Cricket 1882

i60 CRICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. JULY 20,1882. wards from the same cause, no play taking place on Saturday until after luncheon. In the second innings Mr. Hornby scored freely off the weak Surrey howling. Johnson, who has not appeared in the Surrey eleven for some time, took three three wickets for 46 runs, but the burden of the bowling was borne by Mr. Homer, who again proved very effective, taking nine wickets for 106 runs— a good analysis, considering the condition of the ground. Mr. Shuter, the Surrey captain, played another excellent first innings of 38 out of 82, but no one else except Messrs. Boiler and Read did anything. When Surrey went in a second time the wicket was almost unplayable, and they were fortunate to escape a defeat, haying when play ceased only four wickets to fall with 206 runs to L ancashire . First Innings. Mr. A. N. Hornby, b Homer .. 6 Barlow, c W. W. Read, b Roller. 5 Mr. S. S. Schultz, b Abel .. .. 22 Robinson, c Shuter, b Horner .. 15 Mr. O. P. Lancashire, b Roller .. 1 Mr. E. H. Porter, b Horner .. 2 Pilling, c M. Read, b A bel.. .. 6 Briggs, c and b Roller..................0 Watson, b M. Read ..................39 Crossland, not out ..................48 Nash, c Abel, b M. Read .. .. 0 B 7 ,1-b 1, w 3, n b 1 .. .. 12 Second Innings, o M. Read, b Abel .. 64 b Horner ..................13 b Homer ..................12 c Abel, b Homer b Homer .................. b Johnson.................. c Pooley, b Homer .. 1b w, b Horner .. c Shuter, b Johnson , c Comber, b Johnson not out.. B 3 ,1-b 3, w 2, n b 2 10 Total.. .156 Total ..174 S u r r e y . First Inn:ngs. Mr. J. Shuter, c Briggs, b Nash. 38 Comber, b Crossland..................3 M. Rpad, c Watson, b Crossland 1 Mr. W. W. Read, c Hornby, b Watson ................................. Mr. W. E. Roller, c Pilling, b Barlow......................................... Pooltjy, Bt Pilling, b Crossland .. Mr. S. Colrnan, st Pil'.ing, b Nash Mr. C. E. Homer, c Barlow, b N a s h ......................................... Abel, b Crossland .. .. .. Johnson, not o u t .......................... Haden, st Pilling, b Nash .. .. B 5 ,1-b 8, w 1.......................... Second Innings, c Hornby, b Nash . b N ash.................. b Crossland.. 1 c Lancashire, b Nash. 21 24 better cricket than in the attainment of his 107 not out on this occasion. Gloucestershire won by an innings and 177 runs. S om ersetsh ire . First Innings. Second Innings. Mr. E. Sainsbury, c Peake, b W. G. Grace ................................. 3 c and b W oof .. Mr. W. H. Fowler, c Day, b W. G. Grace ..................................39 Mr. D. D. Pontifex, c Peake, b W o o f ......................................... 2 Mr. W. M. MaBsey, c E. M. Grace, b W o o f..........................0 Mr. R. C. Ramsay, b W. G. G ra ce ..........................................0 Fothergill, b W. G. Grace .. .. 3 Mr. F. T. Welman, not out .. 5 Mr. C. F. Sweet, b W. G. Grace 3 Mr. R. E. Hill, c and b W. G. G ra ce ..........................................0 Mr. W. Trask, b W. G. Grace .. 0 Scott, b W. G. G ra ce..................6 c Day, b W. G. Grace 11 b Woof .. 13 Bt Gilbert, b Woof .. c W. G. Grace, b Woof run out .................. c sub, b Woof b Woof .................. B l not ont.......................... o sub, b Woof .. c E. M. Grace, b W . G. Grace .................. B 2 ,1-b 1 .. Total. 62 Total ..109 Mr. W . G. Gracc, c Sains­ bury, b Ramsay .. .. 1 Mr. E. M. Grace, b Trask 108 Mr. J. Cranston, b Hill .. 