak batsman had -to go! And it was a fair decision. There was obviously a doubt, and he -gave his own side the benefit of it. Who could do more? But we had our -revenge on the gentleman who refused to go. He hit a lovely half-volley -to square leg, which did not quite reach the boundary. My man was -after it like a hare, and while they were trying to get the fourth -run, he threw the wicket down full pitch from where he picked up the -ball, at least 90 yards off, and with only one stump visible. A fluke, -of course, but when I complimented him afterwards on his brilliant -performance, which practically won us the match, he simply said, “Oh! -that’s nothing, sir; I was always a bit of a slinger”! - -Our great annual event is, of course, the Married _v._ Single match, -which takes place on the last Saturday of the season. In the old days, -when we played on the Common, this was the occasion of what one might -almost describe as a village orgie. Men turned up from everywhere, who -never honoured the club with their patronage at other times, some even -dressed, most appropriately, as clowns, and the cricket was distinctly -of the “Dan Leno at the Oval” variety. Well, well, _Tempora mutantur -et nos mutamur in illis_. It was doubtless very amusing, but there -were objections, latterly even objectors (whether of the conscientious -variety or not doesn’t matter), and the present tea-tent is in every -way preferable to its rival “down the road.” So we play on our own -field now, and get a very fair amount of amusement out of it, even -without the clowns. I have tried for years to get up some sort of a -representative married team before the day of the match, but it’s -no use. They are all too old, or too stiff, or too busy. Yet when -the eventful afternoon arrives, there are generally some fourteen or -fifteen Benedicts ready to do battle for the honour of their wives and -families, against a meagre dozen or so of the less fortunate Bachelors. -Public enthusiasm, at all times keen in village cricket, reaches its -high-water mark on this great day, and the ladies especially assemble -in large numbers to do honour to the brave. Sympathy is invariably and -entirely with the married men—I suppose because part of the audience -are the wives of the team now stripping for the fray, and the other -part hope that by next summer at latest they will be in the same proud -position. On paper there can be no question that the Bachelors have -the strongest side, but against their youth, their practice, and their -skill we place our experience and our considerable numerical advantage, -so there is not much in it. Then again, they look rather contemptuously -at our weather-beaten ranks; say we have no bowling, can’t run (two -of us are over seventy, certainly!), and are altogether as sorry -a collection of prehistoric peeps as ever took the field. _Nous -verrons!_ The Bachelors win the toss and start batting. An old man of -sixty-seven, who has recently contracted a second matrimonial alliance -to make sure of his place in the team, asks to keep wicket, and after -buckling on a pair of lovely old faded yellow pads, he goes to say -“Good-bye” to his new “missus,” and get her to pull his waistcoat down -and stuff it inside the back of his trousers (this I saw myself). Then -I arrange the rest of my veterans in a sort of inner and outer circle -round the wickets, in places where they are least likely to be hurt, -and the game begins. It is true we have no bowling, in the modern sense -of the term, but it’s quite good enough for the Bachelors. At one end I -put on our village umpire, who bowls fast straight underhand, literally -“daisy-cutters,” and at the other a newly-married groom, just come into -the parish, whose methods are precisely the same. Scoring is out of the -question. You may stop the ball as long as your patience lasts, but you -can’t get it away, and wicket after wicket falls, as the pick of my -village eleven try in vain to turn fast sneaks into slow half-volleys. -I feel quite sorry for them when the end comes, and twelve promising -young cricketers, with “Mr. Extras,” have all been dismissed for 76. -Then our turn comes, and the umpire and I make a good start by putting -on 30 for the first wicket. But it’s not all over yet! Six wickets fall -for an additional 9 runs, and the audience begins to hold its breath. -We have still eight or nine batsmen, but can they possibly make 5 runs -apiece? We are soon put out of suspense. The groom goes in for hitting, -knocks up 15 in a few minutes, which demoralises the field, the best -bowler is taken off at the critical moment, and the rest is easy. We -have had a most thrilling afternoon’s cricket, and no one is any the -worse except the old wicket-keeper, who is so stiff he cannot come -downstairs for two days. - -I feel I ought to apologise for appearing in such august company as -this book affords, but it is our cheery editor’s doing, not mine. My -enthusiasm for the subject is the only excuse I can offer, and that he -has kindly accepted, so I need say no more. Only I shall always regret -that no more capable pen than mine was found to do justice to such an -inspiring theme as “Village Cricket.” - -[Illustration: _AN EIGHTEENTH CENTURY CARICATURE._] - - -[Illustration] - - - - -CHAPTER XIII - -FOREIGN CRICKET - -By P. F. WARNER - - -In this and the following chapters I shall endeavour to give some -account of the many cricket tours in which I have been fortunate enough -to take part, in the West Indies, the United States, Canada, Portugal, -South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia. - -The days have long gone by since England was the only country in which -the game flourished; for cricket is played, and played well, too, in -the most remote corners of the British Empire. - -It has been my good luck to play cricket from Trinidad to Auckland, -and from Buluwayo to Vancouver, so I hope there may be some interest -in a record of the game under conditions widely different from those -of Lord’s or Old Trafford—upon grounds that are within easy distances -of volcanoes, and in towns that have since undergone siege and -bombardment. In the course of my wanderings with bat and ball, I have -covered nearly 80,000 miles by land and sea, and I have enjoyed every -mile of my long journeyings, for the memories that one carries away -from such tours as these are innumerable. May not one hope, too, that -these touring teams are not altogether without value from the political -side, for they must assuredly lead to a closer understanding and better -appreciation of our kinsmen in Greater Britain. - -One hears nowadays so many remarks—as a rule far from -complimentary—as to the status of amateur cricketers, that I take -this opportunity of enlightening those whom it may concern as to the -arrangements made with regard to the financial part of the six tours -which are dealt with in this chapter. - -On the first tour to the West Indies we paid our own steamship tickets, -and our wine and washing bills, cabs, etc., throughout the tour; all -other expenses were paid by the clubs in the various islands. The -trip to Oporto was a purely private affair, into which no question of -expenses entered one way or the other. On my two visits to America, and -the South African and New Zealand tours, all our expenses, excepting -again our wine, washing, cabs, etc., were paid for us. Not one penny -passes through the hands of either the captain or any other member of -the team, and we have no interest whatever in the gate—that is the -affair of the club which has invited the team out. The expenses of the -tour are paid out of these gates, and the profits—and there is nearly -always a profit—go to the body which has undertaken the risk of the -tour. We are, in fact, the guests of the various places we visit. - -As captain of two teams in America, no money whatsoever passed through -my hands. Our tickets were invariably taken for us, and we just stepped -on to boat or railway, as the case might be. The hotel bills, with the -exception of our bill for wine, washing, and smaller items, were sent -in to the Associated Clubs of Philadelphia. - -Lord Hawke’s South African and New Zealand teams contained -professionals, who, over and above their ordinary expenses of -travelling and hotel bills, were guaranteed a lump sum of money, which -was paid them by instalments. The amateur receives his expenses only; -the professional his expenses _plus a lump sum_. There has been so much -misunderstanding on this subject, that I shall, I hope, be excused for -having dwelt upon it at some length. - - -THE WEST INDIES - -Before the visit of R. S. Lucas’s team in the early part of 1895, the -West Indies were quite unknown to the majority of English cricketers. -That tour, however, showed that there was plenty of cricket scattered -over the islands, which only needed encouragement to develop into a -good class; and such delightful accounts did Lucas and his team bring -back of the West Indies, that Lord Hawke had little difficulty in -getting together an amateur side to go out a couple of years later. - -We sailed from Southampton in January 1897, and after a pleasant -fortnight’s voyage arrived at Port of Spain, Trinidad. Here we opened -with a big score against the Queen’s Park Cricket Club, but came to -grief when opposing the island team, chiefly owing to some excellent -bowling by two black men, Woods and Cumberbatch, on not a very easy -wicket of the kind where one ball bumped and the next shot. But -admitting that they received considerable assistance from the wicket, -Woods and Cumberbatch bowled excellently, and took thirty-nine out of -the forty wickets that fell in the two matches. As it happened, these -two defeats were the only ones we experienced in the fourteen matches -which we played, and though I do not by any means wish to make excuses, -Trinidad certainly caught us at a disadvantage, as we had not become -acclimatised to the great heat, and, moreover, had not had sufficient -opportunities to get into form. But the Trinidad side were a good one, -their strength lying in their bowling. The batting was, with one or two -exceptions, rather rough, but the fielding was excellent, and this, -coupled with the bowling of Woods and Cumberbatch, proved too much for -us. - -Cricket is, or was at the time I was there, established on a firmer -basis in Trinidad than in any other of the West Indian islands, and the -game was well supported by all classes. - -From Trinidad we went to Grenada and St. Vincent, where our opponents -were no match for us, though the St. Vincent eleven ran us close for a -couple of days. The match was played on a matting wicket, which played -fast and true, though every now and again the ball turned very quickly. - -At Barbados we had two splendid games, one of which we won after a -most exciting finish, and the other ending in an even draw. Barbados -and Trinidad were certainly the strongest teams in the West Indies -five years ago, and there was little to choose between the two sides, -Trinidad having perhaps the stronger bowling, and Barbados the better -batting. - -Antigua, St. Kitts, and St. Lucia were weak, but Demerara were a very -fair side, though they did not show their true form against us. In the -smaller islands, such as Grenada, St. Vincent, Antigua, St. Kitts, -and St. Lucia, we invariably met black men in the opposing teams, -but in estimating the respective merits of Trinidad, Barbados, and -Demerara, it must not be forgotten that Trinidad played their black -professional bowlers against us, while Demerara and Barbados did not. -In the Intercolonial Cup, which is played for every other year between -the above-mentioned colonies, the custom was to exclude the black -professionals, but I am glad to say that this has been altered since I -was in the West Indies, and they are now allowed to take part in the -Cup competition. The admittance of black professionals into the best -games cannot but do good, as they add considerably to the strength of a -side, and their inclusion must instil a universal enthusiasm for the -game amongst all colours and classes of the population. - -Jamaica we did not visit, but I was told by more than one of the team -which went out to the West Indies in the early months of 1901 that the -cricket there does not attain to any high excellence. - -The wickets are not as a rule good, but there are exceptions, and the -grounds at Barbados, Demerara, and Antigua provide excellent wickets -in fine weather. It is hard enough to make runs on a sticky wicket in -England, but it is easy in comparison with a West Indian wicket after -rain, for under the influence of a powerful tropical sun, the ball -not only takes any amount of break, but gets up perfectly straight as -well. The Trinidad ground is the largest, and has the best pavilion and -seating accommodation, while of the many grounds I have seen in various -parts of the world, none surpasses it from a picturesque point of view; -but the wicket is a very bad one, and I really think the authorities -would be wise to lay down matting. - -The West Indian team which came to England in the summer of 1900 played -seventeen games, won five, drew four, and lost eight, and when one -considers that the team had never played together before, that they -were quite unaccustomed to our climate, and to the strain of three -days’ cricket, and that they lost the toss twelve times out of the -seventeen matches the tour comprised, I do not think their record was -at all bad. At the start the side were quite at sea, but they improved -immensely as time went on, and towards the end of the tour showed some -uncommonly good cricket. The result, too, of the visit of the last -English team—by far the strongest of the three sides that have visited -the West Indies—gave evidence that the cricket had improved in the -islands, for out of the three test matches played, the West Indians won -two, while Demerara twice defeated the Englishmen, and Barbados once. - -[Illustration: _A PARLIAMENTARY MATCH._ -_The Duke of Wellington, Sir Robert Peel, Lord John Russell, and -others._] - -At the same time, it was generally felt that West Indian cricket had -not altogether made the progress expected. There are several good -bowlers, notably Burton, the best bowler in the West Indies, and Woods -of Demerara, Lane of Barbados, and Smith of Trinidad; but though the -fielding is excellent, the batting is weak, and of real knowledge of -the game, especially in the art of placing the field, there is little, -while the idea is far too prevalent that they have nothing more to -learn about cricket. This comes, I fancy, from their having on three -or four occasions beaten the English elevens which have played in the -West Indies, quite forgetting that these sides are never more than -fairly strong amateur combinations, with no pretensions to being called -first-class. - -From every point of view, there can be nothing more enjoyable than -a cricket tour in the West Indies. The climate is, at the time of -year we were in the West Indies, quite delightful, and although the -sun is undoubtedly very hot, it is by no means harmful, if ordinary -precautions are taken. Abler pens than mine have painted the exquisite -charm and beauty of the islands, and the hospitality of the people -is beyond measure, the visit of an English team being an event which -is eagerly looked forward to. The black portion of the population is -especially enthusiastic. They climb the trees round the ground, and -keep up a running comment on the game, and it is somewhat disconcerting -to hear a huge shout of “Bowl him out, Clif,” go up as the bowler runs -up; but this was what happened in Barbados when I was batting, “Clif” -being Clifford Goodman, the great Barbados bowler. Lord Hawke was a -source of joy to the native mind. On going out to bat he was generally -greeted with shouts of “Welcome, my lord,” followed by an exhortation -to the bowler to “give the lord a duck.” Once, indeed, at St. Vincent -the bowler did not disappoint the crowd, for Lord Hawke retired first -ball, whereupon the scene which followed was, I venture to think, -unique. First of all the bowler turned a somersault on the pitch, a -way of evincing delight at the dismissal of an opponent one does not -usually see at Lord’s or the Oval; but after he had gone through his -acrobatic performances, it was even more interesting to watch the -crowd, who threw their hats in the air, danced about in front of the -ring, shook hands with one another, chattering and shouting the while. -It was the most extraordinary scene I have ever witnessed on a cricket -ground; but the West Indian negro goes quite mad about cricket, and -when A. E. Stoddart was in Barbados, hundreds of them used to gather -round his hotel on a chance of getting a glimpse of the great man. -With more coaching from English professionals, and with a readier -desire to assimilate the lessons taught, there is no reason whatever -why cricket in the West Indies should not attain a high standard, for -the West Indian seems