by A. W. Pullin
"In 'Talks with old Yorkshire Cricketers' you make reference to George Anderson's hit for 8 in the match Surrey v. North of England on August 4, 5, 1862. Now I saw that hit, and I have always been under the impression that the ball on being thrown in struck the seats, and that more runs were thus made than would otherwise have been the case."
A letter received by the author from George Anderson on the point raised by Mr Dowson may appropriately be quoted here:—
AISKEW, BEDALE, Feb. 22, 1899.
MY DEAR S1R,—I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter re your talk with Mr Dowson. So many years have elapsed since the match to which you refer was played that I find it difficult to remember many particulars connected therewith. I am not certain whether it was "Surrey v. the North" or "Surrey v. England."
I think it was Tom Sewell who bowled from the "gasworks" end nearly all the time I was batting, but I think Mr F. P. Miller had a try for a few overs, and I believe Caffyn and Griffith also bowled. It was towards the gasworks that I made the drive for 8. There was no boundary, but there was a row of seats, and the ball went far over their heads, and was fielded by Caffyn, but whether he hit one of the seats in returning the ball I cannot say. I only knew that I thought it the biggest hit I ever made, and if I and my fellow-batsman (Carpenter) had been young and active—we were both well on towards forty— we might have run one or two more. In the same innings I scored 24 in four hits—viz., 8, 6, 5, 5—but they were not made consecutively.—Yours faithfully,
GEO. ANDERSON. A. W. POLLIN, Esq.
"No one visiting the Oval now," says Mr Dowson, "would imagine it possible to run out a hit for 8, or anything near that figure. The fielder simply could not get through the crowd, and those who advocate the running out of all hits ought to know that such a thing now is impossible. The spectators' ring then was usually thin, and there was no difficulty in them clearing a way for the fielders to pass through after the ball, while the fielders had to throw it back over their heads. Imagine any one trying that now, say at a Surrey v. Yorkshire or any other big match. The ball would be 'lost' every time it got to the spectators' ring— especially if the home side were batting.
"I have said," continues Mr Dowson, "that we of the Surrey team of the 'Sixties did not take cricket as seriously as it appears to be taken nowadays. If a man made 100 off our bowling we were as pleased as if we had made them ourselves. All the same, don't think that we didn't play keenly to win. We were as keen as any one could be,- but I think we got more fun out of cricket than the present generation.
"Take old Julius Caesar. He was the life of the Eleven. He only stood about 5 feet 6 inches, but was a wonderful man with his fists, ready to take on all comers. There was quite a family of Ceesars; twelve of them played a match at Godalming in August 1850. Little Tom Sewell was a most amusing chap, too. He was as broad as he was short, so to speak. I remember that once he missed a really easy catch, and when I asked him why he did not hold it, his explanation was that it had hit his stomach. Moreover, he would have it that as the ball hit his corporation and did not touch his fingers, it was no chance!
"Another funny chap who used to interest us much was Tom Davis of Notts. The year before I joined the Surrey team Davis made 72 for Notts against our men, and the performance was so much thought of at the time that ^30 was collected for him on the ground, and ,£5 was afterwards given to him in London. The peculiarity about Davis was that he had an extraordinary habit of slinging stones. He was in the habit of carrying polished stones about with him, and whenever he had the chance he would exhibit his slinging powers. We used to say he was a new David going about to find a modern Goliath to kill.
"Just a word about Alfred Mynn. Of course I never had the honour of playing in his company, for I was but twentythree years of age when he died. But I saw him bowl when a youth, in fact he bowled to me at practice a few overs, and I used to maintain that his bowling regularly hummed: that is to say, he used to impart a peculiar spin to the ball which made it hum like a top. I have often mentioned this matter to some of my old cronies, and one or two have borne me out, but others have said they never heard it. All the same, I maintain that Alfred Mynn could, and did, make the ball actually hum in its flight through the air.1
"To turn from one generation to another. I was very much grieved to hear of the death of George Ulyett in the summer of 1898. Of the many good stories told by him and about him, I do not remember having seen the following, which Happy Jack used to tell with great glee: In a certain up-country match in Australia he caught and bowled one batsman, and as the other batsman had run out of his ground, George put his wicket down and claimed that he was run out. Umpire and batsman seemed dubious. Ulyett gravely assured them that it was all right so long as the same man that made the catch put the wicket down. They accepted his version of the law, and two fresh batsmen came in together. This was so like Happy Jack that we may conclude the story is true.
