CRICKET MAGAZINE

THE 1882 SEASON

Volume I, Number 6: Thursday, June 15, 1882

A DIVIDED DUTY

There may be more in the protest of the Australian captain against the appearance of Captain Holden, the hon. sec. of the Notts County Club, on what he calls the playing rink than meets the eye. We have been used to regard the roller as a harmless machine, devised in the special interests of batsmen, rather than one calculated to promote strife on the cricket field.

We are, though, it must be admitted, a dull, plodding, almost effete nation, or we should have recognised the importance to be attached to any usurpation of vested rights, even in the matter of a roller. It had never occurred to us that there would, however, be a dispute to define its custody between the innings.

The report of the disagreement between Captain Holden and Mr Murdoch, the captain of the Australian eleven, on the Trent Bridge Ground on Thursday last, shows how we had underrated the importance of the issues at stake. Mr Murdoch's version of the disagreement may be given in his own words:.

"After the conclusion of the first innings of my team, considerably more than ten minutes, the interval allowed between innings according to the Trent Bridge Ground Rules, had elapsed, and the bell for play had been rung, but the roller was still on the wickets, and consequently I told the man in charge of the roller to move it. Captain Holden, to my astonishment, in a most imperious tone told the men not to remove the roller, and to take no orders from anyone but himself.

"I immediately pointed out to Captain Holden that he had no right whatever inside the playing rink at that time, and requested him to leave the ground, but it was not until the first two batsmen of the Notts team had almost reached the creases that Captain Holden complied with my request."

So far there is little to show, except that the diplomatic relations between the representative official of the Notts County Club and the captain of the Australian team were evidently strained to their utmost tension. The above remarks simply prove a material difference of opinion between the two persons interested on the subject of the duties of a secretary, and they are worth, of course, nothing more than individual opinions usually are.

But when the Australian captain goes on to 'emphatically assert, confident in the support of all cricketers, that it is no part of an honorary secretary's duty to see wickets rolled,' he exposes himself to an answer distinctly in the negative, at least as far as English customs go. According to the strict ruling of the game, it is no doubt the duty of the captain of a side to attend to the due preparation of the ground between the innings.

The question may pertinently be asked, is every duty in cricket duly fulfilled? We think not. It is distinctly laid down in the rules that the umpires shall pitch the wickets, but is not this practice obsolete, as many others in connection with the game? Many other cases might be instanced in which custom has superseded the written as well as the unwritten law; but this will be enough. To argue that the chief official of a club has no right even on the playing portion of a ground when the game is for the time suspended, is, we cannot but think, manifestly absurd.

What is the custom on Australian grounds we know not, nor would it affect the question here. We hold that the captains are indisputably the masters of the position while the match is going on, and that any interference with them, even by a secretary, would be altogether out of place.

But when the innings is over, the case is entirely altered. In English grounds the captain of even the visiting team is not troubled with the unwholesome dread of unfair play, and he is content to leave the general arrangements in the hands of the officers of the home club.

We do not for one moment deny that it is the province of the captain to see that every precaution is taken in the way of improving the wicket for the benefit of his side. On the other hand we assert as emphatically as Murdoch has, that the practice in England is more honoured in the breach than in the observance.

We regret sincerely that there should have been a disposition on the part of any English officer to treat the Australian players without the full courtesy they deserve. A little tact on both sides might have solved even such a huge difficulty as that to which we refer.

At the same time, while it is the general rule that the ground officials are responsible for the impartial use of that machine in the interests of each side, it is difficult to see how the hon. sec. of the Notts County Club could be out of order in superintending the arrangements.

To quote Othello, "I do perceive here a divided duty." By all means let us have this great question settled and for ever. Is it the duty of the secretary or the captain to see that the wicket is rolled?

Like the policeman in the Pirates of Penzance, a secretary's lot is often not a happy one. If it is a part of the captain's duty to attend to the roller, let him do it and thoroughly. We commend under these circumstances to his notice the sentiments of Captain Reece in the 'Bab Ballads' in answer to his coxswain, "I quite agree," he said, "O, Bill! It is my duty, and I will."

PAVILION GOSSIP

It would have been better, as many think, had the whole affair been kept within the bounds of the Trent Bridge ground, and it was certainly not the best of judgment on the part of the county authorities to make it public property. The absence of any provision at the luncheon tables for the Australian players showed faulty management and an apparent lack of hospitality which everyone will regret, but after all the colonial team were not worse treated than are English amateurs generally on county ground.

