Cricket
From Britannica 11th Edition (1911) Cricket. The game of cricket may be called the national summer pastime of the English race. The etymology of the word itself is the subject of much dispute. The Century Dictionary connects with O. Fr. criquet, “a stick used as a mark in the game of bowls,” and denies the connexion with A.S. crice or cryce, a staff. A claim has also been made for cricket, meaning a stool, from the stool at which the ball was bowled, while in the wardrobe account of King Edward I. for the year 1300 (p. 126) is found an allusion to a game called creag. Skeat, in his Etymological Dictionary, states that the word is probably derived from A.S. crice (repudiated by the first authority quoted), the meaning of which is a staff, and suggests that the “et” is a diminutive suffix; the word is of the same origin as “crutch.” Finally the New English Dictionary traces the O. Fr. criquet, defined by Littré as “jeu d’addresse,” to M. Flem. Krick, Krüke, baston à s’appuyer, quinette, potence.
History.—In a MS. of the middle of the 13th century, in the King’s library, 14 Bv, entitled Chronique d’Angleterre, depuis Ethelberd jusqu’à Hen. III., there is found a grotesque delineation of two male figures playing a game with a bat and ball. This is undoubtedly the first known drawing of what was destined to develop into the scientific cricket of modern times. The left-hand figure is that of the batsman, who holds his weapon upright in the right hand with the handle downwards. The right-hand figure shows the catcher, whose duty is at once apparent by the extension of his hands. In another portion of the same MS., however, there is a male figure pointing a bat towards a female figure in the attitude of catching, but the ball is absent. In a Bodleian Library MS., No. 264, dated the 18th of April 1344, and entitled Romance of the Good King Alexander, fielders for the first time appear in addition to the batsman and bowler. All the players are monks (not female figures, as Strutt misinterprets their dress in his Sports and Pastimes), and on the extreme left of the picture, the bowler, with his cowl up, poises the ball in the right hand with the arm nearly horizontal. The batsman comes next with his cowl down, a little way only to the right, standing sideways to the bowler with a long roughly-hewn and slightly-curved bat, held upright, handle downwards in the left hand. On the extreme right come four figures—with cowls alternately down and up, and all having their hands raised in an attitude to catch the ball. It has been argued that the bat was always held in the left hand at this date, since on the opposite page of the same MS. a solitary monk is figured with his cowl down, and also holding a somewhat elongated oval-shaped implement in his left hand; but it is unsafe to assume that the accuracy of the artist can be trusted.
The close roll of 39 Edw. III. (1365), Men. 23, disparages certain games on account of their interfering with the practice of archery, where the game of cricket is probably included among the pastimes denounced as “ludos inhonestos, et minus utiles aut valentes.” In this instance cricket was clearly considered fit for the lower orders only, though it is evident from the entry in King Edward’s wardrobe account, already mentioned, that in 1300 the game of creag was patronized by the nobility. Judging from the drawings, it can only be conjectured that the game consisted of bowling, batting and fielding, though it is known that there was an in-side and an out-side, for sometime during the 15th century the game was called “Hondyn or Hondoute,” or “Hand in and Hand out.” Under this title it was interdicted by 17 Edw. IV. c. 3 (1477-1478), as one of those illegal games which still continued to be so detrimental to the practice of archery. By this statute, any one allowing the game to be played on his premises was liable to three years’ imprisonment and £20 fine, any player to two years’ imprisonment and £10 fine, and the implements to be burnt. The inference that hand in and hand out was analogous to cricket is made from a passage in the Hon. Daines Barrington’s Observations on the more Ancient Statutes from Magna Charta to 21 James I. cap. 27. Writing in 1766, he comments thus on the above statute, viz.: “This is, perhaps, the most severe law ever made against gaming, and some of these forbidden sports seem to have been manly exercises, particularly the handyn and handoute, which I should suppose to be a kind of cricket, as the term hands is still retained in that game.”
The word “cricket” occurs about the year 1550. In Russell’s History of Guildford it appears there was a piece of waste land in the parish of Holy Trinity in that city, which was enclosed by one John Parish, an innholder, some five years before Queen Elizabeth came to the throne. In 35 Elizabeth (1593) evidence was taken before a jury and a verdict returned, ordering the garden to be laid waste again and disinclosed. Amongst other witnesses John Derrick, gent., and one of H.M.’s coroners for Surrey, aetat. fifty-nine, deposed he had known the ground for fifty years or more, and “when he was a scholler in the free school of Guildford, he and several of his fellowes did runne and play there at crickett and other plaies.” In the original edition of Stow’s Survey of London (1598) the word does not occur, though he says, “The ball is used by noblemen and gentlemen in tennis courts, and by people of the meaner sort in the open fields and streets.”
Some noteworthy references to the game may be cited. In Giovanni Florio’s dictionary A Worlde of Wordes most Copious and Exact, published in Italy in 1595 and in London three years later, squillare is defined as “to make a noise as a cricket, to play cricket-a-wicket and be merry.” Sir William Dugdale states that in his youth Oliver Cromwell, who was born in 1599, threw “himself into a dissolute and disorderly course,” became “famous for football, cricket, cudgelling and wrestling,” and acquired “the name of royster.” In Randle Cotgrave’s Dictionary of French and English, dated 1611, Crosse is translated “crosier or bishop’s staffe wherewith boys play at cricket,” and Crosser “to play at cricket.”
Among the earliest traces of cricket at public schools is an allusion to be found in the Life of Bishop Ken by William Lisle Bowles (1830). Concerning the subject of this biography, who was admitted to Winchester on the 13th of January 1650/1, it is said “on the fifth or sixth day, our junior ... is found for the first time attempting to wield a cricket bat.” In 1688 a “ram and bat” is charged in an Etonian’s school bill, but it is possible this may only refer to a cudgel used for ram-baiting. In The Life of Thomas Wilson, Minister of Maidstone, published anonymously in 1672, Wilson having been born in 1601 and dying in or about 1653, occurs the following passage (p. 40): “Maidstone was formerly a very profane town, in as much as I have seen morrice-dancing, cudgel-playing, stool-ball, crickets, and many other sports openly and publicly indulged in on the Lord’s Day.” Cricket is found enumerated as one of the games of Gargantua in The Works of Rabelais, translated in 1653 by Sir Thomas Urchard (Urquhart), vol. i. ch. xxii. p. 97. In a poem entitled The Mysteries of Love and Eloquence or the Arts of Wooing and Complimenting (1658), by Edward Phillips, John Milton’s nephew, the mistress of a country bumpkin when she goes to a fair with him says “Would my eyes had been beaten out of my head with a cricket ball.” The St Alban’s Cricket Club was founded in 1661, one of its earliest presidents being James Cecil, 4th earl of Salisbury (1666-1694).
In 1662 John Davies of Kidwelly issued his translation of Adam Olearius’ work entitled The Voyages and Travels of the Ambassadors from the Duke of Holstein to the Grand Duke of Muscovy, and the King of Persia. Begun in the year 1633 and finished in 1639. On page 297 is a description of the exercises indulged in by the Persian grandees in 1637, and the statement is made that “They play there also at a certain game, which the Persians call Kuitskaukan, which is a kind of Mall, or Cricket.” In the Clerkenwell parish book of 1668 the proprietor of the Rum Inn, Smithfield, is found rated for a cricket field.
The chaplain of H.M.S., “Assistance,” Rev. Henry Teonge, states in his diary that during a visit to Antioch on the 6th of May 1676, several of the ship’s company, accompanied by the consul, rode out of the city early and amongst other pastimes indulged in “krickett.” During the first half of the 18th century the popularity of the game increased and is frequently mentioned by writers of the time, such as Swift, who alludes sneeringly to “footmen at cricket,” D’Urfey, Pope, Soame Jenyns, Strype in his edition of Stow’s Survey of London, and Arbuthnot in John Bull, iv. 4, “when he happened to meet with a football or a match at cricket.”
In 1748 it was decided that cricket was not an illegal game under the statute 9 Anne, cap. 19, the court of king’s bench holding “that it was a very manly game, not bad in itself, but only in the ill use made of it by betting more than ten pounds on it; but that was bad and against the law.” Frederick Louis, prince of Wales, died in 1751 from internal injuries caused by a blow from a cricket ball whilst playing at Cliefden House. Games at this period were being played for large stakes, ground proprietors and tavern-keepers farming and advertising matches, the results of which were not always above suspicion. The old Artillery Ground at Finsbury was one of the earliest sites of this type of fixture. Here it was that the London Club—formed about 1700—played its matches. The president was the prince of Wales, and many noblemen were among its supporters. It flourished for more than half a century. One of the very earliest full-scores kept in the modern fashion is that of the match between Kent and All England, played on the Artillery Ground on the 18th of June 1744.
Cricket, however, underwent its most material development in the southern counties, more especially in the hop-growing districts. It was at the large hop-fairs, notably that of Weyhill, to which people from all the neighbouring shires congregated, that county matches were principally arranged.
The famous Hambledon Club lasted approximately from 1750 to 1791. Its matches were played on Broad Half-Penny and Windmill Downs, and in its zenith the club frequently contended with success against All England. The chief players were more or less retainers of the noblemen and other wealthy patrons of cricket. The original society was broken up in 1791 owing to Richard Nyren, their “general,” abandoning the game, of which in consequence “the head and right arm were gone.” The dispersion of the players over the neighbouring counties caused a diffusion of the best spirit of the game, which gradually extended northward and westward until, at the close of the 18th century, cricket became established as the national game, and the custom became general to play the first game of each year on Good Friday.
The M.C.C. (or Marylebone Cricket Club), which ranks as the leading club devoted to the game in any part of the globe, sprang from the old Artillery Ground Club, which played at Finsbury until about 1780, when the members migrating to White Conduit Fields became the White Conduit Cricket Club. In 1787 they were remodelled under their present title, and moved to Lord’s ground, then on the site of what is now Dorset Square; thence in 1811 to Lord’s second ground nearer what is now the Regent’s Canal; and in 1814, when the canal was cut, to what is now Lord’s ground in St John’s Wood. Thomas Lord, whose family were obliged to leave their native Scotland on account of their participation in the rebellion of 1745, was born in Thirsk, Yorkshire, in 1757, and is first heard of as an attendant at the White Conduit Club, London, in 1780. Soon afterwards he selected and superintended a cricket ground for the earl of Winchilsea and other gentlemen, which was called after his name. He died in 1832 on a farm at West Meon, Hampshire, of which he took the management two years before. Lord took away the original turf of his cricket-ground at each migration and relaid it. In 1825 the pavilion was burnt down, invaluable early records of the game being destroyed; and in the same year the ground would have been broken up into building plots had not William Ward purchased Lord’s interest. Dark bought him out in 1836, selling the remainder of his lease to the club in 1864. Meanwhile, in 1860, the freehold had been purchased at public auction by a Mr Marsden—né Moses—for £7000, and he sold it to the club six years later for nearly £18,500, a similar sum being paid in 1887 for additional ground. In 1897 the Great Central railway company conveyed a further portion to the club, making the ground complete as it now is; the total area is about 20 acres, including the site of various villas adjoining the ground which are part of the property. The number of members now considerably exceeds five thousand.
Laws.—The oldest laws of cricket extant are those drawn up by the London Club in 1744. These were amended at the “Star and Garter” in Pall Mall, London, in 1755, and again in 1774, and were also revised by the M.C.C. in 1788. From this time the latter club has been regarded as the supreme authority, even though some local modifications have in recent years been effected in Australia. Alterations and additions have been frequently made, and according to the present procedure they have to be approved by a majority of two-thirds of the members present at the annual general meeting of the whole club; the administration being in the hands of a president, annually nominated by his outgoing predecessor, a treasurer and a committee composed of sixteen members, four annually retiring, in conjunction with a secretary and a large subordinate staff.
Implements.—Concerning the implements of the game, in the 1744 rules it was declared that the weight of the ball must be “between five and six ounces,” and it was not until 1774 that it was decided that it “shall weigh not less than five ounces and a half nor more than five ounces and three-quarters,” as it is to the present day. Not until 1838 however came the addition, “it shall measure not less than nine inches nor more than nine inches and a quarter in circumference.” The materials out of which the old balls were made are not on record. At present a cube of cork forms the foundation, round which layers of fine twine and thin shavings of cork are accumulated till the proper size and shape are attained, when a covering of red leather is sewn on with six parallel seams. Various “compositions” have been tried as a substitute for cork and leather, but without taking their place.
