Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

UNIVERSITY CRICKET.-CAMBRIDGE.

AND now for what we choose to consider have been the three strongest Cambridge Elevens within our memory.

What do we know about Cambridge cricket? some one may reasonably ask. Not half as much, we admit, as did poor old Bill Ford, who, it always seems to us, did his work of writing on Cambridge University Cricket so admirably well that we are even glad that we have no copy of his work to refer to, lest we might be tempted to plagiarise. However, though it is a fact that except at Lords we have never seen a Cambridge Eleven take the field, we may claim that, having for the last fortyfive years followed with considerable interest the perform ances of Cambridge in every match played by them in the course of the season, we are possibly quite as wise as the majority of our neighbours. Furthermore, in addition to having been a fairly regular attendant at Lords on the occasion of the 'Varsity Match, we have been at some pains to supplement our own knowledge, or perhaps we should say, our own ignorance, by gauging the opinion of men who have played against them.

So much, then, in the way of apology-and now to take the plunge. As we fancy that a majority of Cantabs still maintain the position that the

I.

side which in 1878 pretty easily defeated both the Australians and Oxford was at the least as strong as any that ever represented the University, let us deal with that first. In batting, then, undeniably good, if only on the ground that that must have been a powerful batting side indeed in which A. F. J. Ford went in last. True, until his last year of residence, when he had improved perhaps not a little, the lengthy Reptonian never did anything in the 'Varsity Match to justify his school reputation. But there never yet, to our knowledge, was a Ford who did not possess the knack of hitting the ball rather harder than most of us when he had a mind that way, and we should be inclined to write down that particular member of the family as quite the most dangerous batsman who within our memory was sent in last in a 'Varsity Match. And so we hold that his place on the list is an additional proof, if one were needed, of the strength of the Cambridge batting in 1878. Lucas, two Lytteltons, two Steels, Ivo Bligh! A hard nut to crack a side which contained that sixième. Four at least of them were as good in their undergraduate days as they ever were in their lifetime.

men

For thirty years ago reached their cricket

maturity at an earlier age than is the case nowadaysor perhaps to be more correct, accepted the game as a pastime for a few years only and then betook themselves to life's more serious business. A fifth, the elder Steel, was possibly never quite so good at Cambridge as he had been at

Lucas,

E. Lyttelton, A. Lyttelton, A. G. Steel, D. Q. Steel, Bligh,

Uppingham, or in any case never really "came off" in the 'Varsity Match; and the sixth, Ivo Bligh, had possibly outgrown his strength and was distinctly better later on. As each of these six men took part in four of these matches, it may be as well to take their averages at Lords.

with 254 runs for 7 completed innings, had an average of 364

147

7

21

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Not by any means large scoring this in the light of modern revelations. But wickets were by no means so perfect, nor did scoring, either at Lords or elsewhere, range so high in the seventies as it has done of later years. At that era, at any rate, a University Eleven in which six batsmen were by way of contributing 161 runs towards the total of their side might account itself comparatively safe to win their match at Lords. In the decade between '70 and '79, the Oxford sides, with an equal number of wins and losses to their credit, averaged in seventeen completed innings 152 runs. Even when the tally of the incomplete innings is added-and then in two years certainly the batsmen untroubled by any prospect of possible disaster to the side could advance to the task of knocking off the few runs required with light hearts and easy confidence-the average works out at just under that 161.

Moreover, the other five

[ocr errors]

batsmen on the Cambridge side of 1878 were by no means an unlikely lot to score, nay, even to score pretty heavily. Ford, as we have already said, was not quite at his best; but Whitfield was as patient as Old Time, and almost as reliable; Jarvis was essentially a dangerous batsman; Kingston had -a rare circumstance thatalready proved his ability to make runs against the Oxford batting; Morton-well, as it happened, Morton made thirty runs in that particular 'Varsity match.

So much for the batting strength.

Again, the wicket-keeping, a very essential item in success, was by way of being absolutely first-class, so much so indeed that, had Alfred Lyttelton not been playing, Kingston might possibly have shared with Wickham the distinction of being reckoned

among the finest amateur wicket-keepers seen at Lords in the seventies. The outfielding also was good. Pretty well every man on the

side could be warranted to hold a catch if it came his way, and Jarvis and Bligh in particular were as active and almost as ubiquitous as two long-legged cats.

But the bowling? Absolutely first-class so far as it went; good enough, as the sequel proved, to defeat 8 very moderate Oxford side,-nay, even good enough, when backed by the excellent fielding, to put paid to the account of the formidable Australians. And yet the combination of Steel with his new-fangled deceptive methods, and Morton with his baulking action and undeniable pace off the pitch, would surely in some years have required a little better support before it could be confidently relied upon to win a 'Varsity match. Where was the support? In Lucas, who in his first year apparently had never ranked as a bowler at all, and in his second and third years had bowled a few overs without success? Or in Ford, whose really good bowling days had yet to come? In these modern days-we freely admit that the wickets favour the batsmanthe 'Varsity captain whose side contains four possible

bowlers only, however good may be the quality of the first pair, may be said to invite defeat. And even thirty years ago "four" sounds rather a short quantity. We were reading not long ago the account of a match in South Africa, and the following paragraph caught our eye: "Kenney, who took two wickets for twenty-one runs, was unlucky enough to break a finger in stopping a hard return from Simpson - Hayward." These accidents happen occasionally even in a 'Varsity match, and it may be added that at that period Oxford could command the services of an unusually knockme-about bowler. Had Steel chanced to have split or otherwise damaged a finger, or had Morton broken down,-no unusual circumstance with a fast bowler, — a distinctly weak Oxford side might well have won the match.