to take quite naturally to the game, and the -climate is admirably suited to the bringing of cricket to perfection. - -One or two of the grounds, notably that of Georgetown, Demerara, are -well cared for, but, speaking generally, there is much ignorance -displayed in the preparation of wickets, and it would be almost worth -while to have some man out from England to put the various grounds in -order, and impart instruction to the native groundsmen. The Trinidad -ground is infested with mole crickets, and the wicket is so impossible -that, unless matting is put down, cricket will languish, for no young -cricketer can be taught to bat really well on such a wicket, and a -bowler may be in danger of thinking himself a good one, when in fact he -is only just beginning to bowl. - -My second tour was to America in the autumn of 1897, when I captained a -fairly strong team, which included, amongst others, G. L. Jessop and F. -G. Bull, the latter about that time the best slow bowler in England. - -In discussing the strength of American cricket, it is as well to bear -in mind that American cricket means Philadelphian cricket, for nowhere -else in the United States does the game really flourish, though a few -enthusiastic supporters do their utmost to keep it going in New York -and Baltimore. - -In Philadelphia, base-ball is quite a secondary consideration, and -there is a genuine enthusiasm for our great national game. The grounds -themselves are superb, but the wickets are not good, though English -cricketers are scarcely, perhaps, in a position to pass judgment on -them, seeing that teams from this country never play in Philadelphia -before the middle or end of September, when, owing to the abundance -of what is termed “fall grass,” it is no easy matter to obtain a good -wicket. - -The Philadelphian eleven, as I saw them on the occasion of my first -visit, were a distinctly good side. They had quite a lot of batting, a -brilliant wicket-keeper in Scattergood, and, in J. B. King and P. H. -Clark, two bowlers distinctly above the average of amateur cricketers. -King, indeed, on his day is a remarkably good bowler, while Clark has -been almost invariably successful against English elevens. My eleven -played two matches against the Gentlemen of Philadelphia. The first we -lost by four wickets, and the second we won by seven wickets, though it -is only right to say that in this game the Philadelphians were without -J. A. Lester, the best batsman in the States. - -On the second tour to America, in September and October 1898, I had -not, perhaps, quite such a strong team as in the previous year, but -as the side included F. Mitchell, C. O. H. Sewell, C. J. Burnup, V. -T. Hill, B. J. T. Bosanquet, and J. L. Answorth, it was not weak. On -this, my last visit to America, the cricket in Philadelphia seemed to -have fallen off. J. B. King and P. H. Clark were as good as ever, -Scattergood was the same brilliant wicket-keeper, and the fielding -was absolutely A1, but the batting had gone off deplorably. Our first -match was fought out on a sticky, difficult pitch, when we won very -easily by eight wickets, hardly any of our opponents having any idea -of playing on such a wicket. The return match was played on a good -wicket, certainly by far the best I have seen in America, and again we -won, but this time only after a desperate battle. When the sixth wicket -went down, we wanted 30 runs to win, and as the side possessed a most -distinct tail, the result was decidedly open to doubt. However, some -fine hitting by Hill enabled us to pull through by four wickets. - -K. S. Ranjitsinhji and B. J. T. Bosanquet have both taken teams to -Philadelphia since I was last there, but Ranjitsinhji’s eleven was -absurdly strong, and won anyhow, though the Philadelphians had the -worst of the luck in having to bat on slow wickets, on which they do -not shine. B. J. T. Bosanquet’s eleven won one and lost one match with -the Philadelphians, the Americans being seen to great advantage in the -game they won, and quite outplaying the Englishmen, who lost by no less -than 229 runs. Bosanquet had, too, a very fair team, including E. M. -Dowson, E. R. Wilson, R. E. More, F. Mitchell, and V. F. S. Crawford, -but the Englishmen admittedly played very much below their true form. - -There seems to be more good cricket played in and around Philadelphia -to-day than was the case some two or three years ago, and, generally -speaking, the game seems on the up-grade, so that I shall be surprised -if the team which is to visit England this summer does not prove to be -the best that the Philadelphians have ever sent us. - -I have already mentioned that Philadelphia is the only place in America -where the game has taken a firm hold, but New York has in M. R. Cobb a -distinctly good cricketer. He is a very fair bat, and an excellent slow -to medium right-hand bowler, of the type that one would wish to see -more of in America, American bowlers being as a rule of the tearaway, -erratic type. Cobb’s record against English teams is a very good one, -and he was, next to J. B. King, the best cricketer I saw in the States -in 1897 and 1898. - -On my first American tour, except for a visit to Niagara, we did not go -to Canada at all, but matches were arranged at Montreal and Toronto for -the second trip. - -At Montreal we played against XIV. of Eastern Canada, and won by 88 -runs; but the ground, which is used as a skating-rink for six months -in the year, is appalling. There was a certain amount of keenness for -the game, but to enable cricket to flourish, a cricket ground must be -obtained. - -The ground at Toronto is a very fair one, and the Canadian eleven -was certainly the best side we met, next to the Philadelphians, but -little enthusiasm was shown, and cricket is not, I fear, in a very -satisfactory condition. - -[Illustration: _A MATCH AT IGLOOLIE, BETWEEN H.M. SHIPS “FURY” AND -“HECLA”._] - -Outside Philadelphia there is, as I have pointed out, little or no -cricket in America, but in Philadelphia itself the game flourishes, and -our matches were followed with the greatest enthusiasm. The ordinary -writer on cricket in America knows little about the game, but his -headlines and comments are exceedingly amusing. We were invariably -referred to as “British Lions,” and we were assured that the American -girl had “just a little liking for sure-enough Englishmen.” Again, when -the Philadelphians defeated us, one of the Philadelphia papers came out -with a long leading article entitled, “Waterloo for Englishmen,” in -which the fact that we had been beaten at our own game was duly rubbed -into us. - -Cricket has many difficulties to contend with throughout the United -States. In the first place, the Americans are a busy nation, and have -no leisure to devote themselves as energetically as we do to cricket, -while, except in Philadelphia, base-ball always has been, and always -will be, the national game. But in Philadelphia the future of cricket -is assured, for I have met there some of the keenest and most ardent -followers of the noble game. - -A great many people would, I imagine, scarcely believe that cricket is -played in Portugal; but wherever two or three Englishmen are gathered -together, there will wickets be pitched and creases marked out, and -as the English colony in Oporto numbers a few thousands, it is not -surprising to find the game in full swing in the beautiful town on the -banks of the Douro. - -It was as a member of T. Westray’s eleven that I had the pleasure of -playing cricket in Oporto in the spring of 1898. Our captain, a former -leader of the Uppingham team, had got together a very fair side, which, -with L. C. U. Bathurst and H. R. Bromley Davenport to bowl, and R. N. -Douglas and S. A. P. Kitcat as the principal batsmen, proved far too -good for our opponents. We won the first match against an Oporto eleven -by an innings and 103 runs, Douglas making 106, and our two crack -bowlers, with the assistance of A. C. Taylor, dismissing Oporto for 33 -and 118. Our total was 254, but had the Oporto eleven possessed even -a moderately good fast or medium-paced bowler, we should not have got -100, for the wicket was almost dangerous. I have a vivid recollection -of being hit on the forehead by a slow half-volley which jumped -straight up. The Oporto fielding was good, but the bowling very poor -indeed, half-volleys on the leg stump and long hops being frequent. - -Our next opponents were Portugal, three Englishmen coming over from -Lisbon to take part in the match; but here again we won almost as -easily by an innings and 75 runs, though the cricket of our rivals -showed some improvement, the bowling being of a better length, and -the fielding decidedly surer. But cricket in Oporto is confined to -twenty or thirty enthusiasts, so that the game cannot be taken at all -seriously. Something will have to be done to the wicket, which at -present is deplorable, for the soil itself is very sandy, and plantains -seem to take root again as fast as they are cut out. The best plan -would be to lay down cocoanut matting, but the cricketers in the _leal -e invicta citade_ (the loyal and unconquered city) are rather proud of -the fact that theirs is the only ground in Spain or Portugal in which a -grass wicket is obtainable. - -None of the Portuguese took even the slightest interest in our visit, -beyond a paragraph in the local paper stating that the “afamados -loquedores de cricket” had arrived, and that the enthusiasm for cricket -in England was even greater than that shown for bull-fighting in Spain, -and that the names of Grace, Abel, Ranjitsinhji, and Maclaren were in -England as well known as the names of Guerita, Marrantini, Perate, and -Carajello, the famous bull-fighters, were in Spain. - - -[Illustration] - - - - -CHAPTER XIV - -CRICKET IN SOUTH AFRICA - -By P. F. WARNER - - -On 3rd December 1898 I left England on my fifth tour abroad as a member -of Lord Hawke’s South African team. The side was a powerful one, -including such men as F. Mitchell, C. E. M. Wilson, the late F. W. -Milligan, Trott, Tyldesley, Cuttell, Haigh, and Board. - -After a delightful voyage in the _Scot_, we arrived at Cape Town, and -during the next four months played cricket from Table Mountain almost -to the Zambesi and back again, visiting Johannesburg, Pretoria, -Kimberley, Port Elizabeth, Grahamstown, King William’s Town, Graaf -Reinet, and Buluwayo. - -Lord Hawke’s was the fourth English team to go to South Africa, Major -Wharton, W. W. Read, and Lord Hawke himself having in previous years -taken out sides. - -In any review of South African cricket, the first thing to be -remembered is that, from one end of the great continent to the other, -you never by any possible chance see a grass wicket, matting being used -everywhere. On the Newlands ground, Cape Town, and at Port Elizabeth, -the matting is stretched over grass, and this makes a wicket which -enables the bowler to get considerable work on, though the ball does -not come off the pitch very quickly. It is not an easy wicket, for -a half-volley does not seem the same thing as on grass, and forcing -strokes generally are at a discount. This kind of wicket affords most -excellent practice, for it teaches one above everything else to watch -the ball. - -Tyldesley did make a very fine 112 at Cape Town, and Sinclair, the -South African cricketer, an equally fine 106, but the ball nearly -always beat the bat, and Haigh in particular brought off some great -bowling triumphs. The work he used to get on the ball was prodigious; -he thought nothing of pitching six inches outside the off stump, -and then hitting the leg stump. Trott, too, did one or two fine -performances, while Rowe, Middleton, and Sinclair were at times almost -equally successful. - -At Port Elizabeth the out-field is of grass, but the wicket seemed to -me even more difficult than at Cape Town, for the ball, besides taking -a lot of break, turned very quickly. Perhaps, however, I am unduly -influenced by the fact that I made “spectacles” at Port Elizabeth—a -favourite ground, by the way, for Englishmen to fail on, for more than -one well-known cricketer has “bagged a brace” there. - -Cape Town and Port Elizabeth are the only two cricket grounds in South -Africa which can boast of a grass out-field; all the other grounds -are absolutely innocent of a blade of grass, being nothing, indeed, -but a brown-reddish sand—somewhat like the colour of the sand on the -seashore—rolled into a flat and hard surface. The matting is stretched -on this sand, and makes a hard, true, and very fast wicket, while the -ball, once past a fielder, simply flies to the boundary. - -The Wanderers’ ground, Johannesburg, is by far the best ground in South -Africa, for the wicket is exceptionally fast, and the out-field level -and true. At Kimberley there is a good wicket, but the out-field is -rather rough, which may be said with truth of nearly all South African -grounds, except the Wanderers’. Natal we did not visit, but I am told -that the Maritzburg Oval is in almost every respect the equal of the -Wanderers’ ground. - -[Illustration: _A STATE MATCH._ -_The Duke of Wellington bowling out Lord Brougham._] - -It will be seen from what I have said that matting wickets differ -according as to whether they are laid on grass or otherwise. Matting -stretched on grass gives the bowler more than a two-to-one chance, but -matting on the bare grassless ground favours the batsman, though I am -inclined to think that a really good bowler ought always to be able to -make the ball “nip” a bit. Haigh certainly made the ball turn every now -and again on the Wanderers’ ground, and both he and Albert Trott have -told me that they would infinitely prefer to bowl on the best matting -wicket in the world rather than on a really hard, true turf pitch. - -But the matting at Johannesburg is good enough for the most fastidious -batsman, for it plays very fast, and though the pace of the wicket is -apt to put a batsman off on first going in, once a man has got his eye -in, he can make any amount of forcing strokes on both sides of the -wicket, for the ball does not often hang on the pitch. Drives between -cover and extra cover, and push strokes between the bowler and mid-on -and past mid-on, can be made with great frequency, while the ball -travels to the boundary at a great pace. - -Bowlers of the type of Haigh, Tate, or Howell (the Australian) are -the most successful on matting wickets, but slow bowlers are not, as -a rule, effective, and fast bowlers, unless really great ones, are -usually heavily punished. - -The ordinary spikes one uses in England are quite useless on the -matting, and have to be replaced by a sort of flat nail. - -The length of the matting varies in different places, and this, I -venture to think, causes great inconvenience. At present the matting -may be any length up to 22 yards, and often I found myself standing -at one wicket with both feet off the matting, at another time with -both feet on, and at another with one foot off and the other on the -matting, while at Cape Town the pins which keep the matting down were -placed just where the ordinary batsman puts his right leg. The South -African Cricket Association might very easily pass a law making the -matting uniform throughout the country, and in my opinion the matting -should stop about a foot in front of the popping-crease. This is the -length at Johannesburg. A captain may if he desires have the matting -stretched tight at the commencement of each innings. In that case the -pins are removed from the end and side of the matting, which is then -well stretched by scores of Kaffirs, and afterwards firmly pinned into -the ground. As a rule, however, merely the end pins are removed for -a minute or two, the matting is given a pull, the pins replaced, and -the matting swept, for pieces of grit and sand are very apt to collect -on the mat, and a batsman has to look out for this while he is at the -wickets. - -The great difficulty which frequently besets a captain on turf wickets, -as to which roller he will put on at the commencement of his side’s -innings, or at the beginning of the day’s play, is removed, for no -rolling of the matting is necessary. Towards the end of an innings the -matting is apt to get a trifle loose, and batting is no fun then, for -should the ball pitch on one of the creases in the matting, it will -probably break very quickly; and in this case the last few batsmen have -the worst of the wicket. Winning or losing the toss, of course, makes -no difference whatever, and rain, too, has little or no effect on the -state of the pitch. One great advantage of these sandy grounds is that -play is nearly always possible within a few minutes after the heaviest -shower. I have seen the Johannesburg ground absolutely under water and -resembling a lake, and yet play in progress within three-quarters of an -hour after the rain had ceased. - -Cricket on matting is not half such a good game as cricket on turf, but -as there is no turf worthy the name in South Africa, South Africans -have no other