THE UNIVERSITY CRICKET MATCH.
(BY THE HON. R. H. LYTTELTON.)
If to play drawn matches be a constant reproach against certain
elevens, neither University eleven can be blamed on this score.
Sixty-three matches have been begun between these old rivals, and no
fewer than sixty have been finished. Of the three drawn matches, one,
the first ever played, was confined to one day only; the second was
so long ago as 1844, and that was confined to two days; whilst the
third, in 1888, was played in such unfavourable weather that not even
four days sufficed to finish the match. All the rest have been fought
out to the end, and of the sixty completed matches Cambridge has won
thirty-two times and Oxford twenty-eight; thus Cambridge has a proud
balance of four in its favour. All the matches except five have been
played at Lord’s; the remaining five were played at Oxford, three
on the Magdalen ground, one on Cowley Marsh, and one on Bullingdon
Green. The dark blues appear to have been slightly favoured in this
respect--for presumably they knew their way about Oxford grounds better
than their rivals--and out of the five matches played at Oxford,
Cambridge only succeeded in winning one. The rules of qualification
to play in this match are now strict only in one particular, and
that is that nobody is allowed to play more than four times. Several
players have played five matches, and their names are: C. H. Ridding,
A. Ridding, C. D. Marsham, and R. D. Walker, all Oxford men. The fact
that some players play on a side for five years may constitute a slight
reason for causing the side they assist to lose matches and not win
them; but during the last three years that Mr. R. D. Walker helped his
University he also helped the Gentlemen of England in their annual
matches against the Players both at Lord’s and at the Oval; and C. D.
Marsham was certainly not excelled by any gentleman bowler for accuracy
and general efficiency during all the years he played for Oxford.
Oxford were strong all the five years he played, and won four out of
the five matches; the other match resulted in a victory for Cambridge,
mainly owing to the performances, both in batting and bowling, of the
famous Mr. J. Makinson. Not since 1865, however, when Mr. R. D. Walker
last played for Oxford, has any cricketer played more than four times,
and since that time the rule has been well established, limiting the
period to four years. But there is considerable elasticity allowed in
permitting players to represent their University within those four
years. A residence for a week is apparently sufficient, provided that
the man’s name is kept on the books of some College or Hall. Mr.
O’Brien, who represented Oxford in 1884 and 1885, resided for one
summer at New Inn Hall and never went near his University again, but
if he had chosen and had been selected he might have played for the
full term of four years. Mr. Leslie, after residing at Oxford for one
year, went into business in London, but played three years for Oxford,
and till his last year performed yeoman’s service. In 1856, Makinson’s
year, Mr. T. W. Wills, with the concurrence and sanction of Oxford,
played for Cambridge without ever having resided at Cambridge for one
single day, though his name was entered on the College books. However,
his part in the match consisted of getting five runs in one innings and
bowling nine overs for one wicket. It appears very clear, then, that
Oxford have profited by having five matches played on their own ground
and making use, for five years, of Mr. C. D. Marsham, the best bowler
they ever possessed, to say nothing of Mr. R. D. Walker.
Of course the characteristics of University cricket have changed very
much, following the example of cricket generally. About the first match
of all the late Bishop of St. Andrews (Bishop Wordsworth), who played
in it, very kindly wrote the following note:--
THE FIRST INTER-UNIVERSITY CRICKET MATCH.--1827.
In the newly published Life of my younger brother Christopher, the
late Bishop of Lincoln, the following words are to be found, quoted
from his private journal:--‘Friday’ (no date--but early in June,
1826). ‘Heard from Charles. He wishes that Oxford and Cambridge should
play a match at cricket’ (p. 46). And as I have been asked to put
upon paper what I can remember concerning the first Inter-University
Cricket Match, with a view to its insertion in the present volume,
I venture to take those words for my text. Yes; I was then in my
Freshman’s year at Christ Church, and both my brother and I--he
at Winchester, and I at Harrow--had been in our respective school
elevens. But more than this, as captain of the Harrow Eleven I had
enjoyed what was then a novel experience in carrying on correspondence
with brother captains at other public schools--Eton, Winchester, Rugby
and even Charter House; and I well remember how the last amused us at
Harrow, by the pompous and, as we presumed to think, bumptious style
of his letter, proposing ‘to determine the superiority at cricket
which has been so long undecided.’ Having played against Eton for four
years, from the first match in 1822 to 1825, and in the first match
against Winchester in the last-named year, I had a large acquaintance
among cricketers who had gone off from those schools and from Harrow
to both Universities. My brother, as I have said, was one of these,
but though successful in the Wykehamist Eleven at Lord’s in 1825
(when he got 35 runs in his second innings, and ‘caught’ our friend
Henry Manning--the future cardinal--of which he was wont to boast in
after years), he did not keep up his cricket at Cambridge, whereas I
continued to keep up mine at Oxford and was in the University Eleven
during the whole time of my undergraduate course. Nothing came of
my ‘wish’ to bring about a match between the Universities in 1826.
But in 1827 the proposal was carried into effect. Though an Oxford
man, my home was at Cambridge, my father being Master of Trinity;
and this gave me opportunities for communicating with men of that
University, many of whom remained up for the vacations, or for part of
the vacations, especially at Easter. I remember calling upon Barnard
of King’s, who had been captain of an Eton Eleven against whom I had
played, and who was now one of the foremost Cambridge cricketers, and
he gave me reason to fear that no King’s man would be able to play at
the time proposed (early in June), though that time would be within
the Cambridge vacation and not within ours, because their men, at
King’s, were kept up longer than at the other Colleges. And this, I
believe, proved actually the case; and if so, some allowance should
be made for it. But the fact is, there were similar difficulties on
both sides, and I am not sure they were not as great or greater upon
ours. In those ante-railway days it was necessary to get permission
from the College authorities to go up to London in term time, and
the permission was not readily granted. To take my own case:--My
conscience still rather smites me when I remember that in order to
gain my end, I had to present myself to the Dean and tell him that I
wished to be allowed to go to London--not to play a game of cricket
(that would not have been listened to)--but to consult a dentist; a
piece of Jesuitry which was _understood_, I believe, equally well on
both sides; at all events my tutor, Longley--afterwards Archbishop of
Canterbury--was privy to it.
