CRICKET MAGAZINE

THE 1882 SEASON

Volume I, Number 8: Thursday, June 29, 1882

EDITORIAL: ENGLISH AND AUSTRALIAN CRICKET

A few days ago, and the idea that such a team as that which Mr Hornby led into the field on Thursday last would have to endure a defeat in an innings, would have been voted as at the very extreme of absurdity. That our amateur bowling was weak could hardly be gainsaid, and, indeed, there were many of opinion that for many years amateur cricket has never been at such a low ebb for bowlers as it has shown itself this season. But on all sides there was one verdict, that in batting the eleven chosen to oppose the Australians was exceptionally strong.

Some slight differences of opinion might have existed with regard to the credentials of perhaps one or two of the last choices, but taken as a whole the thankless task of selection was generally admitted to have been faithfully performed, and the only doubt in the public mind, so great was the confidence placed in them as a batting side, was as to whether the match would be finished within the allotted period of three days. Whatever uncertainty there may have been about their bowling, it should clearly be understood that not one word of uneasiness has ever been uttered as to any possible shortcomings with the bat.

It is much to be regretted that the indisposition of Mr A H Evans, last year's Oxford captain, should have taken place at such a short period prior to the match. There is still greater reason to deplore the policy of those to whom was entrusted the task of selecting a substitute in not replacing the only fast bowler on the side with another of the same pace. According to the universally accepted practice of cricket this was undoubtedly a mistake, but it is at the same time quite open to argument whether any alteration in the bowling forces of the English players would have made a material difference in the result.

We are quite prepared to admit that the Australian total might have been reduced had the Colonial batsmen been obliged to meet bowling of different pace, but it would be absurd to reason that the presence of Messrs Rotherham, Morton, or any other of the moderate amateur fast bowlers of the present season would have actually changed the result. There was unfortunately some reason to question the choice of one bowler, but it must be admitted that it was not the bowling so much as the batting which came to grief.

Even when the Australian innings had been completed for 334 there was no lack of confidence as to the ability of their opponents to reach or even exceed that total. There have been already and are sure still to be plenty of excuses for the break down of admittedly one of the strongest batting sides ever placed in a field. The wicket was sure to be held responsible by writers who are unable to account otherwise for a disappointing innings, but those who witnessed the play on Saturday would hardly be satisfied with any such explanation.

It would have been difficult to persuade an outsider that the batsmen who appeared to be so utterly paralysed by the Australian bowling were the flower of our English amateurs. The poor display of so many cricketers of undoubted reputation, as was only to be expected, has produced the keenest disappointment everywhere. It is no doubt galling to have to admit so decisive a reverse, but at the same time we may as well take our beating like men.

The Australians of course had all the best of the wicket in winning the toss, but on the form shown in this match they were the better eleven at every point. That the show of our players was correct no one will believe for a moment, but it will be well for us to recognise that the team Murdoch commands is much better all-round than we had expected from some of their earlier records. They were of course playing a winning game towards the finish, but at every point of the game they showed on this occasion at least a marked superiority.

It was the result of their own bad cricket, and not from any fault of the ground, that the second innings of the Gentlemen only amounted to 151 runs. Indeed there were only at the outside four members of the eleven who showed any confidence. The admission is no doubt an unpleasant one, but in all justice it must be owned that the better side won.

PAVILION GOSSIP

*****How circumstances alter cases. I know full well that the remark is in no way original, but it never applied more forcibly than to the surroundings of the match between the Gentlemen of England and the Australians. A week ago, and we were brimful of confidence with regard to the meeting. Whatever might be the weakness of our bowling, at least there was little to fear with regard to our batting and fielding, so said everybody. And now! What expressive little words they are to be sure.

*****It is very odd that the Australians should have beaten the Gentlemen on the second occasion of their meeting in precisely the same decisive fashion that they were defeated by the first picked eleven of English amateurs they met. Many will remember how the Gentlemen won at Prince's on June 18, 1878, by an innings and one run, and it is a singular coincidence that the Australians should have exactly turned the tables on Saturday last.

Of the English eleven at Prince's in 1878, Messrs Grace, Lucas, Hornby and Steel were the only ones who figured at the Oval last week, but no less than seven of the Australians took part in both matches, to wit, Murdoch, Bannerman, Spofforth, Garrett, Horan, Blackham and Boyle.