For the bat, English willow has been proverbially found the best wood. The oldest extant bats resemble a broad and curved hockey stick, and it has been claimed to be an evolution of the club employed in the Irish game of “hurley.” The straight blade was adopted as soon as the bowler began to pitch the ball up, an alteration which took place about 1750, but pictures show slightly curved bats almost to the time of the battle of Waterloo. The oldest were all made in one piece and were so used until the middle of the 19th century, when handles of ash were spliced into the blade, and the whole cane-handle was introduced about 1860. No limit was set to the length of the bat until 1840, though the width was restricted to 4¼ in. “in the widest part” by the laws of 1788, and a gauge was made for the use of the Hambledon Club. The length of the bat is now restricted to 38 in., 36 being more generally used, as a rule the handle being 14 in. long and the blade 22 in. As to weight, though there is no restriction, 2 ℔ 3 oz. is considered light, 2 ℔ 6 oz. fairly heavy; but W. Ward (1787-1849) used a bat weighing 4 ℔.
At present the wicket consists of three stumps (round straight pieces of wood) of equal thickness, standing 27 in. upright out of the ground. On the top are two “bails,” short pieces of wood which fit into grooves made in the top of the stumps so as not to project more than half an inch above them. But the evolution of the wicket has been very gradual, and the history of it is very obscure, since different types of wickets seem to have existed simultaneously. If early pictures are to be trusted, no wicket was required in primitive times: the striker was either caught out, or run out, the fieldsman having to put the ball into a hole scooped in the ground, before the batsman could put his bat into it. A single stump, it is supposed, was sometimes substituted for the hole to save collision between the bat and the fieldsman’s fingers. In due course, but at an unknown date, a wicket—a “skeleton gate”—was raised over the hole; it consisted of two stumps each 12 in. high, set 24 in. apart, with a third laid on the top of them. John Nyren, however, writing in 1833, and discussing some memoranda given him by Mr W. Ward, says apropos of these dimensions, “There must be a mistake in this account of the width of the wicket.” Undoubtedly such wickets were all against the bowler, who must have bowled over or through the wicket twenty times for every occasion when he succeeded in hitting either the uprights or the cross stump. In pictures of cricket played about 1743 we find only two stumps and a cross stump, or bail, the wicket varying apparently both in height and width. In a picture, the property of H.M. the King, entitled “A Village Match in 1768,” three stumps and a bail are distinctly shown. Two stumps are shown as used in 1779, afterwards three always with one exception. Two prints, advertisements, representing matches played between women on consecutive days in 1811, show, one of them a wicket of three stumps, the other a wicket of two. The addition of the third stump, as is universally agreed, was due to an incident which occurred in a match of the Hambledon Club in 1775. “It was observed at a critical point in the game, that the ball passed three times between Mr Small’s two stumps without knocking off the bail; and then, first a third stump was added, and seeing that the new style of balls which rise over the bat also rise over the wicket, then but 1 ft. high, the wicket was altered to the dimensions of 22 in. by 8, and to its present dimensions of 27 in. by 8 in 1817.” So writes the Rev. J. Pycroft (1813-1895), quoting fairly closely from Nyren, who wrote many years after the event; but Pycroft is wrong in writing 22 by 8, which should really be 22 by 6. It is hard to believe that the 12 by 24 wicket lasted as long as 1775, for in the laws issued after the meeting held at the “Star and Garter,” Pall Mall, where many “noblemen and gentlemen” attended “finally to settle” the laws of the game, we read that the stumps are to be 22 in. and the bail 6. “N.B.—It is lately settled to use three stumps instead of two to each wicket, the bail the same length as before.” Regarding all the circumstances one is tempted to believe that Small defended a wicket of two stumps, 22 in. high and 6 in. apart, strange as is the circumstance that the ball should thrice in a short innings—for Small only made 14 runs—pass through them without dislodging the bail, even though the diameter of the ball is a trifle less than 3 in. Allusion is also found to a wicket 12 in. by 6, but it is hard to believe in its existence, unless it was used as a form of handicap. It should be recorded that in advertisements of matches about this time (1787) the fact that three stumps will be used “to shorten the game” is especially mentioned, and that the Hampshire Chronicle of the 15th of July 1797 records that “The earl of Winchilsea has made an improvement in the game of cricket, by having four stumps instead of three, and the wickets 2 in. higher. The game is thus rendered shorter by easier bowling out.” In 1788, however, when the M.C.C. revised the laws, reference is made to stumps (no number given, but probably three) 22 in. high and a bail of 6 in. Big scoring in 1796 caused the addition next year of 2 in. to the height and of 1 to the breadth, making the wicket 24 in. by 7. That three stumps were employed is shown by a print of the medallion of the Oxfordshire County C.C. 1797, forming the frontispiece to Taylor’s Annals of Lord’s (1903). In 1817 the dimensions now in use were finally settled, three stumps 27 in. high, and a wicket 8 in. wide. Larger wickets have occasionally been used by way of handicap or experiment. The distance between the wickets seems always, or at least as far back as 1700, to have been 22 yds.—one chain.
The Game.—Cricket is defined in the New English Dictionary as “an open-air game played with bats, ball and wickets by two sides of eleven players each; the batsman defends his wicket against the ball which is bowled by a player of the opposing side, the other players of this side being stationed about the field in order to catch or stop the ball.” The laws define that the score shall be reckoned by runs. The side which scores the greatest number of runs wins the match. Each side has two innings taken alternately, except that the side which leads by 150 runs in a three days’ match or by 100 runs in a two days’ match or by 75 runs in a one day match shall have the option of requiring the other side to “follow their innings.” In England cricket is invariably played on turf wickets, but in the Colonies matting wickets are often employed, and sometimes matches have taken place on sand, earth and other substances. The oldest form of the game is probably single wicket, which consists of one batsman defending one wicket, but this has become obsolete, though it was very popular in the time when matches were played for money with only one or two, or perhaps four or five, players on a side. Matches between an unequal number of players are still sometimes arranged, but mainly in the case of local sides against touring teams, or “colts” playing against eleven experienced cricketers. In any case two umpires are always appointed, and for English first-class county cricket these are now annually chosen beforehand by the county captains. Two scorers are officially recognized. All the arrangements as to scoreboards, and accommodation for players, members of the club and general spectators, vary considerably according to local requirements. Between six and seven acres forms the most suitable area for a match, but the size of a cricket ground has never been defined by law.
The wickets are pitched opposite and parallel to one another at a distance of 22 yds.; the “bowling crease” being marked with whitewash on the turf on a line with the stumps 8 ft. 8 in. in length, with short “return creases” at right angles to it at each end; but the “popping crease,” marked parallel to the wicket and 4 ft. in front of it, is deemed of unlimited length. The captains of the opposing sides toss for choice of innings, and the winner of the toss, though occasionally, owing to the condition of the ground or the weather prospects, electing to put his adversaries in first, as a general rule elects for his own side to bat first. The captain of the batting side sends his eleven (or whatever the number of his team may be) in to bat in any order he thinks best, and much judgment is used in deciding what this order shall be. Two batsmen with strong defensive powers and good nerve are usually selected to open the innings, the most brilliant run-getters immediately following them, and the weakest batsmen going in last. As there must always, except in the obsolete single-wicket cricket, be two batsmen in together, it follows that when ten of the side (in a side of eleven) have been put out, one of the final pair must be “not out”; that is to say, his innings is terminated without his getting out because there is none of his side left to become his partner. The batsman who is thus “not out” is said to “carry his bat,” a phrase that recalls a period when two bats sufficed for the whole side, each retiring batsman leaving the implement on the ground for the use of his successor, till at the close of the innings the “not out” man carried it back to the tent or pavilion. As the phrase is not also applied to the last batsman to get out, who would of course have carried the second bat off the ground, it was possibly at one time restricted to a player who going in first survived through the whole innings. It should be observed that the term “wicket” is used by cricketers in a number of different senses. Besides being the name given to the set of three stumps with their two bails when pitched for a match, it is in an extended sense applied to that portion of the ground, also called the “pitch,” on which the stumps are pitched, as when it is described as being “a fast wicket,” a “sticky wicket” and so forth. It also in several idiomatic expressions signifies the getting out of a batsman and even the batsman himself, as in the phrases: “Grace lost his wicket without scoring,” “Grace went in first wicket down,” “when Grace got out England lost their best wicket,” “England beat Australia by two wickets.”
The umpires are required to decide questions arising in the course of play and to call the “overs,” the “over” being a series of successive deliveries of the ball (usually six) by the bowler from one end of the pitch, the rest of the “out” side, or fielders, being stationed in various positions in the field according to well-defined principles. When an “over” has been bowled from one end a different bowler then bowls an “over” from the opposite end, the alternation being continued without interruption throughout the innings, and the bowlers being selected and changed from time to time by the captain of their side at his discretion. At the end of every over the fielders “change over” or otherwise rearrange their places to meet the batting from the other end. An over from which no runs are made off the bat is called a “maiden.” A “run” is made when the two batsmen change places, each running from his own to the opposite wicket without being “run out.” The aim of the batting side is to make as many runs as possible, while the object of the fielding side is to get their opponents out, and to prevent their making runs while in.
There are nine ways in which the batsman, or “striker,” can be put out. Of these the following five are the most important. (1) The striker is “bowled” out if the bowler hits the wicket with the ball, when bowling, and dislodges the bail; (2) he is “caught” out if the ball after touching his bat or hand be held by any member of the fielding side before it touches the ground; (3) he is “stumped” out if the wicket-keeper dislodges the bail with the ball, or with his hand holding the ball, at a moment when the striker in playing at the ball has no part of his person or bat in contact with the ground behind the popping crease, i.e. when the batsman is “out of his ground”; (4) he is out “l.b.w.” (leg before wicket) if he stops with any part of his person other than his hand, or arm below the elbow, a ball which in the umpire’s judgment pitched straight between the wickets, and would have bowled the striker’s wicket; (5) if when the batsmen are attempting to make a run a wicket is put down (i.e. the bail dislodged) by the ball, or by the hand of any fieldsman holding the ball, at a moment when neither batsman has any part of his person or bat on the ground behind the popping crease, the nearer of the two batsmen to the wicket so put down is “run out.” The remaining four ways in which a batsman may be dismissed are (6) hit wicket, (7) handling the ball, (8) hitting the ball more than once “with intent to score,” and (9) obstructing the field.
The positions of the fieldsmen are those which experience proves to be best adapted for the purpose of saving runs and getting the batsmen caught out. During the middle of the 19th century these positions became almost stereotyped according to the pace of the bowler’s delivery and whether the batsmen were right or left handed. A certain number of fielders stood on the “on” side, i.e. the side of the wicket on which the batsman stands, and a certain number on the opposite or “off” side, towards which the batsman faces. “Point” almost invariably was placed square with the striker’s wicket some ten or a dozen yards distant on the “off” side; “cover point” to the right of “point” (as he is looking towards the batsman) and several yards deeper; “mid on” a few yards to the right of the bowler, and “mid off” in a corresponding position on his left, and so forth. Good captains at all times exercised judgment in modifying to some extent the arrangement of the field according to circumstances, but in this respect much was learnt from the Australians, who on their first visit to England in 1878 varied the positions of the field according to the idiosyncrasies of the batsmen and other exigencies to a degree not previously practised in England. The perfection of wicket-keeping displayed by the Australian, McCarthy Blackham (b. 1855), taught English cricketers that on modern grounds the “long stop” could be altogether dispensed with; and this position, which in former days was considered a necessary and important one, has since been practically abolished. In many matches at the present day, owing to the character of modern bowling, no more than a single fieldsman is placed on the “on” side, while the number and positions of those “in the slips,” i.e. behind the wicket on the “off” side, are subject to no sort of rule, but vary according to the nature of the bowling, the state of the ground, or any other circumstances that may influence the judgment of the captain of the fielding side. Charts such as were once common, showing the positions of the fielders for fast, slow and medium bowling respectively, would therefore to-day give no true idea of the actual practice; and much of the skill of modern captaincy is shown in placing the field.