Thus, though not without difficulties, the match came on, but
unhappily, the weather presenting a fresh difficulty, it did not fully
go off. We could only play a single innings; with the result which the
score shows. The precise day in June on which it was played has been
disputed. One report gives the 4th; another states that ‘the match
did not take place on the 4th as intended, but was deferred for a few
days.’ I can only say that I do not remember any postponement, as I
think I should do had such been the case; and what is more, ‘a few
days’ later would have brought it within our vacation, and so would
have rendered my piece of Jesuitism unnecessary. The players on the
Cambridge side were mostly Etonians, though there was, I think, no
King’s man among them; and on the Oxford side, mostly Wykehamists. We
scored 258 runs to our opponents’ 92, but it cannot be said we were a
strong eleven. The bowling was divided between Bayley and me; and the
state of the ground being in my favour, I was singularly successful
with my left-hand twist from the off, bringing down no less than seven
wickets in the one innings for only 25 runs. Jenner, famous as a
wicket-keeper, and well known afterwards as Sir Herbert Jenner Fust,
was the only batsman who made any stand against it. He had learnt by
painful experience how to deal with it. We had been antagonists in
the Eton and Harrow match of 1822; and I can well remember even now,
though it is 66 years ago, his look of ineffable disgust and dismay
when I had pitched a ball some four or five inches wide to the off,
and he had shouldered his bat meaning to punish it as it rose by a
smart cut to point, the tortuous creature shot in obliquely and took
his middle stump, when he had only got two runs. Precisely the same
happened again in his second innings, only then he got no runs at all.
Again in Eton v. Harrow 1823 I had bowled him at 7. And yet he was
considered the best bat on the Eton side next to Barnard. He now made
47 runs, while no one else on the Cambridge side scored more than 8.
He was also successful as a bowler, taking five wickets, mine included
(against which he had a very strong claim), though I do not remember
that he had much reputation in that line; and certainly upon the whole
the Cambridge bowling must have been very indifferent to allow some of
our men to run up the scores which stand to their names.
Though often successful as a bowler (left-handed, under-hand), batting
(right-handed) was, if I may be bold to say so, my _forte_. In 1828,
the next year after this match, my average, upwards of 40, was higher
than that of any other in the Oxford eleven. I mention this with the
less compunction because in the second Inter-University match my name
appears without a run in either innings, and I wish to state how
the failure is to be accounted for. In that year, 1829, the first
Inter-University boatrace took place at Henley, and I was one of
the eight. As boating and cricket were then carried on in the same
(summer) term, and the race and the match were both to come off in the
same week, I wished to resign my place in the eleven. But this was not
allowed. I had therefore no alternative but to make my appearance and
do my best, though I had not played once before during the season, and
though I was suffering from the effects of my rowing in a way which
made it almost impossible for me to hold a bat. However, though I got
no runs, I was so far of use that I bowled two, and caught two of our
opponents; and we won the match, not quite so triumphantly as in 1827
(if a ‘drawn’ match can be so described), but quite easily enough, as
we had won the boatrace quite ‘easily’ two days before, Wednesday,
June 10th.
Of the players in the two elevens, who contended at Lord’s more than
60 years ago, five--if not six--I believe, are still living. Who shall
say how much the lengthening of their days beyond the ordinary span of
our existence here is to be attributed to ‘Cricket’s manly toil’?
I have now done the best I could to comply with the request made to
me as an old cricketer, and if I have been garrulous, and if I have
been egotistical, I can fairly plead, that this is no more than was
to be expected when an ultra-octogenarian was applied to for his
reminiscences.
CHARLES WORDSWORTH.
ST. ANDREWS: _May 16, 1888_.
In the match of 1827, Oxford, strange to relate, got a total of 258
runs, and exactly realised 200 runs in the third match in 1836, while
Cambridge got 287 runs in the fifth match in 1839; but from 1839 to
1851, when Cambridge scored 266 runs, there was no innings played by
either side which resulted in 200 runs, and this notwithstanding the
gigantic number of extras that were sometimes given. Cambridge in
1841 won by 8 runs, but scored in the two innings 56 by extras. In
1842 Cambridge again won by 162 runs, and scored 81 by extras; while
Oxford in 1843 gained 65 by extras, losing the match, however, by 54
runs. After 1851 scores of 200 runs and over became more frequent, and
still extras formed a formidable item in the various totals. Cambridge
gave 34 extras out of a total of 273 in 1852, or 1 run in every 8; and
Oxford in the same year gave Cambridge 40 extras out of a total of 196,
or an average of a little under 1 in every 5. We have made a careful
comparison showing the different totals and the percentage of extras,
and have found the following remarkable fact: in the first twenty-six
matches the total of runs scored came to 11,192, the number of extras
amounted to 1,767, making the percentage of extras to runs amount to a
little over 1 to 6. In the thirty-four succeeding matches 21,364 runs
were scored and 1351 extras, reducing the proportion to 1 to 15. In
other words, for the first twenty-six matches extras constituted 16 per
cent. of the total amount scored, while during the thirty succeeding
years they only amount to 6 per cent.
As might be expected, the weak point in University cricket is the
bowling, and the tendency of modern Inter-University matches is an
undue largeness of scores, though when the improved condition of the
wickets is taken into account, there exists some ground for hoping
that University bowling is better than it was ten years ago. But when
the fact is considered that young amateurs in the prime of life play
every year on frequently perfect wickets, it is rather surprising that
the scoring is not even larger. That it is not so is chiefly owing
to nerve, that grand disturbing element in all cricket calculations.
It is far the most important contest of the year for all the players
concerned, and if you were to ask any University cricketer which match
or matches he felt most was hoped of him he would certainly quote the
Inter-University matches he took part in. It is a match, therefore,
famous for wrecking the reputation of batsmen. Still one may be allowed
to hope that amateur bowling may improve, as amateur wicket-keeping has
done. Since 1880 Cambridge has had as real good bowlers Messrs. Steel,
Studd, Rock, Woods, Jackson, and for one year Mr. Wells, while Oxford,
in our judgment, has during the same period turned out only three
really good bowlers, Messrs. Evans, Berkeley, and Cunliffe, and for one
year Bardswell.
These ten good bowlers may be compared with the greatest in former
days--Messrs. C. D. Marsham, Traill, Maitland, Fellowes, Kenney, and
Butler of Oxford, and Lang, Salter, Plowden, Pelham, and Powys of
Cambridge, who were all fast except Maitland, Pelham, and Plowden;
while only three of the later lot of ten, Messrs. Woods, Evans, and
Jackson, were fast, the other seven being slow or medium.
No fewer than eighty-three men have played four matches; and it is
curious to notice that out of these eighty-three there are only one
Oxford man and three Cambridge men who have played in four winning
elevens. The three Cambridge men are Messrs. T. A. Anson, W. Mills, and
W. de St. Croix; and the one Oxford man is Mr. S. C. Voules. Mr. Voules
played in the four winning elevens of 1863, ’64, ’65, and ’66, Messrs.
T. A. Anson and W. de St. Croix played in the four winning elevens of
1839, ’40, ’41, and ’42, and Mr. W. Mills played in 1840, ’41, ’42,
and ’43. Two unfortunate Cambridge men had the bad luck to play four
losing matches--namely, Messrs. R. D. Balfour and G. H. Tuck, in the
years 1863, ’64, ’65, and ’66. So far no Oxford man has had this fate.
