FOOTNOTES:

[CHAPTER XII.]
GENTLEMEN AND PLAYERS.
(By the Hon. R. H. Lyttelton.)

At first sight it appears impossible that amateurs—men who play when they chance to find it convenient—should be able to hold their own against professional cricketers who make the game the business of their lives. Cricket, however, is the one game where the two classes contend more or less on an equality, unless football be also an exception. Many amateur cricketers are not bound to work for their daily bread, and they can consequently find time to play as much as a ‘professional,’ if the accepted slang in which the adjective is employed as a substantive be permissible. Such was the state of things a few years ago when the Walkers, the Graces, Mr. Buchanan, and others could always be depended on to take part in the annual matches against the Players.

But there are other reasons besides; and here we tread on rather delicate ground. Suffice it to say that at one time, and that was when the Gentlemen used heavily to defeat the Players, there was such a very thin border-line between the status of the amateur and professional, that a definition of ‘amateur’ was often asked for and never obtained. The position was getting acute when finally the Marylebone Club, which is not in the habit of moving except when very strong pressure is exerted, was obliged to discuss and legislate on the matter. Broadly speaking, the rule stands that amateurs may take expenses, and a difficult and delicate point is now set at rest.

It is a striking illustration of the great popularity of the game that a large and increasing number of men annually give themselves up to the profession of cricket, and it is only in cricket that amateurs and professionals regularly compete against each other. We have heard that from the county of Nottingham alone several hundred professional bowlers emerge every year, and go to fulfil cricket engagements in various parts of the kingdom. The limits of cricket seem likely to be extended, and we know of several English professionals who have accepted offers from America and elsewhere. So long ago as 1864 the famous Wm. Caffyn was engaged in Australia; later on, Jesse Hide, of Sussex, was in South Australia, and several other players have been in America. All professionals, or nearly all, first come into notice as bowlers. A club with a ground wants a man who can bowl to its members for an evening’s practice, and he has to be there to attend on any member who may happen to come. As a rule also, he is required to play for the club in the Saturday matches, and he may earn by way of fixed salary, together with what he makes by bowling at a shilling for half an hour, 3l. or 4l. per week.

If the club is situated in a county which possesses a county club, the professional may have inducements held out to him to take up a permanent residence and become a naturalised resident. The county of Nottingham, for instance, has only one county eleven, but she has hundreds of professionals. These men get engagements in all directions, and if they are good enough to be asked to play for their adopted county, it would be hard to deprive them of a livelihood; though no doubt it is provoking to Nottingham to see the success of Lancashire largely owing to the play of Briggs, a Notts man of whose virtues Lancashire became aware before his own county. Nor is Briggs a solitary specimen, for Walter Wright, Lockwood, Bean, Brown, and Wheeler play respectively for Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Cheshire, and Leicestershire.

The congestion of professional ability in certain favoured districts is hard to explain. Every cricketer has heard of Lascelles Hall, the famous village near Huddersfield, to which Bates, the Lockwoods, the Thewlises and Allan Hill belong. There are several villages and small towns near Nottingham where cricketers appear indigenous to the soil, just as primroses are in certain localities. There have always been cricketers in these parts, and so sure is this constant supply that some scientific society ought really to go down and inspect the spot, make a theory to explain the phenomenon, and read a paper about it. Nottingham itself raised and reared Daft, Shrewsbury, Gunn, Scotton, and Selby; the famous Sutton-in-Ashfield nursed Morley, J. C. Shaw, Barnes and Briggs in their infancy. There are several large towns in Yorkshire, such as Sheffield, Leeds, and other manufacturing centres, where the traditions of the place are in favour of cricket; but it is curious to observe that, though it was not so in the days of Noah Mann, David Harris, and the Hambledon Club, the modern professional now springs mainly from populous centres. The only reason we can give for this is that for young players between the ages of eight and eighteen practice is everything, and of this youngsters can generally make sure in populous places. In a rural district the same chances may seldom occur. In Nottingham and the West Riding towns, hundreds of boys may be seen playing almost at the mouth of coal-pits, and the practice they get enables them to become professional players.

Amateurs are not by any means in the same situation. Apart from the natural qualifications any lad may chance to possess, he is largely benefited or the reverse by the atmosphere of the schools to which he is sent. About the age of thirteen he is sent to a large public school, where cricket is regularly taught, and he has a great deal of experience if he can manage to get into his school eleven. After that he may go to Oxford or Cambridge, and if he is fond of the game, he may play an unlimited quantity of cricket. Many amateurs after they leave the university disappear for ever from first-class cricket, as their time then ceases to be their own.

When we examine the M.C.C. cricket ‘Scores and Biographies,’ we find the same story over and over again: ‘This year the Gentlemen had to regret the absence of Messrs. Hankey and Kempson.’ ‘Mr. Felix did not play for the Gentlemen, they as usual losing one of their best men.’ In a footnote attached to the score of the 1847 match at Lord’s, the editor gives a list of no fewer than sixteen gentlemen who had to abandon the game when in their prime. It was in consequence of this that in 1862 a match was tried between Gentlemen and Players all under thirty, but with no better success for the Gentlemen.

The first Gentlemen and Players’ match took place in 1806 on the old Lord’s ground, so the contest between these teams is not so old by one year as the Eton and Harrow. It is true that in ‘The Cricket Field’ Mr. Pycroft says that Lord F. Beauclerk and the Hons. H. and T. Tufton had previously made an attempt to get a Gentlemen and Players’ match, and the Players won, giving the services of T. Walker, Beldham, and Hammond. These three men were nearly the best in England, and to call the Players a representative eleven without them was absurd. The same objection may be mentioned in discussing the next match in 1806, when the Gentlemen were helped by two of the foremost players: this made a more equal match, but apparently rather too much was given, for the amateurs beat the Players in an innings and 14 runs. Beldham and Lambert were the two given men, and at that time Lambert was unquestionably the finest player of the day. A second match was played a fortnight later, when the amateurs were a second time victorious, and in this case Lambert alone was given. After this match there was a considerable hiatus, for the rival teams did not meet again till 1819, when a match was played on even terms, the Players winning by six wickets. Mr. Budd scored 56 for the Gentlemen, and Tom Beagley 75 for the Players—

...Worthy Beagley,

Who is quite at the top;

With the bat he’s first rate, a brick wall at long-stop.

Mr. Budd in this match stumped six of the Players, and only one bye was recorded against him and the long-stop. In 1820 T. C. Howard, who had bowled for the Players, was transferred to the Gentlemen, and they won by 70 runs. In 1821 the Gentlemen scored 60 and the Players 278 for six wickets, at which stage the Gentlemen succumbed and gave up the match. Beagley, who appeared to be partial to amateur bowling, made 113 not out, and began the long list of hundreds that have since been obtained in this match. In 1822 Lord F. Beauclerk bowled finely, Mr. Vigne stumped four and caught two at the wicket, Mr. Budd made 69 runs, and the Gentlemen won by six wickets. Elated by this victory, in 1823 the amateurs again threw down the gauntlet on even terms and were defeated heavily by 345 runs.