66 Mr. F. Townsend, absent 7 Midwinter, not out .. . .107 Mr. W .R. Gil iert,c Sweet, b F oth ergill..................9 Mr. E. Peake, c Welman, b Fow ler..........................17 G lo u c e ste r sh ir e . Mr. W. W. Pullen,c Ponti- fex, b Fothergill .. Mr. W. O. Vizard, Welman, b Ramsay Mr. L. M. Day, c Scott, Fothergill .. Woof, o Pontifex, Fothergill .. B 7 , 1-b 1, n b 2 .. st b .. 11 .. 10 T o t a l ................... 348 not ont..........................15 c Hornby,b W atson.. 0 b W a ts o n ..................0 Total. 82 Total .. ..4 2 ANALYSES OF BOWLING. S om e r se tsh ir e . First Innings. Second Innings. O. M.R.W. O. M. R.W. W. G. Grace .. 15 8 31 8 Widwinter .. 6 0 23 0 W o o f .................. 9 5 7 2 Peake G lo u c e s t e r s h ir e . 5 53 5 7 r, 89 3 7 O ANALYSES OF BOWLING. L an cash ire . First Innings. Second Innings. O. M. R.W. 0. M. R.W. Roller................... 26 10 458 ............................ 7 2 17 0 Hcm er . . . . 28 11 533 ............................ 41 16 53 6 A b e l ................... 15 1 842 ............................ 5 0 12 1 Johnson .. .. 1 0 9 0 .......................... 22.3 8 46 3 M. Read . . . . 4 3 2 2 ............................. 6 2 15 0 W . W. Read ,. 2 1 1 0 ............................. 8 2 21 0 Rollei bowled one no ball, W. Read bowled two wides, Horner two *ideB, and Abel Johnson and Roller each a one wide. no-ball. S u rrey . First Innings. Second Innings. O. M. R.W. O. M. R.W. Watson . . . . 27 15 221 ............................. 20 16 8 2 Crossland 25 10 8fi4 ............................. 5 4 4 1 N a sh ................... 15 9 74 ............................. 17 7 SO 3 Barlow .. .. 10 4 8 1 Barlow bowled one wide. O. M. R.W. Fothergill .. 72 28 96 4 Mr. Hill .. Mr. Ramsay .. 48 9 105 2 Mr. Sainsbury .. Scott.................. 26 6 56 0 Mr. Fowler .. Mr. Trask .. 13 1 28 1 Fothergill and Mr. Hill each bowled a no-ball. M. R.W. 8 1 21 1 3 0 5 0 18 4 38 1 GLOUCESTERSHIRE v. SOMERSETSHIRE. The Somersetshire eleven made a very poor show in their first match of the season with Gloucester­ shire at Gloucester on Thursday and Friday last. Messrs. A. H. Evans and S. C. Newton were away, but otherwise they had their strength. Though the wicket was affected by the rain during their second innings, there was no excuse for their very inferior performance in the first, and the majority of the team shaped badly against the bowling of Mr. W. G. Grace, who took eight wickets (five clean bowled) for only 31 runs. Mr. Kamsay, who, it will be remembered, proved so effective for Cambridge University against the Australians, on this occasion was not at all on the spot, and altogether the Somersetshire bowling was as weak as the batting. Dr. E. M. Grace played one of hjs old innings for 10S runs, but the best batting on the 6ide was cer­ tainly that ol Midwinter, who baa never shown REIGATE PRIORY v. TUNBRIDGE WELLS. Played at Reigate on Saturday, July 15, and resulted in an easy victory for Reigate. G. N. Wyatt and H. Welch played faultless cricket; and F. Morrison bowled 6 wickets for 19 runs. R e ig a t e P r io r y . A. Durrant, run o u t.. .. 14 G. N. Wyatt, b Draper .. 59 M. Miller, b Day .. .. 8 H. Nightingale, b Day .. 0 H. H. Welch, b Draper .. 31 .1. Nightingale, c and b Lnshi. gton ..................5 W. Chandler, b Draper .. 16 A. G. Bates, b Parke W. Underwood, not out. S. Skelton, b Draper F. Morrison, b Draper . B 5 ,1-b 1, n b 1 T o ta l..................148 T uicbridge W e lls . Ramsden, b W. Martin, c H. Nightin­ gale, b Morrison .. J. Jackson, not ou t.. W. Satchell, b Chandler.. G. W. Brooker, 1 b w, b Morrison .................. B 3 .......................... H. A. J. Morrison F. G. Lushington, b N igh tin gale.................. R. Chapman, b Morrison.. E. A. Parke, b Morrison .. C. Powell, b H. Nightingale H. Day, b Morrison . Draper, c Miller, b Chandler 11 .. 