Leaves from the Past Final Part2

Leaves From The Past Pt 3 Written by Richard Lawrence A Special volume from The Wisden Collectors’ Club First Published April 2020 Page 24 1885 and 1886 of the match, but Cricket in its report of the second match of ruined match was driîng towards a draw when Lancashire the tour in the 25 May 1882 issue records that the Australian amateur George Jowea was put on to bowl. He was captain William Murdoch lodged a formal protest against promptly no-balled for throwing, whereas the Lancashire Blackman 'on the grounds that he threw'. His objecEons commiaee had been at pains to point out that Crossland had were however over-ruled by the umpires. ‘appeared at Lord’s and frequently elsewhere in first-class matches without having [his] fairness quesEoned.’ The Australian perspecEve is given in an extract from the Australian newspaper cited in Cricket on 7 September 1882, ____________________________________________________________________ where a member of the side is quoted as saying that Blackman 'throws in an undisguised manner'. In this Teggin’s Day account, the tourists' objecEons were gainsaid by 'the Lancashire v Kent, Old Trafford, June 17, 18, 19 1886, Wisden clergyman who captained our opponents', presumably Rev 1887 p 152 Frederick Greenfield, the only man of the cloth in the Sussex side that day. According to Greenfield, Blackman's delivery Wisden records that this match proved something of a turning- was 'perfectly fair'. However, as the Australians won by an point in Lancashire’s fortunes in 1886. Up to this point they had innings and 355 runs, and Murdoch himself made an been unconvincing, having lost three of their last four matches, undefeated 286, any unfair advantage Blackman may have but their victory in this game was the first in a winning gained by his 'bowling' would appear to have been minimal. sequence of six matches (including one against Essex which was The writer of 'Pavilion Gossip' also points out that not first-class). The main weakness in Lancashire cricket this 'differences of opinion exist among the best judges as to year was in bang, and it is perhaps no accident that the whether certain bowlers have a fair delivery or not', a point victory coincided with the first bang success of the season for Johnny Briggs, who made 107 in the first innings. which also seems to be underlined by the incident at Mansfield related above (and perhaps by the reverend Dense fog delayed the start of Kent’s innings (one wonders if it gentleman's view of Blackman). was one of those industrial fogs that characterised English city This is perhaps not surprising given that it was only twenty life before the Clean Air Act). When play did get under way, the years since the legalisaEon of overarm bowling, which had bowling for Lancashire was opened by Alexander Watson – no been labelled 'throwing' by its criEcs. If the definiEon of a surprise there – and a young club cricketer named Alfred Teggin, 'throw' had changed so radically in such a short space of described by Wisden as ‘a very slow bowler’, who had played in Eme, and if moreover what had previously been considered two previous matches and taken a single wicket. On this a 'throw' was now perfectly legal, it is hardly surprising that occasion, however, he was far more successful, taking 6-53 in the cogniscenE were unable to come to any agreement on the first innings and a further four in the second to finish with what now consEtuted throwing, and as the entry in Cricket match figures of 10-87 as Lancashire won by five wickets. As if makes clear, even expert judges do not seem to have been to show this was no flash in the pan he then took 5-20 in the able to make up their minds whether Crossland and others first innings in the following match against Sussex. And that was it. actually 'threw'. In eleven overs in the Sussex second innings he conceded only In such circumstances, umpires can hardly be blamed for not seven runs but took no wickets. He then did not play again unEl 'calling' those whose acEons they may have privately early July when he bowled three overs in each innings against considered dubious. Indeed, they may well have reflected Yorkshire, conceded 28 runs and took no wickets. Another that twice in the previous sixty years bowlers had flouted the lengthy gap then ensued before his final match, in August rules and when umpires had no-balled them, the authoriEes, against Sussex at Hove, when he bowled five unsuccessful overs far from endorsing their decision, had proceeded to legalise in the first innings and did not bowl in the second. 