|
 |
      |
|
CRICKET MAGAZINETHE 1882 SEASON A Review by John Ward
Volume I, Number 10: Thursday, July 13, 1882CORRESPONDENCEENGLISH AND AUSTRALIAN CRICKETSir,. With your permission I would take the present favourable opportunity, when public interest is specially aroused in the doings of the Australian eleven, to rectify, as far as possible, several serious errors of judgement which prevail only too extensively upon the aspect of cricket in the colonies, and I would thus venture somewhat at length upon your valuable space not only from a love of the noble game itself . a game second to none, and which I honour second to none . but from a firm conviction that it may prove the means of much mutual good to the mother country and colonies and kindle much mutual esteem and goodwill, which misrepresentation such as at present exists may utterly destroy.The points I would refer to, with all the influence of your wide circulation, are the presumed prevalence of betting, and the status in quo our team visit England, and I would claim to speak with some authority, for I have known cricket, Sir, in the colonies for 20 years, from the time when Cosstick and Caffyn taught us to bowl and bat up to the time that Shaw's team met their match, and more than their match, in the combined colonies last year; having seen the game played between clubs, between colonies and against English visitors, on the finest of turf, and on the worst of cocoa-nut matting. Regarding then, firstly, the prevalence of betting, there is no doubt the grossest exaggeration, and though many cricketers know better 'the gentle public' most woefully misjudge us. I venture to assert most confidently that betting in club matches scarcely exists, in Inter-Colonial matches even it remains fractional, and it is only when the extra excitement of an English visit is present that its existence is even perceptible, whilst to say that it ever extended to influencing a single man in a single match is grossly to libel Australian cricket. The late scandal, indeed, was a scandal only to those that believed it against their own men on the mere word of rumour. True, we had the Lord Harris affair . it seems as though we must be ever ready to have mother England throw that in our face, but it was the excited crowd and not our cricketers that were to blame. It is hard to be driven to the 'tu quoque' argument, but are English crowds never unreasonable? Are even English cricketers and secretaries always too cool-headed to go wrong? Surely, we 'could a tale unfold' if we wished to deal with recrimination. May I simply add what a member of the three Australian teams, and perhaps the best living judge of Australian cricket, told me very recently, "There is more betting in one match between Lancashire and Yorkshire than in all Australia, in one season." I hope, in future, that before chattering about the prevalence of betting in Australia, calumniators will remember these facts. Equally misrepresenting is popular opinion as to the so-called 'pecuniary aspect of the colonials' visit'. True it is that they take half the gate money; one might ask, who takes the other half, or the whole as at Orleans, the stronghold of English amateur cricket? But let us keep to one side of the question. The visit costs money, and so it must be conducted on ordinary commercial principles; men cannot come 15,000 miles and play county after county for four months, without expense. But people say, "Look at our amateur teams that went to Australia, there was nothing pecuniary about their visit." This is just the point I want to impress upon your notice. Take Lord Harris's team. They were invited out, had their passages there and back paid for them, their hotel bills, railway fares, &c., all paid, a courier sent with them to make all comfortable, the right of entrée everywhere, and indeed, such lavish hospitality extended to them, that despite a most successful season, their kind entertainers were some hundreds of pounds on the wrong side. Now turn to our team. No such invitation has been extended to them, they have had to come through much misrepresentation, and their coming as they do is the outcome of circumstances, not their choice. Had such a proposal been made, I am sure it would have been accepted. May I make a proposal. Now that the colonials have shown themselves worthy antagonists of the best English elevens, have in all points been a pattern for any team to adopt, have proved a pecuniary success, and what we all rejoice in, have given a very great impetus to the noble game throughout the length and breadth of England, why should not the M.C.C., the mother of cricket, invite a team of such antagonists over as we have already done more than one England team, take all the gate money and its insinuations out of unwilling hands, relieve the game from the suspicion of reproach, and at the end of the season divide whatever profits may accrue proportionately in some fund for worn-out cricketers, or the advancement of the game in England and in Australia. Till such a proposal has been made, and rejected, let us, in the name of ordinary fairness, hear no more about the pecuniary aspect of Australian cricket, for if anything I believe we Australians think less of 'the root of all evil' than you Englishmen.