The score is compiled by runs made by the batsman and by the addition of “extras,” the latter consisting of “byes,” “leg-byes,” “wides” and “no-balls.” All these are included in the designation “runs,” of which the total score is composed, though neither “wides” nor “no-balls” involve any actual run on the part of the batsmen. They are called by the umpire on his own initiative, in the one case if the bowler’s delivery passes the batsman beyond the reach of his bat (“wide”), and in the other if he delivers the ball without having either foot touching the ground behind the “bowling crease” and within the “return crease,” or if the ball be jerked or thrown instead of being bona fide “bowled.” “Wides” and “no-balls” count as one “run” each, and all “extras” are added to the score of the side without being credited to any individual batsman. The batsman may, however, hit a “no-ball” and make runs off it, the runs so made being scored to the striker’s credit instead of the “no-ball” being entered among the “extras.” The batsman may be “run out” in attempting a run off a “no-ball,” but cannot be put out off it in any other way. “Byes” are runs made off a ball which touches neither the bat nor the person of the batsman, “leg-byes” off a ball which, without touching the bat or hand, touches any other part of his person. With the exception of these “extras” the score consists entirely of runs made off the bat.
Batting is the most scientific feature of the game. Proficiency in it, as in golf and tennis, depends in the first instance to a great extent on the player assuming a correct attitude for making his stroke, the position of leg, shoulder and Batting. elbow being a matter of importance; and although a quick and accurate eye may occasionally be sufficient by itself to make a tolerably successful run-getter, good style can never be acquired, and a consistently high level of achievement can seldom be gained, by a batsman who has neglected these rudiments. Good batting consists in a defence that is proof against all the bowler’s craft, combined with the skill to seize every opportunity for making runs that the latter may inadvertently offer. If the batsman’s whole task consisted in keeping the ball out of his wicket, the accomplishment of his art would be comparatively simple; it is the necessity for doing this while at the same time he must prevent the ball from rising off his bat into the air in the direction of any one of eleven skilfully-placed fielders, each eager to catch him out, that offers scope for the science of a Grace, a MacLaren or a Trumper. In early days when the wickets were low and the ball was trundled along the ground, the curved bats of the old pictures were probably well adapted for hitting, defence being neglected; but when the height of the wickets was raised, and bowlers began to pitch the ball closer to the batsman so that it would reach the wicket on the first bound, defence of the wicket became more necessary and more difficult. Hence the modern straight-bladed bat was produced, and a more scientific method of batting became possible. Batting and bowling have in fact developed together, a new form of attack requiring a new form of defence. One of the first principles a young batsman has to learn is to play with a “a straight bat” when defending his wicket against straight balls. This means that the whole blade of the bat should be equally opposite to the line on which the ball is travelling towards him, in order that the ball, to whatever height it may bound from the ground, may meet the bat unless it rises altogether over the batsman’s hands; the tendency of the untutored cricketer being on the contrary to hold the bat sloping outwards from the handle to the point, as the golf-player holds his “driver,” so that the rise of the ball is apt to carry it clear of the blade. Standing then in a correct position and playing with a straight bat, the batsman’s chief concern is to calculate accurately the “length” of the ball as soon as he sees it leave the bowler’s hand. The “length” of the ball means the distance from the batsman at which it pitches, and “good length” is the first essential of the bowler’s art. The distance that constitutes “good length” is not, however, to be defined by precise measurement; it depends on the condition of the ground, and on the reach of the batsman. A “good-length ball” is one that pitches too far from the batsman for him to reach out to meet it with the bat at the moment it touches the ground or immediately it begins to rise, in the manner known as “playing forward”; and at the same time not far enough from him to enable him to wait till after it has reached the highest point in its bound before playing it with the bat, i.e. “playing back.” When, owing to the good length of the ball, the batsman is unable to play it in either of these two ways, but is compelled to play at it in the middle of its rise from the ground, he is almost certain, if he does not miss it altogether, to send it up in the air with the danger of being caught out. If through miscalculation the batsman plays forward to a short-pitched ball, he will probably give a catch to the bowler or “mid off,” if he plays back to a well-pitched-up ball, he will probably miss it and be bowled out. The bowler is therefore continually trying to pitch balls just too short for safe forward play, while the batsman defends his wicket by playing forward or back as his judgment directs so long as the bowling is straight and of approximately good length, and is ready the instant he receives a bad-length ball, or one safely wide of the wicket, to hit it along the ground clear of the fieldsmen so as to make as many runs as he and his partner can accomplish before the ball is returned to the wicket-keeper or the bowler. But even those balls off which runs are scored are not to be hit recklessly or without scientific method. A different stroke is brought into requisition according to the length of the ball and its distance wide of the wicket to the “off” or “on” as the case may be; and the greatest batsmen are those who with an almost impregnable defence combine the greatest variety of strokes, which as occasion demands they can make with confidence and certainty. There are, however, comparatively few cricketers who do not excel in some particular strokes more than in others. One will make most of his runs by “cuts” past “point,” or by wrist strokes behind the wicket, while others, like the famous Middlesex Etonian C. I. Thornton, and the Australian C. J. Bonnor, depend mainly on powerful “drives” into the deep field behind the bowler’s wicket. Some again, though proficient in all-round play, develop exceptional skill in some one stroke which other first-class players seldom attempt. A good illustration is the “glance stroke” off the legs which K. S. Ranjitsinhji made with such ease and grace. All great cricketers in fact, while observing certain general principles, display some individuality of style, and a bowler who is familiar with a batsman’s play is often aware of some idiosyncrasy of which he can take advantage in his attack.
Bowling is, indeed, scarcely less scientific than batting. It is not, however, so systematically taught to young amateurs, and it may be partly in consequence of this neglect that amateur bowling is exceedingly weak in England as Bowling. compared with that of professionals. The evolution of the art of bowling, for it has been an evolution, is an interesting chapter in the history of cricket which can only be briefly outlined here. The fundamental law as to the proper mode of the bowler’s delivering the ball is that the ball must be bowled, not thrown or jerked. When bowling underhand along the ground was superseded by “length bowling,” it was found that the ball might be caused, by jerking, to travel at a pace which on the rough grounds was considered dangerous; hence the law against jerking, which was administered practically by chalking the inside of the bowler’s elbow; if a chalk mark was found on his side, the ball was not allowed as fair. The necessity of keeping the elbow away from the side led gradually to the extension of the arm horizontally and to round-arm bowling, the invention of which is usually attributed to John Wills (or Willes; b. 1777) of Kent and Sussex. Nyren, however, says “Tom Walker (about 1790) began the system of throwing instead of bowling now so much the fashion”; and, “The first I recollect seeing revive this fashion was Wills, a Sussex man,” the date of the revival being 1807. Walker was no-balled. Beldham (1766-1862) says, “The law against jerking was owing to the frightful pace Tom Walker put on, and I believe that he afterwards tried something more like the modern throwing-bowling. Willes was not the inventor of that kind, or round-arm bowling. He only revived what was forgotten or new to the young folk.” Curiously enough, Beldham also writes of the same Tom Walker that he was “the first lobbing slow bowler” he ever saw, and that he “did feel so ashamed of such baby bowling, but after all he did more than even David Harris himself.” Round-arm bowling was long and vigorously opposed, especially in 1826 when three matches were arranged between England and Sussex, the Sussex bowlers being round-arm bowlers. When England had lost the first two matches, nine of the professionals refused to take part in the third, “unless the Sussex bowlers bowl fair, that is, abstain from throwing.” Five of them did play and Sussex lost, but the new style of bowling had indicated its existence. In 1844 the M.C.C.’s revised law reads, “The ball must be bowled, not thrown or jerked, and the hand must not be above the shoulder in delivery.” Round-arm bowling was thenceforth legal. In 1862 Willsher (1828-1885), the Kent bowler, was no-balled by the umpire (Lillywhite) for raising his hand too high, amid a scene of excitement that almost equalled a tumult. Overhand bowling was legalized on the 10th of June 1864 after strenuous opposition. In early days much importance was attached to great pace, but the success of the slow lobbing bowling (pitched up underhand) led to its cultivation; in both styles some of the best performers delivered the ball with a curious high action, thrusting the ball, as it were, from close under the arm-pit. When the advantages of bias (or twist, or break) were first known is not closely recorded, but we read of one Lamborn who (about 1800) could make the ball break from leg so that “the Kent and Surrey men could not tell what to make of that cursed twist of his.” Whatever the pace of bowling, accuracy is the essential point, or, more correctly, the power of accurately varying pace, pitch and direction, so that the batsman is never at peace. If the bowler is a mere machine, the batsman soon becomes his master; but the question as to which of the two is supreme depends very largely on the condition of the turf, whether it be hard and true, soft and wet, hard and rough or soft and drying: the first pair of conditions favour the batsmen, the second pair the bowler.
The immense amount of labour and expense devoted to the preparation and care of cricket grounds has produced during the past quarter of a century a perfection of smoothness in the turf which has materially altered the character of the game. On the rough and fiery pitches of earlier days, on which a “long stop” was indispensable, the behaviour of the ball could not be reckoned upon by the batsman with any degree of confidence. The first ball of an “over” might be a “shooter,” never rising as much as an inch off the ground, the next might bound over his head, and the third pursue some equally eccentric course. But on the best grounds of to-day, subject to the well-understood changes due to weather, the bound of the ball is so regular as to be calculable with reasonable certainty by the batsman. The result has been that in fine weather, when wickets are true and fast, bowlers have become increasingly powerless to defeat the batsmen. In other words the defence has been strengthened out of proportion to the attack. Bowlers have consequently to a great extent abandoned all attempt to bowl the wicket down, aiming instead at effecting their purpose by bowling close to but clear of the wicket, with the design of getting the batsman to give catches. Many batsmen of the stubbornly defensive type, known in cricket slang as “stonewallers,” retaliated by leaving such balls alone together, or stopping them deliberately with the legs instead of the bat.
These tactics caused the game to become very slow; over after over was bowled without an attempt being made to score a run and without apparent prospect of getting a wicket. This not only injured the popularity of the game from the spectator’s point of view, but, in conjunction with the enormous scores that became common in dry seasons, made it so difficult to finish a match within the three days to which first-class matches in England are invariably limited, that nearly 70% of the total number of fixtures in some seasons were drawn. Cricketers of an older generation have complained that the cause of this is partly to be found in the amount of time wasted by contemporary cricketers. These critics see no reason why half of a summer’s day should be allowed to elapse before cricket begins, and they comment with some scorn on the interval for tea, and the fastidiousness with which play is frequently interrupted on account of imperfect light or for other unimperative reasons. Various suggestions have been made, including proposals for enlarging the wicket, for enabling the attack to hold its own against the increasing strength of the defence. But the M.C.C., the only recognized source of cricket legislation, has displayed a cautious but wise conservatism, due to the fact that its authority rests on no sanction more formal than that of prestige tacitly admitted by the cricketing world; and consequently no drastic changes have been made in the laws of the game, the only important amendments of recent years being that which now permits a side to close its innings voluntarily under certain conditions, and that which, in substitution for the former hard and fast rule for the “follow on,” has given an option in the matter to the side possessing the requisite lead on the first innings.
Early Players.—If the era of the present form of cricket can very properly be dated from the visit of the first Australian team to England in 1878, some enumeration must be made of a few of the cricketers who took part in first-class matches in the earlier portion of the 19th century. Among amateurs should be noted the two fast bowlers, Sir F. H. Bathurst (1807-1881; Eton, Hampshire), and Harvey Fellowes (b. 1826; Eton); the batsman N. Felix (1804-1876; Surrey and Kent), who was a master of “cutting” and one of the earliest to adopt batting gloves; the cricketing champion of his time Alfred Mynn (1807-1861; Kent); and the keen player F. P. Miller (1828-1875; Surrey). The three Marshams, Rev. C. D. Marsham (b. 1835), R. H. B. Marsham (b. 1833) and G. Marsham (b. 1849), all of Eton and Oxford, were as famous as the Studds in the ’eighties; and R. Hankey (1832-1886; Harrow and Oxford) was a great scorer. In the next generation one of the greatest bats of his own or any time was R. A. H. Mitchell (1843-1905; Eton, Oxford, Hants). A very attractive run-getter was C. F. Buller (b. 1846; Harrow, Middlesex); an all too brief career was that of C. J. Ottaway (1850-1878; Eton, Oxford, Kent and Middlesex); whilst A. Lubbock (b. 1845; Eton, Kent) was a sound bat, and D. Buchanan (1830-1900; Rugby and Cambridge) a destructive bowler, as was also A. Appleby (1843-1902; Lancashire).