This knock-down blow must have cowed the Gentlemen, for in the next four matches they played fourteen, sixteen with Mathews, and seventeen in the two matches of 1827; and each side won two. In 1828 there was no match, and in 1829 and 1830 they stole two players to help them. This was a period when the superiority of the professionals was very marked, for in 1831, ’32, and ’33 odds were given on each occasion, but still victory refused to crown the efforts of the amateurs. In 1832 the Gentlemen defended smaller wickets than those of their opponents, but the game was admitted to be a failure. The extraordinary result of all the matches between 1824 and 1833 in which the Gentlemen had odds, was that out of eight matches the Players won six. The bowling of W. Lillywhite, Cobbett, and others was far too good for the amateurs, and the records of the Players were wonderful.

In 1833, however, for the first time the famous Alfred Mynn appeared on the scene. This crack amateur was the idol of Kent and the terror of his opponents. Very tall in stature and heavy in weight, he was at that time and for many years subsequently one of the fastest bowlers in England. His physique was enormous, and he could bowl a great number of balls without any sacrifice of pace or precision. When asked how many balls he should like the over to consist of, he said as far as he was concerned he should like a hundred. He was a hard hitter, fond of driving the ball in front of the wicket, and was probably the champion at the then frequently played single-wicket matches. It must have been a fine sight to see Alfred Mynn advance and deliver the ball; he took a short run and held himself up to nearly his full height as the ball left his hand. He was of unfailing good humour, and is immortalised in by far the best cricket poem yet published, which may be found in the ‘Scores and Biographies,’ vol. ii. p. 200. Altogether he was one of the leading players of his day, and his arrival gave a strength to the amateurs that was sorely needed,

Proudly, sadly we will name him—to forget him were a sin;

Lightly lie the turf upon thee, kind and manly Alfred Mynn.

In 1834 the match was played on even terms, but again the result was disastrous to the amateurs, for they were beaten in an innings and 21 runs; nor did the assistance of Cobbett and Redgate, two of the crack bowlers of the day, save them from defeat in 1835, though Alfred Mynn scored 53 and bowled down four wickets. In 1836 eighteen Gentlemen won by 35 runs, and again was Alfred Mynn to the fore, for he scored 29 and 30 and got eight wickets. In the following year was played a match, when the Gentlemen defended three wickets, 27 inches by 8, and the Players four, 36 inches by 12. The match was the famous ‘Barn Door Match,’ or ‘Ward’s Folly,’ but again the impotence of the amateurs’ batting caused them to be defeated in one innings and 10 runs. Thirteen was the highest amateur score and the only double figure, and Lillywhite and Redgate apparently did what they liked in the way of bowling. In 1838 Alfred Mynn was away, so the amateurs helped themselves to Pilch, Cobbett, and Wenman, three good men from the professional ranks; they lost the match, however, by 40 runs. This was the last match in which odds have been given. A drawn game was played in 1839, and twice the Players were victorious in 1840 and 1841. In 1842 and 1843 the Gentlemen gained two victories, the match in 1842 being their first win on even terms since 1822. Mynn and Sir F. Bathurst got all the wickets for the Gentlemen; the former scored 21 and 46, and Mr. Felix played a fine innings of 88, having been missed badly at short-slip before he scored. In 1843 the Gentlemen actually won in one innings on even terms, for the first time on record. Again Alfred Mynn did excellent service, for he made 47 runs and lowered eight wickets. Mr. C. G. Taylor scored 89 runs and then his hat fell on the wicket, or rather it was knocked off, which showed that Lord’s had a way of testing the bravery as well as the skill of batsmen. In 1844 the Gentlemen lost the services of Mr. Felix, perhaps their best bat, and Sir F. Bathurst, their second best bowler, and were defeated by 38 runs. The famous William Lillywhite, who ‘handled the ball as he would do a brick,’ and Hillyer were the crack professional bowlers at this time, and sad havoc they made of amateur wickets. Lillywhite was fifty-two years old in 1844, two years older than W. G. Grace, who in the year 1898 is par excellence the veteran cricketer. The era of Alfred Mynn and Sir F. Bathurst was the golden age of amateur bowling, for Mynn was at the top of the tree in this department of the game for a far longer period than any amateur has been since. He played twenty matches for the Gentlemen against the Players, and though he was generally on the losing side, did great things both with bat and ball, especially with the latter. In 1845 the Players again won, old Lillywhite, aged fifty-three, taking twelve wickets for 96 runs—a remarkable performance.

The match for the year 1846 is an historical one for one or two reasons. It was the first time that George Parr, aged 20, and William Clarke, aged 47, represented the Players. Both were Nottingham men; the younger was very nearly the best bat in England, and the elder, if not the best bowler all round, certainly by far the most successful bowler of lobs that has ever appeared. Clarke had played for thirty seasons before he was chosen to represent the Players. He died in 1856 at the age of 57, played cricket during the last year of his life, and took a wicket with the last ball he ever bowled. He was head and captain of the ‘All England Eleven’ which used to tour about the country. Very amusing work it must have been for old Clarke, bowling on rough provincial grounds to provincial batsmen; and who can wonder that he, with several other bowling captains, had a great dislike to taking himself off? He was one-eyed, having lost his right eye while indulging in the manly game of fives. He certainly got a lot of wickets in the best of matches, but there is nothing to guide speculation as to how Clarke and Lillywhite would have fared if they had bowled to W. G. Grace and McLaren. Round old Clarke’s head, as round the heads of Fuller Pilch, Alfred Mynn, and William Lillywhite, an aureole has gathered; they are the great lights of that epoch of cricket, and during his career old Clarke must have been one of those few bowlers who generally made fools of batsmen.

To return to this year of 1846, as it was Parr and Clarke’s first Gentlemen and Players, so it was C. G. Taylor’s last. This great player at all games was an Eton and Cambridge man; and, like many old cricketers, formed the theme of poets. ‘Taylor the most graceful of all,’ one writes, and again he is represented as being

Unlike our common sons, whose gradual ray

Expands from twilight into purer day,

His blaze broke forth at once in full meridian sway.

Mr. C. G. Taylor was evidently born with an eye; he often ran out to bowling to drive, could field splendidly either at point, coverpoint, or mid-wicket, and bowled slow round-arm, we are told, both well and gracefully. We suspect that, as may be inferred from the description of his style of play, there was a weak place in his defence, and he used to have long bouts of small scores. But so graceful and altogether fascinating was his style, that all his great innings were indelibly stamped on the memory of those who witnessed them. In this his last Gentlemen and Players match he got 23 and 44. It was a great match, won by the Gentlemen by one wicket, and the credit was due to Messrs. R. P. Long and Taylor for batting, and to Alfred Mynn and Sir F. Bathurst for bowling.

In the following year, 1847, the Players again won, but at this period the sides were far more even than they had been before for any long time together. The redoubtable bowlers Mynn and Bathurst were helped by Harvey Fellows, the celebrated Etonian, and George Yonge the Oxonian; and we doubt if the Gentlemen have ever been so strong in this line since. These two bowled out the Players in 1848 for 79 and 77 runs, Mynn getting eight wickets in the second innings and hitting up 66 runs. In this year, in fact, it is a question if the amateurs were not stronger in bowling than batting.