*****So much ink has been slung by capable as well as incapable writers with a view to account for the defeat of the Gentlemen, that my remarks will be brief. So much trouble has been taken to explain the ill success of our eleven, that it would perhaps be presumption of me to point out that one very important factor in the result seems to have been utterly ignored.

Qui s'excuse s'accuse is an old axiom. No doubt the worthy people who attribute the collapse of the Gentlemen to the worn wicket, who cry so lustily about the want of a fast bowler, may all be perfectly correct in their premises. With such plausible excuses it may be unbecoming of me to suggest that the Australian team had something, no doubt very very little, but still something to do, with the poor show of a picked eleven of English amateurs.

*****It may be satisfactory to a few to hug to themselves the small consolation that the wicket was worn, or that the team was ill chosen, but the public generally I fancy will be agreed that the Australians won by sheer good cricket, and that on the form of this match they were infinitely superior in batting, bowling and fielding.

Granted that they had the best of the wicket, this is one of the fortunes of the game. Granted that the English team might have been improved by the presence of a fast bowler, it may equally be pleaded that what bowling there was might have been better utilized, and that it was as much mistakes in the field as the want of a fast bowler that raised the Australian score to 334. And granted, for the sake of argument, that the wicket was worn, the wicket could in no way be accountable for the very feeble display of batting which marked some periods of the Gentlemen's second innings on Saturday.

As I think over the tameness of some of the batting at the close of the match, I recall Hamlet's words:.
"And the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought;
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action."

No one believes that it was the right form of many of the English team, but there it was. "'Tis true, 'tis true 'tis pity, and pity 'tis 'tis true."

*****A suggestion has already appeared that a return match should be played with a view to give the Gentlemen a chance of retrieving their laurels. Everyone would be delighted to hear of this second meeting, and I feel sure that the Australians would only been too pleased to meet their opponents of last week a second time, but they are more likely to throw up one of their later matches for this purpose than to alter their fixture on July 10 with the Marylebone Eleven, whom they are most anxious to meet.

*****Before leaving this rather unpleasant subject of the Australian match, it may be interesting to know that Mr R C Ramsay, who took Mr Evans's place and at Cambridge contributed so materially to the one reverse of the Colonial team, is himself an Australian. He was born in Queensland.

*****A few details with regard to the principal members of the Australian team up to and including their victory of Saturday last may be interesting. They have played 11 matches, winning seven, losing one and drawing three. They beat Oxford, Sussex, Surrey, Lancashire, Derbyshire, Yorkshire and Gentlemen of England, and drew with Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire and the Orleans Club.

The biggest innings of the side has been 643 against Sussex, and the smallest 75 against Orleans, while the highest innings hit against them was 271 by the same Club, and the lowest 48 by Surrey. Murdoch has made 863 runs in 16 completed innings, averaging 53.15 runs per innings. Massie has scored 621 runs in 17 innings, averaging 36.9. Blackham, 211 runs in 9 innings . an average of 23.4. Bannerman has scored 417 runs in 17 innings . an average of 24.19. Giffen, 336 in 15 innings, average 22.6; Horan, 219 runs in 11 innings, averaging 19.10; Bonnor, 222 in 9 innings, average 24.6.

In bowling Palmer has taken 57 wickets for 879 runs, average 15.34; Spofforth 43 wickets for 772 runs, average 17.41; Garrett 31 wickets for 507 runs, average 16.11; Boyle 25 wickets for 346 runs, average 13.21; and Giffen, 28 wickets for 385 runs, averaging 13.21.

*****What I hear, in brief.. That Midwinter has suddenly given up his engagement with the Marylebone Club, and leaves England in September for Australia 'for good'. That there is a chance of the Australians meeting Shaw's Eleven in September in London. That the match between the Australian team and Northumberland is likely to be altered to Australians v North of England.

*****I have heard many an ingenious explanation of the causes which have conduced to a batsman's downfall. None though can claim the simplicity of Morley's reply as to the character of the ball which bowled him in the match with the Australians on the Trent Bridge ground at Nottingham. This is Morley's account of the ball: "It beat me in the pitch, it beat me in the pace, and it beat me in the flight."

*****A correspondent who saw Mr W G Grace's eleven in the field at Chichester suggests that the Untied would be a better title than the United. He foresees the necessity of an explanation by the suggestion that what he noticed of their fielding was very loose.