"I think one of the most curious incidents I ever saw was with the Surrey team against Sussex on T. Box's ground, Brighton, in July 1860. It was a match, by the way, in 1 Mr V. E. Wulker makes the same statement.—AUTHOR.
which R P. Miller and T. Sewell put on for us 154 runs for the first wicket, Miller finally making 105, and this after there had been no play on the first day owing to rain. G. Wells of Sussex was the victim of the curious incident I refer to. Caffyn was the bowler, and in playing out at one of his deliveries, Wells broke the handle of his bat, and the blade actually flew over his shoulder and dislodged the bails. Of course Wells was given out hit wicket, and we sympathised with him on his ill-luck.
"It was a rare thing in the old four-balls-an-over days to find a wicket taken by every ball. I remember it occurring once, and I was one of the poor victims. The match was one of the Surrey v. England series played at the Oval. In the first innings of Surrey, G. Bennett, the old Kent player, got four wickets in one over. From his first ball H. H. Stephenson was stumped; from his second W. Caffyn was run out; I was bowled by his third; and off his fourth G. Griffith was caught. It was a consolation to me to fail in such good company."
As to his personal performances Mr Dowson does not claim the possession of a retentive memory, which is another way of saying that he retains the modesty of the true cricketer. "I was no earthly use as a bowler," says he, "and as a batsman I never did anything better than score 80 and 36 for .Surrey against England."
Mr Dowson's day was that of the genuine amateur cricketer. "I never had 6d. from the Surrey Club, or 6d. worth, unless it was a drink out of the sherry-cup on a hot afternoon. We never got exs. in any shape or form; wherever we went we paid for everything out of our own pocket—railway fares and hotel bills included. I could not help laughing when, in more recent times, Mr Cattley received two guineas from Surrey to give to one of his sons for his expenses. He wanted to know what he ought to do with the money. I offered to relieve him of it if he didn't like to retain it. Many gentlemen take expenses nowadays because they think it would be invidious not to do so.
"May I say that I think so too. Cricket is very different nowadays from what it was in the 'Sixties, and if I were playing now I should feel myself justified in taking my full expenses—and no more. The demand upon cricketers is now so great that it would be simply unreasonable to expect them to refuse to receive their out-of-pocket expenses."
Apropos of certain unpleasant incidents which have occurred in professional cricket at the Oval in recent times, Mr Dowson is of opinion that the professionals of his day would not have come forward on the eve of an important match and almost demanded more money for their services. He thinks the players of his day were more devoted to the game, and did not lean quite so much to the commercial side of cricket as is customary now, though he is prompt to add that had the professionals of his time been living in current days, they would have been quite justified in looking well after their own interests.
The writer thinks it but right to mention, in connection with the foregoing paragraph
, that in the year 1855—a little before Mr Dowson's time, by the way—Julius Caesar and H. H. Stephenson refused to play against Sussex "without a further increase of pay." The Surrey committee showed the backbone displayed on the recent occasion alluded to above; for the malcontent players were superseded by James Southerton and W. Taylor, did not appear with their county for the rest of the season, but came back again the year following.
It is pretty well understood that the Surrey Club now is in a flourishing financial condition. But it was not always so. "It is the Australians that have made the Surrey Club," remarks Mr Dowson. "The club had to issue debentures, and raise money when needed in other ways, until the Australians came. Of course the Surreyites had to take a serious financial responsibility in the matter of the Australians' visit, but it has turned out all right."
103
TOM EMMETT.
IT is not hyperbole to describe Tom Emmett as the greatest character in nineteenth-century cricket. There have been greater cricketers than he, but none so genuinely droll and individualistic. No team could be dull and despondent with Tom Emmett as a member. The harder the task the greater Tom's buoyancy; the more serious the situation the greater his sang froid, the more pungent his humour. He possessed an abundant wit, sharpened by the natural 'cuteness of his race, and tempered by a broad and generous sportsmanship. Ladies have been known to call him "Mr Punch." The term showed the discernment of the fair sex. For twenty years Tom Emmett was the Charivari of the cricket-field.
