CRICKET MAGAZINE

THE 1882 SEASON

Volume I, Number 9: Thursday, July 6, 1882

JOHN McCARTHY BLACKHAM

John McCarthy Blackham, whose portrait we reproduce through the kindness of the proprietors of the Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News, is a Victorian by birth. He was born at Fitzroy, a suburb of Melbourne, on the 11th of May, 1855, and has consequently just completed his twenty-seventh year. The first club with which he was associated was the Carlton Club of Melbourne, the nursery of many leading Victorian players. It was as a batsman that Blackham was first fancied, and his appearance as a wicketkeeper may perhaps be described as something of an accident.

The effective manner in which he took the ball at practice on the collapse of a scratch match, gave him his first chance as a wicketkeeper for the second eleven of his club. Despite the excellence of his show there, he could not secure a permanent position in the first team, and it was not until his undoubted merits were recognised on the occasion of a Press match in Melbourne, by Mr John Conway, the manager of the first eleven which visited England, that he got anything of an opening.

Indeed it is to Conway's timely recognition of his skill with the gloves that Blackham attributes his present fame as a cricketer. At that time Conway was not only one of the leading players of Victoria, but the captain of the principal club of the Colony, the South Melbourne. As Blackham was not able to secure a place in the first eleven of Carlton, he readily accepted Conway's proposal to join the South Melbourne, and it was with that body that he first acquired fame as a wicketkeeper.

One of his first games for South Melbourne was in the celebrated 'century' match, and on this occasion he was singularly successful, taking five wickets in the first and two in the second innings, besides scoring 65 and 10. This performance so far established his reputation that in 1874 he was selected to represent Victoria against New South Wales, the same match we believe in which Horan made his first appearance.

At first, opinions in Australia were divided as to whether Murdoch or Blackham was the better wicketkeeper. Even on the occasion of the first Australian visit here there were some critics who adjudged Murdoch to be little if at all inferior to Blackham's performances then, though soon left no doubt as to his superiority, and for some years he has been universally regarded by Australians at the wicketkeeper of the day.

Blackham still maintains his connection with the South Melbourne Club, and in addition he is undoubtedly, if not the most stylish, one of the most useful batsmen in Victoria. In the last Inter-Colonial at Sydney, he scored 99, and his average for the Australian season just finished exceeded 30 runs.

He has been over in England with each of the three Australian elevens, and has always proved himself to be one of the very best players of the party. As a bat he is now more reliable than on either of the two previous visits, and on more than one occasion he has proved himself to be more useful than some of the more fancied batsmen in the team, notably at Nottingham, where his first score of 56 not out on a difficult wicket practically saved his side.

That he can field is shown by the fact that in one of the most important matches of last season in Australia, when unable to keep wicket, he gained the trophy for the best fielding of the match. It is as a wicketkeeper though that he will generally be known, and we make bold to say he has not a superior. He stands up without the slightest fear, no matter how fast the bowling. There is no pretence or show about his keeping, but he takes every kind of ball with the greatest ease, and on the leg-side he is surer than any one we have ever seen.

A sore throat prevented his taking part in some of the matches of the present tour, and he was very much missed. It was, indeed, the want of a thoroughly good man at the wicket that helped in some small degree to produce the one defeat the present Australian eleven have suffered. Even among the picked players who form that team, Blackham can claim to have no superior as an all-round cricketer.

To the curious it may be interesting to know that he is 5 feet 9½ inches in height, and 10st 12lb in weight.

AUSTRALIANS v LEICESTERSHIRE (not first-class)

Parnham is a slow left-hand round-arm bowler, and in both innings he was singularly successful. In the first he got nine wickets for 68, in the second six wickets for 61 runs. It was undoubtedly a very fine performance; but the ground helped him considerably. The Australian batsmen were apparently over-confident, and, forsaking their usual caution, let out at him, fifteen of the eighteen wickets which fell to the bowler being caught.