In the next year, 1849, further triumph awaited the amateurs, for winning the toss they scored 192 runs, compelled the Players to follow on, and won the match in one innings and 40 runs. Alfred Mynn did not get a wicket, but Harvey Fellows bowled his fastest, first hurt his opponents, and then got them out. Old Wm. Lillywhite played his last Gentlemen and Players match this year, and we read that he refused to bat in his second innings because he was hurt by Mr. Fellows. He was 57 years old, so may be excused if he felt a little nervous on old Lord’s ground at standing up to one who used to make the ball hum like a top.

The famous ‘Nonpareil bowler,’ as old Lillywhite was called, was the king of bowlers in the days when he flourished. Mr. Robert Grimston, who remembered him well, said that though a slow bowler he was quicker off the ground than Alfred Shaw. He lived in the days when wides were common, but it is recorded that during his whole career he did not deliver half a dozen. He was born in Sussex in 1792, and played as a given man for the Gentlemen in 1829 and 1830; after that began his long career as principal bowler for the Players. He was, therefore, no less than 39 years of age when he played his first match for the Players. If to other cricketers may be given the credit of inventing round-arm bowling, still to Lillywhite and Broadbridge all honour is due for having been the first really good round-arm bowlers. Lillywhite bowled in seventeen matches against the Gentlemen and got 132 wickets, or close upon eight wickets per match. He was occasionally useful as a bat, and though he refused to go in, as just recorded, he had plenty of pluck when younger, for in a single wicket match he stood up for 278 balls to George Brown, to whose bowling Little Dench of Brighton used to long-stop with a sack stuffed full of straw to protect his chest. Batting gloves were not used in those days, and Lillywhite had his fingers broken three times before they were invented. Fuller Pilch played his last Gentlemen and Players match this year, which is famous for witnessing the farewell of such great cricketers as himself and William Lillywhite. Pilch was born in 1803, and was therefore 46 years old in 1849.

Another young tailor, as fine a young man

As e’er hit a ball and then afterwards ran.

Pilch was undoubtedly the champion of his day, and his mantle fell on George Parr. He was the originator of what we call in modern times ‘forward play,’ and his object was the sound one of smothering the ball at the pitch. He was the worst enemy of William Clarke, for he left his ground to balls that were well up and ran him down with a straight bat. He was one of the dauntless five that carried Kent into a unique position among cricket counties.

And with five such mighty cricketers ’twas but natural to win,

As Felix, Wenman, Hillyer, Fuller Pilch, and Alfred Mynn.

In 1850 the famous Johnny Wisden came to the front and the Players grew stronger, and George Parr made 65 runs not out. Wisden and Clarke bowled unchanged, and got rid of their rivals for 42 and 58, winning the match in one innings and 48 runs in 1850, and in 1851 they also won in a single innings. Wisden, Grundy, and Caffyn were three fine all-round men, and Joe Guy of Nottingham was apparently quite at home to amateur bowling. Both Mynn and Fellows had lost their devil, or perhaps it might be more correct to say that the latter had lost his straightness and accuracy. In 1852 the Players won by five wickets, and the great Alfred Mynn retires from the scene as far as this match is concerned.

In 1853 fine bowling won the Gentlemen a match by 60 runs. Both Sir F. Bathurst and Mr. Kempson bowled unchanged all through the two innings of the Players, and got rid of them for 42 and 69. Martingell got seven wickets for 19 runs in the second innings of the Gentlemen, so this was essentially a bowlers’ match; and though it is an historical fact that it was the first time the Gentlemen never had to change their bowling, in 1846 Mynn and Sir F. Bathurst got all the wickets, and Mr. Taylor was only on for a few overs. Sir F. Bathurst might therefore have bowled one end all the time if Mr. Taylor had relieved Mynn. At any rate, to Sir F. Bathurst is due the credit of being one of the main causes of two defeats of the Players. He was a fast bowler with a low delivery, but very straight.

In 1854 both sides played weak, four Players refusing to come forward because of a dispute between Clarke and the M.C.C., and the Gentlemen losing Messrs. Hankey and Kempson. An uneventful match was the result, and the Players again won. From 1853 to 1865 the match was played on even terms, but the Players had a run of victory, and not once during that time did the Gentlemen prove successful. There is no doubt that the batting strength of the Players during these years was very considerable, and, though George Parr, Hayward, and Carpenter did not score their hundreds as the men of modern times so often have done, they made their fifties and sixties with nearly the same consistency. Parr was a most regular scorer during the decade between 1853 and 1863, and his average for the whole series of these matches must have been very high.

In 1855 the Players won easily by seven wickets, though the Gentlemen began well; but in their second innings Dean and John Lillywhite got them out for 43, five consecutive wickets falling without a run. In 1857 the Gentlemen lost several of their best men, but the famous Oxonians, Messrs. Marsham and Payne, bowled finely, and though the Players had only 70 to get to win, they only pulled through by two wickets. Willsher played this year for the first time, and he and Wisden were too much for the Gentlemen. The year 1857 was an historical one for two reasons. In the first place at Lord’s was played one of the closest matches of the series, a game also famous for one of those great batting feats the recollection of which lingers long; and in the second place because a second match was played for the first time at the Oval. The historical innings was that of Mr. Reginald Hankey, whom George Parr considers the finest bat he ever saw. This is the proverbial effort quoted by all who saw it as the masterpiece of its day, and Mr. Grace himself has never played an innings that made more sensation. Mr. Hankey got 70 runs in an hour and three-quarters, and hit the fast bowling of Willsher, Wisden, Jackson, and Stephenson all over the ground. Messrs. Hankey, Haygarth, Drake and Lane amassed 224 runs, the other seven only 58 between them, and in the end the players won by 13 runs. Mr. Drake played his hardest to win, making a score of 58 out of 114.

Kennington Oval, 1854.

At the Oval the Players won easily by ten wickets, and on this ground the Gentlemen lost every match till 1866. In those days the Oval was what we should call a better ground than Lord’s—that is to say, it was more in favour of the batsmen and long scores; and consequently the weak amateur bowling was at a considerable discount. In 1858 at the Oval the Players won by three wickets, and R. Daft played for the Gentlemen for the first and only time. At Lord’s in the same year the Gentlemen collapsed in batting and lost by 285 runs, the bowling of Jackson being at this period an object of dread among the amateurs. In 1859 the Players won both matches easily, and the famous Robert Carpenter made his first appearance, scoring 44 runs at the Oval.

In 1860, at the Oval, the Players won by eight wickets; Mr. T. E. Bagge made two scores of 62 and 60, and the scoring altogether was very large for those days. Carpenter made 119 in his one innings. At Lord’s the other great Cambridgeshire player, Tom Hayward, came on the scene with a vengeance, scoring 132 runs, and the Players won in one innings and 181 runs, though George Parr could not play. At this time the tremendous bowling of Jackson and Willsher was at its best, and Hayward, Carpenter, Parr, and Daft were too good for amateur bowling. In 1861 the Players won in one innings and 60 runs at Lord’s, and in one innings and 68 runs at the Oval; Carpenter for the second time making a hundred.

