1775 English cricket season

Last updated

1775 English cricket season
1774
1776

In the 1775 English cricket season, John Small scored the sport's first known century in a senior match. He also featured in the single wicket contest which precipitated the addition of the third stump in the wickets. Details of 16 matches are known. [note 1]

Contents

Hampshire matches

Kent v Hampshire
14 and 15 June on Sevenoaks Vine.
Kent won by 110 runs. [5]
Kent won despite having been 53 behind after the first innings. Lumpy Stevens, playing as a given man for Kent, took eight all-bowled wickets (including five in the second innings); Thomas Pattenden's score of 72 was very high in 18th century playing conditions. William Hogsflesh made his last known appearance for Hampshire, and Thomas Taylor made his debut. Taylor became one of the best all-rounders of the late 18th century and played until 1798. [6]
Hampshire v Kent
29 and 30 June on Broadhalfpenny Down.
Hampshire won by 9 wickets. [7]
Kent scored 84 and 147 (Joseph Miller 71); Hampshire scored 219 (George Leer 79) & 18/1. Arthur Haygarth says he obtained the details from the Hampshire Chronicle. No bowling or fielding details are known. The margin between the teams' final totals is 6, so Hampshire added six after the scores were level, but it was not necessarily done in one hit as they would normally play out the over even after victory was achieved; Richard Francis scored 10 out of the 18/1, but it is not known if he made the winning hit. [8]
Hampshire v Kent
31 July at Guildford Bason.
Kent won. [9]
Kent had Lumpy and Thomas White as given men. There was a brief report in the Reading Mercury on Saturday, 5 August. [9]
Hampshire v Surrey
6 and 8 July on Laleham Burway.
Surrey won by 69 runs. [10]
Thomas Brett achieved the earliest known ten-wicket haul by taking eleven all-bowled wickets in the match. He took seven in the first innings and four in the second, also holding a catch. His first innings haul is also the first recorded instance of a bowler taking seven in an innings. Despite his efforts, Hampshire lost by 69 runs. Surrey scored 76 and 163 (John Minshull 45, Joseph Miller 42); Hampshire scored 51 and 119 (James Aylward 38). Haygarth says he got the details from "the old printed scorebook" but acknowledges that another account differs in some of the details. [11]
Hampshire v Surrey
13 to 15 July on Broadhalfpenny Down.
Hampshire won by 296 runs. [12]
John Small scored 136 for Hampshire, a new record for the highest individual innings, and the first century to be definitely recorded in a senior match, though Small himself may well have achieved the feat seven years earlier when he scored 140-plus as a match total. Hampshire scored 168 (Francis 45, Small 38) and 357 (Small 136, Nyren 98, Brett 68); Surrey scored 151 (Henry Attfield 49) and 78/3 innings forfeited. [13]

Chertsey matches

London, Kent & Surrey v Chertsey
28 to 30 August on the Artillery Ground.
Chertsey won by 157 runs. Chertsey scored 107 & 153; the combined team replied with 55 & 48. [14]
Chertsey v Coulsdon
7 to 9 September on Laleham Burway.
Chertsey won by 172 runs. [15]
Chertsey scored 152 (William Yalden 77) and 148 (Yalden 71); Coulsdon replied with 43 (Lumpy 3w) and 85 (Constantine Phillips 31; William Bartholomew 4w, Lumpy 3w). [14]
There were two Bartholomews of Chertsey who, in other scorecards, are named as Rev. Bartholomew Sr and Mr Bartholomew Jr. It is believed (and has been assumed) that the junior was William Bartholomew, who also played for Surrey at the time, and that it was he who shared the bowling with Lumpy. The senior is believed to be the Reverend Charles Bartholomew, a Chertsey Club stalwart who played occasionally in the 1770s, but may have been a regular in times past. [16]
Chertsey v Dartford
21 and 22 September on Laleham Burway.
Chertsey won by 1 wicket. [17]
Dartford scored 57 (W. Bartholomew 6w, Lumpy 3w) and 97 (Goulson 24*; W. Bartholomew 3w); Chertsey made 74 (William Bullen 4w, John Frame 2w) and 81/9 (W. Yalden 18). [14]
Chertsey v London
25 to 27 September on Laleham Burway.
Chertsey won by 44 runs. [18]
Chertsey scored 106 (W. Yalden 27; John Wood 3w) and 122 (J. Minshull 54, John Wood 5w); London made 101 (William Brazier 31; W. Bartholomew 4w, Lumpy 3w) and 83 (C. Phillips 32*, W. Brazier 27; Lumpy 7w). Lumpy achieved the second known instance of both 7 wickets in an innings, and 10wM. Again, the figures are bowled dismissals only. John Wood became the fourth player known to have achieved 5wI. [14]

