Cricket Criticism 68 Years Ago That Was Sarcastic Abuse

Manawatu Times, Volume LVI, Issue 7106, 15 March 1933, Page 10

Cricket Criticism 68 Years Ago That Was Sarcastic Abuse

WHEN FRED LILLYWHITE INCURRED THE DISPLEASURE OF THE M.G.C.

■RICKET criticism, whether signed or anonymous, has almost always been fair and good-natured, writes a special correspondent of a London paper. The only instance, so far as I know, of exception being taken to comments upon first-class cricketers was in tlie summer of 1865, when the Marylcbone Cricket Club showed its disapproval of the opinions expressed in Fred Lillywliite’s “Guide to Cricketers” by a public withdrawal of their patronage from that annual. Fred was a son of the famous old slow bowler, William Lillywhite, and came of a cricketing family, but he played hardly at all in important matches, for he had other interests and occupations. He was a partner in a cricket outfitting business in the borough, and also a reporter upon the staff of “Bell’s Life in London.” He wrote a good deal about cricket, and was responsible for the production of the first four volumes of that classic work of reference, “Scores and Biographies,” though the actual research was done by Arthur Haygartl), and the undertaking was financed by F. P. Miller. One of Fred Lillywhite’s claims to fame is that he was the inventor of the printed card showing the progress of a match. He took about with him to different grounds a small printing press and a tent. He first brought out his “Guide to Cricketers” in 1846, and this annual, which until the appearance, nearly 20 years later, of “Wisdcn’s Almanack,” was the only review of the season available, had a satisfactory sale. The issue for 1865 is a small papercovered book, and its contents are not confined to cricket for the rules of other pastimes, such as rackets and golf, arc introduced, as well as the laws of boatracing. The distinguished patronage which the “Ginde” enjoys is announced on the cover, and the price is a shilling. The Art of Pycroft. Cricket, of course, occupies the greatest part of the “Guide.” There are instructions for beginners, written by the Rev. James Pycroft, the author of the “Cricket Field,” and diagrams of the placing of the field to various kinds of bowling. There are batting and bowlI ing averages, a short review of the season, and accounts of the principal eleven-a-side fixtures. At the end of the book are what used to lie called “characters,” that is to say, a few lines of comment upon each of the leading amateurs and professionals, and it is obviously this section of the annual which occasioned the strong action of the M.C.C. What was it that Fred Lillywhite had written that caused the authorities of the club to pronounce that the limits of fair criticism had been exceeded? He said a number of things which could offend nobody, and also certain things which were likely to give, and no doubt did give, considerable offence. In 1865 first-class cricket was not in a good condition. In the middle of last century, as is generally known, touring sides of professional cricketers went about the country playing matches against odds. Tlie first of these teams, the All-England eleven, had been collected by William Clarke, many years before, and at Clarke’s deatli had passed under the management of George Parr, of Nottingham. Parr, though now, perhaps, a trifle past bis prime, iiad been the best batsman in England and held a high position among professionals. The All-England eleven had undoubtedly done much to spread tlie knowledge of cricket, hut as Hie game became more popular more first-rale professionals appeared, and wanted engagements for Hie summer. So a rival team, the United All-England, was started on the same lines, and other elevens were in the process of formation. To make matters worse there was so much jealousy and ill-feeling in tho professional world that certain players refused to come on the same field as others. Tlie M.C.C. and the county clubs could do little to prevent the trouble, for their fixtures were so few that they could not offer anything like regular employment to professionals, and the consequence was that representative matches, as, for instance, Gentlemen and Players, were spoiled by difficulty in getting together the best sides. The Prowess of Parr. In liis review of Hie 1864 season Fred Lillywhite dealt temperately enough with the position. It was when he came to characters that lie let himseif go with a vigour that suggests personal animus. He had already complained that George Parr thought himself the manager of all first-class cricket, and in his comments upon that player, he elaborates this complaint: “Parr, George, horn at Ratcliffe, Notts, May 22, 1826. Has been a splendid bat—a brilliant leg-hitter. His time is now devoted to other purposes far from promoting the game of cricket. He is so clever that lie stands umpire against Twenty-Twos, and makes the matches himseff. His cricketing abilities, no doubt, were due to his well-known good temper, easy and quiet disposition, void of jealousy, and never interfering with other people’s business. He appears to he manager of the United as well as the All-England elevens, who will shortly follow Deerfoot. Was the able man-

nger (when out of his bedroom) in America, and, look an eleven to Australia, fortunately after he had, received a benefit at Lord’s ground—receipts not known. Collector to the Cricketers’ Fund, without five per cent, commission, having now’ Box and Wisdcn to work with him.” At this distance of time some of the allusions are difficult to explain, hut the general impression of the paragraph is unmistakable. The same sarcastic abuse, though in a milder form, is directed against two of Parr’s principal lieutenants, Thomas Hayward and Wisden, whose illustrious past is contrasted forcibly with their inglorious present. Altogether such criticism has little to commend it, and it is a pity that Lillywhite, who had a good case, should have -polled it by these personalities. file action taken by the Maryiebone Club, which had throughout refrained from supporting any side in these professional quarrels, was inevitable.