*****Cambridge won the forty-eighth Inter-University match at Lord's yesterday easily by seven wickets. Of course everyone knew what the result would be, and everyone will congratulate himself on his shrewdness. It was the weakness of the Oxford bowling as much as anything else that contributed to their defeat. Many of us who saw the play yesterday were wondering whether the two Oxford fast bowlers were the only ones on the side. The play all-round certainly confirmed the opinion I expressed some time ago, that the bowling of both teams would be on the whole below the average of Inter-University matches.

CORRESPONDENCE

SURREY COUNTY CRICKET

'A Surrey Veteran' is accredited with complaining of Mr A P Lucas. On the contrary he is evidently a great admirer of him, judging from his opinion that he is the best 'all-round cricketer in the world'. I myself regard Mr Lucas as the finest batsman of the present day, and it is this very fact which prompts me (and which should prompt all who profess to support him) to join with 'A Surrey Veteran' in wishing fervently for his more frequent appearance on behalf of his county.

'An Old Buffer' has no hesitation in saying 'that the reign of amateurs ruined the county'. This is scarcely the most happy remark to make, seeing that no less than seven of these 'enormities' are playing against Oxford, six played against Cambridge, and five against the Australians, Middlesex and Gloucestershire.

Yours faithfully, A SURREY JUNIOR

GENTLEMEN OF ENGLAND v AUSTRALIA

2nd, I consider the composition of the Gentlemen's team as most unwise. My idea of a Gentlemen of England Eleven is that of mature cricketers with great experience, men of 28 or 30 possibly, with one or two at the most of the most distinguished University men to fill up. This Eleven was literally swamped with unripe players from Oxford and Cambridge, when such men as Dr E M Grace, Messrs I D Walker, Vernon, Thornton, Renny-Tailyour, J Shuter and last, not least, Lord Harris were standing out.

The public, by the way they fall down and worship University cricket, have prepared for themselves this disgraceful defeat. I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
HERBERT CHADS
122, Edgware-road, June 25, 1882

LONG-STOPPING

May I ask if you or any of your readers can explain the modern freak of doing without a long-stop?

Often I have noticed that after most excellent close fielding in all positions, and causing maiden after maiden, away goes the ball past the wicketkeeper for three or four, and so doing away with the good fielding.

A case in point was at the Oval yesterday, Oxford scoring 12 byes and 6 leg-byes out of 78 runs, so that a long-stop would have certainly reduced the score by 12, and possibly by 18!!!

Such figures speak for themselves, and be a wicketkeeper as good as he possibly can, it is impossible to stop some of the balls that he thinks will hit the wicket, but which, in fact, just misses it.

Will Mr J Shuter take a hint from this and provide a long-stop? . I am, Sir,

T EDWARDS
Blackheath, Kent, June 20.

TO THE SURREY AND OXFORD ELEVENS

Gents all, this is skittles, not cricket. It is most unfair to wicketkeepers to abolish long-stop to fast bowling, and the byes travelling into space cause a qualm like sea sickness to the spectators. . I am, Sir,

AN OLD BUFFER

THE SCORE BOOK

AUSTRALIANS v GENTLEMEN OF ENGLAND

Financially the match was a great success, but in its equally important object, the display of English cricket, it was a conspicuous failure. The sudden indisposition of Mr A H Evans left the eleven without a fast bowler, but the comparative weakness of the eleven in bowling was thought to be fully compensated for by their general excellence in batting and fielding.

Murdoch, in winning the toss, gained a decided advantage in the wicket, and the out-cricket of the Gentlemen was so weak that the Australians were able to make a very creditable total of 334. The want of a fast bowler was evident, but at the same time what changes there were had not a fair chance. Mr Steel was kept on far too long, considering how plain his delivery was. Mr Ramsay might fairly have been tried a great deal more, and it was a matter for general surprise that Mr W G Grace should hardly have been allowed a ball until a long innings was nearly over.

The fielding, too, fell decidedly below expectations. Mr Lucas made two fine catches, one, that which disposed of Bonnor, as good as has ever been seen, but generally the display was not up to the mark, and Mr Leslie's misjudgement of the chance Bonnor gave when he had got only seven cost the Gentlemen quite a hundred runs.

