by A. W. Pullin
"I remember in 1865, in a match between the All-England Eleven and Twenty-two of Bootle and District, a very extraordinary incident occurred. A gentleman was standing in one of the refreshment-booths, and George Anderson was at the wicket batting. He smote a ball very hard, and just at the moment this gentleman was raising his glass to drink. The ball struck the glass and smashed it into atoms. Strange to say, no further damage was done.
"I forget the exact date, but I remember the All-England Eleven were playing Twenty-two of Hull and District about 1870. It was the last day of the match, and owing to rain it was really unfit to play, but the promoters insisted upon our doing so, to satisfy the spectators, who stood round the ground with their umbrellas up. To save my shirts from getting wet I had pulled them off, and was playing in my jacket only. One gentleman sat with his gamp up on some rails near the railway. I made a very big hit to square-leg, which landed the ball on the top of his umbrella and knocked it all into ribbons, to the great amusement of the crowd. When I retired to the pavilion the gentleman met me and said, 'Oscroft, you are a sovereign in my debt for damages.' I said, 'Indeed! I will send it on when it is convenient.' It is owing still."
How players may profit by an umpire's leniency the following story will show :—
"Bowling once for All-England against Twenty-two of Lichfield, I got 10 wickets, every one of them illegal, every ball being really a no-ball. In delivering the first ball 1 had gone just outside the return crease, and the umpire did not no-ball me. I accordingly said to myself I would go down that path again, and I did, with the effect stated."
On another occasion at Dudley, the finish was so close that the All-England team only won by 2 runs. Alf. Shaw was bowling, and Oscroft made the remark, "Tell the umpire to let Alf. Shaw have five balls the next over." The umpire proved obliging, and the fifth ball got a wicket. Oscroft coolly explains that the umpire was their own man.
Oscroft has a great opinion of W. Gunn—who has not 1— as the following shows:— .
"In 1882, we (Notts) played the Australians twice. For the first match the Notts Committee did not select Gunn. I was captain, and I told the officials that they had left the best man in the county out—or one who soon would be the best— and offered to stand down for him. This was agreed to, and in a small scoring match Gunn was not out in each innings. He has never looked behind him since. A finer cricketer never walked in two shoes. I would rather watch Gunn make 50 than 'W. G.' or Shrewsbury 100. The Notts Committee paid my fee when I stood down."
It should be added that the return match with the Australians, in the same year (September 4, 5, 6, 1882), was for Oscroft's benefit. It realised ^650, the highest sum received by any professional cricketer up to that time.
Oscroft was singularly fortunate in escaping serious injuries during his career. Twice only has be been incapacitated and compelled to retire from play. The first time was in 1867 when playing for the All-England Eleven, at Bestwood Park, against Twenty-two of Arnold and District. The first ball he received was from his brother John (who was playing for the Twenty-two). It smashed one of his fingers, and to the great disappointment of his native villagers he was unable to resume his position again during the three days.
The second time was during the Canterbury Week of 1874. The match was Kent and Gloucestershire v. The Rest of England. A brief reference to the published record of this contest will show how it came about. In the second innings Oscroft came in second man, and began to hit in that fine, free, and telling form that few could equal and none surpass, and quickly raised his score to 20, when a ball bowled by Captain Fellowes hit him in the mouth and dropped him, his thumb being dislocated in the fall. This was described as being a misfortune for his side, as he was quite unable to take any further part in the match, and the Rest of England lost to the Shires by 54 runs.
It may here be added that Oscroft's great stroke was to leg. It was a stroke naturally acquired, and not the outcome of George Parr's traditions. In 1866, against Surrey, Oscroft hit a ball over the elm-tree On the Bridgeford side of Trent Bridge ground. The hit was measured, the distance being 135 yards. The tree is still called George Parr's tree, from the fact that that great leg-hitter used to hit over it also. This measured hit of Oscroft's still stands as a record for "the Bridges."