Everyone will regret that there was even the semblance of neglect to Murdoch and his comrades, but any one who knows much about the catering arrangements for cricket matches will bear me out that as a rule amateurs have to scramble for their luncheon on the majority of English grounds and almost to fight for a place at the tables with the general public. That such should be the case is a reflection I know on our management, but that it is so is unquestionable, and the way in which amateurs are neglected is, as a rule, a disgrace to many of our clubs whose guests they are.

That there was a reprehensible want of care in providing necessary accommodation for the Australians will be admitted. At the same time the disposition of their Captain to regard it as a deliberate insult would appear to be unworthy of a man of the world as Murdoch must be, unless there was more in the case than is set forth in the official explanation of the Notts Committee.

***The Australians might well have accepted the invitation of Mr William Wright, whom I know well as a thoroughly good sportsman, to dine with him on the second day, and their dignity would not have been compromised. The only humorous feature of this particular phase of the dispute is the difference of opinion between Murdoch and the Committee on the question of this same invitation.

The Committee say that the Australian captain declined it. Not so, says Murdoch: "I begged to be allowed to excuse myself." Is not this the same fine distinction that is said to exist between tweedledum and tweedledee?

The other question of the roller is such a mighty one that I feel utterly unable to treat it with becoming awe. I am personally most desirous of giving it all the importance it deserves, but the idea of Capt Holden, representing the majority of the law of Notts, the terror of the lawless 'larrikin', the autocrat of Trent Bridge, being ordered off the middle of the enclosure he rules with such severity is really too much for my nerves. It would be a sight to make the angels weep. As an historical cricket tableau it would be immense.

***While on the subject of historical tableaux, there is another that occurs to me in connection with this same business. I would respectfully suggest to Bonnor, who does seem to have been badly treated if the report in the Nottingham Express is correct, the chorus in H.M.S. Pinafore:.
"In spite of all temptations
To belong to other nations
He is an Englishman."

I know for a fact that Bonnor is proud of his English connections, and I believe he is thoroughly English in heart.

***No one will for a moment excuse any sort of slight to the Australian players, and if the account given by the Australian Secretary, who is himself a good fellow and certainly not of a meddling character, is correct they certainly were treated discourteously. But are they not themselves hyper-sensitive, a little too ready to take offence? A slight sprinkling of the suaviter in modo might, perhaps, be infused into their general proceedings with advantage.

***Last week I called attention to the highest score of the season . the 302 made by Mr F M Lucas for Horsham v Storrington on June 3. Since that time I am glad to see that Mr Lucas, who is, I believe, a cousin of A P of Surrey fame, and who has been tried more than once for his University, figures among those who have just qualified for mathematical honours at Cambridge.

***More anent the great run-getting performance of Barnes and Midwinter in the recent match between Marylebone Club and Ground v Leicestershire at Lord's. A correspondent, in reply to my inquiry as to the best previous feat of its kind, is good enough to call to my notice an achievement as late as last year which far eclipses that of Messrs G F Grace and I D Walker in 1870. He alludes to the 404 made by the two old Etonians . Mr W F Forbes and Lord Throwley . while together for Mr A E Fellowes's XI v Huntingdonshire on July 10th. I ought to have remembered it. None the less, J M, I thank thee.

***I am not going to repeat the trite saying about cricket and its eccentricities, for these are of daily occurrence. The performance though of the Cambridge eleven against Lancashire on Monday, more especially after their run-getting against the Australians, deserves more than passing notice. It is not often that seven wickets are down for nine runs in a good match, and it is open to question whether a University eleven has ever gained this distinction before.

In 1879 Notts got Derbyshire out for 16, and in the following year Surrey were also dismissed by the Nottingham eleven for the same total, but in both of these the total was more than that of Cambridge at the fall of the seventh wicket. But even this record of the Cantabs pales before that of M.C.C. and ground against Surrey at Lord's in 1871, when seven wickets, including that of Mr W G Grace, were down for no runs.

***At the request of the Secretary of the Marylebone Club, I am pleased to give publicity to another statement respecting 'the cricket scandal in Australia.' Alfred Shaw's denial is naturally of such importance that I can only repeat my regret at its late appearance.