In 1862 a famous drawn match was played at the Oval. Over 200 runs were made in each innings, and there was curious equality of scoring, the highest figures on each side being 108, made by Mr. John Walker for the Gentlemen, and by Hayward for the Players. The match was drawn, the Players having lost eight wickets and still wanting 33 runs. Mr. Walker was bowling lobs a good deal in this match, and whilst Anderson and Stephenson were batting just before stumps were drawn at the end of the day, each having made 33, the famous Tom Lockyer, who could not endure lobs, was continually to be seen nervously looking at the clock; to go in against these dreaded balls was a privilege he did not covet. Willsher, Parr, and Daft could not play for the Players, nor Messrs. Makinson and Mitchell for the Gentlemen. At Lord’s a match was played between the elevens, all the engaged being under thirty, and the Players won by 157 runs. Mr. C. D. Marsham, the steadiest of all Gentlemen bowlers, played his last Gentlemen and Players match this year. He had taken part in ten matches, but never had the good luck to be on the winning side.

In 1863 the great Hayward made 112 runs in his only innings, and nobody else except Mr. Walker got 30 runs in the match, which the Players won by eight wickets, Jackson and Tarrant being quite unplayable on the rough Lord’s wicket. Mr. R. A. H. Mitchell played for the first time, and, with the exception of Mr. Grace, no greater batsman has appeared for the Gentlemen, though he did not play for many years. At the Oval in the same year Mr. Mitchell scored 76 and 6; but the Gentlemen were weak in bowling, and the Players won by nine wickets. At Lord’s in 1864 Tarrant and Willsher bowled unchanged during the match, and the Gentlemen scored 119 in the two innings; but at the Oval there were a lot of runs made, Stephenson putting together 117, and Messrs. C. G. Lyttelton and Makinson playing two fine innings for the Gentlemen.

In 1865 began what brought about a revolution in cricket, for W. G. Grace played his first match, and at once began to score. Originally more famous as a bowler, he has since made runs in a manner and to an extent altogether unparalleled in the history of cricket, and soon after his appearance the almost dull monotony of professional victory was changed for the almost equally dull monotony of professional defeat. When he first began to play there was a schism in the professional ranks which lasted several years; between 1863 and 1871, many of the crack Northern players refused to play at the Oval, and soon afterwards at Lord’s also. It is a curious fact that at Lord’s in 1865 the amateurs won by eight wickets, scoring a victory for the first time since 1853, after losing nineteen matches in succession. This was W. G. Grace’s first match and George Parr’s last, the latter having scored sixty runs in his actual last innings. Grace was sixteen years old, and Parr, who first played in 1846, was 39. Parr’s average for these matches was no less than twenty-eight, and his was altogether one of the best and longest careers ever seen.

Up to 1886 Mr. Grace had played 78 innings in these matches, and averaged 45 runs an innings. From that date to the present he has averaged 26 runs an innings; and it is not easy to say that anybody is his superior now in 1893. The cricket schism weakened the Players very much for several years at the beginning of his career, and the matches were in consequence not so interesting. At the Oval, in 1866, the Gentlemen followed their innings, but won the match by 98 runs, and this was the first time they were successful at the Kennington ground; but no Northern players appeared except Grundy, Wootton, Luke Greenwood and Alfred Shaw. It was the same story in 1867 and in every match till 1872; the amateurs were generally successful. Since that period, however, it has always been considered a special honour to be asked to represent either eleven, and the Committees at both Lord’s and the Oval now offer higher terms to the professionals for this than for any other match. For some reason which we are totally unable to explain, between the years 1867 and 1877 there was a blight on the Players. Their batting fell off to an extraordinary extent, nor was their fast bowling at all up to the level of what it used to be. Of course W. G. Grace was the main cause of the apparent weakness of the bowling, but this could not account for the great batting deterioration. The Players won at the Oval in 1865 and did not win again till 1880, though one match was drawn considerably in their favour. Up to 1874, including the Oval matches and omitting three unfinished, the Players lost twelve matches in succession, mainly owing to Mr. Grace.

If we take the best of the innings of 100 played in these matches to the year 1893, we find that there have been 41 individual innings of over 100 runs played, and Mr. Grace has played eleven himself, or nearly a third of the whole; and when we remember that he has had a great deal of bowling to do as well, it may be said with confidence that no such performances for so many years have ever been seen in the history of cricket. In 1873 he got 163 runs at Lord’s, and 158 at the Oval, and in the latter match scored seven wickets in the Players’ second innings. In 1874 the Gentlemen won by seven wickets, having to go in for 226 runs to win. Mr. Grace had got 77 runs in his first innings, went in first in the second innings, stayed in till 152 runs were scored, and was then out for 112. The match was won by seven wickets.

The most exciting match that has occurred was in the year 1877. The Players made 192, and the Gentlemen 198 in the first innings, and the players 148 in the second. Consequently, to win the match 143 runs were wanted by the Gentlemen. The wicket was not quite a first-rate one, and good judges anticipated a close finish. Grace made 41, and Alfred Lyttelton 20; but Watson, Ulyett, and Morley bowled well, and the Gentlemen wanted 46 runs to win when nine wickets had fallen. Mr. W. S. Patterson and G. F. Grace were in, and gradually, by excellent play, the runs were secured. In 1888 there was another most exciting match at Lord’s, when both sides were the strongest that could have been chosen, except that Shrewsbury did not assist the Players. The wicket was very difficult from start to finish, and the Players only required 78 runs to win. It was Mr. Woods’ first year of first-class cricket, and he obtained ten wickets for 76 runs. His bowling, together with that of Mr. Smith and Mr. Steel, got the Players out for 72, and the Gentlemen won the match by 5 runs.

In 1883 a tie match was played at the Oval, for the first and only time. The wicket was difficult on the third day, and the Gentlemen, who lost the services of Mr. W. G. Grace for the first time since 1867, were 31 runs ahead on the first innings. Bates did well for the Players in the second innings and scored 76 runs, making his last 30 runs in eight hits. Rain fell in the night, and Flowers found a spot. Mr. Lucas, who scored 47 not out, was really caught at point when he had got 8, but the catch was a low one, and neither umpire would give a decision when appealed to. So he continued his innings, which was hard for the Players. Fourteen were wanted when Mr. Rotherham joined Mr. Lucas, and when 8 runs were wanted Bates badly missed Rotherham. When the match was a tie, Peate was put on, and clean bowled Rotherham with his second ball. The Players had rather hard lines in Lucas’s case, but they lost the match through the bad miss of Bates.

In 1879, following the good example set by Sir F. Bathurst and Kempson, the Gentlemen won the Oval match without once having to change their bowlers. Messrs. Steel and Evans were the heroes; Evans got ten wickets, and Steel nine. The wicket was difficult, but the batting was feeble, and only realised totals of 73 and 48.