"Tom" was the name given to Emmett at his baptism in the affections of the cricketing public. "My full name is Thomas Emmett," said he. "My mother would not have me named Tom, but I got 'Tommed' and nothing else. I was born at Crib Lane, Halifax, on September 3, 1841. Crib Lane is not an inappropriate birthplace for an ordinary infant."
Tom Emmett's early taste for the game was acquired in the usual crude fashion of the boys of his day. "I lived close to my uncle, John Dilworth of Illingworth, near Ovenden, who was fond of cricket. One of the great manufacturers of the place was Mr Henry Ambler, who had a nice carriage-drive leading up to his residence. At the entrance to the drive were two stone posts, and it was one of these that we used for our wickets. That was where I was initiated into cricket, and where I first found I could hit the post with a round-arm delivery. I have never been so big since as I used to be then."
It was often a case, however, of dodging the police. A gentleman in blue saw not the budding of a famous cricketer in the young rascal who was the cock of "Ambler's Walk Top." "The constable," added Tom, "wore a silk hat. Oh! he was a terribly important personage. Talk about the majesty of the law! He would carry more of it under his box-hat than ten ordinary policemen in modern helmets. In fact, such a terror was he to us boys that although the place was as lively as an ant-hill, the moment the name of 'Nicholson' was shouted the boys disappeared like so many rats into hiding-places.
"There was a lot of rivalry among the boys who played on the 'Walk Top.' It got to the length of arranging a singlewicket match, and we played for 2d. 'a man.' We never were such swells before. I turned out in beautiful white smock and clogs. It was such a terrible stake, 2d. each; we were men! Our side won, of course. We had such a fright during the match. I sent the ball through the window of an adjoining combing-shed. It hit a man named Harrowby, who was quite a character in the village. He came out covered with blood, and swore he would have us before the magistrates. He looked so gory that I really thought it would be a case of manslaughter. Finally, we clubbed up sufficient to pay for the broken glass, and he consented to get some plaster and forego the magisterial proceedings."
Tom Emmett's first club was called the "Illingworth," representing the village of that name, near Halifax. His first engagement was with the Halifax Club, who paid him 2s. 6d. or 5s. a-match—he forgets which. His first cricketbag was a local newspaper, and he invariably went in clogs.
"One Saturday I met the Keighley team on the road and rode with them, and they asked me if I would like to take an engagement with them. I entered into negotiations in earnest, and said if they would find me something to do in winter I would engage myself to them. They did so. That was in 1863. I stopped with Keighley as their recognised professional for three years. In 1866 I left them to play with local Twenty-twos against All-England Elevens.
"When I was at Illingworth before I went to Keighley there was a gentleman named Mr Priestley connected with the Illingworth Club, who was a great friend of another gentleman, Mr Suthers, attached to the Todmorden Club. Todmorden had arranged a match between a local team and George Parr's Eleven. They wanted me to play in the match, and mentioned my name to the Todmorden Committee, who asked me what my terms were. I said 7s. 6d. and railway fares. The Committee thought it too much, and would not engage me . Both the gentlemen named, with myself, were disappointed. I was hoping Keighley would arrange a match with Todmorden, and after a year or two they did so. On the day of the match, driving to Todmorden over Cock Hill, I offered a silent prayer that I might do well that day. I was answered to my heart's content, for I got 119 not out and took 6 or 7 wickets. They had another match soon after against the England Eleven, and came to the conclusion that my services were really worth a modest three half-crowns after all."
There has been a discrepancy in the statements as to when Emmett played his first match with Yorkshire. The Yorkshire County Year-Book gives the date as 1868, newspapers have given it as 1867, but the actual date was 1866. The circumstances of his first engagement may be described in Emmett's own words :—
"We were playing a match with Keighley against the United. Jack Oscroft was there. Some one representing Yorkshire saw me, and asked me what I would take to play for the county. I said I would take the usual fee, £$. They said it was not the practice to give so much to beginners. As the match was at Nottingham against Notts County, I replied that it was too expensive a journey for me to play for less, so I got my terms. The date of this my first appearance for Yorkshire, and the only one of that year, was August 2, 3, and 4, 1866.