Wheeler, who, it may be remembered, played two excellent innings against the first Australian team at Leicester, was again the highest scorer for the county, and, considering the form shown by the Australian players, Leicestershire's defeat by 74 runs was in no way a disgrace. Score and analyses:.
(Potted scores) AUSTRALIANS 106 (Parnham 9/68) and 116 (M'Donnell 25, Horan 28; Parnham 6/61). LEICESTERSHIRE 43 (Spofforth 5/24, Palmer 5/15) and 105 (Wheeler 38; Spofforth 7/54). Australians won by 74 runs.

GENTLEMEN v PLAYERS

The substitution of Read of Surrey for Shrewsbury, who was otherwise engaged, was the only alteration in the original list of Players, while the Gentlemen were the same as against the Australians, excepting that Lord Harris played for Mr G B Studd, and a fast bowler, Mr H Rotherham, took the place of Mr R C Ramsay.

Rain made the wicket a little slow on Thursday for the Players, and the cricket on the first day was tedious, thirteen wickets only producing 195 runs. In the first innings of the Gentlemen the fourth wicket fell for 91, but the last seven wickets collapsed surprisingly, and the innings was over for 105. Mr Lucas was in two hours and three-quarters for 20, and on the second morning he was at one time at the wickets an hour without scoring.

An excellent defensive innings of 65 by Barlow, and some very clean hitting by Flowers to the tune of 50, enabled the Players to reach a second total of 207. Had the first batsmen in the second innings of the Gentlemen played with ordinary caution, they might have had an outside chance of pulling through; but they lost three wickets for eight runs, and despite some very plucky and good cricket by Lord Harris and Mr Hornby, the Players won by 74 runs.

Bates took seven of the Gentlemen's wickets for 68 runs, and on the other side Mr C Studd was credited with eight wickets for 96. Flowers fully justified his appearance in the Players' eleven at the Oval. He was the highest scorer, with an aggregate of 82 runs, and in the second innings of the Gentlemen he took four wickets for 20 runs.

EDITORIAL: AMATEURS AND PROFESSIONALS

The poor display of the strong batting team which represented the Gentlemen against the Australians really was hardly to be attributable to any fault of the ground. Such an excuse may have satisfied a few superficial critics, but no such plea could possibly be urged for the second defeat the Gentlemen sustained on the Oval this season.

This time there could not be any tangible objection either to the composition of the eleven or to the state of the ground. The fast bowler whose absence was so properly regretted against the Australians had been duly secured, and there was certainly nothing in the wicket to prevent the success of the Gentlemen, even when they went in with 238 to win. The loss of such sterling batsmen as Mr Frank Penn and the Hon Ivo Bligh just at the present time is, of course, to be regretted, but it would certainly appear as if the undoubted supremacy so long enjoyed by the Gentlemen is in danger of being destroyed.

The admission that much of the success which has attended them for the last fourteen or fifteen years has been due to the exceptional skill of one phenomenal cricketer is, perhaps, an unpleasant one, but it is none the less a fact. The history of these matches will show how much the Gentlemen have been indebted to Mr W G Grace.

Both in batting and bowling he has been the mainstay of Amateur cricket. He has either broken the bowling of the Players and made it easy for the rest of the team, or if he has failed in this, which has been very seldom, he has been accountable for a large proportion of the Players' wickets. It was, of course, not to be expected that his extraordinary powers would last for ever, and now that he is a little less reliable in scoring, as well as in bowling, Amateur cricket is already beginning to suffer appreciably.

It remains to be seen how correct our estimate is, but at the present time it seems as if the relative positions enjoyed by Amateur and Professional players for some years are about to undergo a change. For a long time their superiority in batting has enabled the Gentlemen to make up for the advantage possessed by their opponents in bowling. In this respect though there is, it must be admitted, now very little disparity. The last two or three years have produced a great improvement in the batting of Professional players, and now there is no lack of bowlers who are also reliable batsmen. Conspicuous instances are easily to be found in Barlow, Barnes, Flowers, Midwinter and Bates . all of them dangerous batsmen as well as effective bowlers.