"We, the undersigned, wish to state, with regard to the so-called cricket scandal in Australia, that we emphatically deny that there is any truth in the rumour that either we, or, as far as we know, any other member of the team, were offered a bribe to lose any of the Australian matches, nor did we hear any such report until after our arrival in England."

(Signed) ALFRED SHAW, Captain.
JOHN SELBY

The above statement was today voluntarily tendered by Shaw and Selby in person to the M.C.C. Committee in this their first appearance on Lord's Ground this season.
Lord's, June 12.

***So, after all, the match between England and Australians will not come off at Lord's on July 10, 11 and 12, as was hoped. The Surrey authorities had readily agreed to change the date of their match with Yorkshire at Sheffield on the same days, to assist the premier club in bringing off the proposed fixture.

The Yorkshire executive, though, could not see its way to alter the arrangements made at the conference of secretaries to the certain inconvenience of the large number of clubs who make their programmes in accordance with the original list. In consequence, the match will be M.C.C. and Ground v Australians, as first settled.

***Last week I called attention to an extraordinary performance of Mr A F J Ford, in clean bowling five wickets in an over of five balls. This was only in a minor match, and in quality it is hardly as good as that of Nash last Friday, in the first innings of Somersetshire at Manchester. He got four batsmen in an over of four balls. Is there any similar record in a county match?

THE OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ELEVENS

Judging by the form displayed by the Oxford and Cambridge elevens during the present season, the University match of 1882 promises to be more than usually interesting. Before the defeat of the Australians by Cambridge, the general opinion was that the odds were decidedly in favour of Oxford.

With the exception of C T Studd, the Cambridge men then appeared to have no dependable bowler; but since then things have changed. The performances of Ramsay in both innings of the Australian match prove that he is also a most dangerous bowler, and, in addition to possessing a very considerable twist from leg, he has gained much more command of pitch than we generally find in a similar style of bowling.

I should, therefore, fancy that Cambridge are the stronger in bowling, though they must mainly depend on the two I have mentioned, for their changes can hardly be termed even moderate. Smith I consider the next best bowler, though he was not played against the Australians, Watson being tried instead. Paravicini occasionally gets a wicket, but his bowling is very expensive, and the same may be said of Spencer.

On the other hand, Robinson, who is certainly the best bowler at Oxford, cannot last, but he is very likely to bowl two or three of the best Cambridge batsmen before he gets tired. Shaw, who has bowled well on one or two occasions, is considered the next best bowler, and is said to get a good break on the ball, Harrison seems almost to have lost his bowling, and Peake, though he bowls a good ball, is very expensive. Thornton, too, has not improved, and though useful as a change, he is very plain indeed. McLachlan, the Captain, requires some luck in his bowling as in his batting; but he frequently manages to separate the batsmen, when the others have tried in vain.

With regard to the batting, Oxford has a considerable advantage; if we pt the three best bats on each side against one another, viz., Leslie, Walker and Shaw, against the three brothers Studd, there is not much to choose, but Cambridge have a decided tail, while Oxford are good the whole way through. Whiting, Thornton, Kemp and Hamilton are all likely to make a large score, and Peake is a dangerous hitter.

Cambridge, on the other hand, has hardly a dangerous batsman after the three I have mentioned, though Bather showed in the Australian match that he possesses a strong defence, and will probably get his 'blue'. Maynard, Roe, Wright and Paravicini of the remaining batsmen are the most likely to get runs. Henery, too, at times hits well, but it is uncertain whether he will gain a place in the eleven.

In wicketkeeping Wright is as good as, if not superior to, Kemp, and the fielding on both sides is quite up to the average.

I do not think that too much stress ought to be laid on the fact of Cambridge having beaten the Australians. It was undoubtedly a fine performance, but it must be remembered that Oxford were defeated mainly by the brilliant score of Massie, and yet they did very creditably in both their innings.

With fine weather there ought to be some very large scores made in the match this year, for there are good batsmen on each side, and the bowling strength is inferior to that of the last few years.

One piece of advice the Oxford Captain might take with advantage, and that is to take more pains with the placing of his field. I heard an experienced cricketer remark that the other day in the match between Oxford and the Gentlemen of England, when Oxford were in the field there were only two men in their right places, and they were the umpires. However, he has plenty of time to correct this, and there is no reason why on June 26 he should not manage his side quite as well as his more experienced rival, G B Studd.