As to the batting of the English eleven, the mildest that can be said is that it was altogether unworthy of the individual reputations of many of the players engaged, and that collectively it was much below the ordinary standard of English amateur cricket. Messrs Grace, Patterson, Hornby and Steel played with pluck, but otherwise there was a noticeable lack of confidence, and several of the team were conspicuous failures. That it was their right form no one believes, but that the batting was a woeful disappointment everyone will admit.

Giffen on Friday night was difficult to see, but the wicket, though certainly worn, did not play so badly as has been stated, and it was want of nerve more than anything else that lost the game. The Australians won by an innings and one run, and on the form of this match they were the better team at every point. In 1878 the Gentlemen beat the Australians by an innings and one run.

KENT v SUSSEX

Lords Harris and Throwley put on 208 for the first wicket of Kent, but both were missed more than once, and the Sussex fielding on the first day was discreditable to a county team. The bowling of Lillywhite, Seneschal and Juniper together cost Sussex 275 runs, and none of them took a wicket. Kent won by an innings and 175 runs, and their victory is the more noteworthy, as the eleven was not by any means a representative one.

Lord Harris's hitting was exceptionally fine. His feat, in conjunction with Lord Throwley, in making 208 for the first wicket has only once, we believe, been beaten in a good match . on the memorable occasion when Messrs W G Grace and B B Cooper put on 283 runs for the Gentlemen against the Players of the South at the Oval in 1869.

M.C.C. AND GROUND v OXFORD UNIVERSITY

Seven of the Marylebone eleven got into double figures, and their total of 224 was enough to give them the victory by an innings and three runs. The chief feature of the match was the excellent all-round cricket shown by Flowers for the Marylebone Club. He was not only the highest scorer on the side, but took ten of the Oxford wickets at a cost of only 85 runs.

DERBYSHIRE v LANCASHIRE

OXFORD v CAMBRIDGE

Oxford gained the advantage of first innings, but despite the rain on the first day, the wicket played well throughout. Oxford, thanks to Mr Shaw, began with a creditable score of 165, but their bowling was not good enough to dismiss Cambridge for a lesser number, with the ground in anything like run-getting order, and the Cantabs were helped by more than one mistake in the field.

Mr G B Studd had some luck in his 120, but his hitting was very clean and well-timed, and altogether he is to be congratulated on his innings of three figures . a rare feat in Inter-University matches. Mr Henery, who filled the eleventh place in the team, justified his position by a useful 61, in which he showed some good hitting.

It hardly looked on the second night as if Oxford would head their previous score; but Mr Kemp, the wicketkeeper, came to the rescue with a very well-got innings of 82, and this made the game again interesting.

When Cambridge went in with 148 to win, there was some slight chance of a close finish, but the bowling of Oxford was so plain that the runs came quickly. The two fast bowlers, Peake and Robinson, were kept on unchanged until nearly all the runs had been got . peculiar policy, considering how the score rose. Mr C T Studd, after the first few overs, played in his best form, and everyone will be glad to find him once more in luck. Mr Lacey, too, batted in good free style, and, indeed, his form was as good as any in the match.

Cambridge won easily by seven wickets, and won on their merits. Ramsay was a complete failure as a bowler on this occasion, as his two wickets cost 91 runs, while C T Studd's nine realised 100 runs. As we predicted, the Oxford bowling proved to be very moderate, and all round Cambridge were decidedly the better eleven. They have won 24 matches, Oxford 22, and two have been drawn. Mr G B Studd's 120 is the highest score in the Inter-University match, with the exception of Mr Yardley's 130 for Cambridge in 1872.

AUSTRALIANS v UNITED ELEVEN

The Australians were in until nearly the close of the second afternoon for 501, and Bannerman was at the wickets all the first day, for 76 not out. Read, of Surrey, played fine cricket each time, but otherwise the Colonial bowlers had things very much their own way, and in the second innings four of the United made 49 out of 67 from the bat.

YORKSHIRE v NOTTINGHAMSHIRE

Morley, too, owing to an injury to his foot, was only able to bowl a few overs, so that Notts were altogether out of luck. The Yorkshiremen were mostly indebted to Lockwood, Ulyett and Hall for their score of 264, and the Nottingham team found the bowling of Bates and Peate so puzzling that they were dismissed twice for an aggregate of 291.

Yorkshire won by eight wickets. Bates and Peate between them took nineteen of the twenty Nottingham wickets. Peate's eleven wickets cost 114, Bates's eight, 101 runs.