For the last few years the Players have gradually recovered their lost prestige, and reached the high-water mark of excellence in 1887, when, for the first time since 1861, they won both matches in one innings each. At the date of writing (1898) the two sides present very much the same features as have distinguished them hitherto. The amateurs are as strong, and perhaps a little stronger in batting, the professionals much stronger in bowling, though not perhaps so much so as at most previous epochs; but there is one remarkable difference, and that is in wicket-keeping. In old days the professionals were vastly superior to the amateurs; now there is practically nothing between them, and this fact is probably because of the greater accuracy of modern amateur bowling, which makes it easier to take, and does not knock the wicket-keeper about so much.

A survey of the whole series of matches points to the fact that, as is natural, the Gentlemen have been, and probably will be, beaten as a general rule. Every cricketer knows what it is to play in an eleven with a comrade, either a batsman or bowler, of commanding superiority. Such a man makes an eleven. He does this by giving confidence to the other ten members of the team. They feel that the match does not depend on them, that if they fail he will pull them through, and consequently they go in boldly and score. The two notable instances of one man making an eleven are W. G. Grace and Spofforth. Of course there were good players amongst the Australians and amongst the Gentlemen, but the presence of Grace and Spofforth was an incalculable benefit. The Australians began a match feeling sure that, even if they did not run up large scores, Spofforth would get rid of their opponents for less.

In conclusion, let us express a hope that the Gentlemen and Players match will never fall through: for, having been played off and on since 1806, it has a notable history, and it ought to be the summit of ambition in every cricketer, be he amateur or professional, to appear in these great classic contests.

[CHAPTER XIII.]
THE ART OF TRAINING YOUNG CRICKETERS.
(By R. A. H. Mitchell.)

A six-year old.

A six-year old.

If you want to play cricket you must begin as a boy, is a true, if not an original, remark. We remember asking a member of a well-known cricketing fraternity what promise a younger brother gave of future excellence, and his reply was, ‘He’s no good—but then he hasn’t had a chance, for he was so delicate he couldn’t begin till he was six years old.’ We do not ourselves presume to say that the game must necessarily be learnt whilst a child is under his nurse’s care; but nevertheless we know of no instance, unless Mr. A. E. Stoddart forms an exception to the rule, of anyone attaining to the first rank who has not received his early lessons in the noble game while still a boy. If this be so, it is of interest to all cricketers to consider what training a boy ought to have. Is he to be left merely to the light of nature and his own powers of observation, or is he to be systematically coached, and taught daily how each stroke is to be made and each ball bowled? Many think that a training of this kind can hardly be begun too soon or carried out with too great care and rigour. This may be so; but we are by no means inclined to agree with such a Spartan discipline. We believe that in games, as in life, if a thing is worth doing at all, it is worth doing well; but, although we claim to be second to none in our keenness to see good boy cricketers, we differ in the method we advocate from those who support so severe a system of coaching young boys.

Let us give some reasons in support of our view. In the first place, success in cricket, and not in cricket alone, depends on the enjoyment and interest taken in the game, and we believe that there is great danger of destroying this enjoyment and interest by incessant coaching and teaching at too early an age. In the second place, all coaching has a tendency at first to eradicate individual peculiarities and to cramp a natural style. Mr. W. G. Grace, Mr. A. G. Steel, Shrewsbury, and many other well-known batsmen have peculiarities of their own, which could not have been taught in early boyhood, but which might very easily have been cramped, and perhaps entirely obliterated, much to their detriment, in the hands of even a skilful coach. We do not deprecate all advice even to very young boys, but we dislike anything that tends to interfere with the powers of nature; and although we shall be told that a good teacher merely directs them in the best possible way, we do not think that the advantage likely to be gained will at all compensate for a cramped style or loss of enjoyment. What should be taught, and when, we will endeavour to suggest as we proceed.

OUR NATIONAL GAME

First, however, one word to anxious parents and teachers of the art. It is quite hopeless to expect that every boy can be made into a cricketer. Countless are the excuses we hear to cover the feebleness and incapacity of would-be players, made sometimes by their parents, sometimes by themselves. They have never been coached, or they have been badly coached; they have been made to play too much, or they can’t play often enough; the ground they play on is so rough, or it is so easy that they can’t play on more difficult ground. They used to bowl very well; but they were overbowled, or they were never put on; or they are always put on at the wrong end, or the catches are always missed off their bowling. These and many other excuses are urged on their behalf; but those who have watched cricket for but a few years will soon learn to take such futile pleas for what they are worth. No boy can become a good cricketer who has not a natural capacity for the game. The batsman must have a good eye and is all the better for a good nerve; the fieldsman must be active; the bowler—ah! what must he have? Nascitur non fit; we will not commit ourselves at present to his requirements.

In saying this do not let it be supposed that we wish those only to play cricket who are likely to become good cricketers—far from it; but we are concerned with the game as an art and not as an exercise, and do not wish to raise vain hopes of success where success is impossible.

Now let us consider the three great departments of the game in detail; for, although they are necessarily and closely connected, we cannot treat of batting, bowling, and fielding in the same paragraph.

The batsman then first demands our attention, not because he is more useful to his side than the bowler, but because it is here that more may be taught than in any other department of the game. Take a boy ten years old—we start with double figures, let it be an omen for his future!—what can we tell him? Very little, we think, but certainly this: never to move his right foot, but to plant it firmly just inside the crease, with the toe barely clear of the leg-stump.

The left foot should also be placed in the same line, but it must be moved into the position which is found to be the easiest for playing or hitting any given ball. The batsman must learn to stand perfectly still with his eye fixed on the bowler’s hand, and he must try to think of the ball, and the ball alone; any fidgeting about is apt to interfere with an accurate habit of sight. A boy should also be told to drive the ball in front of the wicket and along the ground. We do not approve of the cut for young boys; it is the batsman’s most finished stroke, but it is absolutely fatal when attempted at an unsuitable ball. This is all we think it necessary to teach our juvenile batsman, though occasional hints beyond this may sometimes be useful. Do not, however, cramp a boy who is disposed to hit, but tell him to hit straight; it is easier at a later age to stop hitting than to teach it. For this reason single-wicket matches among small boys are not without their use, as they naturally encourage hard hitting in front of the wicket.

A danger which is not sufficiently guarded against at some private schools is the habit of allowing young boys to play to fast bowling; masters and others take part in the games and the practice, and bowl at a pace which would be called medium in a man’s match, but which is very fast for boys under fourteen years of age. The result of this is that boys learn to be afraid of the ball; and if they once show fear they will never become good players. It seems all but impossible to restore confidence even at a much later age, and we know of many instances—we will not be so unkind as to mention names—in which boys with great natural powers have never overcome their fear of the ball, which they had acquired before coming to a public school. For the same reason the growing custom of small boys playing in men’s matches is to be strongly deprecated.

Drawing away from the wicket.

Boys’ matches we strongly approve of, but boys of fourteen and under ought not to play in matches with full-grown men. If a boy with a natural gift for cricket has learnt by the time he enters a public school to stand firmly and play the ball in front of the wicket, he has learnt all that is necessary to turn him out a good batsman later on; but if fast bowling has taught him to fear the ball, we have but little hope of ever seeing him attain to the first class.