Of the professionals, Fuller Pilch (1803-1870) and E. G. Wenman (1803-1897) were great bats; T. Box (1808-1876) the most skilled wicket-keeper of his time; W. Lillywhite (1792- 1854), one of the first round-arm bowlers, renowned for the accuracy of his pitch, and W. Clark (1798-1856) possessed wonderful variety of pace and pitch. It was the last-named who organized the All England Eleven, and he was not chosen to represent the players until he had reached the age of forty-seven. George Parr (1826-1891), the greatest leg-hitter in England, had no professional rival until the advent of Richard Daft (1835- 1900). J. Dean (1816-1891) was the finest long-stop, Julius Caesar (1830-1878) a hard clean hitter, as was G. Anderson (1826-1902), and T. Lockyer (1826-1869) seems to have been the first prominent wicket-keeper who took balls wide on the leg-side. Of bowlers, E. Willsher (1828-1885) would seem to have been the most difficult, W. Martingell (1818-1897) being a very good medium-paced bowler, and J. Wisden (1826-1884) a very fast bowler but short in his length. Four famous bowlers of a later date are George Freeman (1844-1895), J. Jackson (1833-1901), G. Tarrant (1838-1870) and G. Wootton (b. 1834). With them must be mentioned the great batsmen, T. Hayward (1835-1876) and R. Carpenter (1830-1901), as well as two other keen cricketers, H. H. Stephenson (1833-1896) and T. Hearne (1826-1900).
Since the first half of the 19th century the sort of cricket to engage public attention has very greatly changed, and the change has become emphasized since the exchange of visits between Australian and English teams has become an established feature of first-class cricket. First-class cricket has become more formal, more serious and more spectacular. The contest for the county championship has introduced an annual competition, closely followed by the public, between standing rivals familiar with each other’s play and record; an increased importance has become attached to “averages” and “records,” and it is felt by some that the purely sporting side of the game has been damaged by the change. Professionalism has increased, and it is an open secret that not a few players who appear before the public as amateurs derive an income under some pretext or other from the game. Cricket on the village green has in many parts of the country almost ceased to exist, while immense crowds congregate to watch county matches in the great towns; but this must no doubt be in part attributed to the movement of population from the country districts; and some compensation is to be found in league cricket (see below), and in the numerous clubs for the employees of business firms and large shops, and for the members of social institutes of all kinds, which play matches in the suburbs of London and other cities. At an earlier period two great professional organizations, “The All England,” formed in 1846, and “The United All England,” toured the country, mainly for profit, playing local sides in which “given men,” generally good professional players, figured. They did much good work in popularizing the game, and an annual match between the two at Lord’s on Whit-Monday was once a great feature of the season; but the increase of county cricket led eventually to their disbandment.
At this period, and much later, the first-class matches of “M.C.C. and ground” (i.e. ground-staff, or professionals attached to the club) occupied a far greater amount of importance than is at present the case. In recent years over 150 minor matches of the utmost value in propagating the best interests of cricket are annually played by the leading club. League cricket has of late become exceedingly popular, especially in the North of England, a number of clubs—about twelve to sixteen—combining to form a “League” and playing home-and-home matches, each one with each of the others in turn; points are scored according as each club wins, loses, or draws matches, the championship of the “League” being thus decided.
English County Cricket.—The first English inter-county match which is recorded was played on Richmond Green in 1730 between Surrey and Middlesex; but for very many years, though counties played counties, there was no systematic organization, matches often being played at odds or with “given” players, who had no county connexion with the side they represented. This was the natural outcome of the custom of playing for stakes. It was not till 1872 that any real effort was made to organize county cricket. In that year the M.C.C. took the initiative by offering a cup for competition between the counties, six of which were to be selected by the M.C.C., the matches to be played at Lord’s, but the scheme fell through owing to the coolness of the counties themselves. It was only in 1890 that the counties were formally and officially classified, Notts (the county club dating from 1859), Lancashire (1864), Surrey (1845), Kent (1842), Middlesex (1864), Gloucestershire (1869), Yorkshire (1862), and Sussex (1839), being regarded as “first-class,” as indeed had been the case from the time of their existence; and by degrees other counties were promoted to this class; Somerset in 1893; Derbyshire, Essex, Leicestershire, Warwickshire in 1894; Hampshire in 1895; Worcestershire in 1899; Northamptonshire in 1905.
In 1887 the County Cricket Council had been formed, working with and not against the Marylebone Club, for the management of county cricket, but the council dissolved itself in 1890, and it was then arranged that the county secretaries and delegates should meet and discuss such matters, and request the M.C.C. to consider the result of their deliberations, and practically to act as patron and arbitrator. In 1905 an Advisory Cricket Committee was formed “with the co-operation of the counties, with a view to improve the procedure in dealing with important matters arising out of the development of cricket, the effect of which will be” (the quotation is from the annual report of M.C.C. in 1905) “to bring the counties into closer touch with the M.C.C.” Various methods have been tried as to the assignment of points or marks, the following being the list of champion counties up to 1909:—
| 1864 | Surrey | 1873 | Surrey | ||
| 1865 | Notts | 1874 | Gloucestershire | ||
| 1866 | Middlesex | 1875 | Notts | ||
| 1867 | Yorkshire | 1876 | Gloucestershire | ||
| 1868 | Yorkshire | 1877 | Gloucestershire | ||
| 1869 | Notts | 1878 | Notts | ||
| 1870 | Yorkshire | 1879 | Lancashire | }equal | |
| 1871 | Notts | Notts | |||
| 1872 | Surrey | }equal | 1880 | Notts | |
| Gloucestershire | 1881 | Lancashire | |||
| 1882 | Lancashire | }equal | 1895 | Surrey | |
| Notts | 1896 | Yorkshire | |||
| 1883 | Yorkshire | 1897 | Lancashire | ||
| 1884 | Notts | 1898 | Yorkshire | ||
| 1885 | Notts | 1899 | Surrey | ||
| 1886 | Notts | 1900 | Yorkshire | ||
| 1887 | Surrey | 1901 | Yorkshire | ||
| 1888 | Surrey | }equal | 1902 | Yorkshire | |
| Notts | 1903 | Middlesex | |||
| 1889 | Lancashire | }equal | 1904 | Lancashire | |
| Surrey | 1905 | Yorkshire | |||
| 1890 | Surrey | 1906 | Kent | ||
| 1891 | Surrey | 1907 | Notts | ||
| 1892 | Surrey | 1908 | Yorkshire | ||
| 1893 | Yorkshire | 1909 | Kent | ||
| 1894 | Surrey | ||||
English county cricket is now the most firmly established cricketing institution in the world, but in its earlier stages it owed much in different counties to enthusiastic individuals and famous cricketing families whose energies were devoted to its The Graces and Gloucestershire. encouragement and support. To Gloucestershire belongs the honour of the greatest name in the history of the game. Dr W. G. Grace (q.v.) was not only the most brilliant all-round cricketer in the world, but he remained supreme after reaching an age when most cricketers have long abandoned the game. He and his two famous brothers, E. M. Grace (b. 1841) and G. F. Grace (1850-1880), rendered invaluable service to their county for many years; and not to their county alone, for the great part they played for a generation in first-class cricket did much to increase the growing popularity of the county fixtures. A separate article is devoted to Dr W. G. Grace, whose name as the champion of the game will always be associated with its history. And of Dr E. M. Grace it may be mentioned that, besides being the most daring field at “point” ever seen, he altogether took 11,092 wickets and scored 75,625 runs. In more recent years some excellent cricketers have been associated with Gloucestershire, such as F. Townsend, and the professional Board; but foremost stands G. L. Jessop, a somewhat “unorthodox” batsman famous for his powers of hitting.
What W. G. Grace did for Gloucestershire, Lord Harris (b. 1851) did for Kent, and his services are not to be estimated by his performances in the field alone, great as they were. His influence was always exerted to impart a spirit of sportsmanship Kent. and honourable distinction to the national game. Kent had been a home of cricket since the first half of the 18th century, but it was Lord Harris more than any other individual who made it a first-class county, celebrated for the number of distinguished amateurs who have taken part in its matches. The Hon. Ivo Bligh, afterwards Lord Darnley (b. 1859), and F. Marchant (b. 1864), both Etonians like Lord Harris himself; the two Harrovians, W. H. Patterson (b. 1859) and M. C. Kemp (b. 1862), and the Wykehamist J. R. Mason (b. 1874) are names that show the place taken by public school men in the annals of Kent cricket, while the family of Hearnes supplied the county with some famous professionals. Amateur batsmen like W. Rashleigh, C. J. Burnup, E. W. Dillon and A. P. Day have been prominent in the Kent eleven; and in Fielder and Blythe they have had two first-class professional bowlers. The “Kent nursery” at Tonbridge has proved a valuable institution for training young professional players, and contributed not a little to the rising reputation of Kent, which justified itself when the county won the championship in 1906, largely owing to the admirable batting of the amateur K. L. Hutchings.
Middlesex and Lancashire, not less than Kent, have been indebted to the great public schools, and especially to Harrow, which provided both counties with famous captains who directed their fortunes for an uninterrupted period of over twenty years. Middlesex and Lancashire. I. D. Walker, the most celebrated of seven cricketing brothers, all Harrovians, who founded the Middlesex County Club, handed on the captaincy, after a personal record of astonishing brilliancy, to a younger Harrow and Oxford cricketer, A. J. Webbe, who was one of the finest leg-hitters and one of the safest out-fielders of his day, and a captain of consummate judgment and knowledge of the game. A. N. Hornby, a contemporary at Harrow of I. D. Walker, was for many years the soul of Lancashire cricket, and was succeeded in the captaincy of the county by the still more famous Harrovian, A. C. MacLaren, one of the greatest batsmen in the history of cricket, whose record for England in test matches against Australia was almost unrivalled. In 1895, when he headed the batting averages, MacLaren made the highest individual score in a first-class match, viz. 424 against Somersetshire. Middlesex has also the distinction of having produced the two greatest amateur wicket-keepers in the history of English cricket, namely, the Hon. Alfred Lyttelton (b. 1857) and Gregor MacGregor, both of whom, after playing for Cambridge University, gave their services to the Metropolitan county; while Lancashire can boast of the greatest professional wicket-keeper in Richard Pilling (1855-1891), whose reputation has not been eclipsed by that of the most proficient of more recent years. Another famous Cambridge University cricketer, a contemporary of Lyttelton, who was invaluable to Lancashire for some years when he was one of the very finest all-round cricketers in the country, was A. G. Steel (b. 1858), equally brilliant as a batsman and as a slow bowler; and other names memorable in Lancashire cricket were R. G. Barlow (b. 1859), whose stubborn batting was a striking contrast to the rapid run-getting of Hornby and the perfect style of Steel; John Briggs (1862-1902), whose slow left-hand bowling placed him at the head of the bowling averages in 1890; John Crossland (1853-1903) and A. Mold (b. 1865), both of whom were destructive fast bowlers; J. T. Tyldesley and R. H. Spooner, both among the most brilliant batsmen of a later generation; and W. Brearley, the amateur fast bowler.
Middlesex, like Kent, has been better served by amateurs than professionals. Indeed, with the notable exceptions of J. T. Hearne, who headed the bowling averages in 1891, 1896 and 1898, and of the imported Australian A. E. Trott, few professionals of high merit are conspicuously associated with the history of the county cricket. Trott, in 1899 and again in 1900, performed the previously unprecedented feat of taking over two hundred wickets and scoring over one thousand runs in the same season. And in his “benefit match” in May 1907 at Lord’s he achieved the “hat trick” twice in one innings, taking first four and then three wickets with successive balls. But if there has been a dearth of professionals in Middlesex cricket, the county has produced an abundance of celebrated amateurs. In addition to the Walkers and A. J. Webbe, the metropolitan county was the home of the celebrated hitter, C. I. Thornton, and of the Studd family, who learnt their cricket at Eton and Cambridge University. C. T. Studd, one of the most polished batsmen who ever played cricket, was at the same time an excellent medium-paced bowler, and his brother G. B. Studd is remembered especially for his fielding, though like his elder brother, J. E. K. Studd, he was an all-round cricketer of the greatest value to a county team. Sir T. C. O’Brien, who made his reputation by a fine innings for Oxford University against the Australian team of 1882, sustained it in the following years by many brilliant performances for Middlesex. A. E. Stoddart for several years was the best run-getter in the Middlesex eleven; and W. J. Ford and his younger brother, F. G. J. Ford, were conspicuous among many prominent Middlesex batsmen. In more recent times the Oxonian P. F. Warner (b. 1873), both as captain and as batsman, did splendid work; and B. J. T. Bosanquet, besides assisting powerfully with the bat, became famous for inaugurating a new style of curly bowling (“googlies”) of a very effective type.