Cambridge once won five consecutive matches, and on two occasions they
have won four, while Oxford has twice won four consecutive matches. As
may be expected, the runs scored by the more recent batsmen altogether
exceed the earlier players’ efforts. Up to 1870, when Mr. Yardley made
the first hundred, Mr. Bullock’s 78 for Oxford, obtained in 1858, was
the highest individual score, and the highest individual aggregates in
any one match are 92 in 1849 by Mr. R. T. King, 95 by Mr. Makinson in
1856, 90 by Mr. Mitchell in 1862, 92 by the same gentleman in 1865,
and 103 by Mr. C. E. Green in 1868. One of Mr. King’s innings was not
completed. So Mr. Yardley in 1870 beat the record of any two aggregates
by his one innings, except Mr. Green’s innings in 1868. Since 1870 the
individual scores of 100 have come fast and furious, and altogether
twenty hundreds have been played, nine by Cambridge to eleven by
Oxford. Mr. Yardley is still in the proud position of being the only
batsman who has twice got into three figures, and nobody who saw either
of his great performances will ever forget it. Unless, however, there
is a change for the better in bowling or an alteration in the laws,
it is certain that hundreds will come with comparative frequency, and
we cannot help pining for a return to the old state of things when
200 was reckoned a very large total. The highest aggregate in any one
match is Mr. Jardine’s 179 in 1892, and the highest individual score is
Mr. Key’s 143 in 1886. No performances are, however, entitled to more
credit than Mr. Makinson’s aggregate of 95 in 1856, and Mr. Mitchell’s
90 in 1862, and the fewer long scores made in former days made a far
larger proportion of the total runs obtained by the whole side. Mr.
Makinson’s runs in 1855 were obtained against perhaps the best bowling
eleven that Oxford ever possessed, containing Messrs. C. D. Marsham, A.
Payne, W. Fellowes, and W. Fiennes, while Mr. Mitchell’s score in 1862
was not much less than half of the total score of his side. Against
him are to be found the names of Plowden, Lang, Salter, and Lyttelton,
and never in any match, except in the previous year when they had the
same quartet, has Cambridge been so strong in bowling as they were in
1862. The highest average has been secured by Mr. Key of Oxford, and
this amounts to no less than 49. Close behind him comes Mr. Wright of
Cambridge, with an average of 48·4; then Mr. Mitchell with 42·4, and
Mr. Yardley with 39·5. Mr. Mitchell’s average is remarkable, as his
highest score was 57, though he was once not out. Mr. Wright was twice
not out, Mr. Key and Mr. Mitchell once each; Mr. Yardley, however, was
always got out in the end. In estimating these averages we are only
reckoning the players who represented their University for four years.
The earlier bowlers, as far as wickets are a guide, carry all before
them. Not until the twentieth match, played in 1854--Mr. C. D.
Marsham’s first year--was any analysis kept. To judge, however, by
the standard of wickets, Mr. G. E. Yonge of Oxford, who in four years
obtained thirty-nine wickets, Mr. E. W. Blore and Mr. Sayres, both of
Cambridge, who in the same time got thirty-two, are entitled to the
highest place.
Naturally enough, as Mr. Marsham played five years and was also the
best bowler on the whole that Oxford ever turned out, most wickets
fell to his share. He got forty wickets at a cost of 361 runs--that
is to say, of only 9 runs a wicket--a great performance under any
circumstances. Two wides only were scored against Mr. Marsham, and
there is no record of a ‘no ball.’ He bowled a strictly orthodox
round-arm of fast medium pace, and generally round the wicket.
Mr. E. M. Kenney was a very fast and dangerous left-hand bowler, most
terrifying to a nervous batsman, for he delivered that unpleasant sort
of ball which pursues the batsman, and is apt, to adopt a pugilistic
metaphor, to get in heavily on the ribs. During the three years that
Mr. Makinson played for Cambridge he took twenty-one wickets at a cost
of 194 runs, or just 9 runs a wicket; and when it is remembered that he
was also distinctly the best bat in the two elevens each of the three
years he played, it may be safely assumed that, as an all-round man,
he has never had a superior, with the exception of Mr. A. G. Steel.
At the same time it must be admitted that in bowling he was quite as
successful against Oxford as his merits justified.
The famous Cambridge fast bowler, Mr. R. Lang, played three years,
and got fifteen wickets at a cost of only 84 runs, or a fraction over
5 runs per wicket--an analysis that has never been surpassed, and
deserves to be quoted as an example for young players to emulate. In
1860 he bowled in the two innings twenty-one overs for 19 runs and
six wickets. In 1861 he lost his pace owing to an injured arm and was
unsuccessful, bowling twenty-six overs for 30 runs and no wicket. In
1862, in the two innings, he bowled twenty-nine overs for 35 runs and
nine wickets; and, to take the first innings alone, we find he bowled
only thirty-four balls for 4 runs and five wickets all clean bowled.
Considering his pace he was very straight, and only bowled 6 wides
in all three matches. H. W. Salter of Cambridge played two years,
and obtained fourteen wickets for 74 runs, or a fraction over 5 runs
a wicket, another extraordinary performance. Mr. H. M Plowden, who
played four years from 1860, lowered nineteen wickets for 153 runs,
or an average of 8 runs a wicket. In no previous or subsequent years
has either University been so amply provided with bowling strength as
was Cambridge during these three years, as, besides Salter, Lang, and
Plowden, in 1860 she had Messrs. E. B. Fawcett and D. R. Onslow, and in
1861 and ’62 the Hon. C. G. Lyttelton, who bowled for the Gentlemen.
The greatest bowling feat in the whole history of University cricket
belongs to Mr. S. E. Butler, of Eton and Oxford renown, and took place
in 1871. Cambridge had some good bats in her eleven--Messrs. Money,
Tobin, Fryer, Scott, Yardley and Thornton, a rough and ready hitter in
the person of Mr. Cobden, and a fair batsman in Mr. Stedman. But Mr.
Butler found an old-fashioned Lord’s wicket, and he bowled a terrific
pace and got on a spot which shot and made his balls break considerably
down the hill. He got the whole ten wickets in one innings, and in
the match he lowered fifteen wickets for 95 runs. His bowling was
unplayable on the first day; eight of the ten wickets in the first
innings were clean bowled, and twelve out of the whole fifteen.
Mr. Woods, who played for Cambridge for the four years ending 1891,
bowled 184 overs for 318 runs and thirty-six wickets, an average of
five wickets per innings at 8 runs per wicket, a great record for these
days--a feat great enough to entitle him to an honorary degree in the
opinion of the Master of Peterhouse.
Mr. Berkeley had during his four years an uphill task, as he was
in three losing elevens, and that means a heavy handicap, as every
cricketer knows. But considering that he was the only real bowler on
his side during all the four years he played, his record of 196 overs
for 341 runs and twenty-seven wickets, and 12 runs per wicket, is very
good, and such a bowler deserved a better fate than to play in three
defeats out of four matches.
It will interest and comfort young cricketers to remind them how many
great batsmen have failed in these matches. We feel sure that these
latter will excuse us for pointing out their shortcomings; for they
will know that we do so only to sustain their weaker brethren and
illustrate the glorious uncertainty of the game. The late Mr. John
Walker, who for several years represented the Gentlemen, got 19 runs in
six innings, or a proud average of 3. His younger brother, Mr. R. D.