171
MR R. A. H. MITCHELL
IT is as a master of style rather than as a public exponent of the game that Mr Richard Arthur Henry Mitchell is known to the new generation of cricketers. The claims of first-class cricket gave way to the tutorial duties and the playing-fields of Eton in the year 1866. Mr Mitchell is still a master at the famous school near the royal borough, but the duty of supervising the cricket interests of the College was relinquished by him a couple of years ago, and taken up by Mr C. M. Wells.
In cricket, given a bright sunlit day and a fast wicket, there is no style so delightful to witness as the free forward strokes of the Eton school. It is this style that Mr Mitchell for nearly forty years expounded. The claims of his school prevented Mr Mitchell having a long first-class career as a cricketer himself, but he has left his mark on the game in the success of numerous pupils, as the history of Eton cricket for the last thirty years will show.
"In the year 1858," says Mr Mitchell, "when I was fifteen years of age—my birthday being January 22, 1843—I was in the Eleven at Eton; eight years afterwards I received an appointment on the College staff, and I have remained here ever since. When I came here as a boy I had never played in an eleven a-side cricket-match. All I knew about the game had been picked up in a boy's casual way, my earlier education not having been got at a private school, but with a clergyman. My birthplace was Enderby Hall, near Leicester. When I got into the Eton Eleven I had never had a ball from a professional cricketer. I had practically taught myself by practice, reading, observation, and so on.
"There was no professional here in my first year. William Caffyn afterwards came for a short time, but he was too much occupied with first-class cricket to do much coaching. Afterwards we had for two years F. Bell of Cambridgeshire. He was an excellent coach for a couple of years, but I am afraid he afterwards deteriorated, and he died in 1871. It was Bell who first instilled into us the principle of constantly meeting the ball. If he found a pupil with a tendency to meet a ball, he would encourage him to adopt that style. I have always considered that this is a great principle in the encouragement of young players. Many professionals, directly they see that a pupil shows a tendency to play forward at the ball, drop the ball short and force the boy to play back. The effect is to cramp the young player's style and destroy his confidence. They should not puzzle a young player; they should rather encourage his style by bringing him out to meet the ball, and thus give him confidence in attacking the bowling.
"I ought to mention that though there was no professional here in my first year in 1858, three or four years before that time Martingell had been engaged as a coach. For a couple of years the annual match with Harrow was dropped, and that caused the game to be put rather in the background. The reason the inter-school match was dropped was that the authorities here did not like it to be played in the holidays, while the Harrow people did not care about playing in the school term. The match was resumed in 1858, and when we went up to Lord's to play it we found that directly we put our noses inside the gate the bell rang. Harrow had been on the ground some time practising, but we had to commence the match straight away without any practice at all. The same thing occurred in 1859. Then we protested, and the result was that the teams were placed on an equal footing as regards practising, and they have remained so ever since. I may add that in my first match with Eton at Lord's our second innings took place in a pouring rain, and Harrow, who won, were drenched to the skin. It had been arranged that the game should be fought out despite the weather.
"In 1861, when still a boy at Eton, I was asked to play for the Gentlemen against the Players, but I was not able to do so until the following year, when I was at Oxford. The p
art of my active cricket career that I most enjoyed was that at Oxford. I was in the Dark Blue Eleven four years, and was captain for the last three years, when we won all our matches with Cambridge. After the year 1866, when I came back to my old school as a master, I played little firstclass cricket except in the Canterbury week. In those days people used to say that the Canterbury week was not cricket, because we had not to run all the hits out. It seems strange, but it is the fact that I never played in a match at Lord's in which we had not to run all our hits out. Considerable crowds used to come to see the matches, and when the ball went among the spectators the fielder had to go after it and find it. Even in my last match for the Gentlemen at Lord's in 1868 there was no boundary. I do not think the same arrangement would do now, but I should like to see all runs run out, unless under a different system."
Mr Mitchell made his first appearance with the Gentlemen against the Players at the same time as Mr E. M. Grace— namely, in 1862—the match being a novelty in its way, seeing that for once the players on both sides were restricted to under thirty years of age. The Etonian was also in the Gentlemen's team in 1865, when W. G. Grace made his debut. It would almost seem to be impossible to say anything new concerning the Champion, but Mr Mitchell makes a statement that will surprise most cricketers. It is that "W. G." was first included in the Gentlemen's team for his bowling, and that his promise as a batsman was not then generally recognised.