On that ground only, insufficiency of reserve bowling, we should be personally inclined to write down the Cambridge side of '78 as slightly inferior to at least one side that came before and another that came after it.

In the period between '68 and '73 Cambridge was able to put into the field exceptionally powerful all-round sides, and as in the last four years Oxford was also strongly represented, trick-and-tie was quite the appropriate order of the day,

VOL. CLXXXVIII.—NO. MCXXXVII,

II.

before the

and favouritism event was about equally divided. For reasons which we shall come to shortly, we prefer to take the Cambridge Eleven of 1869 for the purpose of instituting a comparison. The batting first.

G

[blocks in formation]

So far as averages go, the latter Eleven has a distinct pull. But we are inclined to believe that in cricket generally, and more especially in the 'Varsity match, when men are apt to be a bit "jumpy," what we are pleased to call "moral effect" has to be taken more seriously into consideration than an average. Not so much, then, what that truly terrible pair of Freshmen, Thornton and Yardley, actually did do in a 'Varsity match was liable to affect the nerves of the Oxonians, as what they were known to be capable of doing. As a matter of history, Yardley came off gloriously twice, and twice failed ignominiously, while Thornton, although he may fairly be accounted as the redeemer twice over of a lost situation in 1869, in no subsequent year really left his mark on a 'Varsity match. But where Thornton and Yardley were playing on the same side, the Oxford bowlers could not but be painfully aware of the fact that the cover was liable to be knocked off the ball and the heart taken out of the attack at any period of the game. That which to an orthodox batsman appealed as a well-pitched ball-nay, even as a ball pitched on the blind spot-Thornton seemed apparently to regard as a thing served up for the especial pur

pose of being hit out of the ground. Similarly the best bowlers of the day, like the Oxonians, occasionally found to their cost that there was no stopping Yardley once he had fairly set himself going.

Now, by way of parenthesis, a word about that "blind spot." Poor dear Johnnie Gibbon, who was left "not out" on the first day of the match, told us afterwards that the last ball sent down to him in the evening-we really forget by what bowler-appealed to him as positively unplayable.

"What did you do then, Johnnie? You seemed to stop it all right."

"Shut my eyes, old chap, and prayed that it would hit my bat, which I never moved."

To proceed, however: once again the moral effect produced by the presence of the two Freshmen was probably a far more important factor in the success of their side than the mere possession of an average is ever likely to be. When the batsman with the average gets to work, the bowler has some idea of what he has got to expect, and minds his p's and q's accordingly. But in cricket more than in any other game "ignotum omne pro terrifico." Both Thornton's and Yardley's methods were known to be of a character that was well warranted to upset all forms of calculation.

Money not quite so good as Steel? Possibly not in & 'Varsity match. For Money's batting never came off, as it might have been expected to

time have made as big a reputation as did Lucas. In any case he has even a better claim than either Yardley or Cobden to be ranked as the real winner of the 1870 match. If it had not been for Dale's iron nerve and watchful defence, when everything was going against his side, neither might Yardley have found time to make his century, nor Cobden the opportunity for performing his unique feat.

come off, in those particular cricket, might well in course of fixtures. But is our memory at fault, or was not there one season about that time in which Money-W.G. being laid by, we fancy, through illness-might almost have been described as the premier amateur batsman of the year? Of course his slow underhand, as compared with Steel's slow round arm, was very inferior stuff. But still it served its purpose for two years, and the man who, in three successive innings of 'Varsity matches, collected sixteen wickets, must be written down as a fairly useful bowler. The circumstance that no less than five of those wickets were obtained at the expense of four brother Harrovians does not seem to argue that familiarity with a certain style of bowling necessarily produces mastery over it. But possibly some of the Harrovians who figured in the Oxford Eleven at that period were not particularly clever with the bat. Far more remarkable a few years later was the fact that such excellent batsmen as Longman and Tabor were clean bowled by the lobs of their old schoolfellow and contemporary, Ridley, in an innings when they might surely have been regarded as well-set.

Dale and Richardson v. Lucas and Bligh? Except for the fact that that excellent batsman, Richardson, for some reason or another, invariably elected to have a day off when it came to batting in the 'Varsity match, there is very little in it. Jack Dale, had he continued to play in first-class

Preston and Stow v. D. L. Steel and Whitfield? Well, as none of the quartette happened to do much in the match, their respective merits do not require to be weighed very carefully in the balance. Steel was, of course, a dangerous customer in any company; and on the other hand, it may be said of Preston that he must have been a pretty good batsman in that year of grace or he would never have been sent in first of an unusually strong lot. Stow and Whitfield were much on the same line, both sound batsmen, neither of them particularly exhilarating.

As a wicket-keeper, doubtless Richardson was never quite in the same street as Alfred Lyttelton. Lyttelton. But he would be a captious critic indeed who found much fault with a stickkeeper who only let four byes and annexed six wickets in the course of the match.

But after all, the two things that incline us to give our vote in favour of the 1869 lot are, in the first place, the greater variety of attack, and in the second place, the strong person

« PredošláPokračovať »