Walker, the silver-haired veteran of five Inter-University contests,
gallantly led off with an innings of 42; but the result of his five
years’ batting against Cambridge was 84 runs in ten innings, his first
innings in fact amounting to one-half of the total runs he scored in
five years. Yet he played for the Gentlemen in 1863, 1864, and 1865,
and these were the last three years he played for Oxford. M. A. W.
Ridley played for four years, and his runs for seven innings came to a
total of 61, or an average of 10 runs per innings, as once he carried
his bat. The present Lord Cobham, who played for the Gentlemen of
England his first year at Cambridge, batted exactly on a par with Mr.
Ridley, as he also made 61 runs in six innings, and was once not out.
Cambridge men of his date will tell you that on Fenner’s nobody was
ever more dangerous, and his scores for those days were enormous. Mr.
C. G. Lane--of whom the poet wrote:
You may join with me in wishing that the Oval once again
May resound with hearty plaudits to the praise of Mr. Lane--
played seven innings for a total of 35 runs. Take courage, then, young
cricketer, and know that if you fail, you fail in good company.
Most extraordinary have been the vicissitudes of fortune in several of
these matches. Oxford in 1871 had a fine eleven, which easily defeated
Cambridge by eight wickets; and in 1872 they played no fewer than
eight of their old eleven. Cambridge played seven, and the four new
men were the famous pair of young Etonians, Messrs. Longman and Tabor,
the Harrovian, Mr. Baily, and the Wykehamist, Mr. Raynor. The odds on
Oxford at the start were about 2 to 1. Yet Cambridge on winning the
toss put together the largest total yet realised by either side in any
one innings, namely 388 runs. The two Etonian freshmen were on the
whole entitled to the chief honours on this occasion, as for the first
time they made over 100 runs before the fall of a wicket. Mr. Longman
was badly run out by Mr. Yardley after batting for about two and a
half hours, or else another 100 runs might have been put on. When the
Oxford eleven went in to bat, not one of them could look at Mr. Powys,
the fastest bowler of the day, except Messrs. Ottaway and Tylecote, who
both played remarkably well in the second innings. Mr. Powys secured
thirteen wickets at a cost of 75 runs, or a trifle under 6 runs a
wicket.
Everybody has heard of the 2-run success of Cambridge in 1870, and
the 6-run victory of Oxford in 1875. The difference between the two
matches consisted in the fact that in 1870 not till the last wicket
was actually bowled down did it appear possible for Oxford to lose;
in 1875 the issue was quite doubtful till Mr. A. F. Smith made that
fatal stroke to a plain lob. Cambridge in 1870 were on the whole
the favourites; not that there was much to choose between the two
elevens, but because they had won the three previous years. In batting,
Cambridge had Messrs. Dale, Money, and Yardley; and Oxford, Messrs.
Ottaway, Pauncefote, and Tylecote--quite a case of six of one and half
a dozen of the other, though Yardley was far the most dangerous man.
In bowling Oxford were handicapped by Mr. Butler’s strained arm, which
prevented him from bowling more than a few overs; but they possessed
Messrs. Belcher and Francis, two good fast bowlers. Cambridge had
Cobden for a fast bowler, Harrison Ward for a medium pace, and Bourne
for slow round. So while Mr. Francis was some way the best fast bowler
of the two elevens, Oxford were deficient in variety, while Cambridge
possessed all paces and also Mr. Money’s lobs. Cambridge won the toss
and put together 147 runs, the good bats all failing, and only Mr.
Scott doing credit to himself by an innings of 45. Oxford scored more
equally, though neither Ottaway nor Pauncefote contributed more than
modest double figures; the total, nevertheless, came to 175, or a
majority of 28. The next hour’s play apparently saw Cambridge utterly
routed. Mr. Dale stopped all that time, but nobody stopped with him.
The total at the fall of the fifth wicket was 40, or only 12 on. ‘We
are going to win a match at last!’ said one of the Oxonians to another
who had been educated at Rugby. ‘Wait a bit,’ said the Rugbeian, who
turned his head and saw Yardley advancing to the wicket; ‘I have
seen this man get 100 before now.’ The companion of the last speaker
possibly had not seen Yardley perform this feat, but he had not long
to wait. There are several batsmen whose play baffles criticism, and
Yardley was one of them. He certainly played some balls in a manner
that purists found fault with, but good judges of the game could see
that there was genius in his method; and genius, as we all know, rises
above canons and criticism. If Mr. Yardley had not touched a bat for
six months, still he might walk to the wickets and play a magnificent
innings; for genius requires little or no practice. Those familiar with
his play knew that they might look out for squalls if he was allowed
to get set. Mr. Dale was at the other end, playing every ball with a
perfectly straight bat and in the most correct style. In the minds of
both of them it was a crisis; for each knew that unless they put on a
lot of runs the match was lost, as five of their side were out. One
mistake and Cambridge would have to retire beaten. But no mistake was
made. Yardley got set; the bowling was fast and so was the ground, and
the former was hit into a complete knot. There seemed to be no prospect
of getting either of them out, when Mr. Yardley sent a ball hard back
to the bowler, who made a fine catch off a fine hit, and the Cambridge
man retired with the first Inter-University 100. Mr. Dale made a leg
hit, and was splendidly caught by Mr. Ottaway with one hand over the
ropes.
In a short time the innings was over, and Oxford had to face a total
of 179 to win the match. In these days on a hard wicket this is
regarded as a comparatively easy feat; but runs were not so easy to
accumulate eighteen years ago, and the betting was now even, Cambridge
for choice. One Oxford wicket was soon got, and then a long stand was
made by Messrs. Fortescue and Ottaway, both of whom played excellent
cricket. The total was brought up to 72 for only one wicket, the
betting veered round to 2 to 1 on Oxford, and Mr. Ward was put on to
bowl. This change was the turning point of the game. Mr. Fortescue
was soon bowled, so was Mr. Pauncefote, and with the total at 86 the
betting was again evens, Oxford for choice. Mr. Ward had found his
spot and was bowling with deadly precision when Mr. Tylecote came in.
Both Ottaway and Tylecote now batted cautiously and well, and Mr. Ward
went off for a time. Mr. Tylecote was a very good bat, but compared
to Ottaway only mortal; how on earth Ottaway was to be got out was a
problem that seemed well-nigh insoluble. The total went up to 153, or
only 26 runs to win and seven wickets to go down; the betting 6 to 1 on
Oxford. A yell was heard, and Mr. Tylecote was bowled by Mr. Ward, and
Mr. Townshend came in.
Mr. Ward, from the pavilion end, was at this stage bowling to Ottaway,
who made a characteristic hit, low and not hard, to short-leg. Mr.