I must thank you for permitting me such length, the importance of the subject is my only apology. I am, &c., AMATEUR BOWLINGDear Sir,. I am very glad that you have, in your editorial this week, called attention to the paucity of good amateur bowlers, because I think that some steps might well be taken to improve matters in this respect.There may be objections to what I am about to suggest which I am not aware of, but I cannot help thinking that if the M.C.C. would dispense with the aid of 'the ground' in many of the multitudinous matches they play against metropolitan and county clubs, it would give great impetus to the amateur bowling department. It is a fact that unless a man is a good bat, or has distinguished himself at a public school or one of the Universities in bowling, he has at present but little chance of making his mark, whereas if the M.C.C. and Surrey Club would arrange matches in which they would have to rely upon their amateurs for batting, bowling and wicketkeeping, I think they would soon unearth talent which, at present, remains dormant. The same remark applied to the counties. Surely Gentlemen of Kent v Gentlemen of Surrey would be a match likely to prove as interesting as one between the hybrid elevens of the two counties. When it was known that A H Evans could not play against the Australians at the Oval, there only appeared to be two or three men who anyone could suggest as being competent to replace him, and if this is really so, the land must be naked indeed. At present nothing is done to encourage amateur bowling. The man who makes his century obtains for himself a place in the list of three-figure innings, and it would be a step in the right direction if good bowling analyses were made equally public.
R.P.
AMATEURS AND PROFESSIONALSSir,. The following is a statement of the innings of Mr W G Grace in the matches between the gentlemen and Players at Lord's and the Oval. A consideration of these innings and of the amounts of the great batsman's averages in these matches, which are I apprehend quite unparalleled in cricket annals, confirms most completely your observations last week as to the great share Mr Grace has had in the victories of the Gentlemen.LORD'S MATCHES OVAL MATCHES 1865 3 34 23 12* 1866 25 11 7 34 1867 18 37* (did not play) 1868 134* -- 19 -- 1869 2 30 43 83 1870 109 11 6 215 1871 50 37 16 43 1872 77 112 117 -- 1873 163 -- 158 -- 1874 48 12 22 14 1875 7 152 32 17 1876 169 -- 0 90 1877 18 41 29 -- 1878 90 2 40 63 1879 3 -- 26 -- 1880 49 12 6 3 1881 29 2 100 9 1882 4 7 21 1 Runs at Lord's 1498 Runs at Oval 1249 Total runs 2747 Average each innings Lord's 49.14 Oval 44.17 Total 47.21 THE SCOREBOOKAUSTRALIANS v MIDDLESEXOn Friday last the Australians at Lord's added another to their long list of successes. They not only lost the services of Boyle, whose bowling they have fortunately not missed so much as they might, but also of Blackham, whose absence at the wicket weakens their cricket materially. Middlesex had not the Hon A Lyttelton, Messrs Vernon and Ford, but the eleven was s strong one, particularly with the bat, though as the ground played Mr Ford's bowling would have been very useful.Middlesex had the advantage of going in first, but the rain on the first day had made the ground very treacherous on Friday, and the nursery wicket especially played badly to Spofforth's bowling. Middlesex would have fared badly but for Mr C T Studd, as he got the highest score in each innings and took seven of the twelve Australian wickets. In the first innings of the Australians Murdoch and Horan while together raised the score from 37 to 108, and the last five wickets only added 28 runs. On a dry wicket Middlesex might gave made a good show with the bat, but their bowling had not the same sting as that of their opponents, and their fielding was at times very loose. The Australians won by eight wickets.
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE v LANCASHIREThe heavy rains altogether ruined the chances of good play in the match between these counties, which occupied the Trent Bridge Ground at Nottingham on the three closing days of last week. Notts in winning the toss gained a very great advantage, and their first total was the only one of the four innings to reach three figures.With the bowling there was on each side, scoring was impossible in the unplayable condition of the ground, and the bowlers had things all their won way, 30 wickets on Friday and Saturday only realising an aggregate of 163, or just over five runs apiece. Lancashire at the finish had 107 to win, but they could only reach 69, and Notts thus won by 37. Barlow's second innings was the sensation of the match. He went in first, and carried out his bat for 5 out of 69 runs. He was at the wickets two hours and a half.
|