A few years have elapsed, and our young batsman at the age of thirteen or fourteen is passing into the larger sphere of a public school. What ought to be his training there?

It cannot be expected that he will receive the same attention that will be given at a later age, when he is a candidate for his school eleven, nor do we think that he need be subjected to any rigorous system of coaching. On the other hand, he ought to have some one of experience to give him occasional hints and instil into him the true principles of the game. Above everything else, he should have good ground to play upon, so that, if his confidence has not been previously shaken, he will not now learn to shrink from the ball. The question of ground must always be a great difficulty; for, although it may be easy to get an extent sufficient to satisfy the requirements of a large public school, it is no easy matter to keep it in proper order and provide good match and practice wickets throughout the summer for a large number of boys, especially as the ground is generally required for football or other purposes during the winter. However, the better the ground the better the batsmen; and if this be true, a good ground is one of the most important requirements in the training of our cricketers.

As a boy grows in years he will require, and will probably get, more instruction, and if he meets with a coach of good judgment and experience he will soon learn all that can be taught. His success will depend on his own natural powers, his temper, and his perseverance. We do not propose to deal in detail with all the duties of a coach, but perhaps a few hints may not be altogether out of place.

First of all, then, we would say, do not coach a boy too often. Once a week is all that is either necessary or desirable. A boy who is anxious to learn will lay to heart the hints and instructions he has received, and he will find it easier to carry them out when he is practising with his schoolfellows than when he is actually receiving instruction from a coach. A new attitude or a new stroke always presents great difficulty, easy as it may seem in itself; and a boy who is trying something new will not at first play better, and will become nervous and disheartened if he is being too constantly pressed by an ardent teacher.

Do not let a boy practise for more than half an hour at a time, or he will become careless and lose interest. During that time he should play to both fast and slow bowling, but never to more than two bowlers; and it would be well if he could play for a quarter of an hour to two slow bowlers, and another quarter to two fast. It is confusing to some boys to receive fast and slow balls alternately, particularly when they are trying to alter or improve some point of style under the direction of a coach.

Do not allow boys to play to fast bowling on bad wickets: slow bowling on a bad wicket is a good lesson occasionally, as it necessitates careful watching of the ball and accurate timing; but fast bowling on bumpy ground can only do harm. Never allow throwing instead of bowling,—it does infinite mischief.

A coach will naturally have to give instruction on numerous points, and try to get his pupil to carry out what he teaches; but there is one warning which must be impressed on the lad more strongly than anything else. It is this: when you go to the wicket in a match don’t be thinking of this or that position, or this or that stroke, but fix your eye on the bowler’s hand as he comes up to bowl. Think of and watch the ball only; if you learn correct habits in practice, your instinct will throw you into the right position and enable you to make the right stroke, provided that your eye does not fail you with the ball.

We do not purpose to describe how each stroke should be made or to enumerate all the instructions that should be given to the youthful batsman; for such details would be long and wearisome, and entirely unnecessary for the guidance of anyone who understands the true principles of the game; and certainly no one ought to try and teach until he has (at all events theoretically) mastered these, though it is by no means necessary for a good coach to be himself a first-rate exponent of the batsman’s art. We would point out, however, that, apart from natural gifts, over which the coach has no control, the most important point to teach the batsman is first to watch the ball; secondly, to throw himself at the right moment into the right position—if he can do this, it is an easy matter to hit or play almost any given ball; thirdly, to meet the ball either in playing back or forward, and not to play in front of the left foot when playing forward or behind the right when playing back.

And now what are we to say of the bowler’s art? How are we to teach our boys the most unteachable department of the game? This part of our subject we approach with many misgivings, and though we wish to limit our advice to what is strictly practical, we feel that this very limit will make many think that our hints are but meagre and uninteresting.

We must again ‘put back the clock’ (oh that some of us decrepit cricketers could do so in reality!) to the age of ten. Again we ask for some natural power of propelling a ball with ease, strength proportioned to age, perseverance, and a real love of the game. Given these materials to work upon, how are we to begin? First of all, let the distance be short, certainly not more than eighteen yards at the age of ten; let the ball be smaller and lighter than the regulation size, and let a boy be taught at first to aim only at one length; as he becomes fairly master of straightness and pitch, let him try to vary the length a little, but not too often, or he may sacrifice regularity and injure his delivery. Change of pace can hardly be looked for at this age; but great care should be taken to prevent a boy from bowling fast, and he should not bowl for long together. In practice it is a good plan to take alternate overs with another boy, as it is easier to bowl four or five balls well and then rest than to go on bowling a greater number. A boy should be taught to measure the distance he runs before delivering the ball, and he should learn to bowl on both sides of the wicket. Great care should be taken to prevent a boy from bowling too much; and if his bowling seems to be getting worse rather than better, let him leave off for some days. We offer no advice on the more abstruse arts of bowling, as the subject has been exhaustively treated in a previous chapter.

Supposing that our boy bowler has by the age of fourteen acquired straightness and pitch, with some power of variation, will he have a fair chance of improving his bowling and distinguishing himself when at a public school? We fear that this will be a trying time—indeed must be so, even if he is taken in hand by some one who understands and takes an interest in the game. In the first place, batting is more attractive to most boys; in the second, the young bowler will probably have a very indifferent field, and the missing of catches tempts the youthful player to abandon the slower pace for the faster, with disastrous results to himself. Almost all young boys wish to bowl as fast as they can, and this ends frequently in ruining a good action and a good arm which had at one time threatened the fall of many a good wicket.

At this point, then, in a bowler’s career, public schools, we think, have something to answer for; but we do not agree with those who say that subsequently, when a boy is old enough to be a candidate for his school eleven, there is any great lack of system or careful training. Rather, if a short digression may be pardoned, we think that the Universities, or the laziness of University men, may chiefly be blamed for the dearth of gentlemen bowlers. Our argument shortly stated is this. If we compare gentlemen bowlers of the age of nineteen with professionals of the same age, we shall find that the former have nothing to fear from the comparison. But pass on for five or six years, and the gentlemen are seen to be behind in the race for pre-eminence. Can this be the fault of public schools? Is it not rather that after leaving school few, scarcely any, systematically practise bowling, although they are just at the right age to improve, having stronger muscles and more experience, to say nothing of leisure hours and increased opportunities? If University men would practise their bowling both at nets and in matches with the same assiduity that boys do at a public school, we think that it would approach more nearly to the professional standard than it now does.

We do not propose to offer our readers any special advice as to the method of attack, which will naturally vary with different batsmen. Experience and observation will suggest what may be done, if we can only teach our young bowler to bowl straight, to vary his length, and as he gets older his pace, and if nature has given him strength, and a happy genius enables him to make the ball turn more or less at will. Let us leave the bowler himself, and see if we can offer any hints on providing him with a good field.

It is a common fallacy to suppose that anyone can field well if he takes the trouble to do so. With this we cannot agree; but we feel strongly that most cricketers might improve themselves very much in this department if they took the same pains they do to improve their batting.

But we must return to our small boys. First of all, let us teach them to catch by throwing the ball from one to another, and let the ball be small, proportioned to the size of their hands. Teach them to take the catch opposite the upper part of the chest, when they can get to it in that position, and to draw their hands back as the ball comes into them. Do not keep them too long at this, or they will find it irksome. Vary with a little ground fielding, but do not let them throw too often or too far, or their arms will soon go, and you will ruin your bowlers and your throwers as well. It is not, however, at this early age that the most special attention ought to be given to fielding. It is rather at our public schools that we here look for improvement; this is the time at which we think most may be done. As a boy gains strength and activity he gains two of the qualities most necessary for a good fieldsman, and if nature has given him a good big pair of hands and the power of throwing, it will be owing to his laziness if he does not become a valuable aid to any bowler. We might dwell on the necessity of keenness, watchfulness in the field, position for starting, and many other essentials, but we have said enough for practical purposes; all else will be easily learnt by a boy who has the energy and determination to train himself into a good field.

It will be noticed that in our suggestions to the batsman we have not advised him to make that use of his legs in defending his wicket which now finds such favour with our leading players. We confess to regarding this as an ignoble art; but we admit that if the l.b.w. rule is to continue as at present, the art, ignoble as it is, must be taught in self-defence, or our pupils will necessarily be handicapped in being expected to stop balls which break and turn with their bat instead of with their legs. Fortunately age will relieve us personally of teaching how this may best be done. It is for the rising generation either to alter the law or to learn the art of getting in front of the wicket when the ball does not pitch straight.

It is in vain to lament over long scores and unfinished matches, over dearth of bowlers and slackness in the field, whilst all the time we are doing everything we can to make matters easier and easier for the batsman, giving him perfect wickets, on which he can score 100 runs without getting out of breath, devoting his legs to the new purpose of systematically intercepting the more difficult balls. How different this from having honestly to run out every hit, and from being compelled to play a real ‘snorter’ before the breath is fairly recovered after the effort of running several fourers in succession!

[CHAPTER XIV.]
SINGLE WICKET.
(By the Hon. R. H. Lyttelton.)

It is necessary in any work which professes to treat of cricket generally, that the laws and regulations of single wicket should be discussed, though the subject is not of much importance in these days; for, as far as first-class cricket is concerned, the game played with only one wicket has vanished altogether. Some few years ago, if an ordinary three-day match were over early, a scratch single-wicket match was sometimes improvised; but the effect was generally depressing.

Few people now take the trouble to read through the rules which govern single-wicket matches, and the almost total disappearance of such games may be mainly attributed to two circumstances: (1) The great increase in the number of three-day matches; (2) the diminution in the number of fast bowlers.

In the days of Alfred Mynn and Fuller Pilch matches practically never took more than two days, and first-class contests were in number about one-half what they are at present. A professional of the front rank, such as Lohmann or Barnes, now has to play two matches a week, and if a match is over on the second day, he is only too glad to have a rest before beginning again elsewhere, it may be more than a hundred miles away. The public also have the opportunity of seeing such a quantity of first-class play, that there is no demand for single-wicket matches.

In the second place, the rules of single-wicket cricket make it essential that driving in front of the wicket must be the staple stroke of the batsman, and for this reason, because the second rule provides that, to entitle the striker to a run, the ball must be hit before the bounds. Now the bounds are placed twenty-two yards each in a line from the off and leg stump, and there must be bounds unless there are more than four players on each side. The third rule compels the striker at the moment of hitting the ball to have one of his feet behind the popping crease and on the ground. These two laws contain the essence of the game of cricket as played with a single wicket. It is not sound cricket to play any bowling that may be called slow in the widest sense of the term with your right foot absolutely fixed. In the chapter on Batting the young player is advised to go out of his ground to slow bowling of a certain length and drive. But at single wicket the batsman may not move even an inch in front of the popping crease, to get a lob, for instance, on the full pitch. So the effect of bowling slows in a single-wicket match is that a batsman must abandon what may be called the orthodox and correct method of play, and merely wait till he gets a ball far enough up for him to drive it without getting out of his ground.

No correct player can ever drive slows, unless they are right up, without going out of his ground, and a great many would be so cramped that they would be at a disadvantage altogether, and obliged to play an ugly pokey game. If a slow bowler with perhaps two or three fields were bowling to Mr. Webbe, who plays slows as well as anybody in England, that gentleman would find himself obliged to abandon his natural game, stand still, watch the ball carefully, and play it gently, till he got a real half-volley or outrageous long-hop, off which he could score. But if certain skilful bowlers were on, the batsman would very likely have to wait the best part of an hour before such a ball came; and it would be sadly dull to watch such a game.

If five play on a side bounds are abolished, the slow bowling may get hit behind the wicket, and so the game becomes considerably livelier. The run consists of touching the bowler’s stump with the bat and getting back to the popping crease. Thus one run at single wicket is exactly equivalent to two at double wicket. To get three runs in one hit if there are two fields is almost an impossibility, though it has been done. There is no wicket-keeper, and nothing can be scored by byes, leg-byes, or overthrows. To run a man out, it is necessary that the bowler run to the wicket and put it down, unless of course it is thrown down. The fieldsman must return the ball so that it shall cross the ground between the wicket and the bowling stump, or between the bowling stump and the bounds; and three are scored for a lost ball.

In very ancient times five players a side used often to contend at single wicket, and in this sort of match there are no bounds, though the batsman must have his right or left foot on the ground behind the popping crease when the ball is hit.

Single-wicket matches were once very common. Indeed, during the last century they were played nearly as often as double-wicket games, and we will briefly notice some of the most famous.

In the year 1772 five of Kent with Minshull beat five of the famous Hambledon Club by one wicket, but in 1773 the same five men of Hambledon vanquished five men of England. Happy village of Hambledon that could thus defeat All England, a deed that at double wicket no county could accomplish now! With the redoubtable Lumpy given, the same village in 1781 beat England by 78 runs, five players on a side. In the following year six of Hambledon beat six of Kent, and the Duke of Dorset, Privy Councillor, Knight of the Garter, and Lord Steward of the King’s Household, played for the village against his own county, for what reason history telleth not. John Nyren says that this nobleman ‘had the peculiar habit, when unemployed, of standing with his head on one side.’ He is also celebrated in verse:

Equalled by few he plays with glee,

Nor peevish seeks for victory.

His Grace for bowling cannot yield

To none but Lumpy in the field.

And far unlike the modern way

Of blocking every ball at play,

He firmly stands with bat upright

And strikes with his athletic might,

Sends forth the ball across the mead,

And scores six notches for the deed.

The Duke must have been the first who conceived the idea of international cricket; for while ambassador in France he wrote to Golden, of Chertsey, to form an eleven to play at Paris. Unfortunately, when they had got as far as Dover, they met his Grace, who had to flee the faithless Frenchmen in consequence of a revolution, and the match was abandoned.