Fryer was not a good field, and Cambridge generally were fielding
badly, but he rose to the occasion and made a good catch close to the
ground, so close that Ottaway appealed, but in vain, and the score
stood at 160 for 5 wickets down--19 runs wanted to win. Mr. Hill now
came in, and began to play a free, confident game at once. A bye was
run and a sharp run was made by Townshend by a hit to third man,
but Townshend was then caught off Ward, and Francis came in, and
after making a single was l.b.w. to the same bowler. During Hill’s
partnership with Townshend and Francis he knocked up 11 runs by good
bustling play, and he now stood at the nursery end to receive the last
ball of an over from Ward, 5 runs being wanted to win, and Butler
in the other end. Hill hit the ball fairly hard to sharp short-leg,
and Bourne measured his length on the ground, stopped the ball, and
converted the hit from a fourer to a single. Hill got to the other end,
an over was called and the ball tossed to Cobden, who was faced by
Hill, 4 runs being wanted to win and 3 to tie.
We say with confidence that never can one over bowled by any bowler
at any future time surpass the over that Cobden was about to deliver
then, and it deserves a minute description. Cobden took a long run and
bowled very fast, and was for his pace a straight bowler. But he bowled
with little or no break, had not got a puzzling delivery, and though
effective against inferior bats, would never have succeeded in bowling
out a man like Mr. Ottaway if he had sent a thousand balls to him.
However, on the present occasion Ottaway was out, those he had to bowl
to were not first-rate batsmen, and Cobden could bowl a good yorker.
You might almost have heard a pin drop as Cobden began his run and
the ball whizzed from his hand. Mr. Hill played the ball slowly to
cover-point, and rather a sharp run was made. As the match stood,
Oxford wanted 2 to tie and 3 to win, and three wickets to go down: Mr.
Butler to receive the ball. The second ball that Cobden bowled was
very similar to the first, straight and well up on the off stump. Mr.
Butler did what anybody else except Louis Hall or Shrewsbury would
have done, namely, let drive vigorously. Unfortunately he did not keep
the ball down, and it went straight and hard a catch to Mr. Bourne,
to whom everlasting credit is due, for he held it, and away went Mr.
Butler--amidst Cambridge shouts this time. The position was getting
serious, for neither Mr. Stewart nor Mr. Belcher was renowned as a
batsman. Rather pale, but with a jaunty air that cricketers are well
aware frequently conceals a sickly feeling of nervousness, Mr. Belcher
walked to the wicket and took his guard. He felt that if only he could
stop one ball and be bowled out the next, still Mr. Hill would get
another chance of a knock and the match would probably be won. Cobden
had bowled two balls, and two more wickets had to be got; if therefore
a wicket was got each ball the match would be won by Cambridge, and Mr.
Hill would have no further opportunity of distinguishing himself. In a
dead silence Cobden again took the ball and bowled a fast ball well up
on the batsman’s legs. A vision of the winning hit flashed across Mr.
Belcher’s brain, and he raised his bat preparatory to performing great
things, hit at the ball and missed it, and he was bowled off his legs.
There was still one more ball wanted to complete the over, and Mr.
Belcher, a sad man, walked away amid an uproarious storm of cheers.
Matters were becoming distinctly grave, and very irritating must
it have been to Mr. Hill, who was like a billiard-player watching
his rival in the middle of a big break; he could say a good deal and
think a lot, but he could do nothing. Mr. Stewart, _spes ultima_ of
Oxford, with feelings that are utterly impossible to describe, padded
and gloved, nervously took off his coat in the pavilion. If ever a man
deserved pity, Mr. Stewart deserved it on that occasion. He did not
profess to be a good bat, and his friends did not claim so much for
him; he was an excellent wicket-keeper, but he had to go in at a crisis
that the best bat in England would not like to face. Mr. Pauncefote,
the Oxford captain, was seen addressing a few words of earnest
exhortation to him, and with a rather sick feeling Mr. Stewart went
to the wicket. Mr. Hill looked at him cheerfully, but very earnestly
did Mr. Stewart wish the next ball well over. He took his guard and
held his hands low on the bat handle, which was fixed fast as a tree
on the block-hole; for Mr. Pauncefote had earnestly entreated Mr.
Stewart to put the bat straight in the block-hole and keep it there
without moving it. This was not by any means bad advice, for the bat
covers a great deal of the wicket, and though it is a piece of counsel
not likely to be offered to W. G. Grace or Stoddart, it might not
have been inexpedient to offer it to Mr. Stewart. Here, then, was the
situation--Mr. Stewart standing manfully up to the wicket, Mr. Cobden
beginning his run, and a perfectly dead silence in the crowd. Whiz went
the ball; but alas!--as many other people, cricketers and politicians
alike, have done--the good advice is neglected, and Stewart, instead of
following his captain’s exhortation to keep his bat still and upright
in the block-hole, just lifted it: fly went the bails, and Cambridge
had won the match by two runs! The situation was bewildering. Nobody
could quite realise what had happened for a second or so, but then----
Up went Mr. Absalom’s hat, down the pavilion steps with miraculous
rapidity flew the Rev. A. R. Ward, and smash went Mr. Charles Marsham’s
umbrella against the pavilion brickwork.[35]
One word more about this never-to-be-forgotten match. The unique
performance of Cobden has unduly cast in the shade Mr. Ward’s
performance in the second innings. It was a good wicket, and Oxford
had certainly on the whole a good batting eleven. Yet Mr. Ward bowled
thirty-two overs for 29 runs and got six wickets, and of those six
wickets five were certainly the best batsmen on the side. He clean
bowled Messrs. Fortescue, Pauncefote, and Tylecote, and got out in
other ways Messrs. Ottaway, Townshend, and Francis. It is hardly too
much to say that in this innings Mr. Ward got the six best wickets and
Mr. Cobden the four worst. In the whole match Mr. Ward got nine wickets
for 62 runs, and this again, let it be said, on an excellent ground.
Comparisons are odious, however, and the four Cambridge men, Yardley,
Dale, Ward, and Cobden, have no reason to be jealous of each other, and
every reason to be satisfied with themselves.
Oxford have got a victory to set off against this Cambridge triumph
in 1870. It took place five years later, and though Mr. Ridley’s
bowling at the finish was not condensed into one sensational over like
Cobden’s, still the greatest credit is due to him for putting himself
on at the right moment, fully realising an undoubted truth, that lobs
are most terrifying to very nervous players at a crisis.
Comparing the two elevens, on paper it would appear that Oxford were
the better bowling eleven, and were considerably superior in fielding.
In 1870 Cambridge deserved to have lost the match on account of their
bad fielding; in 1875 they succeeded in doing so. Messrs. Webbe and
Lang started by making 86 for the first wicket, and Mr. Webbe was twice
badly missed at short-slip. Mr. Lang ought to have been easily stumped.
In Oxford’s second innings four Oxford wickets, including Ridley and
Webbe, were down for 34. Mr. Briggs came in and was badly missed at
short-slip directly, and disaster was averted for some time; and Mr.
Game, who scored 22, was missed shortly after he went to the wicket.