A glance at the table given above shows the high place occupied by Surrey in the past. Surrey county cricket can be traced as far back as 1730. Pycroft observes that “the name of Surrey as one united county club is quite lost in the annals of Surrey. cricket from 1817 to 1845.” But before that date two of the most celebrated cricketers, William Lillywhite and Fuller Pilch, had occasionally played for the county, and so also had James Broadbridge (1796-1843) and W. Lambert (1779-1851). Kennington Oval became the Surrey county ground in 1845, the property being leased from the duchy of Cornwall; and in the years immediately following the county team included H. H. Stephenson (1833-1896), Caffyn (b. 1828), N. Felix, and Lockyer (1826-1869); among a later generation appeared such well-remembered names as Jupp, Southerton, Pooley and R. Humphrey. After being champion county in 1873, Surrey did not again attain the same position for fourteen years, but for the next ten years maintained an almost uninterrupted supremacy. The greatest credit was due to the energetic direction of J. Shuter (b. 1855), who kept together a remarkable combination of cricketers, such as W. W. Read (1855-1906), Maurice Read (b. 1859), George Lohmann (1865-1901), and Robert Abel (b. 1859), all of whom were among the greatest players of their period. Lohmann in 1885-1890 would alone have made any side famous; and in the same years when he was heading the bowling averages and proving himself the most deadly bowler in the country, W. W. Read was performing prodigies of batting. No sooner did the latter begin to decline in power than Abel took his place at the head of the batting averages, scoring with astonishing consistency in 1897-1900. In 1899 he made 357 not out in an innings against Somersetshire, and in 1901 his aggregate of 3309 was the largest then compiled. The Oxonian K. J. Key was another famous batsman whose services as captain were also exceedingly valuable to the county. An almost inexhaustible supply of professionals of the very highest class has been at Surrey’s service. W. Lockwood (b. 1868) became almost as deadly a bowler as Lohmann, and Tom Richardson (b. 1870) was the terror of all Surrey’s opponents for several seasons after 1893. Richardson took in all no less than 1340 wickets at the cost of 20,000 runs. Tom Hayward (b. 1867), nephew of the renowned Cambridge professional of the same name, succeeded Abel as the leading Surrey batsman, his play in the test matches of 1899, when he averaged 65, being superb. During the following years his reputation was fully maintained, and in 1906 he had a particularly successful season. Key was followed in the captaincy by D. L. A. Jephson, but the county did not in the opening years of the 20th century maintain the high place it occupied during the last quarter of the 19th. It possessed some excellent professionals, however, in Hayes, Hobbs and Lees, and the season of 1906, under the captaincy of Lord Dalmeny, showed a revival, a new fast bowler being found in N. A. Knox, and a fine batsman and bowler in J. N. Crawford.
Several of the celebrated cricketers of early times already mentioned as having played for the Surrey club were more closely associated with the adjoining county of Sussex, whose records go back as far as 1734, in which year a match was Sussex. played against Kent, the chief promoters of which were the duke of Richmond and Sir William Gage. One of the earliest famous cricketers, Richard Newland (d. 1791), was a Sussex man; and James Broadbridge, W. Lambert, Tom Box, and the great Lillywhite family were all members of the Sussex county team. Lambert, in a match against Epsom, played at Lord’s in 1817, made a “century” (one hundred runs) in each innings, a feat not repeated in first-class cricket for fifty years; and the occasion was the first when the aggregate of a thousand runs was scored in a match. Broadbridge played for Sussex in five reigns, while Box (1808-1876) kept wicket for the county for twenty-four years without missing a match. Notwithstanding this distinguished history, Sussex never attained the highest place in the county rivalry, and for a number of years towards the end of the 19th century the left-handed batting of F. M. Lucas (1860-1887) alone saved the county from complete insignificance. A revival came when W. L. Murdoch (b. 1855), of Australian celebrity, qualified for Sussex; and at a still later date the fortunes of the county were raised by the inclusion in its eleven of Kumar Shri Ranjitsinhji, afterwards H.H. the Jam of Nawanagar (b. 1872), the Indian prince, who had played for Cambridge University. Ranjitsinhji’s dexterity, grace and style were unrivalled. He scored 2780 runs in 1896, averaging 57, while in county matches in 1899 his aggregate was 2555, with an average of 75. Even this performance was beaten in 1900 when he scored a total of 2563 runs, giving an average for the season of 83. In all matches his aggregates were 3159 in 1899, and 3065 in 1900. Not less remarkable was the cricket of C. B. Fry (b. 1872), who came from Oxford University to become a mainstay of Sussex cricket, and who in 1901 performed the unparalleled feat of scoring in successive innings 106, 209, 149, 105, 140 and 105, his aggregate for the season being 3147 with an average of 78. In 1905 his average for Sussex was 86, but in the following year an accident kept him out of the cricket field throughout the season; and in 1909 he transferred his services to Hampshire.
If Kent and Middlesex may be described as the counties of amateurs, Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire should be called the counties of famous professionals. Between 1864 and 1889 Nottinghamshire was champion county twelve times Notts. and the county eleven was as a rule composed almost entirely of professional players, among whom have been many of the greatest names in the history of the game. Richard Daft (1835-1900), after playing as an amateur, became a professional in preference to abandoning the game, scorning to resort to any of the pretexts by which cricketers have been known to accept payment for their services while continuing to cling to the status of the amateur. William Oscroft (1843-1905) was one of Nottinghamshire’s early batting heroes, and in Alfred Shaw (b. 1842) and F. Morley (1850-1884) the county possessed an invaluable pair of bowlers. William Gunn (b. 1858), besides being a magnificent fielder “in the country,” was an exceptionally able batsman; but his performances did not equal those of his greater contemporary, Arthur Shrewsbury, who in six years between 1885 and 1892 headed the English batting averages. Shrewsbury’s perfect style combined with inexhaustible patience placed him in the front rank of the “classical” batsmen of English cricket. Of the batsmen nicknamed “stonewallers,” who at one time endangered the popularity of first-class cricket, was W. Scotton (1856-1893); and among the other numerous professionals whose cricket contributed to the renown of Nottinghamshire were Barnes (1852-1899), at times a most formidable bat; Flowers (b. 1856), always useful both with the bat and the ball; W. Attewell (b. 1861), a remarkably steady bowler who bowled an abnormal number of maiden overs; Mordecai Sherwin (b. 1851), an excellent successor to T. Plumb (b. 1833) and F. Wild (1847-1893) as wicket-keeper for the county; and among more recent players, J. Iremonger (b. 1877) and John Gunn, both of whom proved themselves cricketers worthy of the Notts traditions. J. A. Dixon (b. 1861), one of the few amateurs of the Nottinghamshire records, was for some time captain of the county team; and he was succeeded by A. O. Jones (b. 1873), a dashing batsman, who in 1899 was partner with Shrewsbury when the pair scored 391 for the first wicket in a match against Gloucestershire.
The history of Yorkshire cricket is modern in comparison with that of Surrey, Sussex or Kent. The county club only dates from 1861, and for some years the team was composed entirely of professionals. But though Yorkshire attained the Yorkshire. championship three times during the first ten years of the county club’s existence, thirteen years elapsed after 1870 before it again occupied the place of honour. In the ten years 1896-1906 Yorkshire was no less than six times at the head of the list, this position of supremacy being in no small measure due to the captaincy of Lord Hawke (b. 1860), who played continuously for the county from his university days for more than twenty years, and whose influence on Yorkshire cricket was unique. But before his time Yorkshire had already produced some notable cricketers, such as George Ulyett (1857-1898), who headed the batting averages in 1878, and who was also a fine fast bowler; Louis Hall (b. 1852), a patient bat; and another excellent scorer, Ephraim Lockwood (b. 1845). William Bates (1855-1900), too, was effective both as batsman and bowler; and Tom Emmett (1841-1904), long proverbial for bowling “a wide and a wicket,” was deservedly popular. To the earlier period belonged two fast bowlers, George Freeman (1844-1895) and Allan Hill (b. 1845), and the eminent wicket-keeper Pincher (1841-1903), who was succeeded by J. Hunter (1857-1891), and later by his brother Daniel Hunter (b. 1862). The full effect of Lord Hawke’s energetic captaincy was seen in 1900, when Yorkshire played through a programme of twenty-eight fixtures without sustaining a defeat; and the county’s record was but little inferior in both the following years and again in 1905, in each of which years it retained the championship. It was during this period that as notable a group of cricketers wore the Yorkshire colours as ever appeared in county matches. Edmund Peate (1856-1900), one of the finest bowlers in his day, did not survive to take part in the later triumphs of his county; but the period beginning in 1890 saw J. T. Brown, J. Tunnicliffe, R. Peel, W. Rhodes, George Hirst and the Hon. F. S. Jackson in the field. The two first named became famous for their first wicket partnerships. In 1896 in a match against Middlesex at Lord’s these two batsmen scored 139 before being separated in the first innings, and in the second knocked off the 147 required to win the match. In the following year they made 378 for the first wicket against Surrey, and during their careers they scored over a hundred for the first wicket on no less than fifteen occasions, the greatest feat of all being in 1898, when they beat the world’s record by staying together till 554 runs had been compiled. Peel was for many years an untiring bowler, and Yorkshire was fortunate in discovering a successor of even superior skill in Wilfrid Rhodes, who in 1900 took over 200 wickets at a cost of 12 runs each in county matches alone, and was also an excellent bat. Hirst and Jackson were the two finest all-round cricketers in England about 1905. The Hon. F. S. Jackson (b. 1870), like his fellow-Harrovian A. C. MacLaren, had a wonderful record in test matches against Australia; he captained the England eleven in 1905, and his wonderful nerve enabled him to extricate his side when in a difficulty, and to render his best service at an emergency. Hirst (b. 1871) in 1904 and in 1905 scored over 2000 runs and took more than 100 wickets; and in 1906 he surpassed all previous records by scoring over 2000 runs and taking over 200 wickets during the season. A concourse of 78,000 people watched his “benefit” match (Yorkshire against Lancashire) in August 1904. Besides cricketers like these, such fine players were included in the team as Wainwright (b. 1865), Haigh (b. 1871), Denton (b. 1874), and E. Smith (b. 1869); with such material the Yorkshire eleven had no “tail,” and was able to win the championship six times in a decade.
Somersetshire hardly fulfilled the promise held out by the success achieved in the closing decade of the 19th century; this had been largely owing to the captaincy and brilliant batting of H. T. Hewett (b. 1864), who in partnership with L. C. H. Somersetshire. Palairet (b. 1870), famous for his polished style, scored 346 for the first wicket in a match against Yorkshire in 1892. Hewett was succeeded in the command of the county eleven by the Cambridge fast bowler, S. M. J. Woods (b. 1868); and among other members of the eleven the most valuable was L. C. Braund (b. 1876), a professional who excelled as an all-round cricketer.
The counties above referred to are those which have figured most prominently in the history of county cricket. Individual players of the highest excellence are, however, to be found from time to time in all parts of the country. Warwickshire, for Minor counties. example, can boast of having had in A. A. Lilley (b. 1867) the best wicket-keeper of his day, who represented England against Australia in the test matches; while Worcestershire produced one of the best all-round professionals in the country for a number of years in Arnold (b. 1877), and a batsman of extreme brilliancy in R. E. Foster, a member of a cricketing family to whom belongs the credit of raising Worcestershire into a cricketing county of the first class. Derbyshire, similarly, can claim some well-known cricket names, the bowler W. Mycroft (1841-1894), W. Chatterton (b. 1863), and W. Storer (b. 1868), a first-class wicket-keeper. Essex possesses at Leyton one of the best county grounds in the country, and the club was helped over financial difficulties by the munificent support of an old Uppingham and Cambridge cricketer, C. E. Green. It has produced a fair number of excellent players, notably the batsmen P. Perrin, C. MacGahey, and the fast bowler C. J. Kortright; and A. P. Lucas, afterwards a member of the county club, was a famous cricketer who played for England in 1880 in the first Australian test match. Hampshire had a fine batsman in Captain E. G. Wynyard, and its annals are conspicuous for the phenomenal scores made during the single season of 1899 by Major R. M. Poore; these two put together 411 against Somersetshire in that year before being separated. Among the later Hants professionals, Llewellyn was most prominent.