CORRESPONDENCE

SIR,. I have read the letter of a 'Surrey Veteran' with regret, because I think it must have been penned at the spur of the moment, and without his having given much attention to the subject about which he wrote.

Surely, sir, the committee may safely be left to themselves to choose the best eleven they can get, and I am certain that if the services of Messrs Game and Co could be obtained (and there were none better to be had) the committee would play them, but the 'Surrey Veteran' should remember that most of the amateurs of the South are gentlemen engaged in commercial pursuits in the City, and that, although they can often take a day for a small match, it is but seldom they can have three days in succession (as required for a county contest).

As regards Mr A P Lucas, the 'Surrey Veteran' had better have left him out of his complaints. He is a right-down good fellow, and is perfectly justified in playing for whom he pleases . so much the better for Surrey when they get him!!

The committee deserve infinite credit for the manner in which they have brought out within the last few years such colts as Maurice Read (who, I hope, will be in the Players' Eleven soon), Abel, Jones, Haden and others, and that the committee may be left to choose the best available eleven is the opinion of

Yours obediently,
A FREQUENTER OF THE OVAL

SIR,. I am preaching on patriotism, taking my text from 'Surrey Veteran's' letter, and quoting the words which he applies to Mr Lucas for not always playing, and italicising the words which he underscored in his letter. The words are, "But doubtless he has some good reason for so unpatriotic a performance." I wish Mr Lucas would always play; but you cannot command a gentleman's services, and he has a right to do as he pleases, and no man worked harder than he did in the Middlesex match or the Gloucestershire match.

Now I ask 'Surrey Veteran' this question, namely . How much patriotism do amateurs show who don't even take the trouble to come to the general meetings, don't move a little finger towards promoting good matches at The Oval in a season, never train or encourage a colt, don't do the hard work of the club ever, though some of their names are on the list of the committee.

Now I will tell 'Surrey Veteran' something. Nine years ago this July I went off to the Match Committee in utter disgust at the apathy of the amateurs towards young professionals, and worse than apathy, their running them down, and putting themselves and their friends in all matches when there was easy bowling, and at their great disinclination to go out and appear before a Yorkshire or Nottingham ring.

I have no hesitation in saying that the reign of the amateurs ruined the county, and I feel sure that Mr John Shuter, with the men which the Match Committee send him, will restore it, and I have no hesitation that playing Abel and Haden all through the season with strengthen that eleven more than the aid of all the butterfly cricketers who get runs against unknown men, and would, if they could, just play in one or two county matches, and shut out young professionals who are better than they are.

I do trust the Match Committee will stand as firm as adamant, and will be stone deaf against appeals from amateurs who want to pick and choose their matches. If amateurs can play cricket, let them come and show their form on their county ground in club matches, and if good enough, but not otherwise, let them have a turn sometimes as a reward for their work in the county. . Yours truly,
AN OLD BUFFER

THE SCORE BOOK (continued)

SURREY v GLOUCESTERSHIRE

In losing the toss they were placed at the outset at a great disadvantage, and an unfortunate strain a few overs after the start deprived them on the services of Jones, their best bowler. Despite the loss of the latter, Gloucestershire scored so slowly on the first day that they were in till with a quarter of time, having taken six hours to make 255 runs. Midwinter and Mr W G Grace of these contributed 132, and both got their runs well, with only one hard chance by the latter.

On Friday, on the wet wicket, Surrey lost three wickets for 14; but Mr Lucas and Read played such fine cricket that the probable follow-on was saved. The two batsmen while together put on 119 runs, and considering the state of the wicket this was a very fine performance. Read gave three chances from good hits, but his innings stamps him as one of the most rising batsmen of the day. Mr Lucas was in four hours for his runs, and there was not a mistake of any kind.

Gloucestershire went in a second time with an hour and five minutes left to bat, and Mr W G Grace, evidently unprepared for such a collapse, had changed, and before seven o'clock seven wickets were down for 45. Surrey, with only ten men to bat, and with the worst of the wicket, thus came well out of the drawn game.

AUSTRALIANS v NOTTINGHAMSHIRE

A plucky stand by Blackham and Palmer enabled the Australians, after losing five wickets for 30 runs, to reach a respectable total of 142. This proved to be 32 more than that of Nottingham, a result mainly due to the effective bowling of Garrett. Spofforth, owing to an injured hand, was unable to play on the third day, so that the burden on the bowling fell on Palmer [and Garrett], the latter of whom took five wickets for 41 runs.