alternative but to play on matting. There is at first, to -one accustomed to grass wickets, an air of unreality about the whole -thing, and the game does not seem to be quite the same cricket we -learnt in England. For the first few weeks I hated the “mat,” but after -a while one becomes more at home on it, and at the end of the tour I -was quite fond of a matting wicket—though I never could agree with -those who said that they preferred it to grass. One thing is certain, -and that is, that playing for three or four months on matting wickets -does improve one’s batting, and makes one a more resourceful player. -At Johannesburg, Kimberley, and the grassless grounds, forward play -and hard forcing strokes score tremendously, but at Cape Town and Port -Elizabeth forcing forward strokes are at a discount; the man who can -play back well will make the most runs. - -Lord Hawke’s team played seventeen matches, won fifteen, and drew two. -Five eleven-a-side matches were played, viz. two games _v._ All South -Africa, two against Cape Colony, and one against the Transvaal. - -At Cape Town we played a couple of games with XIII. of the Western -Province, the remaining fixtures being chiefly against XV’s. - -At Cape Town we just won our first match by 25 runs against a Western -Province XIII., chiefly owing to some grand bowling by Trott, Cuttell, -and Haigh, the Yorkshireman taking five wickets for 14 runs at the -crisis of the game. The highest total in the match was 149, and the -highest individual score 45 by H. H. Francis. Murray Bisset, who -captained the South African XI. in England, batted well in both -innings, and Rowe and Middleton took seventeen of our wickets between -them. - -The return game saw us victorious by 106 runs, for we were all in -better form by this time, and more accustomed to the eccentricities -of the mat. Rowe and Middleton did even better than before, taking -nineteen wickets between them, while Trott and Haigh bowled splendidly -for us. - -From Cape Town we went in turn to Graaf Reinet, Port Elizabeth, -Grahamstown, and King William’s Town, victory awaiting us at each -place. At King William’s Town we drew lots for the order of going in, -and F. Mitchell and Tyldesley put on over 100 runs for the last wicket; -but the most interesting thing about this match was a splendidly-hit -innings of 66 by Giddy, who scored his runs in three-quarters of an -hour. He twice hit Milligan out of the ground, and scored 16 off one -over of Haigh’s (there were five balls to the over at that time). - -[Illustration: - _Engraved by R. Dunkarton._ _After W. Redmore Bigg, R.A._ -_THE SOLDIER’S WIDOW OR SCHOOL BOY’S COLLECTION._] - -We had a long railway journey from King William’s Town to Johannesburg, -but after forty-five hours in the train arrived at the “Golden City,” -where a warm welcome awaited us, the station platform being crammed -with cricket enthusiasts. - -We stayed about three weeks in Johannesburg, and in that time played -three matches—the first against a Johannesburg XV., which ended in a -somewhat uninteresting draw; the second against a Transvaal XI., whom -we defeated by an innings and 201 runs; and the third against All South -Africa, which we also won, though only after a desperate struggle. - -Sinclair batted and bowled well for the Johannesburg XV., and Halliwell -kept wicket superbly, while Frank Milligan did a very good bit of -bowling, for in the Johannesburgers’ first innings he sent back ten men -for but 64 runs, keeping up a good pace all the time, and making the -ball do a bit every now and again. - -In the match against the Transvaal, Tyldesley played splendidly for -114, Mitchell made an equally fine 162, and Trott knocked up 101 in -a short time, our total of 539 for six wickets being, I believe, the -highest total ever made in South Africa. - -We won the game against South Africa by 33 runs, Lord Hawke’s XI. -making 145 and 237, and South Africa 251 and 99. It was a splendid -fight, and at one time we looked hopelessly “in the cart”; but Trott, -Haigh, and Cuttell bowled magnificently when our opponents went in to -get the runs, while the fielding was extremely smart, and in our second -innings I was lucky enough to get 132 not out. But fortune was on my -side, as I was missed at point when I had made 94, and I rather fancy I -was stumped when I had got about 70. - -For South Africa, Sinclair played a fine free innings of 86, and was -unlucky in being run out, and Llewellyn got 38 in the first innings, -and Bisset 35 and 21 not out. Llewellyn, Middleton, and Rowe, all -left-handers, took the great majority of our wickets, and we ought -really to have lost the match, but one or two of the South Africans -played rather recklessly in their second innings, and the dismissal of -Sinclair in the second over—caught at mid-off from a tremendous skyer, -by Cuttell off Haigh—seemed to destroy the confidence of the side, -though Bisset played some bowling of the highest class with great skill. - -The loss of this match was a tremendous blow to supporters of cricket -in South Africa, and the disappointment in Johannesburg was keen. The -game was followed with the closest attention, and on the second day -about 8000 people were present, the takings at the gate, irrespective -of stand money, amounting to £470. At Lord’s or the Oval one can see -the best cricket in the world for the modest sixpence, but half-a-crown -was the lowest sum one could get into the Wanderers’ ground for during -Lord Hawke’s visit to Johannesburg. As a proof of the interest taken -in the match, the scores were posted up at various centres in the town -and along the reef at intervals of an hour. - -Just before meeting the combined South African team we had played a -two-day match against a local XV. at Pretoria, whom we defeated by nine -wickets. Braund, the Somerset professional, was at that time acting as -coach to the Pretoria Club, and his all-round cricket was splendid, for -he made 41 runs, took six wickets, and brought off three fine catches. - -From Johannesburg we went to Kimberley, and there defeated a -Griqualand West XV. by an innings and 25 runs. Most of us made runs, -for the bowling was weak, and lent itself to free hitting. Shalders -of Kimberley made 76 by very good cricket, late cutting and hooking -particularly well, playing our professional bowlers with great -confidence. The heat all through this game was almost unbearable, and -we were glad to get away to the cooler climate of Buluwayo, where we -played and won two matches, defeating a Buluwayo XVIII. and XV. of -Rhodesia. Our bowling was altogether too good for our opponents, three -or four of whom, however, showed good form. At this period of the tour -Haigh was bowling superbly, and it took a really good batsman to make -any runs against him. - -An expedition to the Matoppos was not the least interesting part of a -delightful ten days in Rhodesia, and the visit of the first English -team to Rhodesia was, I think I may safely say, a great success. -Certainly Lord Hawke’s team enjoyed every moment of it. - -On the way down from Buluwayo we played another match at Kimberley, -which was spoilt by heavy rain, and then, after spending two or three -days at Matjesfontein with Mr. J. D. Logan, we returned to Cape Town -for the last two matches. We beat Cape Colony by an innings and 29 -runs, Haigh performing the hat trick, and Cuttell and Wilson making -98 and 69 respectively, and on Easter Tuesday wound up the tour with -a victory over South Africa; but, as at Johannesburg, our opponents -headed us in the first innings, Sinclair, six wickets for 26 runs, -being chiefly responsible for a miserable total of 92, a score which -the South Africans headed by 85 runs. Sinclair played a really great -innings. He made 106 out of 147 while he was at the wicket by splendid -cricket, driving with great power, and repeatedly bringing off a -powerful back stroke. - -Tyldesley (112) played in his best form in our second innings, and as -nine men made double figures, we ran up a total of 330, which left -South Africa 246 runs to win. The general feeling was that we should -win by 50 or 60 runs, but after Shalders and Powell had scored 11 for -the first wicket, Haigh and Trott got on the war-path, and in an hour -South Africa were all out for 35! Haigh took six wickets for 11 runs, -and Trott four wickets for 19 runs. Sinclair only made 4 this time, -magnificently caught in the long field by Milligan. - -A few days later we left Cape Town on the _Norman_, leaving Milligan -behind, of whom, alas! it had been written in the Book of Destiny that -he should never return to England, for fifteen months later he gave his -life for his country while fighting gallantly outside Mafeking, and his -bright and fascinating personality was taken from the cricket field. He -is buried at Ramathlabama, but, though he lies so far away, to those -who knew him well, as I am glad to think I did, his memory is ever dear. - -The first English team to visit South Africa was Major Wharton’s, -in the winter of 1888-89. In those days the railway had not, I -fancy, reached even Bloemfontein—certainly there was no railway to -Johannesburg, and much of the travelling was done by ox waggon. Major -Wharton’s eleven played only two eleven-a-side matches—both against -South Africa—and won both, the second by an innings and 202 runs. - -W. W. Read’s eleven beat South Africa in the only match played by an -innings and 189 runs, and Lord Hawke’s first team won their three test -matches quite easily, but his second team, of which I was a member, -only just beat South Africa at Johannesburg, and in the return at Cape -Town our opponents more than held us for two days. We did not lose a -match on the tour, but three or four times we had to fight hard to win. - -The South African eleven which toured in England in 1901 did very -fairly, showing plenty of sound cricket, and giving evidence that in -a few years South Africa might hope to play the very best counties -with every chance of success, while the good form shown against the -Australians last autumn has gone far to strengthen the opinion which I -had already formed that cricket has a great future before it in South -Africa. - - -[Illustration] - - - - -CHAPTER XV - -CRICKET IN NEW ZEALAND - -By P. F. WARNER - - -It was on 12th November 1902 that I started from Liverpool as captain -of a team for New Zealand. This was my sixth cricket tour abroad, and -Lord Hawke was originally to have captained the side; but the sudden -illness of his mother prevented his starting, and he did me the honour -of inviting me to lead the side in his absence. Those, like myself, who -have had the good luck to go on tour with Lord Hawke know full well -what his absence meant, for his unrivalled powers of management, his -tact, influence, and close attention to detail are important factors -in the successful conduct of a cricket tour. Though the Yorkshire -captain, to the regret of every one on the side, and of no one more -than myself, was unable to accompany us, the team was everywhere known -as “Lord Hawke’s team,” and we wore his colours—dark blue, light blue, -and yellow—so well known on cricket grounds all over the world. The -side Lord Hawke had got together was a good average English county -team—that is to say, if it entered for the county championship it -would at the end of a season probably be found halfway up the list, and -possibly higher—and consisted of P. F. Warner, C. J. Burnup, F. L. -Fane, T. L. Taylor, E. M. Dowson, B. J. T. Bosanquet, J. Stanning, P. -R. Johnson, A. E. Leatham, A. D. Whatman, Hargreave, and Thompson. - -The _Majestic_ of the White Star Line made a quick passage to New York, -whence we were whirled across the American continent to San Francisco, -learning on the way that railway speed in America does not necessarily -imply safety, for we had a couple of accidents, one of which ended -fatally to a fireman, which delayed our arrival at San Francisco. Here -we spent a couple of delightful days, on one of which we played and -defeated XVIII. of California. Leaving San Francisco on 27th November, -we stopped on our long voyage across the Pacific at Honolulu and Pago -Pago, eventually arriving at Auckland on 16th December. A few days -later we began the first match of the tour, and from then until 6th -March we were kept pretty hard at work, travelling about the country -and playing cricket. We played in all eighteen matches—eleven against -odds—and won them all, not a single game being lost or drawn. This -was in itself a wonderfully good record; but cricket in New Zealand -is at the present moment up to no very high standard, and the results -of three-quarters of the matches were a foregone conclusion before a -ball had been bowled. We had a close game with a West Coast XXII. on -a matting wicket, only winning by five wickets (on this occasion we -had a long tail, for Bosanquet and Dowson were away fishing), and the -Canterbury XI. and the New Zealand team in the first test match gave us -a fair game; but we were almost always winning comfortably, most of our -victories being gained in a single innings. - -The New Zealand XI. were a very fair side, but they were in no way -equal to us, for we won both matches easily, the first by seven wickets -and the second by an innings and 22 runs. In both of these games we -lost the toss, though in the first match it was probably an advantage -to do so. - -There were but seven eleven-a-side matches—against Auckland, -Wellington, Canterbury, Otago, South Island, and the two New Zealand -games. Auckland, South Island, Otago, and the second test match were -won in an innings, Wellington were beaten by ten wickets, Canterbury by -133 runs, after declaring our innings closed, and the New Zealand XI. -in the first test match by seven wickets. - -The two best batsmen in New Zealand are D. Reese of Canterbury and K. -Tucker of Wellington; and it is remarkable that they should stand so -clearly out from the rest. Of the two, Reese is, perhaps, the better. -He scored two hundreds out of the eight innings he played against -us—111 for Canterbury and 148 for New Zealand in the second test match -at Wellington. He is undoubtedly a fine left-handed batsman—very -similar in style and method to H. G. Garnett of Lancashire—with all -those brilliant off-side strokes so characteristic of nearly all -left-handed batsmen, and particularly good on the leg side. His weak -point is in the slips, where he is apt to give a chance on first going -in. Besides his batting, Reese is by no means a bad left-handed slow -bowler, and a beautiful field at extra cover—in a word, a thorough -cricketer. Tucker is a sound batsman who watches the ball well, has -a good off drive and cut just behind point, and a very clever stroke -between mid-on and short leg, which he uses to great advantage. He -nearly always got runs against us, scoring 84, 50, 67, and 21 in four -out of six knocks. On a rather difficult wicket at Christchurch, -when our bowlers were turning the ball, he played very good and safe -cricket—not so brilliant, perhaps, as Reese, but sounder, and a cool -player. Leaving Reese and Tucker out of the question, there is no one -in New Zealand who can be classed as a first-class bat. There are many -very fair batsmen, who, with coaching, and with more practice and -experience, would probably become first-class, but judged merely by -what I saw, Reese and Tucker are the only two men whose batting attains -to anything like first-class form. - -The bowling is infinitely stronger than the batting, and is really -quite good, Callaway—whom Mr. Stoddart will remember as bowling well -against his 1894-95 Australian team—Frankish, Downes, Fisher, M’Arthy, -and Upham being quite useful. Frankish and Fisher are left-handed -medium pace, Upham is a fast right-hander, Downes slow right, and -M’Arthy medium right. - -Frankish, in my opinion, is the best bowler in New Zealand, for he -keeps a good length, being especially difficult to drive or force -forward, and with a nice high action makes the ball swing a good deal -with his arm. On all wickets I should consider him distinctly the best -bowler we played against. - -Downes, even on a hard, true wicket, gets a great deal of work from -the off on the ball, but his action is distinctly doubtful, and in -the first test match he was twice no-balled by Charles Bannerman for -throwing. He had bad luck against us in more than one innings, several -catches being missed off his bowling. Downes is a splendid trier and a -plucky, hard-working cricketer who can bowl all day quite cheerfully. -On a sticky wicket he is bound to be very difficult, and it was on a -pitch of this sort that he and Fisher dismissed the Australian XI. of -1896 for less than a hundred runs. - -Callaway keeps a very accurate length, and generally makes the ball go -across with his arm, though, when the wicket helps him, he can bring -the ball back pretty quickly. Upham and M’Arthy can both make the ball -break, but they bowl too much at the leg stump, and not enough at the -off and outside the