"When W. G. Grace appeared for the first time with the Gentlemen v. Players at the Oval in 1865," says Mr Mitchell, "he was included in the team on the strong recommendation of E. M. Grace as a bowler. He was placed eighth on the batting list, and I know that E. M. Grace thought that was too low, as he said his brother could get a few runs as well as bowl. A week later at the Lord's match 'W. G.' went in first to satisfy 'E . M.' Although 'W. G.' was only seventeen years of age when he made his first appearance- in this company at the Oval, he was the oldest-looking young fellow who played that day. His batting style was rather rough, and we saw few signs of his pre-eminent ability. He was, in short, looked upon more as a rising medium-pace bowler than as a bat; and it was as a bowler that he was invited to play by the Surrey Committee.
"In the next year, however, we were able to recognise 'W. G.V merits. I always think that the most remarkable thing about 'W. G.' was his resuscitation. He went off rather early, I thought, but ten years ago he reblossomed with remarkable success. He was always an extraordinary player, but the way in which he recovered himself and regained his first-class form is to my mind the most extraordinary thing about his career. I consider that he was at his best by far the finest of all players to watch when opposed to fast bowling. To slow bowling he was cramped and fastfooted. Now when you see him make a hundred there is little to admire, because he sticks at the wickets and waits for the on-strokes, whereas formerly he was a magnificent hitter in every direction.
"' W. G.'s' style cannot be considered a classical one, but he had a style that no one could imitate. He got his leg tremendously in front of the wicket, not, I believe, with the intention of stopping the ball with his leg, but in order that he might have greater command over his strokes, and he knew that if he missed the ball he wouId be out. It is perhaps not surprising under the circumstances to find that the universal opinion, at the time I am speaking of, was that 'W. G.' was not given out leg-before-wicket by the umpires as frequently as he ought to have been. His style, I repeat, was not orthodox, but then it was his style. At all games that I have seen, great players have their peculiarities. A. G. Steel had a style of his own. At golf Ball and Laidlaw have styles that it would not be easy to copy. Grace had a marvellously accurate eye, and eye and muscles worked together in his case with extraordinary unison.
"Talking about style naturally brings me to the style for which the cricket here at Eton has obtained some reputation. I may have influenced that style a little myself, because my own style of cricket was the forward style. The fact that I was 6 feet 2 inches when eighteen years of age, and possessed a good reach, may have had something to do with my preference for the forward style. Another factor that influenced me was the knowledge that Lord's was a quick ground, and the bowling there was particularly suited to forward strokes. Thus we have always tried to cultivate as far as we could the style that was likely to pay best in our school matches at Lord's. We found that a boy who was a back player was almost certain to be beaten by the pace of the ground. Eton's has always been the forward style. I won't say that I introduced it, but when I came here as master I used to play a good deal, and probably I had in that manner some effect upon the style of the school.
"Whom do I consider the most polished cricketers that have gone out from Eton since my tutorial connection with the school? I should say that C. T. Studd, Alfred Lyttelton, G. H. Longman, and W. F. Forbes were good examples of the best Eton style. In each case the style was actually acquired here. But the most reliable boy player I have ever seen was C. J. Ottaway, who unfortunately only lived to reach the age of twenty-eight years. He was not the most punishing batsman we had here, but he was the most difficult to get out, and he had a great many strokes, though they were not hard ones.
"C. I. Thornton was our most punishing hitter, yet he had when at school here some curious idiosyncrasies. Sometimes he would make up his mind that he would not hit the third ball of the over. If he did hit it he knew he would be out. Then I remember one particular occasion on which he stopped at the wickets for an hour and a half without attempting to hit. His explanation was that he knew he would be out if he attempted a hit. I should think that was the only time in his life that he stayed at the wickets for an hour and a half without getting on speaking terms, as the saying goes, with the bowler. Mr Thornton made some of the longest hits ever seen here at the school, and we were prepared for his phenomenal hitting after he left us and went into the world of firstclass cricket.