On going in a second time, Bonnor, who was playing better cricket than was expected on this side, lent Murdoch useful assistance, but no one else except Jones could do much against the Nottingham bowling. Alfred Shaw was especially difficult on the heavy ground, and his analysis of 27 overs for 18 runs and four wickets was worthy of his best days.

During the short time left for play, Notts lost one of its best wickets, that of Selby, for 12 runs, and as they were at the finish left with 127 still to win and nine wickets to fall, they had, in the state the ground was, none the best of the draw.

LANCASHIRE v SOMERSETSHIRE

Lancashire succeeded in getting their opponents out twice within two hours and a quarter . another best on record, we should fancy. In their first innings Nash took four wickets in one over of four balls, and in all he bowled 63 [balls] for 14 runs and eight wickets. In the second innings Crossland delivered 46 balls for seven runs and six wickets. Lancashire won by an innings and 157 runs.

MIDDLESEX v YORKSHIRE

On Saturday, however, the wicket was so materially affected by the wet of the previous day, that the game went entirely in favour of the bowlers. The ground suited Burton so well that the last nine wickets added only 32 runs, and the innings of Yorkshire closed for 72. Burton's analysis was noteworthy, 123 balls for 20 runs and 7 wickets. Middlesex had only 42 to win, but Peate and Bates, supported by brilliant fielding, were almost irresistible, and the home team managed to pull through after a most exciting finish with only 3 wickets to fall.

MIDDLESEX v NOTTINGHAMSHIRE

Middlesex in the first innings were all dismissed for 32 (the third total under 40 in a county match this week), but in the second as the ground improved the scoring became fast, and the play showed a great improvement. With 178 to save defeat in an innings, Middlesex lost seven of its best wickets for 106 and the end seemed close at hand; Burton, however, made a rather unexpected stand with Mr Pearson, and the pair added 65 runs before they parted, the professional's 34 being considerably better than any of his previous records for the county.

Middlesex just failed to put their opponents in a second time, and were beaten by an innings and one run. Alfred Shaw and Shrewsbury made their first appearance at Lord's since the disagreement of last year. The former was quite as effective with the ball as of old, and his entire analysis showed 58 overs and 2 balls for 68 runs and 9 wickets.

YORKSHIRE v KENT

They began fairly well, thanks to Lord Harris and George Hearne, who had, at one time, 98 runs up for the first wicket, but afterwards made a most indifferent show, the last seven batsmen together only adding two runs. The ground, after the recent rains, was not in a condition to suit the batsmen, but considering the weakness of their bowling, did fairly well to get their opponents out for 172.

On Tuesday, as the wicket dried, the Kentish batsmen had little chance against the bowling of Bates and Peate, and they failed to get more than 39 of the 59 required to save the innings. The two slow bowlers of Yorkshire were so difficult that Kent were in and out within an hour and ten minutes. Peate got three wickets in one over ('the hat-trick'), but Bates was more successful, getting six batsmen at a cost of only 12 runs.

Mr F Lipscomb, a son of 'Bob Lipscomb', once a prominent member of the Kentish eleven, made his debut for the county in this match. He bowls fast round, and took three wickets for 25 runs. Yorkshire won by an innings and 20 runs.

LANCASHIRE v CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY

Mr C T Studd's slow round-arm bowling was so difficult, as the wicket was, that none of the Lancashire eleven, not by any means the best in the county, could exceed 18 runs, and they were all out for 90. Against this Cambridge fared even worse, as seven wickets were down for 9, and they were all out for 31, the smallest total of the year in a good match.

The weather only allowed a quarter of an hour's play on Tuesday, and when yesterday morning it was found that the wicket was under water, it was decided to give up the match altogether.

AUSTRALIANS v DERBYSHIRE

Derbyshire, with the advantage of first innings, could only make a poor show, and they were dismissed for 106, 66 of which were added by the last four wickets. Massie again showed his abilities as a fast run-getter, making 66 out of the first 85 runs in 55 minutes. Giffen, who had not been very successful in the more recent matches, with Blackham, showed that the Australian tail is much stronger than was at first thought, and, indeed, the feature of the batting in some of the later fixtures has been the stand made by the last batsmen.

Derbyshire had 186 to save the innings, but they made a worse show than at the first attempt, and were beaten by an innings and 109 runs. Spofforth was again very successful with the ball for the Australians.