off stump. Fisher has a good action, but does not -like being hit, and is, perhaps, rather past his best. - -The wicket-keeping all over New Zealand is good—even in the smallest -places we met a respectable “stumper”—and Boxshall and Williams are -above the average, both of them being particularly smart on the leg -side. - -In the odds matches our opponents let an unwonted number of catches -slip through their fingers; but the fielding of the New Zealand XI. was -decidedly smart in both matches. - -The visit of the team undoubtedly did good, and cricket may be expected -to go ahead rapidly in the next few years. More professional coaches -from England or Australia are wanted, and greater efforts should be -made to induce the Australians to send over teams. Lack of funds has in -the past militated against the spread of cricket; but the New Zealand -Cricket Council, who engineered the tour, and nearly all the local -centres, made money out of the gate receipts, and as a keen enthusiasm -has been aroused, improvement in the future should be rapid. - -There were too many matches against odds, and too much travelling and -rushing about; but we saw New Zealand from end to end, and everywhere -we were received with the greatest hospitality. - -One word more. The loyalty and devotion of my companions made the -oft-times difficult task of captaincy a joy and a pleasure, and any -success which may have attended the tour—and I think I may safely say -it was a success—was due entirely to the support and confidence they -at all times gave me. - -[Illustration: - _From a Painting attributed to_ _J. J. Chalon, R.A._ -_OLD CHARLTON CHURCH AND MANOR HOUSE._] - - -[Illustration] - - - - -CHAPTER XVI - -CRICKET GROUNDS - -By Messrs. SUTTON AND SONS, The King’s Seedsmen, Reading - - -Without wishing to detract from the skill of the many famous batsmen of -to-day, or venturing to compare them with players of a generation ago, -it is probable that the former owe some of their success to the perfect -wickets on which most first-class matches are now played. No apology is -needed, therefore, for embodying in this work practical notes on the -formation and maintenance of really good turf. - -The soils on which a satisfactory cricket pitch cannot be formed are -sand and an impervious clay. On the former it is difficult to establish -a plant of grass, and under rain the latter becomes sticky. But loam -which has been cultivated, especially when it is slightly tenacious, -possesses all the qualities which favour the maintenance of fine -perennial grasses, and at the same time enables the groundsman to -prepare a firm and true surface. - -On sandy soil the grass obtains such a feeble hold that even after rain -the pitch, as it rapidly dries, crumbles and becomes unreliable. No -amount of rolling will bind a soil of this quality into a firm surface, -capable of withstanding the severe wear of a cricket match. Should -there be no alternative site, it is imperative that sandy soil be -covered with several inches of stiff loam, inclining to the character -of clay. When filled with grass roots, such a soil can be rolled down -into a fast, true, and enduring wicket, and the porous subsoil will -ensure effectual drainage. The club purse must determine the extent of -ground to be treated in the manner we recommend, but while the work is -in progress, it is worth while to strain a point to make the playing -square sufficiently large—say, at the very least, 40 yards in the line -of the wickets, by 30 yards in width. - -A different course must be adopted with adhesive land which has to be -rendered porous. Possibly an effectual system of drainage, carried out -by an expert, may be absolutely necessary; but this is a task which -should not be undertaken with a light heart. It is a costly business, -and the trenches take a long time to settle down. After a field has -been levelled and sown, it is exasperating to see broad lines of soil -gradually sinking below the general level, to the ruin of the ground -for one or more seasons. As a rule, a good playing square can be -established on clay by taking out the soil to about 1 foot in depth -and replacing it with 6 or 8 inches of mixed chalk and sandy loam. On -the top, return enough of the original soil, broken very fine, and -carefully beaten down, to ensure a perfect level,—the surface to be -finished with the rake and roller. Making up the ground should commence -in October, and work ought to be completed before the end of November. -In the absence of frost, February is the month in which the best -results can be obtained from the heavy roller. - -A slope is objectionable in many respects. It restricts the choice -of a wicket, favours the hitting in one direction, and handicaps the -bowlers. For these and other reasons, a level is justly regarded as -one of the conditions from which stern necessity alone can warrant -departure. - -Whether the entire area, or only the playing square, shall be -efficiently prepared and sown generally resolves itself into a -question of funds. Where the limitation is unavoidable we need not -waste arguments. But it must not be forgotten that, however excellent -the playing square may be, unless the ball can travel evenly to -the boundary, first-class cricket is impossible. This fact is now -recognised by comparatively small clubs, whose grounds are laid and -kept with a precision that would have excited the admiration of -county teams in years gone by. And the club which is content with a -well-made centre and an indifferent margin deprives itself of matches -such as every ardent lover of the game desires to witness. It costs -comparatively little more to prepare the whole area perfectly, and -whatever saving may be effected by limiting the outlay for labour or -for seed to the playing square is almost certain to be repented of. - -Apart from the ground, two reserve plots should be sown and kept in -the same condition as a fine lawn. From these plots turf can be cut to -mend holes made by bowlers or batsmen. When one plot has been used, -the surface must be made up with 3 or 4 inches of rich sifted soil, -entirely free from stones; seed can then be sown and the sward be -brought into condition while the other plot is cut away. Two or three -years are necessary to mature the roots into a firm compact mat that -may be cut, rolled, and relaid on the cricket ground. - -Cricket grounds are made either by laying turf or sowing seed. In -favour of the former method it may be claimed that the ground is at -once clothed with verdure, and under favourable circumstances the -ground is sometimes ready for use in rather less time than when seed is -sown. But the difference is scarcely worth consideration. - -Objections to the use of turf are so numerous and important that -advocates of the practice decrease in number every year. - -As a rule, purchased turf abounds in coarse grasses and pernicious -weeds, which are difficult to eradicate, especially the coarse grasses. - -When turf is laid in spring, the sections separate under a hot sun or -drying wind, and the whole surface is disfigured by ugly seams. The -gaping fissures have then to be filled with sifted soil and sown with -seed. - -The objection most frequently urged against turf is its almost -prohibitive cost. When cut to the usual size—3 feet long by 1 foot -wide—nearly fifteen thousand pieces are required to lay an acre. The -expense, including cutting, carting, and laying, generally falls but -little short of £100. For the same area, seed of the highest quality -can be obtained for about £5, unless for some urgent reason an unusual -quantity is sown; even then, an increased outlay of 50s. will suffice. - -The labour involved in levelling the land and preparing a suitable -surface is substantially the same for both methods. - -A sward produced from a mixture of suitable seeds is incomparably -superior in quality to the best turf generally obtainable. Seeds -of fine and other useful grasses are now saved with all the care -necessary to ensure the perfect purity of each variety. The presence of -extraneous substances of any kind, and of false seeds in particular, -can be instantly detected. The percentage of vitality is also -determined with exactness by severe and reliable tests. The several -varieties of grasses can therefore be mixed in suitable proportions for -any soil or purpose with the precision of a physician’s prescription. - - -DRAINAGE - -Should draining be necessary, this operation takes precedence of all -other work in preparing the land. If rain pass freely through the soil, -leaving no stagnant pools even in wet winters, the sufficiency of the -natural drainage may be inferred. But it should be clearly understood -that a fine turf cannot be established on a bog. Sour land soddened -with moisture, or an impervious clay, must have pipes properly laid -before good turf is possible, and as the trenches cannot be filled -so firmly as to prevent the ground from sinking afterwards, draining -must be completed at least six months before seed is sown. The size -of the pipes must be determined by the rainfall of the district, the -distance between the rows by the nature of the soil. The depth need -not be great, as the roots of grass do not penetrate far into the -earth. Fifteen feet between the rows, and the pipes three feet below -the surface, are common measurements. No single drain should be very -long, and the smaller should enter the larger pipes at an acute angle, -to avoid arresting the flow of water. Near trees or hedges the sockets -must be set in cement, or the roots may force admission and choke the -drain, and the outflow ends should be examined periodically to ensure -efficient working. In laying the pipes, it is necessary to employ a -practical man who understands the business, and will consider the -peculiar requirements of the case. - - -PREPARATORY WORK - -When no important alteration of the ground is necessary, deep -cultivation should be avoided. Spudding to the depth of 6 to 9 inches -will suffice, and this affords the opportunity of incorporating such -manure as may be required. It frequently happens, however, that the -surface does not present the desired conformation, and that a level -plot can only be obtained by the removal or addition of a considerable -mass of earth. Possibly the level may have to be raised by soil -brought from a distance. In such a case it is usual to shoot the loads -where needed as they arrive, tread the earth firmly down, and make -the surface even as the work proceeds. This is the proper method if -the whole bulk of soil come from one source, is uniform in quality, -and suitable for the seed-bed. But in the event of there being much -difference in the mould, it will be necessary to spread a layer of each -kind over the entire plot, putting the retentive soil at the bottom, -and reserving the finer and more friable portion for the top. To make -up one part of the ground entirely with loamy clay, and another part -with light loam, will inevitably result in a patchy appearance, because -each soil fosters those grasses which possess affinities for it. - -In order to ensure a perfectly level surface, pegs must be driven -into the soil at the extreme points, and intermediate pegs at regular -distances between. On these a long piece of wood having a straight -edge can be adjusted by a spirit-level, and by shifting the wooden -straight-edge from peg to peg, the level of the whole area can be -efficiently tested. - - -WEED SEEDS IN SOILS - -A serious danger to which strange soil is liable is the presence of -seeds of troublesome weeds. We have seen a lawn which had been made -level with sifted soil taken from a neighbouring field. Upon every spot -thus treated a strong colony of _Holcus lanatus_ had grown, and as the -pale green patches defied all efforts to extirpate them, the extreme -course of cutting out and replacing with good turf had to be adopted. - -The only certain way of ridding soil of weed seeds is to burn it. -This operation is well understood by agriculturists, and we should -like to insist upon it as not only essential when adding strange -soil upon which a cricket ground is to be made, but highly desirable -whenever the land is a stiff clay, in which case burning is often worth -undertaking, for the beneficial effect it has on the growth of grass. -The disintegration of the clay, which is one of the good effects of -burning, may to some extent be obtained by simply digging up the ground -in autumn and leaving it rough for the frost to break down and sweeten. - -Should the proximity of dwellings render burning impracticable, the -only alternative as regards the weeds is to allow their seeds plenty of -time to germinate, and to destroy successive crops by light hoeings -in dry weather. Of course, waiting for weeds to appear is vexatious -when the land is prepared and the season is passing away. Still, it -will prove a real saving both of time and labour to ensure a clean -seed-bed. After grasses are sown the soil must not be disturbed, and -atmospheric conditions may follow which retard the germination of -the grasses, and too often doom the sowing to failure. Those who are -practically acquainted with gardening know that land which has been -regularly cultivated for years, and is supposed to be fairly clean, -always produces a plentiful crop of weeds, although no seed whatever be -sown, yet many a faultless lot of grass seed has been condemned, when -the weeds have had their origin entirely in the soil. Delay in sowing -offers the further advantage that the soil will become thoroughly -consolidated—a condition which is highly favourable to grasses, and -very difficult of attainment under hurried preparation. - - -ENRICHING THE SOIL - -In preparing the seed-bed, the condition of the soil is too often -disregarded, although it is a matter of considerable importance, for -grass is quite as easily starved as any other crop. After the sward -is established, the enrichment of the soil has to be effected under -disadvantages to which other crops are not subject. Vegetables in a -well-ordered garden are changed from plot to plot, so as to tax the -soil for different constituents, and the ground is frequently manured, -broken up, and exposed to atmospheric influences, which increase its -fertility. Grass is a fixed crop, chiefly deriving its nourishment -from a few inches near the surface, and the only way of refreshing it -is by raking or harrowing and top-dressing. Hence there are obvious -reasons for putting the land into good heart before sowing. Well-rotted -stable manure is always beneficial, but fresh manure should be avoided, -because of its tendency to make the soil hollow. From twenty to thirty -cartloads of manure per acre will probably suffice. - -Where artificials are more convenient, 2 cwt. of superphosphate -of lime, 1 cwt. of Peruvian guano, and 2 cwt. of bone dust, mixed -together, make an excellent dressing. The quantities named are usually -sufficient for an acre, and the mixture can be evenly spread and worked -into the soil while the preparation of the seed-bed is in progress. -Sutton’s lawn manure also contains all the constituents essential to -the luxuriant growth of fine grasses and clovers. This is a highly -concentrated artificial, and as a rule not more than 3 cwt. per acre -will be necessary. After the application of the manure, not less than -ten days should elapse before sowing the grasses, or some of the -seed-germs may be destroyed. - - -SURFACE PREPARATION - -A fine friable surface is necessary to ensure favourable conditions -for the seed, and in levelling the ground there must be a diligent -use of the rake and roller. It is not sufficient to go over the ground -once with each implement. Repeated raking assists in clearing the land -of stones, unless they are very numerous, in which case it may be -necessary to spread 2 or 3 inches of fine rich earth over the surface. -After every raking the roller should follow, each time in a different -direction. These operations reveal inequalities, pulverise the soil, -and impart to it the firmness which favours germination. Grasses, -particularly the finer varieties, are too fragile to force their way -through clods, and many seeds will be lost altogether if buried to a -greater depth than a quarter of an inch. - - -SELECTION OF SEEDS - -The selection of grasses and clovers which are to form a fine dense -sward should be regarded as in the highest degree important. They -must be permanent in character, adapted to the soil, and free from -coarse-growing varieties. On land which is liable to burn, clovers -maintain their verdure under a hot sun after grasses have become brown. -There is, however, this objection to clovers, that they show signs of -wear earlier than grasses, and hold moisture longer after a shower. -It is therefore often advisable to sow grasses only, unless the grass -is peculiarly liable to scorch in summer. Then it is an open question -whether an admixture of clovers may be regarded as the lesser of two -evils. - -The following grasses and clovers are specially suited for -establishing a fine close turf, and the characteristics of the several -varieties indicate the soil and purpose for which each kind is -naturally adapted:— - -_Cynosurus cristatus_ (Crested Dogstail).