The distribution of cricketing ability in England might be the subject of some interesting speculation. In the first forty years of the annual competition for the championship six counties alone gained the coveted distinction, and three of these, Surrey, Notts and Yorkshire, won it thirty-four times between them. Why, it may be asked, is it that one county excels in the game while another has no place whatever in the history of cricket? How comes it that great names recur continually in the annals of Surrey and Yorkshire, for example, while those of Berkshire and Lincolnshire are entirely barren? No doubt proximity to great centres of population favours the cultivation of the game, but in this respect Kent and Sussex are no better situated than Hertfordshire, nor does it account for Nottinghamshire having so illustrious a record while Staffordshire has none at all, nor for Somersetshire having outclassed Devon. It is strange, moreover, that while the universities are the chief training-grounds for amateur cricketers, neither Oxfordshire nor Cambridgeshire has made any mark among the counties. The influence of individuals and families, such as the Graces in Gloucestershire, the Walkers in Middlesex, and in recent times the Fosters in Worcestershire, has of course been of inestimable benefit to cricket in those counties; but Buckinghamshire and Norfolk and Cheshire send their sons to the public schools and universities no less than Lancashire or Kent. It is difficult, therefore, to understand why county cricket should so persistently confine itself to a small number of counties; but such is the fact.
Cricket has never flourished vigorously in Scotland, Ireland or Wales, a fact that may partly be accounted for by the comparative difficulty of obtaining good grounds in those parts of the kingdom, and by the inferiority, for the purpose of cricket, of their climate. In the south of Scotland, and especially in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh, there are clubs which keep the game alive; and Scotland, though it has produced no great cricketers, either amateur or professional, has sent a few players to the English university elevens who have found places in English county teams. In Ireland cricket is fairly popular, especially in those parts of the island where local sides can obtain assistance from soldiers quartered in the neighbourhood. One or two counties play annual matches, that between Kildare and Cork in particular exciting keen rivalry. Trinity College, Dublin, has turned out some excellent players; and the Phoenix and Leinster clubs in Dublin, and the North of Ireland club in Belfast, play a full programme of matches every season. D. N. Trotter, who played for county Meath for many years towards the close of the 19th century, was a batsman who would have found a place in any English county eleven; so also would William Hone, one of several brothers all of whom were keen and skilful cricketers. About the same period Lieutenant Dunn scored so many centuries in Irish cricket that he was played, though without any great success, for his native county of Surrey. More recently L. H. Gwynn (1873-1902) batted in a style and with a success that proved him capable of great things. Sir T. C. O’Brien, though an Irishman, belongs as a cricketer to Middlesex; but T. C. Ross, who was chosen to play for Gentlemen v. Players at Lord’s in 1902, was a bowler who played regularly for county Kildare.
Gentlemen v. Players.—The most important match of the year as far as purely English cricket is concerned is the match between the gentlemen and players (amateurs and professionals) played at Lord’s. For many years a match played between sides similarly composed at the Oval excited equal interest, but latterly county cricket has rather starved this particular game, though it still continues as a popular fixture. Other matches with the same title have been played in London on Prince’s Ground (now built over), and at Brighton, Hastings and Scarborough and elsewhere, but those games in no way rank with the London matches.
The Lord’s fixture was first established in 1806, in which year two matches were played; it became annual in 1819, but in those days the amateurs, being no match for their opponents, generally received odds, while in 1832 they defended wickets 22 in. by 6, and in 1837 the professionals stood in front of wickets of four stumps, measuring in all 36 in. by 12 in. This match was known as “The Barndoor Match” or “Ward’s Folly,” and the professionals won by an innings and 10 runs. Odds were not given after 1838, the gentlemen having then won eight matches and lost thirteen. From 1839 to 1866 the gentlemen only won 7 matches as compared with 21 losses. In 1867 the tide turned, for the brothers Grace, especially Dr W. G. Grace, became a power in the cricket-field, and from 1867 to 1884 the gentlemen, winning fifteen matches, only lost one. From 1885 the balance swung round, and by 1903 the professionals had won eleven matches and lost but four. The gentlemen won on nine successive occasions between 1874 and 1884, a draw intervening; while beginning with 1854 the professionals won eleven matches “off the reel.” The professionals won in 1860 by an innings and no less than 181 runs; in 1900 they only won by two wickets, but to do so had to make, and did make, 501 runs in the last innings of the match. In 1903 the gentlemen, heavily in arrears after each side had played an innings, actually scored 500 in their second innings with only two men out. In 1904 the gentlemen won by two wickets after being 156 runs behind on the first innings, thanks to fine play by K. S. Ranjitsinhji and A. O. Jones. J. H. King had scored a century in each innings, a feat previously only performed by R. E. Foster in 1900. C. B. Fry’s 232 not out in 1903 was the largest innings scored in the match. Dr W. G. Grace, who is credited with eight centuries, is the only cricketer who exceeded the hundred more than twice at Lord’s in the fixture, 164 by J. T. Brown being the highest innings by a professional. There were seven instances before 1864 of two bowlers being unchanged in the match, and the Hon. F. S. Jackson and S. M. J. Woods repeated this in 1894. The Oval match was first played in 1857. The amateurs effected their first win in 1866, and though several games were drawn the professionals did not win again till 1880. As at Lord’s, it was the era of Grace, but from this point the amateurs could only win two matches, and by the narrowest of margins, till 1903, this making their sum of victories up to then thirteen, as opposed to twenty-three. In 1879 the gentlemen won in one innings by 126 runs, the heaviest beating that one side had inflicted on the other. The highest individual score was Robert Abel’s 247, and the next Dr W. G. Grace’s 215. Hayward scored 203 in 1904; A. G. Steel and A. H. Evans bowled unchanged in 1879.
School and Club Cricket.—Cricket is the standing summer game at every English private and public school, where it is taught as carefully and systematically as either classics or mathematics. There are also numbers of amateur clubs which possess no grounds of their own and are connected with no particular locality, but which are in fact mere associations of cricketers who play matches against the universities, schools or local teams, or against each other. Of these the best known, perhaps, is I Zingari (The Wanderers), popularly known as I.Z., whose well-known colours, red, yellow and black stripes, are prized rather as a social than as a cricketing distinction. This club was founded in 1845 by Lorraine Baldwin and Sir Spencer Ponsonby-Fane. The first rule of the club humorously declares that “the entrance fee shall be nothing, and the annual subscription shall not exceed the entrance fee.” It is a rule of the club that no member shall play on the opposing side. I.Z. has long been connected with the social festivities forming a feature of the “Canterbury Week,” a cricket festival held at Canterbury during the first week in August, of the Scarborough week, and of the Dublin horse-show. Dr W. G. Grace, who almost invariably appeared in the cricket field wearing the red and yellow stripes of the M.C.C., and some other notable amateurs, never belonged to I.Z. or any similar club; but Dr Grace was instrumental in the formation of the London county club, whose ground was at the Crystal Palace at Sydenham. Other amateur clubs, similar to I Zingari, are the Free Foresters, Incogniti, Etceteras, and in Ireland Na Shuler; while the Eton Ramblers, Harrow Wanderers, Old Wykehamists, and others are clubs whose membership is restricted to “old boys.”
The Oxford and Cambridge universities match was first played in 1827, but was not an annual fixture till 1838. Five matches, those of 1829, 1843, 1846, 1848 and 1850, were played at Oxford, the rest at Lord’s. The “’Varsity match,” and that between the two great public schools, Eton and Harrow, are great “society” events at Lord’s every summer. Up to 1909 Eton won thirty times, and Harrow on thirty-five occasions. D. C. Boles by scoring 183 in 1904 set up a new record for this match, beating the 152 obtained in 1841 by Emilius Bayley (afterwards the Rev. Sir John Robert Laurie); and in 1907 the Harrow captain, M. C. Bird, established a further record by scoring over a hundred runs in each innings. Of the contests between Oxford and Cambridge, the latter (up to 1909) had lost thirty-one and won thirty-five. Oxford’s 503 in 1900 and Cambridge’s 392 in the same match furnished the highest aggregates. The largest individual innings was 172 not out by J. F. Marsh in 1904; but as a feat of batting it was intrinsically inferior to the 171 by R. E. Foster in 1900. Of the thirty centuries scored up to 1909, Oxford was credited with sixteen. Eustace Crawley (b. 1868) made a hundred both in the Eton v. Harrow and Oxford v. Cambridge matches. In the match of 1870 F. C. Cobden (b. 1849) took the last three Oxford wickets with consecutive balls, winning the match for Cambridge by 2 runs.
Australian Cricket.—Naturally popular in a British colony, cricket made but little progress in Australia before the arrival of an English professional eleven in 1861-1862, which carried all before it. Subsequent visits, and the coaching of imported professionals, so promoted the game that in 1878 a representative eleven of Australians visited England. The visits were repeated biennially till 1890, and then triennially. The visits of the Australian teams to England aroused unparalleled interest and acted as an immense incentive to the game. A great sensation was caused when the first team, captained by D. W. Gregory, on the 27th of May 1878, defeated a powerful M.C.C. eleven in a single day, disposing of them for 33 and 19, the fast bowler F. R. Spofforth (b. 1853) taking 6 wickets for 4 runs, and H. F. Boyle (b. 1847) 5 for 3. Their prowess was well maintained when in September 1880 Australia for the first time met the whole strength of England, such matches between representatives of Australia and England being known as “test matches,” a term that was applied later to matches between England and South Africans also. Although in 1880 the old country won by 5 wickets, the honours were fairly divided, especially as Spofforth could not play. Dr W. G. Grace with a score of 152 headed the total of 420, but even finer was the Australian captain W. L. Murdoch’s imperturbable display, when he carried his bat for 153. From 1882 onwards the Colonials, with two exceptions, at Blackpool and Skegness, only played eleven-a-side matches. Such bowlers as Spofforth, Boyle, G. E. Palmer (b. 1861), T. W. Garrett (b. 1858), and G. Giffen (1859) became household names. Nor was the batting less admirable, for Murdoch was supported by H. H. Massie (b. 1854), P. S. McDonnell (1860-1896), A. C. Bannerman (b. 1859), T. Horan (b. 1855), C. J. Bonnor (b. 1855), and S. P. Jones (b. 1861), whilst the wicket-keeper was McCarthy Blackham (b. 1855). This visiting side in 1882 was the greatest team of all; 23 matches were won, only 4 lost, and England was defeated at the Oval by 7 runs. In 1884 English cricket had improved, and the visiting record was hardly so good. The match against England at the Oval will not soon be forgotten. The Colonials scored 551 (Murdoch 211, McDonnell 103, Scott 102), and England responded with 346, Scotton and W. W. Read adding 151 for the ninth wicket.
The team of H. J. H. Scott (b. 1858) in 1886 proved less successful, for all three test matches were lost, and eight defeats had to be set against nine victories, but Giffen covered himself with distinction. This was the first tour under the auspices of the Melbourne Club. McDonnell’s team in 1888 marked the appearance of the bowlers C. T. B. Turner (b. 1862) and J. J. Ferris (1867-1900). The former took 314 wickets for 11 runs each, and the latter 220 for 14 apiece. To all appearance they redeemed a poor tour, 19 matches being won and 14 lost. The 1890 tour, though Murdoch reappeared as captain, proved disappointing, both the test matches being lost and defeats for the first time exceeding victories, though the two bowlers again performed marvellously well. After an interval of three years, M. Blackham captained the seventh team, which was moderately fortunate. H. Graham (b. 1870) and S. E. Gregory (b. 1870) batted admirably, and the 149 of J. J. Lyons (b. 1863) in the match against M.C.C. was an extraordinary display of punishing cricket. In 1896, though they did not win the rubber of test matches, the colonials were most successful, 19 matches being victories and only 6 lost. S. E. Gregory, J. Darling (b. 1870), F. A. Iredale (b. 1867), G. Giffen, C. Hill (b. 1877), and G. H. S. Trott (1866-1905) were the best bats, and the last-named made an admirable captain. H. Trumble (1867) kept an excellent length, and E. Jones (1869) was deadly with his fast bowling.
The Australian representatives in 1899 demonstrated that they were the best since 1882, 16 successes and only 3 defeats (v. Essex, Surrey and Kent) being emphasized by a victory over England at Lord’s by 10 wickets, the only one of the five test matches brought to a conclusion. M. A. Noble (b. 1873) and Victor Trumper (b. 1877), both newcomers, batted superbly. The latter, v. Sussex, made 300, the largest individual score hitherto made by an Australian in England, the previous best having been 286 by Murdoch in the corresponding match in 1882. H. Trumble scored 1183 runs and took 142 wickets for 18 runs apiece, and Darling not only made a judicious captain, but scored the biggest aggregate, 1941, up to then obtained by any batsman touring with a colonial eleven in England. On the home side, Hayward did sound service with the bat, and his stand with F. S. Jackson in the fifth test match yielded 185 runs for the first wicket.
