1839, when he was a very young cricketer, having heard of his bowling in the country against (I think) "the Montpelier". He bowled beautifully in that match, and was soon engaged in good matches. Up to that time Surrey had played no matches for many years. Martingell was a very regular bowler and very straight. He had a nice curl from the leg, but after the change in the law of leg-before-wicket this curl was against him, for good players put their legs in the way of his best balls. Day did not come into notice till he was getting on in years, but he was a very fine bowler, perhaps none better in his time, very accurate in pitch and with a fine rise and spring upon the ball. Altogether his was a very fine, bold style, in some respects resembling Beaumont, the present Surrey bowler.'
Who was the best of the original round-arm bowlers?—'I suppose Lillywhite and Broadbridge without doubt.' (It is stated that Martingell was a very eager bowler, and was famous for bowling no-balls. In 1858, no less than 30 of these are credited to him. Broadbridge, mentioned by Lord Bessborough above, was once caught off a wide; he was playing for Sussex against England, at Brighton, on July 23rd, 1827, and threw his bat at the ball and was caught off it.)
What lesson would modern cricketers have to learn from any of the old worthies?—'Nothing, I think, which the play of W. G. Grace and of A. G. Steel would not teach them. I call the play of both of these "the old-fashioned play"—that is, the accurate timing of the ball, and seeing and playing it correctly after the rise from the ground, with the knowledge when to make exceptions to that rule.'
How would you compare the best under-hand bowling of old days with the best modern round-arm?—'This is a very difficult question to answer: Old Clarke, of Nottingham, was the only first-class under-hand bowler