—The foliage of this grass -is dwarf, compact in growth, and possesses the great advantage of -remaining green for an unusual time in the absence of rain. The roots -are capable of penetrating the hardest soil, and the plant is well -adapted for sowing on dry loams, especially such as rest upon a chalky -subsoil, for which it manifests a marked partiality. Still, it will -thrive almost anywhere, and should form a prominent constituent of -most prescriptions for cricket grounds. Crested Dogstail is strictly -perennial, and will increase in strength and vigour for quite two years -after it is sown. - -_Festuca duriuscula_ (Hard Fescue).—This grass grows freely on sheep -downs, and when mingled in due proportion with other varieties it -largely contributes to the formation of a fine close turf. The plant -commences growing early in spring, and seed should be sown on all soils -that are not very wet. - -_Festuca ovina tenuifolia_ (Fine-leaved Sheep’s Fescue).—The foliage -of Fine-leaved Sheep’s Fescue maintains its dark green colour for -some time in hot dry weather, and is so slender as to render the -term “blades of grass” almost a misnomer. Although most useful in -mixture with other grasses, a homogeneous turf cannot be obtained from -Fine-leaved Sheep’s Fescue alone. The plants grow in dense tufts, -and exhibit a decided antipathy to each other. The roots descend -to a considerable depth in search of moisture. As a consequence, -this grass will thrive on sandy or rocky soils that are incapable of -supporting any other variety. In the early stage of growth it is easily -overpowered by weeds, and for this reason autumn is preferable to -spring sowing, because weeds are then less prevalent. But for cricket -grounds this grass cannot be dispensed with, at whatever time of year a -sowing may be made. After the plants are established they easily hold -their position. - -_Festuca rubra_ (Red Fescue) possesses many desirable qualities, which -give it a peculiar value. The foliage is very fine, close-growing, -endures hard wear, and the plant is not exacting as to habitat. It -thrives on the driest and poorest soils as well as on the best loams. -The true variety is quite distinct from either of the other fine-leaved -Fescues, and pure seed is difficult to obtain. - -_Lolium perenne Suttoni_ (Sutton’s Dwarf Perennial Rye Grass).—Most -of the perennial rye grasses are too coarse for a cricket ground, but -this variety is eminently suitable for the purpose, alike for the -fineness of its foliage and the dwarf branching habit of growth. It -tillers out close to the ground, forms a compact sward, and retains its -verdure throughout the year, unless burnt by excessive drought, from -which it speedily recovers. The quick maturity of this grass is another -advantage, as it occupies the ground while slower-growing varieties are -developing. - -_Poa pratensis_ (Smooth-stalked Meadow Grass).—Although somewhat -shallow-rooted, this grass endures drought remarkably well. Light land, -rich in humus, is its favourite resort, and it will also grow, but not -with the same freedom, on heavy soil. The plant does not develop its -full proportions in the first season. - -_Poa trivialis_ (Rough-stalked Meadow Grass) is somewhat similar in -appearance to _Poa pratensis_, but instead of being adapted to dry, -light soils, it flourishes in strong, moist situations, and unless -the land contains abundance of potash and phosphoric acid, the plant -speedily disappears. - -_Poa nemoralis_ (Wood Meadow Grass).—From the perpetual greenness and -dwarf close-growing habit of this grass, it is admirably suited for -cricket grounds. The growth commences very early in spring, and it is -one of the best grasses for enduring drought. - -_Trifolium repens perenne_ (Perennial White Clover) is indigenous all -over the country, and may be seen growing freely by roadsides; indeed, -it grows better in poor than in rich land. The seed will lie dormant at -some depth in the soil, and yet germinate freely when brought to the -surface. Perennial White is one of the clovers most frequently sown on -lawns and cricket grounds; when constantly mown and rolled, it produces -a dense mass of herbage. - -_Trifolium minus_ (Yellow Suckling Clover).—This is a quick-growing -plant, showing abundantly in summer, just when the grasses are thin and -the dense foliage of clover is most welcome. - - -QUANTITY OF SEED - -We need scarcely allude to the necessity of sowing new and pure seed, -strong in germinating power. Seeds of the grasses and clovers suitable -for producing a fine turf are nearly all expensive, some of them very -expensive. But as fine grasses do not tiller out to the same extent -as the larger pasture varieties, a liberal seeding is imperative. We -recommend a sowing of four bushels per acre, and should the ground be -wanted in the shortest possible time, the quantity may with advantage -be increased to five or six bushels per acre. The additional outlay -will be well repaid by the rapid clothing of the ground; and in favour -of thick seeding it may be urged that the more closely the plants are -crowded the finer will be the herbage. - - -SOWING - -Grass seeds may be sown at any time between the middle of March and -the end of September. But from the latter half of May on to about the -second week in August, hot, dry weather often proves destructive to -the young plants. They cannot acquire sufficient stamina to endure -continued drought or fierce heat, unless constant watering is possible, -and it is not conducive to sweetness of temper to see a good plant -wither away. From the middle of March to the first week of May is the -best period for spring sowing, the earlier the better; and from about -10th August to the middle of September for summer or autumn sowing. -The clovers from an autumn sowing are liable to destruction by a severe -winter, even if slugs spare them. Should there be failure from any -cause, seed must be sown in the following spring. - -The seeds can be more evenly distributed by two sowings than by one, -however skilled and practised the sower may be; and the second sowing -should cross the first at right angles. The finer grass seeds, being -small and light, are readily blown to a distance by a high wind; a -quiet time should therefore be chosen, and the workman must keep his -hand low. On large plots the seed-barrow can be used with advantage, -but even here we recommend two sowings, instead of entrusting all the -seed to a single operation. Where the work of preparing the ground has -been continuous, seed may be sown immediately the bed is ready. The -whole plot must then be lightly raked once more, with the object of -covering as many seeds as possible. Those which are deeply buried will -not germinate, and those which are exposed may be scorched by the sun, -or consumed by birds. As a finish put the roller over twice, first -north and south, then east and west, and it must be done carefully, for -on every spot missed by the roller the grasses will fail. Good work -will leave the surface almost as smooth and true as a billiard table. - -It frequently happens that the preparation of the seed-bed is completed -in advance of the proper time for sowing, and the plot is allowed to -lie fallow. In such cases, through the fall of rain, or some other -cause, the surface becomes set, and it is necessary to break the top -crust into a fine friable condition before the seed can be sown with a -fair prospect of success. - - -WORM-CASTS - -In a very short time a thick sprinkling of worm-casts will be observed. -We have no desire to call in question the general service rendered by -these lowly creatures, but their movements in ground newly sown for a -lawn or cricket ground are unquestionably mischievous, and the injury -they cause will be greater in proportion to the looseness of the soil. -A well-made, firm seed-bed is less liable to injury than one that has -not been properly consolidated by the roller. Upon old turf the cast is -thrown up from a well-defined orifice seldom exceeding a quarter of an -inch in diameter. Worms loosen the soil of a newly-made seed-bed for a -considerable distance round each burrow, and on this broken earth not a -seed will germinate. It would be comparatively unimportant if the casts -were few and far between, but generally hundreds of them may be seen on -a pole of ground. - -When and how the casts should be dealt with is sometimes a source of -perplexity. A few days after sowing, a light roller will gather them -up, if moist, and the implement must be scraped at the end of every -run. When the casts are dry, the roller will crush them and remain -clean. This light rolling may be repeated once or twice, if necessary, -always taking care not to break the surface either with the foot or -the roller. After the first fine spears of grass begin to show, it is -generally unwise to touch the bed until the scythe or mower comes into -use. - -Those who care to rid the soil of worms, either before sowing or -after the grass is established, may do so by means of water strongly -impregnated with newly-burned lime. Fill a barrel with water, add -as much lime as the water will absorb, stir briskly, and then allow -the lime to settle. The clear fluid, freely used from an ordinary -water-can, will bring the worms from their burrows in hundreds, and -at the same time benefit the grass. The worms should be collected and -destroyed in salt water. - - -WATER AND SHADE - -When severe and prolonged drought succeeds the sowing, there is a -possibility that the seeds may be “malted.” In spring the soil is -generally moist enough to start seed-germs, but during continued dry -weather growth is arrested, and the fragile seedlings wither away. -As a rule, the watering of newly-sown land is to be avoided, but it -may become a necessity if the grass is to be saved. A small plot can -easily be watered by hose, or even by the water-can fitted with a fine -rose. A large area presents difficulties, especially in the absence of -hose, or if water has to be carried a considerable distance. In any -case there must be no rude trampling on the soil. Flat boards laid at -intervals, and ordinary care, will prevent injury from the traffic. The -water must be delivered in a fine spray, and for a sufficient time to -prevent the necessity of a second application. Still, watering is an -evil at best, and one means of avoiding it altogether is to cover the -entire surface, immediately after sowing, with a thin layer of cocoanut -fibre, which will screen the soil from burning sunshine, check rapid -evaporation, and foster the slender blades of grass as they rise. There -is no occasion to remove this slight protection, for it will prove an -advantage long after the grass has grown through it. To some extent the -fibre is also a defence against the depredations of birds. - -[Illustration: _CRICKET’S PEACEFUL WEAPONS._] - -[Illustration: _THE END OF THE INNINGS._ -(_WILLIAM BELDHAM, b. 1766, d. 1862_)] - - -BIRD SCARES - -Sparrows and several of the finches are particularly partial to grass -seeds, and they do mischief in other ways. The birds break up the -surface, eat until surfeited, and then take a dust-bath. There are many -methods of scaring them, and some plan must be adopted to preserve the -seed from these marauders. - -Small plots can be protected by nets, but on a large scale this mode -of defence is, of course, out of the question. One cheap scare is to -connect lengths of twine to tall stakes, and at intervals hang strips -of glittering tin, slightly twisted, in order that they may be freely -turned by the wind. Another remedy is to make an example of some of -the pirates, and hang them up as a warning. When the sown area is -extensive, it should be watched by a lad until the plant appears. He -must be an early riser, and if it will not prove a nuisance, he may be -entrusted with a gun and a few blank cartridges. - - -MOWING - -While the plant is quite young, it should be topped with a sharp -scythe. This will encourage the grasses to tiller out and their -roots to fill the soil. At brief intervals the cutting should be -repeated, and for this early work on the tender grass the scythe is -unquestionably preferable to the mowing machine. Indeed, the risk of -injury from the mower is so great that many practical men condemn its -employment until the plant is fairly established. But the condition of -the machine must be taken into account. We have successfully used a -mower for the very first cutting, having previously ascertained by a -trial on old grass that the cutters were in perfect order. - -In the judicious use of the mower lies one secret of a close sward. -During severe winter weather the implement may not be wanted for -several weeks, but as spring advances the ragged plant should have -attention, and the necessity for more frequent cutting will be evident, -until in warm, moist weather, twice a week, and possibly, for a brief -period, every other day, may not be too often. No rigid law can be laid -down on this point. The grass should never wear a neglected appearance, -nor should the work on any account be postponed to a more convenient -season. Setting the mower requires the exercise of judgment. It -should never be so low as to graze the surface, and in summer, during -scorching sunshine, it will be advisable to raise the cutter a trifle -higher than for strong spring growth. - - -ROLLING - -Next in importance to mowing comes the use of the roller, without which -it is impossible to establish a fine close turf, or to maintain it in -high condition. After the first cutting of the young grass, the whole -plot must be gently compressed with a rather light roller, and the -work needs care, because the bed is easily broken by a clumsy foot. -Subsequent cuttings to be followed by the roller until the plant is -capable of bearing a heavier implement, which should not always be used -in the same direction. - -When the soil becomes hard through dry weather, rolling can do no good, -and during frost it will be injurious; but in spring and autumn the -frequent use of a rather heavy roller will have a visibly beneficial -effect on the grass. - -The best rollers are constructed with two cylinders, having the outer -edges rounded. The division of the cylinder facilitates turning, and -the rounded edges prevent unsightly marks. - - -DESTRUCTION OF WEEDS - -After the most careful preparation of the land, annual weeds are -certain to appear, and every weed, if left alone, will choke a number -of the surrounding grasses. Frequent mowing checks these weeds, but -plantains, thistles, and dandelions must be taken up, each one singly, -about an inch below the surface. A pinch of salt dropped upon the cut -root will effectually prevent new growth. The lad who does this work -should understand what he is about, for a plantain merely cut off below -the collar will send out half-a-dozen shoots, in the same manner as sea -kale, and prove a greater nuisance than the original crown; and the -careless use of salt will kill a lot of grass plants. Daisies should be -lifted separately, each plant with its root entire, and although new -growth will here and there appear for a second or even a third time, -the daisies will be weaker, and a little perseverance will speedily -rid a large grass plot of every one of them. Another efficient mode of -eradicating weeds is to dip a wood skewer into sulphuric acid, strong -carbolic acid, or one of the liquid weed destroyers, and then plunge -the skewer perpendicularly into the heart of the plant. The result -is deadly and instantaneous; but the use of these destructive fluids -needs great care to avoid personal injury or the burning of holes in -clothing. The bottle containing the liquid must be kept in a place of -security. - -In extirpating weeds there is nothing like system. Instead of aimlessly -wandering hither and thither, it is more economical in time and labour -to mark off with a garden line a strip six feet wide, and clear the -weeds from the enclosure. Follow with successive strips until the whole -surface has been dealt with, and it is surprising how quickly a large -area may be divested of weeds. - -After sowing grass seeds, how soon will the ground be fit for use? -is a question frequently asked. No definite answer can be given. The -time depends on the period of the year, the weather which follows -the sowing, and the attention bestowed on the rising plant. To these -influences must be added the nature of the soil, aspect, and district. -In August or early September, sowing should produce, under favourable -circumstances, and with generous treatment, a good turf during -the following summer. Spring sowings are specially subject to the -vicissitudes of the season. When the atmosphere is genial and the plot -receives due attention, the plant rapidly fills