The Oxford fielding was very fine all through, though one member missed
two easy catches. The bowling was more evenly divided; Oxford had more
bowlers than Cambridge, though Messrs. Sharpe and Patterson were as
good as, or better than, Messrs. Lang and Buckland. But besides these
two Oxford had Mr. Royle and Mr. Ridley and Mr. Kelcey, while the two
Cambridge bowlers had to do most of the work.
In batting the position was somewhat similar. Ridley and Webbe were
superior to Longman and the second best Cantab, but on the other hand
Cambridge were stronger all through. On the whole the sides were very
even.
Oxford made a good start, thanks to the politeness of the Cambridge
field, though both Webbe and Lang played well, and fair scores were
made by Ridley, Pulman and Buckland, but at no time during the match
did Mr. Ridley appear at home to Mr. Patterson’s bowling. The total
reached 200, and there were 20 extras, of which 15 were byes; and the
Cambridge wicket-keeping was not up to the mark. Cambridge batted on
the whole disappointingly in the first innings; the captain, Mr. G. H.
Longman, played a very good innings of 40, but the other scores were
below what was expected, and again did extras prove of great value, for
Cambridge realised 17 thereby. But, on the whole, the Oxford fielding
was very fine, and both Messrs. Longman and Blacker, who played good
steady cricket, found great difficulty in getting the ball away.
At the close of the Cambridge innings Oxford had a valuable balance of
37 in their favour, and most thoroughly did they deserve this advantage
on account of their very superior fielding. It is always consoling to
an eleven who are beginning their second innings to feel that every
hit adds to the total that the other side must get before they can
win, and that their energy is not to be applied towards wiping off a
deficit. Oxford had this balance of 37 in their favour, and very sorely
was it needed, for their wickets fell with depressing rapidity. Both
Sharpe and Patterson bowled admirably; the former had both Lang and
Campbell with the score at 5 only. Ridley again fell to Patterson, with
the total at 16, and at 34 Webbe was out to a good running catch from
short-slip to short-leg.
The match now looked well for Cambridge, as Ridley and Webbe were far
superior to their comrades. Mr. Webbe had scored most consistently all
through the year; this second innings of 21 contained no mistake, and
nobody ever could have looked more firmly set for a large score. Four
wickets for 34 was a very bad start, but again did the Cambridge eleven
show great politeness to their opponents; for directly Mr. Briggs came
in he was badly missed at short-slip off Mr. Sharpe, and Messrs. Briggs
and Pulman raised the score to 64, when the former was clean bowled
by a lob. Mr. Pulman stayed till the total reached 74, when he was
stumped off Mr. Sharpe for an admirable innings of 30. He had played
very well in his first innings, but his second stopped an undeniable
rot, was quite chanceless, and no innings under the circumstances could
have been more useful. Mr. Game then came in, and again did Cambridge
rise to the occasion and miss him off an easy chance when he had made
3 only; and he showed his gratitude by hitting up 22 before he was
well caught, the total being 109. Mr. Buckland was clean bowled by
Mr. Patterson first ball, and nine runs later Mr. Royle was stumped,
having played a most useful innings of 21. Both Messrs. Tylecote and
Kelcey smacked up small double figures, and the total of the innings
was 137--a very much better score than at one time seemed probable. If
the chances had been taken the total might not have reached 100, and if
a list could be made of the matches lost by bad catching, angels would
weep.
Oxford’s second innings was not over till a quarter to seven, but Mr.
Ridley rightly insisted on the letter of the law being kept, and five
minutes before the drawing of the stumps Oxford were in the field and
two nervous Cambridge batsmen in a fading light were walking slowly to
the wickets. Only one over was bowled, and a leg-hit for four was the
only result.
[Illustration: THE INTERVAL]
We have said that the Oxford captain rightly insisted on Cambridge
going in, and we contend that Mr. Ridley acted wisely and not unfairly
in so doing. He had the law on his side, and if the law is not to be
enforced in the University match, when is it ever likely to be? Mr.
Ridley also probably anticipated the fact that the Cambridge captain
would be unwilling to run the chance of sacrificing one of his good
wickets, and that the order of going in would be altered. This may be a
considerable disadvantage to the side; it is not certain that it was in
the present case; but Mr. Macan, who went in fifth wicket down in the
first innings, had to go in considerably later in the second innings,
and thus a good batsman was wasted.
Messrs. Sharpe and Hamilton went in first; at the beginning of the
third day Cambridge wanted 171 runs to win, and had all their wickets
standing. Both Sharpe and Hamilton played well at the start, and
brought the score up to 21, when the latter put his leg in front and
departed. Mr. Lucas came in, but was clean bowled for 5 runs: two
wickets for 26. Mr. Longman, the captain, came in, and played steadily
and well, and the bowling for the first time in the innings seemed to
be collared; Lang went off, Ridley bowled three overs for 11 runs,
and Mr. Royle took the ball. Mr. Royle’s bowling proved the turning
point of the game. He was not by any means an accurate bowler, but at
times his balls broke fast and were most difficult to play. He bowled
three maidens, and with the fifteenth ball clean bowled Mr. Sharpe,
who had played an excellent innings of 29. He had stepped into the
breach overnight and gone in when twilight was coming on; having passed
through that ordeal safely, he completed a most useful innings next
day. Messrs. Longman and Sharpe had brought the score from 26 to 65,
but Royle made Blacker play a ball on at 67, and clean bowled Longman
at 76 for a second very good innings. The ball that bowled Mr. Longman
was a dead shooter of the old sort, which came back also considerably.
Messrs. Greenfield and Lyttelton were now in together, and the score
again steadily rose, though Mr. Lyttelton was manifestly uneasy with
Royle’s bowling. However, the total came to 97 when Lyttelton was
badly missed, and a snick put 100 on the board; but at 101 Greenfield
made a bad hit and was caught at mid-off, and in walked Mr. Sims. Sims
this year was a powerful and dangerous bat--in fact, he was the most
determined hitter in the two elevens, and on the present occasion
he made a great bid for victory. He possessed a bulldog courage in
whatever he undertook, and his contemporaries at Cambridge could
scarcely believe that so strong a man could have caught a chill and
died so quickly as he did some few years later while in full work as
an energetic clergyman in the North of England. Shortly after Sims had
gone in, Lyttelton was a second time missed, though fortunately for
Oxford the mistake mattered little, for from a fine leg-hit he was
grandly caught by Webbe close to the ropes while running at full speed.