Single wicket

Demands for the third stump were voiced after a single wicket match at the Artillery Ground in May. Lumpy Stevens beat John Small at least three times, only for the ball to pass through the wicket, which at that time still consisted of two uprights and a crosspiece, without disturbing it. Although the petition was granted soon afterwards, research has discovered that the introduction of the third stump in practice was gradual, and the two stump wicket did continue for a number of years yet. [19]

Other events

The earliest known reference to cricket in Huntingdonshire, always a minor county, was in 1775. [20]

Two "alphabetical matches" were organised by the Duke of Dorset, but no post-match reports have been found. The first was on the Artillery Ground on 29 May, the second two days later on Moulsey Hurst. [21]

Monday, 29 May. There was a game at Old Field in Bray between the Maidenhead and Risborough clubs with Lumpy Stevens assisting the former, while a player called Briggs was a given man for Risborough. This is the first reference found that is specific to the Maidenhead (aka Old Field) Club at Old Field, Bray. This club shortly became synonymous with Berkshire as a county team. [22]

On 10 and 11 July, a combined London & Kent played Coulsdon on the Artillery Ground. The result is unknown. [23]

Sussex played Coulsdon on 19 and 26 July at Smitham Bottom and Henfield Common respectively. Coulsdon won the first match; the result of the second is unknown. Both matches were advertised in the Sussex Weekly Advertiser. [24]

A game on Thursday, 20 July was called "London v Surrey" but the stake was only £10 a side. [23]

Notes

  1. Some eleven-a-side matches played from 1772 to 1863 have been rated "first-class" by certain sources. [1] However, the term only came into common use around 1864, when overarm bowling was legalised. It was formally defined as a standard by a meeting at Lord's, in May 1894, of Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) and the county clubs which were then competing in the County Championship. The ruling was effective from the beginning of the 1895 season, but pre-1895 matches of the same standard have no official definition of status because the ruling is not retrospective. [2] Matches of a similar standard since the beginning of the 1864 season are generally considered to have an unofficial first-class status. [3] Pre-1864 matches which are included in the ACS' "Important Match Guide" may generally be regarded as important or, at least, historically significant. [4] For further information, see First-class cricket.

References

  1. "FC Matches in England in 1772" . CricketArchive. Retrieved 29 November 2025.
  2. Wisden (1948). Preston, Hubert (ed.). Wisden Cricketers' Almanack (85th ed.). London: Sporting Handbooks Ltd. p. 813. OCLC   851705816.
  3. ACS 1982, pp. 4–5.
  4. ACS 1981, pp. 1–40.
  5. "Kent v Hampshire" . CricketArchive. Retrieved 13 December 2025.
  6. Haygarth 1996, p. 22.
  7. "Hampshire v Kent" . CricketArchive. Retrieved 13 December 2025.
  8. Haygarth 1996, p. 23.
  9. 1 2 Waghorn 2005, p. 44.
  10. "Surrey v Hampshire" . CricketArchive. Retrieved 13 December 2025.
  11. Haygarth 1996, p. 24.
  12. "Hampshire v Surrey" . CricketArchive. Retrieved 13 December 2025.
  13. Haygarth 1996, p. 25.
  14. 1 2 3 4 Buckley 1935, p. 73.
  15. "Chertsey v Coulsdon" . CricketArchive. Retrieved 13 December 2025.
  16. Buckley 1935, pp. 74–76.
  17. "Chertsey v Dartford" . CricketArchive. Retrieved 13 December 2025.
  18. "Chertsey v London" . CricketArchive. Retrieved 13 December 2025.
  19. Bowen 1970, p. 62.
  20. Bowen 1970, p. 266.
  21. Buckley 1935, p. 70.
  22. Waghorn 2005, p. 43.
  23. 1 2 Buckley 1935, p. 72.
  24. McCann 2004, p. 99.

Bibliography

Further reading