the soil, and a thick -sward results towards the end of July or the beginning of August. But -it is desirable not to subject it to hard use until the following year. - -Except the final mowing and light rolling on the morning of the match, -wickets should be prepared three days in advance. It is often fatal to -good cricket to employ the heavy roller on the day the match commences. -Should the grass be so dense as to make the wicket slow, a broom deftly -used, followed by a hand mower, run several times between the wickets -and across the ground also, will affect a marked improvement in the -pace. The preparation can be finished with the small roller. - -Plantains should never be tolerated on a cricket ground. When the ball -happens to fall on the centre of one of these plants, it may travel in -the most erratic manner. - -Many cricket grounds are grazed with sheep, and if the animals are -at the same time fed with cake, this is one of the simplest and most -effectual means of maintaining the sward in a luxuriant condition. But -we have seen sheep do immense mischief on light sandy ground, where -their quick snatching mode of feeding readily uproots the plants. Of -course the work of mowing is greatly reduced when sheep can with safety -be allowed to graze. It must, however, be distinctly understood that -without cake the sheep add nothing to the fertility of the soil. - - -IMPROVING CRICKET GROUNDS - -As a rule, every cricket ground should be liberally manured in spring, -with the artificials as recommended above; and before or at the close -of each season—certainly not later than the middle of September—fine -grass seeds should be sown over the worn parts of the turf. If the -sowing can be made early in September, the grasses will have several -months in which to become established, and for this reason sowing in -autumn on a cricket ground is generally preferable to sowing in spring. - -As a preliminary, the surface must be raked or harrowed to provide -a seed-bed. Then sow renovating seeds at the rate of not less than -one bushel per acre, making two operations of the work to ensure -regular distribution. Rake or harrow in the seeds to cover as many as -possible, and finish with a careful rolling. - -Newly-made cricket grounds sometimes show depressions after the grass -is up. Where these are shallow, an occasional sifting of fine loam may -follow the mowing, and with patient attention a true surface can be -restored; but a quantity of soil, roughly thrown down, will smother -the rising plant. Should the hollows be deep, a different procedure -becomes necessary. Young grass cannot be cut and rolled in the manner -usual with an established sward, and if holes are filled with a thick -covering of earth, it is necessary to re-sow and follow with the mower -and roller, as already advised. But if the plant is fairly thick, it -may perhaps be possible to cut the young turf in small square sections, -and lift each one separately by means of a thin flat board or piece of -zinc. After making good the level, the pieces of turf can, with care, -be restored without much injury. As a finish, lightly touch the surface -with the flat beater, and spray over it two or three cans of water. - -Inequalities in old turf can be remedied by a simpler mode of -treatment. Across the hollow spot, cut strips 10 or 12 inches wide, -and roll back the sward from the centre. Make the bed perfectly level, -leaving the soil with a firm but crumbled surface; then restore the -turf, which will be found rather too long for the space, and tenderly -compress it into the original position; beat carefully down, give a -soaking of water, and in due time mow and roll. In a few days no trace -of the operation will be visible, but the grass ought not to be roughly -used until it is thoroughly re-established. - -Fairy rings are sometimes troublesome. They are caused by several kinds -of fungus. When these decay, the soil becomes charged with nitrogenous -matter, and a dark green spot of grass is the result. The mycelium -exhausts the soil of the constituents which are essential to the -existence of the fungi, and as new supplies of food can only be found -on fresh ground, the spot becomes a circle, which annually increases in -circumference, until it either breaks up or the fungi are exhausted. -No direct remedy is known, but it has been observed that lawns which -are liberally dressed every spring with stimulating manure produce -dark green herbage, closely resembling the fairy rings in colour. As -a consequence the circles are less conspicuous, and they also show a -tendency to disappear under the effects of the manure. - -Moss is generally a sign of poorness of soil, and sometimes indicates -the need of drainage. But before laying in drain-pipes remedial -measures should be tried, especially as the work of draining sadly cuts -the place about. There may also be a difficulty as to the disposal of -the outflow. To improve the grass, either put the rake heavily over the -sward, or employ a toothed harrow to drag out as much moss as possible. -Then spread over the turf a compost, previously prepared, of lime mixed -with rich soil free from weeds, in the proportion of one load of lime -to four loads of soil; the addition of Sutton’s lawn manure, at the -rate of 2 cwt. per acre, will stimulate the grass. Eight cartloads of -the compost should be applied per acre. About a fortnight after the -dressing has been spread, a sowing of seed will quickly fill the ground -with young healthy plants, and assist in preventing a reappearance of -the moss. The early part of September should be chosen for this work, -to give the turf time to recover before the next season. - - - - - INDEX - - - Abel, 215, 245, 246, 268, 395 - - Absalom, Mr. C. A., 308, 309 - - Acland-Hood, H., 358 - - Adelaide, 235, 252, 253, 261, 286 - - Alcock, Mr. C. H., 321 - - —— Mr. C. W., 353, 363 - - Alexander, 236 - - All England Eleven, the, 158 - - Allan, 222 - - Alverstone, Lord, 363 - - Amateurs and professionals, 147; - definition of the term, 193; - distinction in cricket almost disappeared, 194; - a comparison made, 196; - the amateur forty years ago, 196; - the amateur to-day, 198, 201; - the professional of old, 198; - the modern professional, 199; - the life of a professional, 200; - second-rate professionals, 200; - “leagues,” 200; - providing livelihoods for amateurs, 202; - complimentary matches and benefits, 203, 207; - amateurs’ expenses, 203; - the question in Australia, 204; - the Australian system, 206; - gate money, 207; - professional and amateur play, 208; - bowling, 208, 209; - batting, 212; - fielding, 213; - the professional wicket-keeper, 213; - managing a side, 215, 366, 382, 383; - black professionals, 385 - - America, cricket in, 389; - Philadelphia, 390, 393; - the Philadelphian eleven, 390; - P. F. Warner’s first tour in, 390; - his second tour, 390; - visit of K. S. Ranjitsinhji’s eleven, 391; - visit of Mr. B. J. T. Bosanquet’s eleven, 391; - New York, 392; - Canada, 392 - - Anson, Mr. T. A., 175, 304 - - Answorth, J. L., 390 - - Appleby, Mr., 209, 212 - - Archer, Mr. A. S., 352 - - Armstrong, the Australian, 64, 286, 287 - - Askwith, Mr. G. R., 358 - - Attewell, 105, 239, 243, 245 - - Auckland, 381, 410, 411 - - Australian cricket. _See_ Cricket - - Authentics Cricket Club, the, 357, 358 - - Aylward, 8, 15, 32 - - - _Badminton Magazine_, the, 314 - - Bails, 35 - - Bainbridge, Mr. H. W., 322, 323 - - Baldwin, Mr. Lorraine, 349 - - Balls, cricket, 10 - - Baltimore, 389 - - Bannerman, A., 195, 204, 220, 224, 231, 234, 245, 247 - - —— Charles, 195, 204, 224, 413 - - Barbados, 385, 386, 387, 388 - - Bardswell, 334 - - Barlow, 230, 234, 238 - - Barnes, 89, 112, 212, 213, 238, 239, 284, 285, 286 - - Barrett, 244 - - Base-ball, 390 - - Bateman, A. E., 307 - - Bates, 213, 230, 232, 234, 239 - - Bathurst, Sir Francis, 305 - - —— L. C. U., 394 - - Bats, first form of, 4, 5; - fashion changed, 5, 6, 36; - limitation of width, 10, 33; - instruments of defence, 37; - suitable to young cricketers, 50 - - Batting, 30; - necessity of early practice and good coaching, 48; - a good wicket the first essential, 49; - hints to beginners, 49; - a suitable bat, 50; - position at the wicket, 50; - where the weight should fall, 51; - forward play, 53-58; - the secret of forward play, 53, 54; - how to play a good length ball, 53, 54; - the off drive, 54, 55, 57; - the “half-cock” stroke, 56; - the forcing forward stroke, 57; - offensive forward play, 57; - back play, 58-63; - moving the right leg, 58, 59; - the golden rule for back play, 60; - a good rule on a sticky wicket, 61; - the hook stroke, 62; - the back glance, 63; - the forward glance, 63, 64; - the leg hit, 64; - the square leg hit, 64; - the pull, 65; - the straight half volley, 66; - how to drive, 66; - the on-drive, 67; - the three classes of cut, 67; - the forward cut, 67; - the square cut, 68; - the late cut, 68; - the “chop,” 69; - when to play forward, 69; - how to play to fast and slow bowling, 70; - jumping out to hit, 70; - playing lobs, 70; - the “hitting or long-handle game,” 71; - playing on a sticky wicket, 72; - running, 73-76; - want of confidence, 75; - superstitions, 75, 76; - enthusiasm in cricket, 77 - - Beauclerk, Lord Frederick, 19, 22, 28 - - Beginners, hints to, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 84 - - Belcher, Mr. T. H., 312 - - Beldham, 13, 19, 22, 28, 40, 172; - quoted, 14, 15, 21, 22, 30, 38, 39, 40, 44 - - Bentley, 14, 16, 22 - - Berkeley, Mr. G. F. H., 331 - - Betting on cricket, influence of, 11, 13; - single-wicket matches, 21; - “leg-work,” 22; - selling matches, 23; - Beldham on betting, 24, 25, 153 - - Beverley Club, 349 - - Bignall, 214 - - Birmingham, 279 - - Bisset, Mr. Murray, 402, 404 - - Blackham, 220, 223, 231, 234, 257 - - Bland, James, 21, 23 - - Bligh, the Hon. Ivo, 317 - - Block-hole, the, 31, 32 - - Blore, Mr. E. W., 304 - - Blythe, 69, 284, 285 - - Board, J. H., 127, 173, 273, 396 - - Bonnor, G. J., 228, 231, 234, 321, 354 - - Booth, Mr. Clement, 307, 308 - - Bosanquet, Mr. B. J. T., 336, 360, 390, 391, 410 - - Bourne, Mr. A., 311 - - Bowling, 30; - advantages of, 80, 81; - lob bowlers, 84; - slow bowlers, 85, 86; - Nepean, 87; - C. M. Wells, 88; - his fast ball, 89; - delivery, 90; - holding the ball, 90-91; - C. L. Townsend, 92; - Johnny Briggs, 93; - Peel, 95, 96; - Rhodes, 96; - Wainwright, 98; - Trott, 99; - Tyler, 100; - leg-break bowlers, 101; - medium bowlers, 101, 102; - George Lohmann, 102; - description of Lohmann’s bowling by C. B. Fry, 103; - Jack Hearne, 105; - Attewell and Mead, 105; - Hallam, 106; - Alfred Shaw, 106; - George Davidson, 107; - Tate, 107; - F. S. Jackson, 108; - R. F. Mason, 108; - fast bowlers—Tom Richardson, 109, 110; - Lockwood, 110; - exhibition of fast bowling at the Oval, 111; - Arthur Mold, 112; - George Hirst, 113; - Sam Woods, 113, 114; - W. M. Bradley, 115; - “lobsters,” 115, 116; - great difference between professional and amateur, 208, 209 - - Bowls, the game of, 33 - - Boxshall, 414 - - Boyle, 222, 224 231, 234, 238 - - Bradley, W. M., 57, 115, 176, 209, 281, 360 - - Brain, Mr. J. H., 346, 358 - - —— W. H., 328 - - Braund, 64, 101, 214, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 405 - - —— Mr., 27 - - Bray, Mr. E. H., 332, 334 - - Briggs, Johnny, 93, 94, 106, 178, 240, 242, 243, 245, 251, 253, 255, - 256, 257, 258, 259, 263, 273, 276, 281 - - Britton-Holmes, Everard, 358 - - Broadhalfpenny, 20 - - Brockwell, W., 251, 256, 257, 258, 260, 264 - - Brown, J. T., 251, 253, 256, 258, 264, 265, 269 - - Brown, 20, 22 - - Bruce, W., 240, 245, 260 - - Buchanan, David, 210, 211, 212, 305 - - Buckland, E. H., 324 - - —— Mr. F. M., 315 - - Budd, Mr., 22, 27, 39 - - Bull, F. G., 389 - - Bullingdon Club, the, 299, 302 - - Bullock, W. H., 304 - - Buluwayo, 381, 397, 405 - - Burnup, C. J., 73, 176, 332, 334, 390, 410 - - Burton, 387 - - Bury, W., 308 - - Bush, J. A., 172 - - Butler, Mr. S. E., 312 - - - Caffyn, W., 218, 362 - - Callaway, 412, 413 - - Cam, the, 296 - - Cambridge, 232, 296, 298, 302, 305, 307, 319, 325, 327, 333, 357, 359 - - Cambridgeshire, 160 - - Canada, cricket in, 381, 392 - - Canterbury Week, 355 - - Cape Colony, 402 - - Cape Town, 396, 398, 401, 402, 407 - - Carpenter, 160, 199 - - Case, Professor, 306, 359 - - Case, T. B., 357 - - Cazenove, Mr. Arthur, 304 - - Charlton, 244 - - Chatterton, 170 - - Clarke, P. H., 390, 391 - - Clarke, 22 - - Cliftonians, Old, 355 - - Climate, influence of, on cricket, 221, 222, 387 - - Cobb, M. R., 392 - - Cobbold, P. W., 334 - - Cobden, Mr. F. C., 310, 311 - - Cobham, Lord, 307 - - Coningham, 259 - - Cooper, W. H., 236 - - Coronation Match, 21 - - Cotterill, G. E., 307 - - Cowley Common, 299 - - —— Marsh, 302 - - Cranfield of Somerset, 69 - - Crawford, Frank, 81 - - Crawford, Mr., 203 note - - Crawford, Mr. V. F. S., 391 - - Crawley, Mr. Eustace, 311, 324 - - Crawte, 15 - - - Cricket, the beginning of, 1; - origin of name, 1, 2; - first form of play, 2, 3, 31; - underhand bowling, 3; - the first bat, 4, 5; - choosing the wicket, 4; - “length” bowling, 4, 5, 32; - laws in 1774, 5; - match between Kent County and All England in 1847, 5, 6; - change of fashion in bat, 6; - match between Hambledon Club and All England in 1775, 6; - number of stumps increased, 7, 8; - height of stumps and narrowing of wicket, 7, 8; - distance between the wickets, 8, 9; - regarding the width of the bat and size of ball, 10; - invention of gauge, 10; - laws first committed to writing, 11; - influence of betting, 11, 13; - a new moral epoch in 1833, 13; - the Hambledon Club, 13, 14; - a fire at the M.C.C. Pavilion, 14; - Farnham the cradle of, 14, 15; - county “boundaries,” 15; - famous battlefields, 16; - early matches, 17; - cricket in the north, 17; - appearance of Essex and Herts, 18; - the first Gents _v._ Players match in 1798, 19; - more strict division of counties, 20; - betting, 21-28; - single-wicket matches, 27, 28 - - Cricket, country-house, 342; - the prime of, 343; - perceptible decrease in the amount of this class of cricket, 344; - obstacles in the way of, 345; - the task of collecting a team, 345, 346; - an ideal week of, 346; - the ladies’ cricket match, 347; - lunches, 347; - Smokers _v._ Non-Smokers, 348; - the I Zingari Club, 348, 349; - a batch of anecdotes, 349-354; - “military weeks,” 354; - school tours, 355; - clubs, 355-359; - aims of, 360 - - —— county, 20; - progress of, 139; - organisation into a formal competition, 141; - growth and systematisation, 142; - gate money, 142, 143; - increase of cricket, due to the growth of county cricket, 144; - formation of a county Eleven, 144, 145; - grounds, 146; - professional players, 147; - amateurs, 147; - relations between professionals and amateurs, 149; - question of residential qualification, 149-152; - _bona-fide_ residence, 150; - early county cricket, 152; - betting, 153; - some early matches, 154; - in the north, 155; - notes on the early half of the century, 156, 157; - a trio of matches between Sussex and England, 156; - wides and no-balls, 156; - arrangement of matches, 157; - establishment and formation of county clubs, 158, 159; - the All England and United All England Elevens, 158-160; - classification of counties, 160, 161, 167, 168; - arrangement of meetings, 161; - rivalry of clubs, 161, 162; - the Challenge Cup offered by the M.C.C., 162; - list of the champion counties, 163; - system of reckoning the order, 164; - connection between the Marylebone Club and the counties, 165, 166; - history of the various first-class counties, 169-192 - - Cricket, earlier Australian, the first English teams to visit - Australia, 217, 218; - first Australian team to visit England, 218; - match against Marylebone, 219; - the 1878 Eleven, 219; - Spofforth, 220; - his early methods, 221; - wicket-keepers and fielders, 222; - visit of Lord Harris’s Eleven in 1870, 224; - the second Australian Eleven, 225; - Palmer, 225, 226; - Macdonnell, 226, 227; - match against picked England Eleven, 229; - visit of Alfred Shaw’s Eleven in 1881, 230; - the Australian Eleven of 1882, 230; - decline of form from 1884-1894, 231; - visit of Earl Darnley’s team to Australia in 1882, 232-234; - difficulties of touring, 235; - the cricket grounds, 235; - the Australian Eleven of 1884, 236, 237; - Australian cricket at its highest point, 238; - an English Eleven under Alfred Shaw visits Australia, 239; - the Australian Eleven of 1886, 239; - signs of deterioration visible, 240-241; - visit of professionals to Australia under Shaw and Shrewsbury, 242; - teams under G. F. Vernon and Shrewsbury visit Australia in 1887-88, - 242; - the Australian Eleven of 1890, 243, 244; - visit of Lord Sheffield’s Eleven to Australia, 1891-92, 245; - Australian Eleven of 1893, 246; - the English representatives, 247; - influence of the interchange of visits on English cricket, 249 - - Cricket, English and Australian from 1894-1902, 251; - visit of Mr. Stoddart’s team to Australia, 1894, 251; - match at Adelaide, 252; - at Melbourne, 254; - match with New South Wales, 255; - with Queensland, 256; - the first test at Sydney, 