"There is one incident connected with Mr Thornton's career that I really must tell you. It occurred at the Old Orleans Club, when the Australians were playing there. If you hit the ball out of one side of the ground there, you were not allowed to go for it. On this occasion Thornton hit a ball from Spofforth clear out of the ground on the side from which it could not be recovered. The Australians were about to run to find the ball, when Thornton shouted out, 'It's no use going after that.' Then turning to the umpire he said, 'Give him a new one: I told him to put half-a-dozen in his pocket, as I thought he might want them'!
"With regard to present-day Etonians, I am afraid I must admit that there are not as many Etonians in first-class cricket as there were formerly. Lord Hawke and Mr Bainbridge are Eton men. We have had some players who would have made names for themselves in the cricket world if they had had the time to devote to the game. C. C. Pilkington, who was at Oxford one year after he left here, would have made a firstclass cricketer had he gone on. H C. Pilkington is another. Generally speaking, however, there are not as many Etonians in first-class cricket as formerly.
"There is a reason for this. It is that to play in first-class cricket nowadays you have to be an idle man—that is to say, you need to have sufficient time on your hands to enable you to play regularly. This leads me to make some comments that may possibly seem outspoken. I think that a man without means who does not pass as a professional cricketer has no right to waste the best years of his life in following a game that he cannot afford to play. It is to me a melancholy spectacle to see young fellows, possessing all the gifts of mind and body that nature could bestow upon them, who would be certain to succeed in any serious occupation that they might take up, pass the best years of their lives in merely playing cricket. They do this because it is easy for them to secure places in first-class teams, and thus to lead a pleasant life without cost for the time being. These remarks do not apply to many cricketers, but there are a few to whom they do apply, and it is because the system is a dangerous one that I raise my voice against it. It is a sad mistake for a gifted young man to allow himself to be t
hus drawn away from the serious business of life at a time when he should be securing a profession for himself and building up his future.
"The system has another objection that I cannot pass over in silence. It is producing a class of gentlemen players who are really professionals in fact if not in name. I do not like this system. It is not fair to the legitimate professional. There is no official definition of the difference between the gentleman and professional player, and, so far as I know, one has never been given. This is to be regretted. In some instances it is also hard upon the professional . The Australian system, which does not recognise any difference in the status of its players, seems a fairer one. The question is a thorny one, I admit, and it is much easier to criticise its inequalities than to suggest a practical remedy.
"I do not think that there is too much cricket played here at school, nor in schools generally, for the reason that the circum
M
stances do not admit of it. No boy is expected to play cricket at Eton unless he has a liking for it. The river attracts many of our boys, and stands in the way of any compulsory training in cricket. We have two professionals for the Eleven, and two for general practice, which you will see is a very different state of things to that prevailing when I got into our school Eleven."
Turning back a moment at this point, it ought to be mentioned that some of the best performances of Mr Mitchell were in the inter-University matches. Scores were difficult to get in those days, owing to the state of the grounds, but his average for the matches with Cambridge was 42 '33 runs per innings for six completed innings. For the Gentlemen against the Players he could boast of such scores as 76 at the Oval in 1863, 53 and 33 on the same ground in 1865, 44 not out at Lord's in the same year, and in his last Gentlemen v. Players' match at Brighton in 1871 (Lillywhite's benefit), 50 and 57. In those days these were considered good scores, and their value was enhanced by the fact that the professional bowling off which they were made was exceptionally strong. Then a score of 89 not out for England v. Surrey in August 1863 represented a high degree of excellence not often seen in amateur circles in those days. Speaking of this innings, Mr Mitchell says he was nearly distracted with toothache all the time he was batting. There was a curious incident in the match. Surrey won the toss, and at lunch-time had scored 140 for 1 wicket down. After luncheon Bennett bowled the first over, and with each of the four balls of the over obtained a wicket.