Cricket or baseball?

Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
8,269
#21
Quid? That's cheating. You're from the land of the Duke and the willow



As others have said, good for its day. A 17 average might do for a bowler (pitcher), but not a batsman (hitter). Making 100s and 50s (centuries and fifties) is good, but in a single innings, not necessarily a two innings first class match.

His lone mention on my go to site for cricket is that is was the first international cricketer to die in a war. In 1859 he had a truly awful time, scoring one in one innings and a duck (0) in the other. In his second international he scored 11 & 27. The article sites he was known more for his fielding. I can't comment on the state of fielding in 19th Century cricket, but in modern cricket there is a saying: "If you can't bat, bowl. If you can't bat or bowl, keep wicket." There is no room in a modern XI for poor hitting defensive specialist. He did, however, make some decent figures as an 18 year old in local competition.

He was no star, but played in an era where the stars weren't any good by today's standards. At least his U.S. team had the ability to play decent sides. Today's Team USA finished fourth in the tournament played to qualify for the tournament played to qualify for the Cricket World Cup qualifying tournament.
Thanks.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

rebelatsea

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
4,203
Location
Kent ,England.
#22
Quid? That's cheating. You're from the land of the Duke and the willow



As others have said, good for its day. A 17 average might do for a bowler (pitcher), but not a batsman (hitter). Making 100s and 50s (centuries and fifties) is good, but in a single innings, not necessarily a two innings first class match.

His lone mention on my go to site for cricket is that is was the first international cricketer to die in a war. In 1859 he had a truly awful time, scoring one in one innings and a duck (0) in the other. In his second international he scored 11 & 27. The article sites he was known more for his fielding. I can't comment on the state of fielding in 19th Century cricket, but in modern cricket there is a saying: "If you can't bat, bowl. If you can't bat or bowl, keep wicket." There is no room in a modern XI for poor hitting defensive specialist. He did, however, make some decent figures as an 18 year old in local competition.

He was no star, but played in an era where the stars weren't any good by today's standards. At least his U.S. team had the ability to play decent sides. Today's Team USA finished fourth in the tournament played to qualify for the tournament played to qualify for the Cricket World Cup qualifying tournament.

Where does that leave me ? I was a slow left arm bowler and wicket keeper - couldn't bat to save my life !
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
72
#25
"Base ball" may have started slowly in Texas, but it caught on quickly after the, um, late unpleasantness. By '68 there were enough teams (and public interest) to have a statewide championship series. Flake's Bulletin, Galveston, Texas, 27 October 1868, p. 5:

View attachment 195162
Andy: A baseball team was formed in Houston in April of 1861. "Lightning" Ellsworth, later famous as John Hunt Morgan's telegrapher, was one of the organizers. See my article on antebellum southern baseball in "Base Ball," and my article on baseball in Civil War camps at www.protoball.org.
 

major bill

Colonel
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
14,971
#27
From researching Detroit pre Civil War newspapers it appears baseball and cricket were but played. Canadians from Windsor would often cross the river and play the Detriot clubs.
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top