In batting and fielding just now the difference is imperceptible, but in bowling the Players have an immense advantage, and it is open to question whether for many years Amateur bowling has been so weak. There was with the exception of Mr C T Studd hardly a bowler above the average in the two University elevens of this year. At the present time, too, there is not a fast bowler among the Amateurs who can be considered as really reliable.

The experience of the match just over at Lord's is so far satisfactory in that it shows the form of the Gentlemen to be better than their two recent appearances at The Oval would have led anyone to believe. The incidents of that game though do not affect the basis of our argument that amateur cricket on the whole is not quite as good as it was two or three years ago.

PAVILION GOSSIP

Sir,. Your correspondent under Pavilion Gossip has, I should say, a very small knowledge of cricket, for the fielding of the United Eleven at Chichester was exceptionally good, and not as he styles it loose. You have made the same mistake as other papers in calling the eleven Mr W G Grace's, as I did not get up the team, and had nothing to do with it as far as arrangements went.

Yours truly, W G GRACE

*****I have the very greatest respect for Mr Grace in every condition of life, but I cannot help thinking that he wants a little of the spirit of humour. If he had read my remarks a little more carefully, he would have seen that I myself never expressed an opinion of any kind on the fielding at Chichester.

Personally, from actual observation, I could say nothing of the match, nor indeed, I suppose, could the facetious gentleman who perpetrated the joke at the expense of the United Eleven. It was a poor little attempt at fun, and I am sorry that Mr Grace should have taken it for a moment in any other light. At the same time, I really think that his grievance lies with the management of the Chichester ground, which did actually advertise the match with the high-sounding title of 'Australians v England, selected by Mr W G Grace'.

Mr Grace, by the way, adds that he is going himself to get up the United Eleven to oppose the Australians at Tunbridge Wells on August 31 and following days. If so, Murdoch may expect to have it rather warm.

*****A week or two back, in commenting on a feat of Nash's, the Lancashire bowler, in taking four Somersetshire wickets in an over, I asked for any similar performances in first-class matches. A correspondent (Mr R Green) writes me as follows:.

"The nearest approach to this occurred in the match, Surrey v England, at the Oval on August 17, 1863, in an over from George Bennett ('The Farmer') of Kent. From the first ball, H H Stephenson was stumped by Biddulph, from the second Caffyn was run out through a splendid return by Mr Kelson from cover-point, the third bowled Mr E Dowson, and the fourth settled Griffith, who was caught by Mr E M Grace. At the time all these disasters happened, the score was 140 for one wicket."

*****Last week, I mentioned the probability that Murdoch and his men would meet Shaw's Australian eleven in London. I believe that there is every chance of the match coming off at the Oval in the second week of September. Their two games in Australia found the elevens so well matched that their meeting would be sure to be productive of great interest, and would give considerable eclat to the last appearance of the Colonial team in London.

*****It was a very great performance of Messrs A P Lucas and C T Studd to put on as they did 204 runs for the Gentlemen against the Players at Lord's on Monday on the fall of the second wicket. This is one run more than Messrs W G Grace and A J Webbe secured for the first wicket of the Gentlemen in the same match at Lord's in 1875.

It is, I believe, only twice on record that two amateurs have each made a hundred in one innings of this particular match. The first case was at the Oval in 1870, when Mr W G Grace scored 215, Rev W B Money 109, not out; the second at Lord's in 1876, when Mr Grace scored 169 and A W Ridley 103.

*****The eccentricities of cricket are fortunately for the popularity of the game of almost daily occurrence. On June 1 and 2 at Lord's, Midwinter and Barnes while they were together put on 454 runs against all the bowlers of Leicestershire, Parnham included. And yet that professional so utterly puzzled the same Australian team which had scored 501 at Chichester, at Leicester on Thursday and Friday, that they were dismissed twice for totals of 106 and 116.