In 1902 another fine Australian eleven, captained by Darling, won 23 and lost only 2 matches. They won the rubber of test matches at Manchester by 3 runs, but lost the final at the Oval by one wicket after an even more remarkable struggle, G. L. Jessop having scored 104 in an hour and a quarter. The other defeat was by Yorkshire by 5 wickets, when they were dismissed for 23 by Hirst and Jackson. The rest of the tour was characterized by brilliant batting. The performance of Trumper in making 2570 runs (with an average of 48) surpassed anything previously seen; R. A. Duff (b. 1878) also proved a brilliant run-getter. W. W. Armstrong (b. 1879) was useful in all departments, and J. V. Saunders (b. 1876) proved a successful left-handed bowler.
In 1905 there was a marked falling-off, as England won two and drew the other three test matches; but only one other defeat, by Essex by 19 runs, had to be set against 16 Australian victories. The persistent bowling off the wicket by Armstrong, and the inability to finish games within three days, were the chief drawbacks. Armstrong eclipsed all previous colonial records in England by heading both tables of averages, scoring 2002 (average 48) and taking 130 wickets at a cost of 17 runs each. He also compiled the largest individual score (303 not out v. Somerset) ever made on an Australian tour. M. A. Noble also exceeded 2000 runs. For a long time the fast bowler, A. Cotter (b. 1882, N.S.W.), failed, but eventually “came off,” just as F. Laver (b. 1869), who had taken many wickets in the earlier part of the tour, was becoming less formidable. Duff saved the colonials by a great innings in the fifth test match; Trumper was less certain than formerly, and Clement Hill more reckless; whilst J. J. Kelly (b. 1867) on his fifth tour was better than ever before with the gloves.
The Australians who visited England under the leadership of M. A. Noble in 1909 were generally held to be a weaker team than most of their predecessors, but they greatly improved as the season advanced, proving that the side included several cricketers of the highest merit, and as a captain Noble has seldom been surpassed in consummate generalship. Their record of thirteen wins to four defeats offered little evidence of inferiority, while the large number of twenty-one drawn matches was accounted for by the cold wet weather that largely prevailed throughout the summer. Two out of the five test matches were unfinished, and Australia won the rubber by two matches to one. In all the test matches England was under the command of A. C. MacLaren, but the great Harrovian was no longer the batsman he had been some years earlier; Jackson had abandoned first-class cricket; Hirst and Hayward were becoming veterans; and, speaking generally, the English batting was decidedly inferior, and it collapsed feebly in three of the test matches. England’s failure, for which poor fielding and missed catches were also responsible, was the more disappointing since they began well by winning the first test match at Birmingham by ten wickets. C. B. Fry and Hobbs knocking off the 105 runs required to win in the second innings without the loss of a wicket. In the third test match, at Leeds, England was deprived of the services of Hayward and Blythe through illness, and an accident to Jessop during the match compelled the side to play a man short. It was in bowling that the Australians were thought to be least strong; but Laver’s analysis in the Manchester test match, when he took 8 wickets for 31 runs in England’s first innings, was the most notable feature of the match; and although his record at the head of the bowling averages for the tour, 70 wickets at an average cost of 14.9 runs, had frequently been beaten in earlier Australian tours in England, it proved him a worthy successor of Spofforth, Boyle and Turner. Armstrong, although he did not equal his record of 1905, again scored over 1000 runs and took over 100 wickets, his exact figures being 1439 runs and 120 wickets. The most remarkable Australian batting was that of two young left-handed players who on this occasion visited England for the first time, W. Bardsley (b. 1884) and Vernon Ransford (b. 1885), the latter of whom headed the averages both for test matches (58.8) and for the whole tour (45.5), his principal achievement being an innings of 143 not out in the test match at Lord’s. Bardsley, who was second in the test matches averages (39.6), fell into the third place slightly below Armstrong in the averages for the tour; but he alone scored over 200 in an innings, which he accomplished twice, and over 2000 in aggregate for the tour, and he established a test match “record” by scoring 136 and 130 in the match at the Oval. Of the twenty-two “centuries” scored by Australians during the season Bardsley and Ransford each made six. Trumper and Noble each scored over a thousand runs, and Macartney was an invaluable member of the side both in batting and bowling. As a wicket-keeper Carter worthily filled the place of Kelly, and the fielding of the Colonials fully maintained the brilliant Australian standard of former years.
The following “records” of Australian cricket in England up to 1909 are of interest:—Highest total by an Australian team: 843 v. Past and Present of Oxford and Cambridge Universities in 1893. Highest total against an Australian team: 576 by England at the Oval in 1899. Lowest total by an Australian team: 18 v. M.C.C. in 1896. Lowest total against an Australian team: 17 by Gloucestershire in 1896. Highest individual Australian score in one innings: 303 not out by W. W. Armstrong v. Somersetshire in 1905. Highest individual Australian aggregate in a tour: 2570 by V. T. Trumper in 1902. Two centuries in a match: V. T. Trumper 109 and 119 v. Essex in 1902; W. Bardsley 136 and 130 v. England in 1909 (test match record).
The following table shows the Australians who headed the batting and bowling averages respectively in tours in England up to 1909.
Batting.
| Year. | Inn. | Not out. | Runs. | Most. | Aver. | |
| 1878 | C. Bannerman, N.S.W. | 31 | 1 | 723 | 133 | 24.10 |
| 1880 | W. L. Murdoch, N.S.W. | 19 | 1 | 465 | *153 | 25.80 |
| 1882 | W. L. Murdoch, N.S.W. | 61 | 5 | 1711 | *286 | 30.50 |
| 1884 | W. L. Murdoch, N.S.W. | 50 | 5 | 1378 | 211 | 30.60 |
| 1886 | G. Giffen, S.A. | 63 | 9 | 1453 | 119 | 26.90 |
| 1888 | P. M‘Donnell, V. | 62 | 1 | 1393 | 105 | 22.50 |
| 1890 | W. L. Murdoch, N.S.W. | 64 | 2 | 1459 | *158 | 23.33 |
| 1893 | H. Graham, V. | 55 | 3 | 1492 | 219 | 28.36 |
| 1896 | S. E. Gregory, N.S.W. | 48 | 2 | 1464 | 154 | 31.38 |
| 1899 | J. Darling, S.A. | 56 | 9 | 1941 | 167 | 41.29 |
| 1902 | V. T. Trumper, N.S.W. | 53 | 0 | 2570 | 128 | 48.49 |
| 1905 | W. W. Armstrong, V. | 48 | 7 | 2002 | *303 | 48.82 |
| 1909 | V. S. Ransford | 43 | 4 | 1778 | 190 | 45.58 |
| * Not out. | ||||||
Bowling.
| Year. | O. | M. | R. | W. | Aver. | |
| 1878 | T. W. Garrett, N.S.W. | 296.2 | 144 | 394 | 38 | 10.30 |
| 1880 | F. R. Spofforth, N.S.W. | 240.8 | 82 | 396 | 46 | 8.60 |
| 1882 | H. F. Boyle, V. | 1200.14 | 525 | 1680 | 144 | 11.60 |
| 1884 | F. R. Spofforth, N.S.W. | 1544.32 | 649 | 2642 | 216 | 12.20 |
| 1886 | G. Giffen, S.A. | 1693.26 | 722 | 2711 | 159 | 17.05 |
| 1888 | C. T. B. Turner, N.S.W. | 2589.3 | 1222 | 3492 | 314 | 11.38 |
| 1890 | C. T. B. Turner, N.S.W. | 1651.1 | 724 | 2725 | 215 | 12.45 |
| 1893 | C. T. B. Turner, N.S.W. | 1148 | 450 | 2202 | 160 | 13.12 |
| 1896 | T. R. M‘Kibbin, N.S.W. | 647.1 | 198 | 1441 | 101 | 14.27 |
| 1899 | H. Trumble, V. | 1249.1 | 431 | 2618 | 142 | 18.43 |
| 1902 | H. Trumble, V. | 948 | 305 | 1998 | 140 | 14.27 |
| 1905 | W. W. Armstrong, V. | 1027 | 308 | 2288 | 130 | 17.60 |
| 1909 | F. Laver | 495.5 | 161 | 1048 | 70 | 14.97 |
The first English team to visit Australia was organized in 1862, and was captained by H. H. Stephenson. George Parr (1826-1891) took out the next in 1864, Dr E. M. Grace being the only amateur. In 1873 the Melbourne Club invited Dr W. G. Grace to take out an eleven, and three years later James Lillywhite conducted a team of professionals. On this tour for the first time colonials contended on equal terms, one match v. Australia being won by 4 wickets and the other lost by 45 runs. Lord Harris in the autumn of 1878 took a team of amateurs assisted by Ulyett and Emmett, winning 2 and losing 3 eleven-a-side encounters, Emmett’s 137 wickets averaging 8 runs each. Shaw, Shrewsbury and Lillywhite jointly organized the expedition of 1881, when Australia won the second test match by 5 wickets. The Hon. Ivo Bligh (afterwards Lord Darnley) in 1882 took a fine team, which was crippled owing to an injury sustained by the bowler F. Morley. Four victories could be set against three defeats; Australia winning the only test match, owing to the batting of Blackham. Shaw’s second tour in 1884 showed Barnes heading both batting and bowling averages, while six victories counterbalanced two defeats. In the third tour Shrewsbury became captain, but the English for the first time encountered the bowling of C. T. B. Turner, who took 27 wickets for 113 runs in two matches. Australia was twice defeated, the English captain batting in fine form. On this tour was played the Smokers v. Non-Smokers, when the latter scored 803 for 9 wickets (Shrewsbury 236, W. Bruce 131, Gunn 150), against the bowling of Briggs, Boyle, Lohmann, Palmer and Flowers. The winter of 1887 saw two English teams in Australia, one under Lord Hawke and G. F. Vernon, the other under Shrewsbury and Lillywhite. Both teams played well, the batting being headed by W. W. Read with an average of 65, and Shrewsbury with 58. The ill-success of Lord Sheffield’s team in two out of three test matches did not disprove the great merits of his eleven. Dr W. G. Grace headed the averages with 44, and received the best support from Abel and A. E. Stoddart, whilst Attewell, Briggs and Lohmann all possessed fine bowling figures. A. E. Stoddart’s first team (in 1894) achieved immense success and was the best of all. In the first test match they went in against 586 runs and ultimately won by 10 runs, Ward making 75 and 117. Stoddart himself averaged 51, scoring 173 in the second test match, and A. C. MacLaren (who made 228 v. Victoria), Brown and Ward all averaged over 40. The last tour conducted by Stoddart proved less satisfactory, four of the five test matches being lost, and some friction being caused by various incidents. K. S. Ranjitsinhji, who averaged 60 and made 175 in a test match and 189 v. South Australia, and A. C. MacLaren, who scored five hundreds and averaged 54, were prominent, Hayward also doing good work; but the bowling broke down. Weakness in bowling was the cause of the ill success of A. C. MacLaren’s side in 1901. After a brilliant victory by an innings and 124 runs at Sydney, the other four test matches were all lost. MacLaren himself batted magnificently, and so did Hayward and Tyldesley. Braund stood alone as an all-round man. The M.C.C. in 1903 officially despatched a powerful side led by P. F. Warner, and in every sense except the financial the success was complete. Three test matches were won and two lost, while two new records were set up, one by Rhodes obtaining 15 wickets at Melbourne, the other by R. E. Foster, who in seven hours of brilliant batting compiled 287. Tyldesley and Hayward both did good work as batsmen; Rhodes and Braund both bowled consistently. The catch-phrase about “bringing back the ashes” became almost proverbial; its origin is to be found in the Sporting Times in 1882 after Australia had defeated England at the Oval.
New Zealand.—Although cricket has not attained a degree of perfection in New Zealand commensurate with that in Australia, it is keenly played. Lord Hawke sent out from England a team in 1902-1903 which won all the eighteen matches arranged.
Cricket in India.—Not only the English who live in India, but the natives also—Parsees, Hindus and Mahommedans alike—play cricket. A Parsee eleven visited England in 1884 and 1888.