"The next year I was taken in against Surrey at the Oval, and I happened to get some runs, 38, in the first innings. I had never thought much of batting; in fact, I always wished to be bowling or fielding. I saw, however, that run-getting was useful, so paid more attention to batting afterwards. I did not bowl in that match, for Luke Greenwood and George Freeman got the Surrey team out for 92 and 62, and we won by an innings and 111 runs. Then I played with Yorkshire in the return match with Surrey on June 24, 25, and 26, at Bramall Lane, and got 18 not out in one innings, and 41 in the second. Again Freeman and Luke Greenwood got Surrey out in the first innings, and I had little chance of showing what I could do with the ball, though I took 2 wickets. In Surrey's second innings, however, H. H. Stephenson and Tom Humphrey made a stand. Then they put me on at Luke's end, and I at once caught and bowled Tom Humphrey and bowled Stephenson, and Surrey were all out for 76 runs, Yorkshire winning by 184 runs. My analysis was—12 overs, 8 maidens, 7 runs, 6 wickets.
"That was my first great performance with the ball in first-class cricket, and it may be said to have set the seal upon my fame as a county cricketer. When it is said that of Surrey's total of 76 Humphrey and Stephenson made 61 between them, it will be seen that I must have bowled very well.
"It is not necessary to give my best bowling performances from that time until my retirement in 1887. It will be sufficient to give what were my best years, and the averages recorded, namely:—
It will be seen from this list that a year before retiring, and when forty-five years of age, Emmett had the wonderful record of 132 wickets at a cost of just over 12 runs a wicket. "The bowling performance of which I am perhaps most proud," adds Tom, "was against Surrey at the Oval when I was captain of Yorkshire. I was then forty years of age. We could not lose; it was a question whether we could get them out in time or not, and they had only two wickets down. I tried Peate, Ulyett, and Bates,' but they could do no good. They asked me, 'Why don't you go on
yourself?' and eventually I did so. The result was that in 11 overs, of which 9 were maidens, I got all the other 8 wickets for 22 runs, and at one time took 5 wickets in 3 overs without a run being scored off me . That was on August 13, 1881, and, thanks to brilliant hitting by Bates, we won by 9 wickets.
"I had an amusing experience when the match was won. There were some Yorkshiremen present, and they crowded round me and would have shouldered me off the ground. They did, in fact, raise me up. I said, 'Nay, for goodness' sake, chaps, don't shoulder me; I've my pockets full of brass, and if you lift me up it will all roll out.' Thus adjured, they let me alone, and I wriggled through the crowd to the pavilion in safety. I hadn't a cent in my pockets, though."
There used to be a popular saying that when Emmett was bowling the onlooker might expect "first a wide and then a wicket." To be sure, Tom did bowl an unconscionable number of wides, but he protests that he never did so deliberately; though there was one occasion, in Lord Hawke's early days as the Yorkshire captain, when his Lordship said, "Tom, do you know how many wides you have bowled this year?" "No, my lord; how many 1" was the reply. "Forty-five," replied his lordship. "Good," promptly remarked Tom. "Give me the ball, my lord, and I'll soon earn talent-money." He bowled 55 that year.
"The truth was," continued Tom, "I found that off-ball of mine very useful. I have got wickets with it when I could not get them no matter how straight I bowled. If a man did not step well across with his left foot, and let his bat go as well, he was sure to make a 'chip hit.' The man who used to nonplus me more than any one in playing that off-ball was Mr Murdoch. He used to plant his left well across, and didn't he hit it! Of course when you get to know a man like that you don't let him have such a ball—you hang out the danger-signal. But it's all a matter of headwork. What's the use bowling a straight ball at a batsman when he plays it as if with the sharp edge of a knife 1 If you can bowl an off-ball and then suddenly send down a straight one, you may catch a man napping. Sometimes the off-ball did go wide, but it was really not intentional. I remember once trapping Alf. Shaw with the wide-and-wicket tactics. I bowled a wide, and thought it had lost the match, but that was not so, and the very next ball was a very good length delivery, which Alf. did not know what to do with, and he chopped it into the slips. There is as much art in bowling a crooked ball as a straight one, and I honestly tell you I never bowled a wide on purpose.