'throwing'. He never played for Lancashire again, but did have the The match against Sussex at Hove was thus Crossland’s last disEncEon of heading the Lancashire bowling averages for the for Lancashire in first-class cricket, although he did play 1886 season. As a postscript, CricketArchive records him playing against Cheshire at the end of June. Despite – or perhaps three matches for Lancashire club side Longsight in 1889, because of – the objecEons of the Sussex crowd, he did not including one against the touring Parsees in which he opened prove effecEve at Hove, bowling only nine overs without the bowling and took eleven wickets, so it is pleasing to note success in the first innings and none at all in the second. that he was not altogether lost to cricket aêr his day in the fog. Thereaêr he played as a professional for East Lancashire and made two further appearances in first-class cricket for While Teggin was unable to make a sustained impact on the C.I. Thornton’s XI in 1886 and 1887. cricket field, he was a rugby forward of some disEncEon and played six Emes for England between 1884 and 1887. In an ironic footnote, when Lancashire next took the field in a first-class match, at Liverpool in the middle of July, the rain- __________________________________________________ Page 25 1886 A Good Toss To Lose Baily's observes, 'Whether Middlesex acted wisely or not in Surrey v NonGhamshire, The Oval, AuGust 2, 3, 4 1886, Wisden going in first when they won the toss it is not for us to say'. 1887 p139 Middlesex were bowled out for 110, thanks to Southerton, who according to Wisden took 7-38 on 'a wicket Around this ,me county cricket, and cricket in Surrey in to please him', although the Almanack is par,cular, was growing exponen,ally, nowhere more so than silent on the issue of the toss. in the Bank Holiday fixtures between Surrey and Later in the season, again at The Oval, No?nghamshire. Aer a long period in the doldrums, Surrey Baily's suggests that Yorkshire 'made a was now emerging as one of the top sides in the country, mistake in going in first on a heavy wicket'. while No?nghamshire had been unofficial County Champions By contrast Wisden reports that 'the since 1883. Surrey had lost only one match all season while Yorkshiremen commenced the bang on winning a large number; No?nghamshire were unbeaten but excellent wickets'. What is of interest, had won fewer matches. So if Surrey won this match, they however, is not so much the difference of would have a beJer overall record. opinion about the state of the wicket as the implicaEon that, for The earlier match between the two sides, at Trent Bridge, had Baily's at least, inserEng the opposiEon might be considered an aaracted a crowd of over ten thousand on the second day, opon. while the August Bank Holiday crowd at The Oval, despite heavy And indeed, despite W. G. Grace, to send in one's opponents, overnight rain and threatening dark clouds, was over 12,000, while rare, was by no means unheard of in Victorian Emes. One although this was a fall of some 3,500 on the figure for the 1885 of the more notable examples occurred in the Varsity match of fixture. 1878, when Oxford, having won the toss, 'foolishly put in Wisden nonetheless commented that 'probably no county Cambridge' according to Haygarth. Wisden notes the decision match had ever been looked forward to with keener interest'. without comment. While there was no official County Championship in those days, Oxford captain Alexander Webbe may perhaps have been cricket followers nonetheless knew that this was a baale to influenced by events just prior to the match. Wisden informs us decide the top county of 1886, and any modern historian trying that a thunderstorm 'of great severity' had occurred on the day to tell them that there was no such compeEEon would have before the match, but the carefully-prepared wicket had been received some odd looks and perhaps some sharp cockney protected from the elements by a 'tarpauling' [sic] cover. response. On the morning of the match, the cover was removed, but 'this W. G. Grace is credited with saying, ‘When you win the toss – was objected to' - apparently by the players themselves - and a bat. If you are in doubt, think about it, then bat. If you have very fresh wicket was therefore cut, a half-prepared pitch that had big doubts, consult a colleague – then bat.’ It is arguable that been intended for the Gentlemen v Players match of the Surrey's hopes that year were scuppered by this received following week. wisdom. Surrey captain John Shuter won the toss on the first Possibly Webbe hoped to gain some advantage by inserEng morning and of course elected to bat, a course which Wisden Cambridge on an unprepared wicket, and when the very strong says would have been taken by nine out of ten captains and Light Blues were bowled out for 168, his strategy seemed to which Nonghamshire captain Alfred Shaw generously have been vindicated and the hopes of Oxford men were high.

Load more