South Africa.—South African cricketers visiting England are handicapped by playing on turf instead of on the matting wickets used in South Africa. The side which came over during the Boer War in 1901 won 13, lost 9, and drew 2 matches, playing a tie with Worcestershire, and showing marked improvement on the team which had visited England in 1894. E. A. Halliwell (b. 1864) proved a fine wicket-keeper, J. H. Sinclair (b. 1876) a good all-round cricketer, J. J. Kotze (b. 1879) a very fast bowler, and G. A. Rowe (b. 1872) clever with the ball. In 1904 more decided success was achieved, for on a more ambitious programme ten victories could be set against two defeats by Worcestershire and Kent, with a tie with Middlesex. The most important success was a victory by 189 runs over a powerful England eleven at Lord’s, when R. O. Schwarz (b. 1875) scored 102 and 26, and took 8 wickets for 106, dismissing Ranjitsinhji twice. Kotze and Sinclair again bore the brunt of the attack. Of the English teams visiting South Africa, that taken by Lord Hawke in 1894 did not meet with such important opposition as the one he led in 1900, yet the side came back undefeated, having won all three test matches. P. F. Warner and F. Mitchell, with Tyldesley, were the chief run-getters, Haigh, Trott and Cuttell bowling finely. In the winter of 1905 the M.C.C. sent out a side under P. F. Warner, but it lost four out of the five test matches, F. L. Fane and J. N. Crawford being the most successful of the Englishmen, and G. C. White (1882) and A. D. Nourse proving themselves great colonial batsmen. In 1907 a representative South African team came to England, and their improved status in the cricketing world was shown by the arrangement of test matches. In the winter of 1909-1910 an English team under Mr Leveson Gower went to South Africa, and played test matches.
West Indies.—West Indian cricketers toured in England in 1900, winning 5 matches and losing 8. The best batsman was C. A. Olivierre (b. 1876), who subsequently qualified for Derbyshire. The brunt of the bowling devolved on S. Woods and T. Burton (b. 1878). In 1897 teams under Lord Hawke and A. Priestly (b. 1865) both visited West Indies, Trinidad defeating both powerful combinations. R. S. Lucas (b. 1867) had in 1895 taken out a successful side. A much weaker combination in 1902 suffered five defeats but won 13 matches. B. J. T. Bosanquet, E. R. Wilson (b. 1879) and E. M. Dowson (b. 1880) were the chief performers. In 1906 another West Indian side visited England, but were not particularly successful.
America.—In the United States cricket has always had to contend with the popularity of baseball, and in Canada with the rival attractions of lacrosse. Nevertheless it has grown in popularity, Philadelphia being the headquarters of the game in the New World.
The Germantown, Belmont, Merion and Philadelphia Clubs play annually for the Halifax Cup, and the game is controlled by the Associated Cricket clubs of Philadelphia. In the neighbourhood of New York matches are arranged by the Metropolitan District Cricket League and the New York Cricket Association; similar organizations are the Northwestern, the California and the Massachusetts associations, while the Intercollegiate Cricket League consists of college teams representing Harvard, Pennsylvania and Haverford. R. S. Newhall (b. 1852) and D. S. Newhall (b. 1849) may almost claim to be the fathers of cricket in the United States; while D. W. Saunders (b. 1862) did much for the game in Canada. Other eminent names in American cricket are A. M. Wood; H. Livingston, of the Pittsburg Club, who scored three centuries in one week in 1907; H. V. Hordern, University of Pennsylvania, a very successful bowler; J. B. King, who in 1906 made 344 not out for Belmont v. Merion, and who as a fast bowler proved most effective during two tours in England. At San Francisco in 1894 W. Robertson and A. G. Sheath compiled a total of 340 without the loss of a wicket, the former scoring 206 not out, and the latter 118 not out. A large number of English cricket teams have visited the United States and Canada. The first county to do so was Kent in 1904, in which year the Philadelphians also made a tour in England, in the course of which J. B. King (b. 1873) took 93 wickets at an average cost of 14 runs, and proved himself the best all-round man on the side. P. H. Clark (b. 1873), a clever fast bowler, and J. A. Lester (b. 1872), the captain of the team, also showed themselves to be cricketers of merit, while N. Z. Graves (b. 1880) and F. H. Bohlen (b. 1868) were quite up to English county form. The team did not, however, include G. S. Patterson (b. 1868), one of the best batsmen in America. The Philadelphians again visited Great Britain in 1908, when they won 7 out of 14 matches, one being drawn. On this tour King surpassed his former English record by taking 115 wickets, and Wood, who played one fine innings of 132, was the most successful of the American batsmen.
Other Countries.—The English residents of Portugal support the game, but were no match for a moderate English team that visited them in 1898. In Holland, chiefly at the Hague and Haarlem, cricket is played to a limited extent on matting wickets. Dutch elevens have visited England, and English elevens have crossed to Holland, the most important visit being that of the gentlemen of the M.C.C. in 1902, the Englishmen winning all the matches.
Professionalism.—The remuneration of the first-class English professionals is £6 per match, out of which expenses have to be paid; a man engaged on a ground to bowl receives from £2, 10s. to £3, 10s. a week when not away playing matches. A professional player generally receives extra reward for good batting or bowling, the amount being sometimes a fixed sum of £1 for every fifty runs, more frequently a sum awarded by the committee on the recommendation of the captain. Some counties give their men winter pay, others try to provide them with suitable work when cricket is over. A few get cricket in other countries during the English winter. For international matches professional players and “reserves” receive £20 each, though before 1896 the fee was only £10; players (and reserves) in Gentlemen v. Players at Lord’s are paid £10. A good county professional generally receives a “benefit” after about ten years’ service; but the amount of the proceeds varies capriciously with the weather, the duration of the match, and the attendance. In the populous northern counties of England benefits are far more lucrative than in the south, but £800 to £1000 may be regarded as a good average result. County clubs generally exercise some control over the sums received. Umpires are paid £6 a match; in minor games they receive about £1 a day.
Records.—Records other than those already cited may be added for reference. A schoolboy named A. E. J. Collins, at Clifton College in 1899, excited some interest by scoring 628 not out in a boy’s match, being about seven hours at the wicket. C. J. Eady (b. 1870) scored 566 for Break o’ Day v. Wellington in eight hours in 1902, the total being 911. A. E. Stoddart made 485 for Hampstead v. Stoics in 1886. In first-class cricket the highest individual score for a batsman is A. C. MacLaren’s 424 for Lancashire v. Somerset at Taunton in 1895. Melbourne University scored 1094 against Essendon in March 1898, this being the highest authenticated total on record. M.C.C. and Ground made 735 v. Wiltshire in 1888, the highest total at Lord’s. In the match between A. E. Stoddart’s team and New South Wales at Sydney in 1898, 1739 runs were scored, an aggregate unparalleled in first-class cricket. The highest total for an innings in a first-class match is 918 for N.S.W. v. South Australia in January 1901. Yorkshire scored 887 v. Warwickshire at Birmingham in May 1896. The lowest total in a first-class match is 12 by Northamptonshire v. Gloucestershire in June 1907. The record for first wicket is 472 by S. Colman and P. Coles at Eastbourne in 1892. The longest partnership on record is 623 by Captain Oates and Fitzgerald at the Curragh in 1895. The best stand that has been made for the last wicket in a first-class match is 230 runs, which was run up by R. W. Nicholls and Roche playing for Middlesex v. Kent at Lord’s in 1899.
The “averages” of individual players for batting and bowling annually excite a good deal of interest, and there is a danger that some players may think too much of their averages and too little of the sporting side of the game. Any comparison of the highest averages during a series of years would be misleading, owing to improvements in grounds, difference of weather, and the variations in the number of innings.
The following table of aggregates, compiled from the figures to the end of 1905, affords a summary of the records of a select list of historic cricketers; it will serve to supplement some details already given above about them and others.
Batting.
| Innings. | Not Out. | Runs. | Most. | Aver. | |
| K. S. Ranjitsinhji | 448 | 57 | 22,277 | 285 | 56.3 |
| C. B. Fry | 481 | 29 | 22,865 | 244 | 50.4 |
| T. Hayward | 667 | 61 | 25,225 | 315 | 41.3 |
| J. T. Tyldesley | 491 | 38 | 18,683 | 250 | 41.1 |
| Dr W. G. Grace | 1463 | 103 | 54,073 | 344 | 39.1 |
| A. Shrewsbury | 784 | 88 | 25,819 | 267 | 37.6 |
| R. Abel | 964 | 69 | 32,810 | 357 | 36.5 |
| A. C. MacLaren | 526 | 37 | 17,364 | 424 | 35.2 |
| G. H. Hirst | 626 | 92 | 18,615 | 341 | 34.4 |
| Hon. F. S. Jackson | 490 | 35 | 15,498 | 160 | 34.2 |
| W. Gunn | 821 | 66 | 25,286 | 273 | 33.3 |
| W. W. Read | 739 | 53 | 22,919 | 328 | 33.2 |
| A. E. Stoddart | 513 | 16 | 16,081 | 221 | 32.2 |
Bowling.
| Overs. | Maid. | Runs. | Wkts. | Aver. | |
| A. Shaw | 22,830 | 12,803 | 21,887 | 1916 | 11.8 |
| F. R. Spofforth | 5,342 | 2,168 | 8,773 | 682 | 12.5 |
| C. T. B. Turner | 5,388 | 2,396 | 8,419 | 649 | 12.6 |
| T. Emmett | 14,672 | 6,870 | 20,811 | 1523 | 13.1 |
| G. Lohmann | 15,196 | 6,508 | 23,958 | 1734 | 13.1 |
| F. Morley | 12,610 | 6,239 | 15,938 | 1213 | 13.1 |
| E. Peate | 11,669 | 5,593 | 14,299 | 1061 | 13.5 |
| W. Rhodes | 11,014 | 3,476 | 23,336 | 1564 | 14.1 |
| W. Attewell | 22,461 | 11,408 | 28,671 | 1874 | 15.5 |
| J. Briggs | 20,300 | 8,275 | 34,411 | 2161 | 15.2 |
| R. Peel | 18,255 | 7,856 | 27,795 | 1733 | 16.6 |
| S. Haigh | 7,749 | 2,279 | 18,516 | 1102 | 16.8 |
| J. T. Hearne | 19,895 | 7,395 | 40,532 | 2350 | 17.5 |
| W. H. Lockwood | 8,733 | 2,241 | 22,981 | 1273 | 18.6 |
| T. Richardson (1904) | 14,474 | 3,835 | 38,126 | 2081 | 18.6 |
| Dr W. G. Grace (1904) | 28,502 | 10,892 | 50,441 | 2730 | 18.1 |
| G. H. Hirst | 11,586 | 3,525 | 27,028 | 1377 | 19.8 |
Bibliography.—The chief works on cricket are, apart from well-known annuals:—H. Bentley’s Scores from 1786 to 1822 (published in 1823); John Nyren’s Young Cricketer’s Tutor (1833); N. Wanostrocht’s Felix on the Bat (various editions, 1845-1855); F. Lillywhite’s Cricket Scores and Biographies, 1746 to 1840 (1862); Rev. J. Pycroft’s Cricket Field (various editions, 1862-1873); C. Box’s Theory and Practice of Cricket (1868); F. Gale’s Echoes from Old Cricket Fields (1871, new ed. 1896); Marylebone Cricket Club Scores and Biographies (1876), a continuation of Lillywhite’s Scores and Biographies; C. Box’s English Game of Cricket (1877); History of a Hundred Centuries, by W. G. Grace (1895); History of the Middlesex County Cricket Club, by W. J. Ford (1900); History of the Cambridge University Cricket Club, by W. J. Ford (1902); History of Yorkshire County Cricket, by R. S. Holmes (1904); History of Kent County Cricket, ed. by Lord Harris, (1907); Annals of Lord’s, by A. D. Taylor (1903); Curiosities of Cricket, by F. S. Ashley Cooper (1901); “Cricket,” by Lord Hawke, in English Sport, by A. E. T. Watson (1903); Cricket, edited by H. G. Hutchinson (1903); Cricket Form at a Glance, by Home Gordon (1903); Cricket (Badminton Library), by A. G. Steel and Hon. R. H. Lyttleton (1904); Old English Cricketers, by Old Ebor (1900); Cricket in Many Climes, by P. F. Warner (1903); How We Recovered the Ashes, by P. F. Warner (1904); England v. Australia, by J. N. Pentelow (records from 1877 to 1904) (1904); The Jubilee Book of Cricket, by K. S. Ranjitsinhji (1897).
↧ Download as ZWI file | Last modified: 11/17/2022 15:24:34 | 19 views
☰ Source: https://oldpedia.org/article/britannica11/Cricket | License: Public domain in the USA. Project Gutenberg License
ZWI signed:
KSF