256-259; - second test match at Melbourne, 259; - third test match at Adelaide, 261; - fourth test match at Sydney, 261; - the final test game at Melbourne, 263; - visit of the Australians to England in 1896, 265; - H. Trott as captain, 266; - the first test match at Lord’s, 268; - the second test match at Manchester, 269; - the deciding match at the Oval, 271; - increased pay for professionals, 273; - visit of A. E. Stoddart’s second team to Australia, 273; - postponement of the first test at Sydney, 273; - the second test match at Melbourne, 275; - the third test match at Adelaide, 276; - the fourth test match at Melbourne, 277; - the last test, 278; - visit of Darling’s team to England, 279; - the first test at Birmingham, 279; - the second test at Lord’s, 280; - the third test at Leeds, 281; - the fourth test at Manchester, 281; - the fifth test at the Oval, 282; - visit of Maclaren’s team to Australia, 284; - the first test at Sydney, 284; - the second test at Melbourne, 285; - the third test at Adelaide, 286; - the fourth test at Sydney, 287; - the last match at Melbourne, 287; - visit of Joe Darling’s team in 1902, 288; - the test matches, 292; - the test at Birmingham, 292; - the test match at Lord’s, 293; - test match at Manchester, 294 - - —— foreign, 381; - tours abroad, 381; - the financial question, 382; - the West Indies, 383-389; - America, 389-393; - Portugal, 393; - South Africa, 396-408; - New Zealand, 409-414 - - Cricket, University, 296; - the University match, 297-298; - trial grounds, 299; - Oxford, 299; - Cambridge, 300; - early history of, 301; - cricket “families,” 303; - the Dark Blues, 302-304; - the Light Blues, 304, 305; - the mid-Victorian section of, 307; - a remarkable group of Cambridge players, 308; - “Bill of the Play,” 309; - the match of 1870, 310; - triumph of Oxford in 1875, 313; - a close finish, 314; - the ability of the Cambridge Eleven of 1878, 315; - Mr. Edward Lyttelton’s team, 316; - the teams in 1881, 319; - treatment by the great Australian team of 1882, 320; - Cambridge Past and Present _v._ Australia, 321; - the ‘Varsity match in 1883, 322; - comparative falling off of the Universities, 322; - the Cambridge victory of 1885, 323; - “the last choice game,” 324; - the difficulty of getting a “blue,” 327; - Cambridge _v._ Sussex, 327; - incidents leading to an alteration in the law of following on, 327; - new players, 329; - the ‘Varsity match of 1896, 332; - ebb years between 1896-1902, 335; - a gorgeous piece of cricket, 335; - undergraduates, 336; - contemporary Oxford, 336; - Cambridge, 337; - list of those who have represented England in the test matches at - home, 338; - programme of each season, 339; - importance of the University match to the funds of the M.C.C., 340 - - —— village, “Yokels at Cricket,” 361; - village cricket _v._ county cricket, 364; - a village match, 365; - educational value of, 365, 366; - our Club, 366; - the ground, 367; - the pitch, 367; - the pavilion, 367; - the tea tent, 368; - officials, members, and subscription, 368, 369; - the committee, 370; - the best village cricketers, 370; - the question of finance, 371, 372; - details of expenditure, 373; - country umpires, 375, 376; - the great annual event, 377, 378, 379 - - Cricketing, early developments in the art of, 29; - effect of bowling and batting on each other, 30; - excellence of the Australian game, 30; - advance in batting due to advance in bowling, 30, 31; - “bias” bowling, 33, 34; - change in the height of wickets, 35; - length bowling introduced, 35; - alteration of the form of bat, 36; - real beginning of cricket, 36; - aggressive tactics of early cricketers, 37, 38; - “slogging,” 38; - style of batting before 1780, 39; - a new era in the art of batting, 39; - Tom Walker, 40, 41; - “throwing-bowling,” 41; - Harris’s bowling, 41, 42; - mode of delivering the ball, 42, 43; - rising tendency of his balls, 43; - effect of his bowling on the batting, 44; - hitting out, 45; - development of forward defensive play, 47 - - Cricket Council, the, 167, 168 - - Crockford, 23 - - Cumberbatch, 384 - - Cunliffe, Mr. F. H. E., 332, 333 - - Cuttell, 106, 396, 402, 404, 406 - - - Daft, Richard, 206, 211, 215 - - Dale, J. W., 309, 310 - - Daniel, A. W. T., 308 - - Darling, J., 253, 257, 263, 264, 266, 268, 272, 275, 276, 278, 279, - 282 - - Darnley, Lord, 300, 317 - - Davenport, H. R. Bromley, 394 - - Davidson, George, 107, 170 - - Day, Mr. S. H., 337 - - Demerara, 385, 386, 387 - - Denton, 73 - - Derbyshire, 158, 168, 169, 201 - - Dillon, 364 - - Douglas, Mr. R. N., 326, 327, 357, 394 - - —— J., 329, 357 - - Downes, 412, 413 - - Dowson, Mr. E. M., 69, 337, 360, 391, 410 - - Drake, Mr. E. T., 305 - - Druce, Mr. N. F., 273, 313, 330, 333, 335 - - —— Mr. W. G., 330 - - —— Mr. W. E., 76 - - Duff, 285, 286 - - Durham, 160 - - - Emmett, Tom, 54, 215, 224, 230 - - Essex, 18, 158, 168, 171, 308 - - Eton, 304 - - —— Ramblers, 355 - - Evans, Mr. A. H., 224, 233, 239, 303, 305, 316, 319 - - —— Mr. W. H. B., 337 - - Evershed, S. H., 170 - - - Fane, F. L., 410 - - Fane, Sir Spencer Ponsonby, 349 - - Farnham, 20 - - Fawcett, E. B., 307 - - Fellowes, Mr. Walter, 304 - - —— Mr. Harvey, 303, 304 - - Fenner, F. P., 300 - - Fennex, 44 - - Ferris, 109, 242, 244, 245 - - Fielding, 39, 117; - deterioration of, lately, 118; - importance of, 119; - how to obtain practice, 119; - throwing at the wicket, 120; - ground fielding, 120; - returning the ball, 120; - pursuing the ball, 121; - speed and accuracy in returning the ball, 122; - running men out, 122; - anticipating the batsman’s stroke, 123; - backing up the wicket-keeper and bowler, 123, 124; - position of hands for catch, 124; - improvement of wicket-keeping, 125; - duties of a good keeper, 125, 126; - position of hands, 127; - the “give,” 127; - taking balls on the leg side, 128; - point, 128; - “cover point,” 129; - position, 129; - judging catches, 130; - Gregory at “cover,” 130; - duties of “third” man, 131; - the “slips,” 132; - “mid-off,” 133; - “mid-on,” 133; - position of short-leg, 135; - throwing in, 135, 213 - - Findlay, Mr. W., 337 - - Fisher, 412 - - Fitzgerald, Mr. R., 306 - - Flint, 170 - - Flowers, 239 - - Foley, Mr. C. P., 325, 327, 357 - - Ford, F. G. J., 253, 256, 258, 325, 327 - - —— A. F. J., 318 - - Fortescue, Mr. A. T., 311 - - Foster, Mr. H. K., 67, 331, 333, 337 - - —— Mr. R. E., 51, 69, 335, 337 - - Francis, Mr. C. K., 311 - - Francis, Mr. H. H., 402 - - Frankish, 412, 413 - - Free Foresters Club, the, 197, 208, 356 - - Freshmen’s Match, the, 339 - - Fry, C. B., 51, 60, 72, 102, 103, 280, 331, 338 - - Fuller Pilch, 157, 175 - - - Galloway, 261 - - Game, Mr. W. H., 313, 314, 315 - - Garnett, H. G., 412 - - Garrett, 220, 222, 224, 229, 231, 236, 241 - - Gate money, 142, 206, 207, 283, 300, 382, 404 - - Gay, L. H., 251, 252, 253, 257, 330 - - Gentlemen of England team, 339 - - Gentlemen _v._ Players, 19, 303, 305, 346 - - Georgetown, Demerara, ground at, 389 - - Giddy, Mr., 402 - - Giffen, 109, 231, 238, 240, 242, 246, 257, 258, 260, 262, 263, 264, - 266, 267, 268 - - Gloucestershire, 158, 163, 165, 172, 375 - - Godalming, 20 - - Godfrey, Mr. C. J. M., 320 - - Goodman, Clifford, of Barbados, 388 - - Goschen, Mr. Charles, 350 - - Gosling, Mr. R. C., 325 - - Graaf Reinet, 397, 402 - - Grace, E. M., 172, 321 - - —— G. F., 172 - - —— W. G., 51, 57, 85, 86, 110, 159, 172, 210, 211, 212, 214, 218, - 219, 229, 240, 245, 246, 247, 268, 271, 282, 307, 309, 315, 339, - 395 - - Graham, 247, 262 - - Grahamstown, 397, 402 - - Green, C. E., 171, 308 - - Greene, Mr. A. D., 316 - - Greenfield, Mr. F. F. J., 314 - - Greenwood, Luke, 214 - - Gregory, S. E., 169, 204 note, 244, 256, 257, 263, 266, 268, 269, 276, - 279, 282, 286, 288 - - Greig, J. E., 174 - - Grounds, cricket, 415; - soils on which a pitch cannot be made, 415; - sandy soil, 416; - adhesive land, 416; - drainage, 416, 420; - a slope, 417; - preparation of the entire area, or only the cricket square, 417; - reserve plots, 418; - laying turf or sowing seed, 418; - cost of turf, 419; - a sward produced from seeds, 419; - preparatory work, 421; - weed seeds in soils, 422; - enriching the soil, 423; - surface preparation, 424; - selection of seeds, 425-428; - quantity of seed, 429; - sowing, 429, 430; - worm casts, 431; - water and shade, 432; - bird scares, 433; - mowing, 434; - rolling, 435; - destruction of weeds, 435-436; - improving cricket grounds, 438, 441 - - Grundy, Jemmy, 199 - - Gully, 23 - - Gunn, W., 67, 212, 213, 214, 247, 286, 287 - - - Hadow, Mr. Walter, 311 - - Haigh, 71, 81, 97, 346, 396, 397, 399, 402, 404, 405, 406 - - Hall, Harry, of Farnham, 17, 40 - - Hallam, 106 - - Halliwell, 128, 403 - - Hambledon Club, the, 4, 6, 8, 13, 14, 20, 154, 155 - - Hammond, 20 - - Hampshire, 20, 155, 158, 168, 174 - - Hankey, Mr. Reginald, 304 - - Hargreave, 410 - - Harlequins, the, 197, 357 - - Harris, David, 4, 13, 31, 39, 40, 42, 46 - - —— Lord, 150, 167, 224, 312, 338 - - Harrison-Ward, Mr. E. E., 311 - - Harrow, 313, 326 - - —— Wanderers, 355 - - Hartley, J. C., 332 - - —— Row, 20 - - Hartopp, Mr. E. S., 304 - - Hawke, Lord, 75, 312, 321, 352, 383, 384, 388, 396, 397, 409 - - Hay, 170 - - Hayward, Tom, 97, 115, 160, 199, 212, 213, 269, 273, 274, 276, 280, - 281, 282, 284, 286, 287 - - Hearne, J. T., 81, 105, 210, 264, 272, 273, 275, 277, 281, 319, 330 - - Henery, Mr., 321 - - Herts, 18 - - Hewett, Mr. H. T., 329 - - Hickton, 170 - - Hill, Mr. A. J. L., 326, 327 - - —— Clem, 253, 266, 268, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 285, 286, - 288 - - —— Mr. F. H., 311 - - —— Mr. V. T., 329, 390, 391 - - Hirst, 214, 273, 274, 276, 330 - - Hole, Dean, 370 - - Homerton Club, the, 20 - - Horan, 220, 231, 236 - - Hornby, A. N., 177, 215, 219 - - Howell, 256, 277, 399 - - Howitt, 166 - - Hugessen, Mr. C. M. Knatchbull, 323 - - Hume, 170 - - Humphreys, 251, 253, 254, 256 - - - Iddeson, Roger, 214 - - Incogniti Club, the, 352, 356 - - Intercolonial Cup, the, 385 - - Iredale, 255, 257, 261, 266, 268, 270, 272, 276 - - Isis, the, 296 - - - Jackson, F. S., 57, 60, 67, 72, 108, 210, 212, 213, 247, 280, 282, - 305, 326, 327, 328, 330, 338, 360 - - Jardine, Mr. M. R., 328 - - Jarvis, Mr. L. K., 239, 318 - - Jephson, Mr. D. L. A., 71, 326, 327, 360 - - Jessop, G. L., 52, 76, 81, 173, 208, 229, 254, 280, 285, 287, 288, - 309, 334, 338, 389 - - Johannesburg, 396, 399, 400, 401, 403 - - Johnson, P. R., 410 - - Jones, A. O., 67, 330, 338 - - —— E., 248 - - —— R. T., 329 - - —— S., 236, 241 - - —— 109, 267, 268, 278, 280, 288 - - - Kaffirs, 400 - - Kelly, J., 266, 271, 275 - - Kemp, Mr. M. C., 320 - - Kempson, Mr. Mat, 305 - - Kent, 5, 16, 18, 155, 158, 164, 175 - - —— _v._ England, 19 - - —— Festival, 356 - - Key, Mr. K. J., 69, 310, 323, 335 - - Kimberley, 397, 398, 401, 405 - - King, J. B., 390, 391, 392 - - Kingston, Mr. F. W., 318 - - King William’s Town, 397, 402 - - Kirwan, Mr. J. H., 304 - - Kitcat, S. A. P., 394 - - Knatchbull, Mr. H. E., 303 - - Kortright, C. J., 171, 208, 324 - - - Lambert, Mr., 28 - - Lancashire, 158, 163, 164, 165, 176 - - Lane, C. G., 304 - - —— of Barbados, 387 - - Lang, Mr. Andrew, 2 - - —— Mr. T. W., 307, 313, 314 - - Latham, Mr. P. H., 330 - - Laver, 281 - - Lawrence, C., 218 - - Leatham, A. E., 410 - - Leconfield, the late Lord, 349 - - Lee, Mr. G. B., 303 - - Leeds, 281 - - “Legs,” 21, 22 - - Leicester, 17, 168, 178, 364 - - Leigh, Mr. Chandos, 304, 349, 355 - - Leslie, Mr. C. F. H., 319, 323 - - Lester, J. A., 390 - - Leveson-Gower, H. D. G., 365 - - Lewis, Mr. R. P., 328 - - Lilley, 270, 280, 281, 284, 287, 288 - - Lillywhite, J., 218 - - Lincolnshire, 160 - - Liverpool, 177 - - Llewellyn, 404 - - Lockwood, 64, 110, 111, 208, 211, 247, 251, 253, 283 - - Lockyer, 213 - - Logan, Mr. J. D., 406 - - Lohmann, George, 81, 91, 240, 242, 243, 245, 268 - - Longman, Mr. George, 312 - - Lord’s, 16, 19, 64, 105, 140, 162, 198, 237, 248, 268, 280, 298, 299, - 301, 305, 316, 319, 321, 333, 336, 340, 348, 357, 358, 382, 388, - 404 - - Lucas, Mr. A. P., 171, 313, 316, 338 - - —— R. S., 383 - - Lyons, 228, 242, 245, 257 - - Lyttelton, Mr. Alfred, 237, 238, 317, 338 - - —— Mr. E., 314, 315, 316 - - —— Mr. G. S., 308 - - - Macan, Mr., 314 - - M’Arthy, R. F., 412, 413 - - M’Cormick, Canon J., 305 - - Macdonald, Dr., 364 - - Macdonnell, 224, 226, 228, 229, 231, 237 - - MacGregor, Gregor, 303, 324, 325, 327, 330, 338 - - M’Ilwraith, 240 - - M’Kibbin, 267, 270, 271, 272 - - Maclaren, A. C., 51, 60, 62, 72, 177, 212, 213, 215, 251, 273, 395 - - M’Leod, C., 255, 276, 277, 278 - - —— R., 255 - - Magdalen College School, 299, 302 - - Malvernians, the Old, 355 - - Manchester, 177, 237, 269, 281 - - Marchant, F., 322 - - Maritzburg Oval, the, 398 - - Marlborough Blues, the, 355 - - Married _v._ Single, 374, 377 - - Marshall, H. M., 308 - - Marsham, C. H. B., 336 - - —— C. J. B., 357 - - Martyn, Mr. H., 336 - - Mason, J. R., 273, 274, 360 - - Massie, 224, 228, 231, 236, 320 - - Matting used for wickets, 397, 398, 399, 411 - - May Week, 343 - - M.C.C., 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 98, 162, 165, 166, 169, 197, 203, 300, - 306, 316, 333, 339, 340 - - Mead, 91, 105, 280 - - Melbourne, 254, 259, 263, 277, 284 - - Middlesex, 158, 164, 179, 326 - - Middleton, 397, 402, 404 - - Mid-off, 50, 133 - - Mid-on, 133 - - Midwinter, 195, 204, 220, 230, 233, 236, 316 - - Milligan, the late F. W., 396, 402, 403, 406, 407 - - Mitchell, Mr. R. A. H., 307 - - —— Mr. F., 328, 331, 390, 391, 396, 402, 403 - - Mold, 64, 106, 247 - - Money, W. B., 309, 310 - - Montreal, 392 - - Mordaunt, Mr. G. J., 76, 331, 332, 333 - - More, R. E., 391 - - Morley, 219, 232 - - Morton, Mr. P. H., 316, 317 - - Moses, 246 - - Murdoch, W. L., 67, 220, 222, 223, 224, 227, 229, 231, 237, 238, 241, - 243, 320 - - Mycroft, W., 170, 316 - - Mynn, 362 - - - Negro, the West Indian, 385, 388 - - Nepean, E. A., 180 - - Net practice, 77 - - Newlands Ground, the, Cape Town, 397 - - New South Wales, 242, 255 - - New South Wales and Victorian Cricket Association, 251 - - New York, 389 - - New Zealand, cricket in, 381, 382; - visit of Lord Hawke’s team to, 409; - arrival in Auckland, 410; - match against West Coast XXII., 411; - the first test match, 411; - the New Zealand Eleven, 411; - batting, 411, 412; - bowling, 412 - - New Zealand Cricket Council, 414 - - Nicholls, Mr. B. E., 322 - - No-balls, 156 - - Noble, 104, 276, 277, 279, 280, 282, 286, 287, 288 - - Norfolk, 19, 160 - - Norman, Edward, 374 - - —— Philip, 364 - - Northamptonshire, 160 - - Northumberland, 160 - - Nottinghamshire, 17, 22, 147, 158, 163, 164, 165, 181, 201, 219, 330, - 364 - - Notts _v._ Kent, 364 - - Nyren, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 13, 23, 31, 34, 35, 41, 43 - - - O’Brien, Sir T. C., 322, 338 - - Odell, W. W., 360 - - Old Trafford Ground, 82, 169, 177, 382 - - Onslow, Denzil, 307 - - Oporto, 394 - - Orford, Mr. L., 323 - - Osbaldeston, Squire, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28 - - Oscroft, 210, 211 - - Ottoway, Mr. C. J., 310, 311 - - Oval, the, 77, 96, 106, 107, 111, 141, 167, 248, 271, 282, 316, 321, - 340, 388, 404 - - Oxford, 296, 298, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 313, 322, 326, 327, 328, - 333, 336, 340, 358, 375 - - Oxford University Authentics, the, 359 - - Oxford University Cricket Club, the, 299 - - - Page, Mr. H. V., 322 - - Palairet, Mr. L. C. H., 51, 52, 212, 310, 329, 338 - - —— R. C. N., 331 - - Palmer, 109, 224, 225, 231, 234, 238, 241 - - Parker’s Piece, 300 - - Parr, G., 215, 217, 305 - - Patterson, Mr. W. S., 314, 315, 319 - - Pauncefote, Mr., 311 - - Payne, Mr. A., 304 - - Pearson, Mr. T. S., 358 - - Peate, 87, 210, 230, 237, 238 - - Peel, 81, 87, 95, 96, 239, 243, 245, 248, 251, 253, 255, 256, 257, - 259, 260, 263, 265, 272 - - Penn, Mr. E. F., 337 - - Perambulators _v._ Etceteras, 339 - - Perkins, Mr. Henry, 306 - - —— T. N., 331 - - Perrin, P., 171 - - Philadelphia, 389, 390, 391 - - Philipson, H., 251, 252, 324, 358 - - Pilkington, C. C., 332, 333 - - Pilling, 178 - - Pinder, 213 - - Platts, 170 - - Plowden, H. M., 307, 308 - - Plumb, 213 - - Pooley, 213 - - Poore, R. M., 174 - - Popping crease, the, 31, 35, 50, 56 - - Port Elizabeth, 397, 398, 401, 402 - - Porter, 170 - - Portugal, cricket in, 381, 394; - tour of Mr. T. Westray’s Eleven, 394; - matches against Oporto and Portugal, 394; - the wickets, 395 - - Powell, 406 - - Powys, Mr. W. N., 312 - - Pretoria, 397, 405 - - Pritchard, H. Hesketh, 360 - - Professionals. _See_ Amateurs and Professionals - - Pycroft, Mr., quoted 2, 7, 8, 9, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 33, 34, - 38, 39, 44 - - - Quaife, 286, 288 - - Queensland, 235, 256 - - Quidnuncs, the, 197, 208, 357 - - - Raikes, G. B., 332 - - Ramsay, Mr. R. C., 320 - - Ranjitsinhji, K. S., 51, 60, 63, 65, 69, 72, 81, 110, 111, 212, 213, - 270, 271, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 279, 280, 309, 329, 338, 351, - 391, 395 - - Rashleigh, Mr. W., 323 - - Read, Maurice, 214 - - —— W. W., 65, 232, 234, 237, 238, 240, 247, 397, 407 - - Reese, D., New Zealand, 411, 412 - - Reid, Sir Robert, 307 - - Rhodes, 69, 71, 81, 87, 96, 113, 210, 283 - - Richardson, H. A., 309 - - —— Tom, 