Six of Hambledon again beat six of England in 1783, but six of Kent defeated the village in 1786. This was a famous match, though seeing T. Walker batting for nearly five hours for 26 runs must have been a trifle monotonous. A Kent player named Ring went in when 59 runs were wanted to win and two more wickets to go down. He made 15 overnight, and Sir Horace Mann promised him a pension if he carried out his bat, and, we presume, won the match. He failed to do so, but got out when 2 runs were wanted. Aylward then went in and played 94 balls before he made the winning hit. We hope Sir Horace Mann gave the pension to Ring, for he must have deserved it.

Six of Hampshire twice beat England in 1788, and in 1789 a drawn match was played between six of Kent and six of Hants. In this match betting at the start was 5 to 4 on Hants, but David Harris was seized with the gout, and the betting, therefore, stood at 5 to 4 on Kent. David Harris used sometimes to walk to the ground on crutches, but bowled splendidly, we are told, when he got warm.

In 1806, three of Surrey—William Lambert, Robinson, and William Beldham—beat three of England—Bennett, Fennex, and Lord F. Beauclerk—by 20 runs. This was the famous match when Beldham, father of thirty-nine children—none, so far as we know, cricketers—took a lump of wet dirt and sawdust, and stuck it on to the ball, which developed an extraordinary twist and bowled Lord Frederick out. His lordship was of an irritable disposition, and must have been very angry at this, for he had made 30 runs and was well set.

In 1814, Osbaldeston, Budd, and Lord F. Beauclerk beat three of England—Sherman, T. C. Howard, and Lambert. The famous Squire Osbaldeston clean bowled all his rivals in each innings for 19 runs only. The Squire, whose reputation as an all-round sportsman still survives, was the fastest bowler of his day. In 1818, so great was his fame and that of Lambert, that they challenged Budd, Humewood, T. C. Howard, and George Brown; but the four won in one innings, which so provoked the Squire that he withdrew from the M.C.C.—another irritable man.

The celebrated William Lambert alone beat two accomplished cricketers, Lord F. Beauclerk and Howard, by 15 runs. The Squire was too ill to play, so Lambert played them both, and drew the stakes, 100l. Up to 1827, wides counted for nothing, and Lambert bowled wides on purpose to Lord F. Beauclerk to put him out of temper. They were a choleric race in those days. The fame of Lambert is tarnished for selling a match at Nottingham, and he was warned off the ground at Lord’s for ever.

Mr. Budd in 1820 played a fast bowler called Brand, the match ending most disastrously for the latter. Mr. Budd went in first, got 70 runs, knocked his wicket down on purpose, and bowled his opponent out for 0. Budd then got 31, again knocked his wicket down, and again bowled his rival out for nothing. Mr. Brand ended his days in a lunatic asylum; we hope the malady was not brought on by this match, which was got up by Mr. Ward, who backed Mr. Brand.

The two brothers Broadbridge, one of whom was called ‘our Jem,’ beat George Brown and Tom Marsden of Sheffield in 1827, but were beaten in the return match. In 1832 Alfred Mynn played his first important single-wicket match against Thomas Hills, Mynn winning with his wicket standing. Hills said that Mynn bowled at least 50 wides, which seems to prove that the chief bowlers of that day must have been slightly deficient in accuracy. Why in this match the wides were not reckoned is not clear, the rule scoring against the bowler having been put in force some few years before. A return match was played, and Mynn again won, this time in one innings, and Hills retired, satisfied, we suppose, that in Mynn he had found his master.

In 1833 Mynn and Pilch were perhaps the two greatest all-round players, and Marsden of Sheffield in this year challenged the immortal Pilch, who won in one innings and 70 runs. Pilch was not a great bowler, neither was he fast, but Marsden’s style was fast underhand, and Pilch’s bat was too straight for such bowling. In the return Pilch got 78 runs in the first innings and 100 in the second, and won the match by 127 runs. The supremacy of Pilch over Marsden was fully asserted by these two matches, and Marsden must have returned to Sheffield somewhat crestfallen.

Next Marsden may come, though it here must be stated

That his skill down at Sheffield is oft overrated.

But the Yorkshiremen, we know, are always proud of their countrymen. Pilch was a great batsman, and we do not feel surprised that he scored so largely against fast underhand bowling.

The ground ought to have been now cleared for a match between Mynn and Pilch, and great would have been the interest if such a game had been played—Voltigeur and The Flying Dutchman would have been nothing to it. The two men belonged to the same county, so probably there was wanting a sufficient motive; but together they would probably have beaten any three other cricketers.

Mr. Mynn next heavily defeated James Dearman of Sheffield twice, in the first match by 112 runs, and again in one innings and 36 runs. Mynn scored 46 in the last innings off 46 hits, which sounds strange, but then, as is recorded naïvely in the ‘Scores and Biographies,’ Mynn was always a great punisher.

Mr. Felix next challenged Mr. Mynn, and he must have been of a sanguine temperament to have done so; for, though perhaps a better bat than Mynn, he was a left-handed lob bowler, a delivery not suited for single-wicket matches. The first game Mynn won in one innings and 1 run, only 9 runs being made in the whole match. In Felix’s second innings Mynn bowled 247 balls for 3 runs. Single-wicket matches had already begun to get out of favour; this was the most important that had taken place for some time, and Squire Osbaldeston was a spectator. In the return Mynn won by one wicket, and this was a small scoring match. Mynn now was left unchallenged, having won all the single-wicket matches in which he was engaged alone. In 1847 Wisden beat Sherman twice. Thomas Hunt of Chesterfield was a great single-wicket match-player, and beat Chatterton, Dakin, Charley Brown, and R. C. Tinley.

Single-wicket playing has been practically dead since 1850, though Hayward, Carpenter, and Tarrant played two matches about the year 1862. The subject possesses only an historical interest now, but in old times it created enormous excitement, and no doubt the pride of the men of Kent in Alfred Mynn was largely owing to his single-wicket prowess. If such matches were played on the smooth wickets of modern times, the fortunate man who won the toss might never be got out all day, and the game would become a burlesque on cricket. Eleven fieldsmen, and not one bowler merely, are now required to get out Mr. Grace and Shrewsbury, and but few wickets are bowled down as compared with the days of fast bowling and rough grounds. When the All England elevens used to tour about the country under the management first of William Clarke and then of George Parr, some of the best bowlers in England were to be found in their ranks. Jackson, Willsher, Furley, Tarrant, and others used often to play, and occasionally when the regular match was over, one of them would earn a cheap sort of notoriety by challenging eleven of the natives at single wicket. Eleven straight balls were sometimes found sufficient to get the eleven out, and one run by the England player gave him the victory. Such matches are absurd, and it is not a matter of regret that they are played no longer.

However, it seems right that a notice of the famous contests of old should have been written, on account of the interest they formerly excited, and on village greens, where eccentricities of ground are to be met with, they may still perhaps be played. But they are a relic of the past.

[INDEX]

Spottiswoode & Co. Printers, New-street Square, London.

[Transcriber’s Note]

On [page 269]:

But though the ball is on the leg side, it is quite possible for the batsman to hit it on the on side, and send it straight to short-slip’s hands, if he only could have been in his proper place.

has been changed to:

But though the ball is on the leg side, it is quite possible for the batsman to hit it on the off side, and send it straight to short-slip’s hands, if he only could have been in his proper place.