It was not a high hit, but it would have hit a spectator on the nose
if the fieldsman had not caught it. There was no finer bit of fielding
in the match than this, and it was hard to be got out in such a way,
though the batsman was lucky to have made 20 runs. The score was 114
when Lyttelton was out, or 60 to win and 3 wickets to go down, and the
betting 7 to 4 on Oxford. Messrs. Sims and Patterson played well, and
brought the score to 128, or 46 to win, when down came the rain and
play was stopped for an hour and a half. It rained hard for a time, and
Oxford had to turn out to bowl with a wet ball and field on slippery
ground. Mr. Patterson played well, and Sims shut his teeth and went
to work with savage determination. The runs came fast; in 20 minutes
the score had been raised from 128 to 161, when Ridley went on to bowl
and with his first ball clean bowled Patterson. Macan then came in and
made a single (13 to win), and a mighty whack did one of Ridley’s balls
then get from Sims, who sent the ball over the bowler’s head to the
ropes like a cannon shot, and Lang took the ball from Royle, 9 runs
being wanted to win the match for Cambridge. A leg-bye was got from
Lang’s first ball and a no ball followed, making 7 to win. It appeared
good odds on Cambridge, for Sims did not look like getting out, and
his hits had a way of going to the boundary. Be it remembered that the
ball was wet and heavy, and forgetfulness of this fact on the part of
Sims at this stage cost him his wicket and Cambridge the match. Mr.
Game was fielding deep square-leg close to the ropes by the tennis
court, and Pulman was on the on side close to the left-hand corner of
the enclosure that stands on the left facing the pavilion. There was
a considerable space between these two fields, and off the full pitch
on his legs which Sims now received from Lang the ball might have been
swept safely under the ropes anywhere between the two men. But Sims
no doubt felt as strong and as lusty as an eagle, and forgetting that
the ball was wet and heavy, got under it and tried to lift it over the
ropes. The sodden ball refused to go so far, and Pulman, running some
distance, made what with the ball dry and of a normal weight would have
been an ordinary country catch. With the ball wet and heavy, however,
his success was the more commendable, and back to the pavilion,
crestfallen and sad, went Sims. Returning for a moment to the 2-run
match, the two men for whom sympathy may be felt because the game did
not result in favour of their side were Ottaway in 1870 and Sims in
1875. Ottaway got out when his side wanted 18 runs to win and had four
wickets to go down, and Sims when only 7 runs were wanted and there
were two wickets to fall. Both are now dead, but as long as any matches
in England are remembered these two innings will be borne in the memory
of those who witnessed them.
Mr. Smith had to face a crisis he had long been dreading, and he
walked apprehensively to the wicket. Mr. Macan, who was in, had only
received two or three balls, so both had to feel their way cautiously.
It is, perhaps, true to say that at the extreme moments of nervousness
climatic surroundings have no effect on the constitution; be this as
it may, the air was chilly, the ground was wet, and the sun invisible.
Probably Mr. Smith felt as cold as if he had been in a damp cellar. A
well-known Harrovian told the writer at this stage that he had seen Mr.
Smith get over 25 runs against the famous George Freeman’s bowling.
What did that matter if he was unable to get six runs against Ridley’s
lobs? He somehow or other stopped two balls in a doubtful sort of
style, and played slowly forward to the third, thinking that after the
manner of lobs it would twist. The wet ground prevented this; it went
on and hit the middle stump, and Oxford won the match by six runs.
We regard this match as a model of what a cricket match should be;
the runs were not too numerous, the interest was kept up to the very
end. It would have been hard lines perhaps for Oxford to have lost the
match, for the rain that fell in Cambridge’s last innings was unlucky
for the dark blue; it is impossible to bowl or field well with a wet
ball, and it happened that Sims was just the man to take advantage of
this state of things. The bowling was managed with great skill by Mr.
Ridley, and, as we have said before, he realised an undoubted truth,
that lobs are often fatal to a batsman who is paralysed by nervousness.
It is not easy to say with any certainty that the bowling at the
Universities is better or worse than it was. We are inclined to think
that, writing in 1898, there are signs that it is better than it was
between the years 1872 and 1888, but not equal to the days of C.
D. Marsham, R. Lang, Plowden, and Kenney, but in those days it was
quite possible for a side to have weak bowling, and yet get out their
opponents with the help of the more difficult wickets. This was the
case in 1864. Oxford were led by the famous Mr. Mitchell, and were a
strong batting eleven. Cambridge were fairly strong in batting, but
they deliberately chose to meet Oxford with only two bowlers, Messrs.
Curteis and Pelham. So well did these two gentlemen perform that almost
to the very end the result was doubtful. Messrs. Fowler and Booth each
succeeded in getting a wicket in the first innings, and Mr. Booth one
in the second innings, but between them they only bowled twenty-two
overs in the whole match, while Mr. Curteis bowled seventy-five overs
for eight wickets, and Mr. Pelham fifty-six overs for five wickets.
This was a fine match, won at the finish by a grand innings of Mr.
Mitchell’s. No man ever went in at a more critical time than he did
this second innings, neither did anybody ever bat with better nerve.
Out of 125 required to win the match, no fewer than 55 (not out) fell
to his share, and Oxford won by four wickets. The Cambridge eleven
of 1878 had a most extraordinary run of success, never, as far as we
know, equalled by any University eleven. They won no fewer than eight
matches, and not a defeat or a draw is found against them. They beat
Oxford by 238 runs, and the Australians in one innings. There is no
doubt that during that year, if a representative English eleven had
been chosen to play Australia or any other eleven, no fewer than four
out of the Cambridge eleven would have been found in the English team.
They were not all good, but the superlative excellence of those four
made the eleven one of the best that has yet played in these matches;
and that of 1879 was almost as good.
It may interest some of our readers if we make a few remarks as to the
standing of the various public schools in regard to the composition of
the University elevens. We have analysed the elevens from 1861 to 1897
inclusive, and, as is perhaps natural, Eton comes first, having had
during that period fifty-nine of her alumni representing one or other
of the Universities. We are not reckoning the number of years that each
played, but fifty-nine different Etonians have in the last thirty-three
years played in the University match: thirty-four for Cambridge,
twenty-five for Oxford. Harrow is represented by forty-six players:
twenty-four at Oxford, and twenty-two at Cambridge. Rugby comes next
with twenty-nine: nineteen for Oxford and ten for Cambridge. At one
time Rugby was almost on a level with Eton and Harrow, for from the
years 1861 to 1873 inclusive there were always two Rugby men playing in
the match, and sometimes more; since that time, however, more than two
Rugbeians have never played, two have played only twice, and from 1884
downwards two only have played. Mr. Leslie and Mr. Warner were the last
good cricketers Rugby sent out, and her prowess seems much diminished
as compared with the days of Pauncefote, Yardley, Francis, Kenney, and
Case. Winchester has been represented by twenty-three, of whom all but
three have played for Oxford, while out of eighteen Marlborough men
twelve have played for Oxford; but Cambridge men will ever gratefully
tender their thanks to Marlborough for the services of Mr. A. G. Steel,
by far the greatest player ever turned out by that school, and perhaps
the best all-round cricketer that has yet played for either University.
Seventeen Cliftonians have played for Oxford, and two for Cambridge;
but eleven out of fourteen Uppingham boys have represented Cambridge.
Repton has contributed nine players, five representing Cambridge and
four Oxford. Charterhouse has had nine University players, Tonbridge
six, Cheltenham and Westminster have had five, and on the whole the
proportion between Oxford and Cambridge has been about equal.