64, 80, 97, 109, 111, 208, 247, 251, 253, 255, 256, 257, - 258, 259, 260, 263, 264, 268, 270, 271, 273, 275, 277, 278 - - Riddings, 303 - - Ridley, A. W., 219, 313, 314, 351 - - Robertson-Walker, Mr. J., 358 - - Rock, Mr. C. W., 322 - - Rowbotham, 214 - - Rowe, 397, 402, 404 - - Royle, Mr. Vernon, 313 - - Rugby, 319 - - Rutter, Mr. E., 356 - - - Sackville, Lord John, 5 - - St. John’s Wood, 299, 301, 341 - - St. Vincent, 388 - - San Francisco, 410 - - Saunders, 287 - - Scattergood, 390, 391 - - Scott, 236, 237, 241 - - Scotton, 230, 282 - - Selby, 230 - - Seniors’ Match, 339 - - Sewell, Mr. C. O. H., 390 - - Shacklock, 89 - - Shalders, of Kimberley, 405, 406 - - Shaw, Alfred, 105, 106, 210, 215, 219, 230, 239, 307 - - Shaw, Jemmy, 199 - - —— Mr. E. D., 320 - - Shine, Mr. E. B., 328, 334 - - Shrewsbury, Arthur, 87, 200, 212, 213, 230, 239, 240, 242, 243, 247, - 330 - - Shuter, 215, 323 - - Silwood Park, 356 - - Simpson, 23 - - Simpson Hayward, J. H., 360 - - Sims, Mr., 314 - - Sinclair, 397, 403, 404, 406 - - Skeat, Mr., 1 - - “Slips,” 132, 133 - - Small, 6, 11, 38, 46, 155 - - Smith, Arthur, 314 - - —— Mr. C. A., 322 - - —— E., 94, 329 - - —— G. O., 76, 332, 333, 334 - - —— of Trinidad, 387 - - Smokers _v._ Non-Smokers, 348 - - Somerset, 158, 161, 168, 182, 321, 325 - - South Africa, cricket in, 396; - visit of Lord Hawke’s team, 396; - matting wickets, 397; - ground, 398; - length of matting, 399; - no rolling necessary, 400; - cricket on matting, 401; - match at Cape Town, 402; - at King William’s Town, 402; - matches at Johannesburg, 403; - match against the Transvaal, 403; - game against South Africa, 403; - disappointment at Johannesburg, 404; - two days’ match against Pretoria, 405; - at Kimberley, 405; - Buluwayo, 405; - ten days in Rhodesia, 405; - the last matches at Cape Town, 406; - the first English team to visit South Africa, 407; - the team in England, 407, 408; - wicket-keeping, 414; - fielding, 414 - - South African Cricket Association, 400 - - Spofforth, 84, 91, 109, 110, 220, 224, 225, 229, 231, 232, 234, 238, - 240, 321 - - Square leg, running away to, 49 - - Stamford, Lord, 300 - - Stanning, J., 410 - - Steel, A. G., 87, 177, 212, 234, 237, 238, 240, 305, 315, 316, 317, - 318, 321, 338, 347 - - Steel, D. Q., 318 - - —— E. E., 360 - - Stephenson, H. H., 217 - - Stevens, Edward, “Lumpy,” 6, 8, 11, 39, 46, 155 - - Stewart, W. A., 309, 312 - - Stoddart, A. E., 48, 57, 62, 212, 213, 224, 240, 245, 246, 247, 251, - 253, 255, 256, 258, 260, 262, 263, 265, 269, 273, 388 - - Stool Ball, 31 - - Storer, W., 170, 273, 276 - - Streatfield, Mr. E. C., 326, 327 - - Strutt, Mr., 2 - - Studd, Mr. C. T., 318, 319, 320, 322, 338 - - —— G. B., 318, 321, 331 - - —— J. E. K., 319, 331 - - Suffolk, 160 - - Surrey, 18, 20, 97, 111, 155, 163, 164, 165, 183, 196, 197, 216, 316, - 327, 363 - - Sussex, 15, 156, 164, 165, 185, 327 - - Sydney, 233, 235, 256, 261, 273, 284, 287 - - - Tabor, Mr. A. S., 313 - - Tarrant, 160 - - Tate, 72, 107, 399 - - Taylor, A. C., 394 - - —— C., 45 - - —— C. G., 302, 304 - - —— T. L., 72, 337 - - Tebbut, C. M., 171 - - Thompson, 410 - - Thornton, C. I., 228, 309, 315, 327, 330, 354 - - Toll, 23 - - Tonbridge, 323 - - Toppin, Mr. C., 323 - - Toronto, 392 - - Townsend, Mr. Ch., 87, 177, 280 - - Townshend, Mr., 311 - - Traill, Mr. W. F., 304 - - Transvaal, the, 402 - - Trevor, Captain, 352 - - Trinidad, 381, 384, 386, 387, 389 - - Trott, A. E., 72, 91, 99, 180, 243, 255, 257, 261, 262, 396, 397, 402, - 403, 404, 406 - - —— H., 255, 258, 261, 263, 264, 265, 266, 269, 270, 276 - - Trumble, J., 71, 240 - - Trumble, H., 243, 244, 247, 259, 267, 271, 272, 275, 276, 277, 278, - 281, 284, 286 - - Trumper, Victor, 60, 66, 69, 72, 280, 282, 286 - - Tucker, K., of New Zealand, 411, 412 - - Tufton, Hon. H., 19 - - —— Hon. J., 19 - - Turner, 91, 109, 242, 244, 246, 256, 259, 262, 263, 264 - - Tyldesley, 60, 68, 72, 73, 178, 212, 213, 214, 286, 287, 288, 396, - 397, 402, 403, 406 - - Tylecote, Mr. E. F. S., 232, 311, 338 - - Tyler, 100 - - - Ulyett, 213, 224, 230, 237, 239, 310 - - Umpires, Country, 375, 379 - - United States, cricket in, 381 - - University cricket. _See_ Cricket - - —— matches, 296, 297, 305, 310, 312, 313, 315, 331, 332, 336 - - —— Parks, 299 - - Upham, 412, 413 - - Uppingham Rovers, the, 355 - - - Vancouver, 381 - - Vernon, G. F., 242 - - Village cricket. _See_ Cricket - - Vine, 64, 72, 101 - - - Waddy, P. S., 332 - - Wainwright, 98, 214, 273 - - Walker, Harry, 41 - - —— Mr. G. G., 170 - - —— Mr. J. G., 321 - - —— Tom, 19, 28, 40, 43 - - —— V. E., 215, 305 - - Walters, 244 - - Wanderers’ Ground, Johannesburg, 398, 399, 404 - - Ward, Mr., quoted, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 20, 33, 34 - - —— Mr. Arthur, 247, 251, 253, 256, 258, 264, 265 - - Warner, Mr. P. F., 332, 333, 350, 351, 381, 410 - - Warwickshire, 158, 168, 187, 208 - - Wass, 112 - - Webbe, A. J., 219, 313, 314, 316, 331, 357 - - Wellington, New Zealand, 411 - - Wells, Mr. C. M., 69, 87, 88, 89, 90, 328, 357, 360 - - West Indies, cricket in, 381, 382; - visit of R. S. Lucas’s team, 383; - visit of Lord Hawke’s team, 384; - match against Queen’s Park Cricket Club at Trinidad, 384; - the Intercolonial Cup, 385; - wickets, 386; - visit of West Indian team to England, 386; - visit of last English team, 387; - general progress of cricket in, 387; - climate, 387; - grounds, 389 - - Westray, T., 394 - - Wharton, Major, 397, 407 - - Whatman, A. D., 410 - - White of Ryegate, 10, 11 - - Whitfield, Mr. Herbert, 317 - - Whittom, Dick, 23 - - Wickets, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 19, 82, 221, 252, 397 - - Wicket-keeping, 125 - - Wides, 156 - - Wild, 214 - - Wills, Mr. T. W., 306 - - Wilson, C. E. M., 334, 337, 396 - - —— E. R., 337, 391, 406 - - Windmill Down, 20 - - Wisden, quoted, 115, 335 - - Woodcock, 330 - - Woods of Demerara, 384, 387 - - —— Mr. S. M. J., 303, 305, 318, 324, 325, 327 - - Woof, 173 - - Worcestershire, 158, 161, 168, 188, 208, 332 - - Wordsworth, Mr. Charles, Bishop of St. Andrews, 302 - - Works referred to, W. G. Grace’s _Cricket_, 163; - Home Gordon’s _Cricket Form at a Glance_, 351; - Norman’s _West Kent Cricket_, 364; - Ranjitsinhji’s _Jubilee Book of Cricket_, 61, 169; - _Surrey Cricket_, 363; - Waghorn’s _Cricket Scores_, 152 - - Wright, Mr. C. W., 322, 323 - - —— Mr. L. G., 170 - - Wykehamists, Old, 355 - - Wynyard, E. G., 174 - - - Yardley, W., 309, 310, 336 - - Yonge, Mr. G. E., 303 - - Yorkshire, 96, 111, 146, 152, 158, 161, 163, 165, 189-191, 201, 316 - - Young, 171 - - - Zingari, I, Club, 197, 348, 349, 355 - - -THE END - - -_Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, LIMITED, _Edinburgh_. - - - - - FOOTNOTES: - -[1] [_Note._—It is perhaps only the writer’s personal modesty that -precludes him from giving the Australian an English companion in this -special class.—ED.] - -[2] Since these words were written Bainbridge has resigned and J. F. -Byrne has filled his place. - -[3] This was done by Leicestershire a few months back when Mr. Crawford -was made Secretary. - -[4] The examination in bankruptcy of Mr. Gregory, the Australian -cricketer, in Australia last April, proves that this is an accurate -statement. - -[5] Allusion may here be made to the match with the cumbrous title, -“Gentlemen of England who had not been educated at the Universities -_v._ Gentlemen of England who had been educated at the Universities -(Past and Present),” which was played at the Oval, 15th and 16th -June 1874. The Gentlemen “who had not” won by an innings and 76 -runs, Messrs. W. G. Grace and Appleby bowling unchanged in the first -University innings, which only amounted to 58. The game was never -repeated. - - - - - TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES: - -—Obvious print and punctuation errors were corrected. - -—Superscripts are rendered as a^s. - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Cricket, by Horace Gordon Hutchinson - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CRICKET *** - -***** This file should be named 50373-0.txt or 50373-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/0/3/7/50373/ - -Produced by Giovanni Fini, MWS and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was -produced from images generously made available by The -Internet Archive/American Libraries.) - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions -will be renamed. - -Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no -one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation -(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without -permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, -set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to -copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to -protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project -Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you -charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you -do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the -rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose -such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and -research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do -practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is -subject to the trademark license, especially commercial -redistribution. - - - -*** START: FULL LICENSE *** - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project -Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at -http://gutenberg.org/license). - - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy -all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. -If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the -terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or -entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement -and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" -or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the -collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an -individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are -located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from -copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative -works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg -are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project -Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by -freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of -this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with -the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by -keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project -Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in -a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check -the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement -before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or -creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project -Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning -the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United -States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate -access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently -whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, -copied or distributed: - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived -from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is -posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied -and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees -or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work -with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the -work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 -through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the -Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or -1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional -terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked -to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the -permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any -word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or -distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than -"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version -posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), -you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a -copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon -request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other -form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided -that - -- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is - owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he - has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the - Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments - must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you - prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax - returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and - sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the - address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to - the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - -- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or - destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium - and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of - Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any - money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days - of receipt of the work. - -- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set -forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from -both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael -Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the -Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm -collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain -"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or -corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual -property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a -computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by -your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with -your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with -the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a -refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity -providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to -receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy -is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further -opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER -WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO -WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. -If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the -law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be -interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by -the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any -provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance -with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, -promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, -harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, -that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do -or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm -work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any -Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. - - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers -including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists -because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from -people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. -To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 -and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive -Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at -http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent -permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. -Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered -throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at -809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email -business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact -information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official -page at http://pglaf.org - -For additional contact information: - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To -SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any -particular state visit http://pglaf.org - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. -To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate - - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm -concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared -with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project -Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. - - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. -unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily -keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. - - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: - - http://www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |