| 1735 English cricket season | |
| Cricket formats | first-class and single wicket |
In the 1735 English cricket season, the county teams of which records exist were Kent, Surrey and Sussex while London and Croydon remained the predominant town clubs.
Contents |
| Date | Match Title | Venue | Result | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 27 May (Tu) | Croydon v London [1] | Duppas Hill, Croydon | London won | |
|
Mr G. B. Buckley found four different notices of this match in the Whitehall Evening Post, the London Evening Post, the Weekly Register and the Grub Street Journal. The WEP called the game "Surrey v London" but the others all agreed it was "Croydon v London". The Weekly Register (Sat 31 May) reported that "London beat Croydon with very great ease". The date was Whit Tuesday. |
||||
| 7 June (S) | Surrey v London [2] | Moulsey Hurst | London by 9 wkts | |
|
Scores are known: Surrey 54 & 44; London 61 & 38-1. Also known are some of the players: Cook, Ellis, Dunn and Wheatley of London; and at least two players called Wood played for Surrey. Mr Ellis could not play because of an injured finger and he was London’s "best bowler". Cook of Brentford ("reckoned one of the best bowlers in England") was brought in to bowl instead of him. The Surrey players called Wood evidently came from Woodcot; one of them was injured during the game. After London lost one wicket in their second innings, the target was reached by Mr Wheatley, the distiller, and Mr Dunn. Never before have so many players’ names been given in a match report. See also the mention of this match in the following entry (re the "Surrey bunglers"!). |
||||
| 18 June (W) | Surrey v London [2] | Kennington Common and Artillery Ground | drawn | |
|
Originally arranged to be played on Kennington Common, as reported by the General Evening Post on Thu 12 June, the venue was altered to the Artillery Ground as reported in the London Daily Post on Sat 14 June. The GEP report says that Mr Jervoise of Croydon selected "11 men out of Croydon and that neighbourhood in Surrey". It goes on to report that "the three or four bunglers who played on the Surrey side at Moulsey Hurst last Saturday (7th inst.) do not play." Scores are known: London 67 & 72; Surrey 97 & 33-7. It is also known that London lost their first wicket at 22-1. Mr Waghorn says the report’s use of the word "innings" was the earliest he had noticed. |
||||
| c.25 June (W) | Surrey v London [2] | Moulsey Hurst | London by 1 wkt | |
|
Surrey was backed by the Prince of Wales and London by Edward Stead. One of Surrey’s best players broke a finger when catching the ball and this was said to be the reason for their defeat. |
||||
| 12 July (S) | London & Middlesex v Kent [2] | Moulsey Hurst | Kent by 4 wkts | |
|
This is also reported in Fresh Light [1]. The scores are in Waghorn: London 95 & 41; Kent 80 & 57-6. The London & Middlesex team consisted of 8 from London and 3 from Middlesex, including Cook of Brentford who was reckoned to be "one of the best bowlers in England". Curiously, Kent’s patron was the Earl of Middlesex, who was the eldest son of the Duke of Dorset. Their opponents were backed by the Prince of Wales. The match was staged for £1000 a side. The report confirmed that a second match would played in two weeks on Bromley Common (see below). Interestingly, the General Evening Post reported that the London team was imbalanced by inclusion of the three Middlesex men and lost the match for that reason. The Prince of Wales was reported as saying that his team in the return match would therefore by an all London XI. As Mr Buckley says [1], this was an early appreciation of teamwork. |
||||
| 18 July (F) | London v Surrey [1] | Kennington Common | London won | |
|
The London Daily Post on Sat 19 July reported that London beat Surrey "with ease". |
||||
| 30 July (W) | Kent v London [2] | Bromley Common | Kent by 10 wkts | |
|
Scores were recorded as: London 73 & 32; Kent 97 & 9-0. The report states that a large crowd attended and "a great deal of mischief was done". It seems that horses panicked and riders were thrown while some members of the crowd were "rode over". One man was "carried off for dead" as "HRH" passed by at the entrance to the Common. |
||||
| 13 August (W) | Sussex v Kent [3] | Lewes | Sussex won | |
|
The source for this match is a letter from John Whaley to Horace Walpole dated Wed 13 August. He says the Sussex team "seem as much pleased as if they had got an Election". He also reported that "we have been at supper with them all" until one o’clock in the morning. |
||||
| c.20 August (W) | Kent v Sussex [3] | Sevenoaks Vine | Kent won | |
|
The London Evening Post speculated that "the Conqueror" (i.e., a decider) between the Kent and Sussex teams, led by Lord John Philip Sackville and Sir William Gage respectively, would be played in a few days but there is no record of a further match. |
||||
Mon 11 August. The General Evening Post on Thu 7 August announced a single wicket match the following Monday on Kennington Common involving seven players of the London Club. The game would be three against four with Mr Wakeland, Mr Dunn and Mr Pool against Mr Marshall, Mr Ellis and two others. Dunn and Ellis have been mentioned previously [1].
Thu 28 August. Death of Edward (aka Edwin) Stead reported in the Grub Street Journal dated Thu 4 September. Mr Stead was a noted patron of the game from the mid-1720s and may have been a good player too. He was a Maidstone man who undoubtedly did much to promote the game in Kent. A compulsive gambler, it seems he died in reduced circumstances. One account stated that he died "near Charing Cross" and another that he died "in Scotland Yard" [1].
|
|||||
|
||||||||