Of all-round players both Universities have had their full share in
numbers. Cambridge has been helped by Makinson, A. G. Steel, C. T.
Studd, and F. S. Jackson, and Oxford by Messrs. Maitland, R. D. Walker,
and S. C. Voules. The great strength of Oxford in the years 1863–4–5
arose not only from the fact that in Mr. Mitchell it possessed one
of the five greatest bats in England, but also that it had four such
wonderful all-round men as Messrs. Voules, Walker, Evans, and Inge in
1863; and the same quartette, with the substitution of Mr. Maitland for
Mr. Inge, in 1864 and 1865. But not one of the five was quite equal
to any one of the Cambridge quartette, and when we say this we take
as our basis the performances of the four in the University matches;
and we do not consider the men who played before 1854, for it is
difficult to make fair comparisons over so long a distance of time. The
above-mentioned four will be found in the first half-dozen of batsmen
and in the first half-dozen of bowlers. Messrs. Makinson, Yardley,
Lucas, A. Lyttelton, A. G. Steel, C. T. Studd, F. S. Jackson, and N.
F. Druce are the best batsmen from Cambridge, and Messrs. Mitchell,
Maitland, Ottaway, Pauncefote, E. F. S. Tylecote, Key, Rashleigh, and
Palairet the best from Oxford. In bowling, the champions from Oxford
are Messrs. Marsham, Traill, Kenney, S. E. Butler, and Berkeley; from
Cambridge, Messrs. Plowden, Pelham, Lang, Woods, and A. G. Steel. This
is an opinion only, and would have to be considerably altered if we
were to take another basis than the Inter-University match to draw our
conclusions from. Mr. Kenney never played for the Gentlemen against the
Players, and neither he nor Mr. Plowden could be compared as a bowler
to Mr. Kempson, whose performance against the Players is historical.
But he failed against Oxford. In the same way Lord Cobham, Mr. Ridley,
and Mr. Lane were each as good as Mr. Pauncefote, but they failed in
the Inter-University match, and consequently are out of our list.
The two following tables will show the best batting and bowling
averages of those who have played for four years, and in the case of
Mr. C. D. Marsham for five years, in the University match. The minimum
batting average being 30, and the minimum bowling average being 12:--
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+--------+
| Name |Innings| Runs |Not out| Average|
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+--------+
|K. J. Key | 7 | 294 | 1 | 49 |
|C. W. Wright | 7 | 291 | 1 | 48·3 |
|R. A. H. Mitchell | 7 | 254 | 1 | 42·2 |
|W. Yardley | 7 | 278 | 0 | 39·5 |
|A. P. Lucas | 8 | 254 | 1 | 36·2 |
|Hon. A. Lyttelton | 8 | 234 | 1 | 33·3 |
|G. B. Studd | 7 | 225 | 0 | 32·1 |
|A. G. Steel | 7 | 184 | 1 | 30·4 |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+--------+
+---------------------+-------+-------+-------------+
| | | | Average per |
| Name |Wickets| Runs | wicket |
+---------------------+-------+-------+-------------+
|S. M. J. Woods | 36 | 318 | 8·30 |
|C. D. Marsham | 40 | 362 | 9·1 |
|H. M. Plowden | 19 | 188 | 9·17 |
|A. G. Steel | 38 | 342 | 9·31 |
|W. F. Maitland | 21 | 213 | 10·3 |
|Hon. F. G. Pelham | 26 | 292 | 11·8 |
|S. E. Butler | 25 | 312 | 12·12 |
|G. F. H. Berkeley | 27 | 341 | 12·17 |
+---------------------+-------+-------+-------------+
FOOTNOTES:
[35] The difficulty of getting accurate facts about this unique over
has been immense. The author has before him the written statement
of Mr. Hill, a copy of the _Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News_
containing a letter of Mr. Yardley, who was keeping wicket and was
therefore in a position to judge, and a letter from Mr. Cobden and Mr.
Belcher. In the first edition of this book Mr. Stewart is said to have
been bowled off his legs; this is inaccurate, and the author apologizes
for the blunder. Mr. Cobden complains of the account generally, and
says that all three balls were of a good length, and that he never
bowled better balls in all his life. The author in the above has
written what he believes to be accurate, relying chiefly on the written
evidence of Messrs. Hill, Yardley, and Belcher, and in a less degree
from what he has heard from some spectators. It was not Stewart that
was bowled off his legs, but Belcher; and in order that the public
may form their own judgment, the written statements of Messrs. Hill,
Yardley, and Belcher are here inserted. Mr. Hill writes:--‘Belcher was
bowled with a yorker (half-volley?) and Stewart with a half-volley, but
whether off his leg or not I do not remember.’ Mr. Hill also writes
that on meeting Cobden some years later, Cobden repeated that they were
three of the best balls he ever bowled, to which Mr. Hill replied that
they were all half-volleys, and that he believed that if he had had any
one of them he could have won the match with a fourer. Now Mr. Yardley,
in allusion to the author’s statement that the ball that Butler was
caught off was straight and well up on the off stump, writes: ‘As a
matter of fact the ball in question was a very long hop, extremely wide
on the off, so much so that I have no hesitation in stating that if Mr.
Butler had made no attempt to strike at it the umpire would have called
a wide. The batsman, however, was possessed of an exceptionally long
reach, and just managed to strike the ball with the extreme end of his
bat to cover-point, where it was beautifully caught by Mr. Bourne.’
Now as to Belcher’s ball, Mr. Yardley says: ‘The ball in question was
the most delicious half-volley on the legs, which Mr. Belcher did his
utmost to hit out of Lord’s ground. Fortunately for Cambridge his deeds
were not so good as his intentions, for he hit too hard at the ball,
which he missed, and which, striking him on the left leg, cannoned on
to his right leg, and from thence on to his wicket.’
On the point of Mr. Stewart’s ball Mr. Yardley writes: ‘This fourth and
last ball was the only straight one of that celebrated over. It was
an exceedingly long hop, scarcely pitching half-way, and coming along
surprisingly slow off the pitch. Had it not been for that circumstance
Mr. Stewart would probably have not lost his wicket as he did, for
it was only at the very last moment that he neglected his captain’s
instructions and removed his bat from the block-hole, thereby allowing
the ball to strike his off stump about three-quarters of the way up.’
Mr Yardley also writes that the scene appears to him as vivid after a
lapse of twenty years as it did then.
Mr. Belcher writes: ‘I am _quite certain_ that I was bowled off my
legs; the ball to the best of my recollection hit me just below the
knee of the right leg and went into the wicket. At any rate I am quite
clear as to my leg being hit, and my impression is that it was a very
good-length ball, and not a half-volley. I don’t think I hit at it all.
Of course at such a distance of time my recollections are somewhat
vague, _but the one point I am quite sure of is that I was bowled off
my leg_.’
With these extracts before them, the matter is now left to posterity.