Parnham is a slow left-hand bowler, and on this occasion he took fifteen wickets at a cost of 129 runs. A thoroughly good judge of the game, who had the very best possible opportunity of watching the play, tells me that the ground had very much to do with the success of the bowling, more indeed than the papers have represented.

*****The news that Mr A W Sclater, only a few years ago a prominent member of the Sussex eleven, has been accidentally shot in Australia, will be received with regret by those who remember him as a cricketer. As recently as 1880 he figured in the County team, and during that season he was only second to James Lillywhite in the bowling averages. From his great height his slow bowling was at times difficult to play, and as his delivery was also high, on a wicket to render him any help, he was often very successful. I forget his exact height, but I think he was the tallest cricketer I have ever seen, and unless I am mistaken, he could have given even the Australian giant Bonnor an inch.

*****Blackham, I hear, has injured his arm so much that he is not likely to be able to help the Australians for some little time; meanwhile Bonnor is trying his hand at the wicket.

SCOREBOOK

AUSTRALIANS v NORTHAMPTONSHIRE WITH ALFRED SHAW (not first-class)

In the second innings of the county the two old Cantabs, the brothers Pigg, showed some good cricket, but after the score at one time showed 57 for three wickets, the innings closed for 68, and the Australians won by an innings and 80 runs. Palmer's bowling was the most noteworthy feature on the Australian side. His analyses showed 38 overs and 3 balls, 18 maidens, 56 runs, 10 wickets. Murdoch's team have now played 14 matches, of which ten have been won, three drawn and one lost.
(Potted scores) NORTHAMPTONSHIRE XI 122 (H Pigg 26; Palmer 4/34) and 68 (H Pigg 22, C Pigg 24; Palmer 6/22). AUSTRALIANS 270 (Giffen 51, Bonnor 58). Australians won by an innings and 80 runs.

SURREY v SUSSEX

The feature of the match was the excellent batting of the Surrey captain, Mr John Shuter. He hit quite as freely as of old, and everyone will be pleased to see him again in the vein for run-getting. Pooley's wicketkeeping, too, deserves special praise. In the second innings of Sussex he had a hand in the downfall of five batsmen, three caught and two stumped. Surrey won by nine wickets.

GENTLEMEN v PLAYERS

Peate had not recovered from the sprained ankle which compelled him to leave the field at The Oval on Saturday, and Morley was also unable to play. Substitutes had consequently to be found for them in Fothergill and Scotton, and this pair, with Selby and Shrewsbury, represented the Players instead of Midwinter, Peate, M Read and Hill. On the Gentlemen's side there were also four changes, Messrs Leatham, Morton, G B Studd and Royle taking the places of Messrs Tylecote, Rotherham, Patterson and Read.

The Gentlemen were more in luck than in the two recent matches at the Oval, and in winning the toss at the outset they gained the confidence which was sadly wanting on the Surrey ground. They began badly in losing Messrs Grace and Hornby for only thirty-two, but Messrs Lucas and C Studd did a splendid performance, adding 204 runs to the score while they were together, the longest stand ever made, we believe, in this match.

Peate's bowling was of course very much missed by the Players, and Fothergill was only a poor substitute for Morley on the true and fast wicket. Still, the batting of the Gentlemen presented a marked contrast to the poor display at the Oval. Messrs Lucas and C Studd both played brilliant cricket, and Mr Steel hit freely when the edge was taken off the bowling.

It was thought that the Players would make in their turn a long score, but though there were nine double figures, Ulyett's 23 was the highest contribution, and the total only reached 163, Messrs Steel and Morton each taking four wickets, the former for 78, the latter for 48 runs.

In their second innings the Players, although they had to bat during part of the time in a very bad light, made a much better show. Ulyett, Barnes and Bates all hit well, but Shrewsbury's play was much the best on the side, and he carried out his bat for a really excellent score of 47. Rain prevented the Gentlemen going in to make the 77 wanted to win till five o'clock, but they got them easily, and won by eight wickets. The Players have not won at Lord's since 1874.