15 T o ta l..................61 ETON v. HARROW. Seventy-seven years have elapsed since the first match, the first at least of which there is any authentic record, between the two Public Schools was duly decided. Some meetings there were it is believed as far back as 1796, but that of 1805, to which the presence of Lord Byron’s name as one of the Harrow eleven has given a truly historical character, js the earliest ol' which any score exists. The fire which destroyed the Pavilion of the Mary­ lebone Club in 1827 removed the registers of several years following that in whiih Lord Byron figured, but since 1832 the sequence is unbroken, and from that time the story of Eton and Harrow cricket can be traced from year to year. The victory of Harrow in 1881 had made the two Schools even in point of victories, and when last year’s game had been completed, it was found that of the fifty-seven matches, while seven had been drawn the fifty absolutely played out had been equally divided. Under ordinary circumstances the issue of this year’s contest, which took place at Lord’s on Friday and Saturday last, would have been awaited with unusual interest. Among the supporters of the two Schools there was all the usual excitement, but the outside public for some reason or other appeared to be less appreciative than usual. The absence of an exceptional player such as C. T. Studd or Paravicini in either team may possibly account for this, but the prospects of the match just over cer­ tainly gave rise to less discussion than of old. The very poor form shown by the Etonians against W in­ chester justified the belief that Harrow would not have very formidable opponents, but on the other hand the Harrovians themselves did not please their own tutors, and the general impression was that the play would be below the average. The Harrovians were lucky in winning the toss, and this gave them in the existing conditions of ground and weather even a greater advantage than U 3ual. Moncreiffe was soon dismissed,butWard,the captain, who has improved very much as a bat since last year, and Spiro, who bids fair to be a good all­ round cricketer presently, made a very useful stand, and just before the latter was caught tbe score was 50 for one wicket. An entire change was visible in the aspect of the game when seven wickets were down for 96, but by bad fielding the Etonians threw away a good chance, and it was mainly owing to mistakes in the field that Greatorex was able to secure 48, Stewart-Brown, while he was in, show­ ing decidedly the better form of the two. Eton had to bat, particularly at the close of the first day, in a bad light, but with the exception of Bainbridge and Studd, the batting was only moderate, and tho scoring, even making allowance for the state of the ground, was very slow. With a useful majority of forty-seven in hand, Harrow started Saturday’s play, but heavy rain delayed a commencement until twenty-five minutes to one o’clook, and the ground was of course slower than ever. At first the Etonians found it very difficult to get a foot­ hold, and this will account for several mistakes in the field on the second day. Harrow again began well, making forty-one before a wicket fell, but the tail did not lend the same assistance as in the first iunings, and Jardine’s fast bowling w as effective towards the close. The Etonians were placed in a very unenviable position when they went in on Saturday afternoon. They were left with 189 to win, and only three hours to get them, so thnt wl'ila they couid hardly win as the ground was, they b a l every chance of losing. With four wickets down for 26 their prospects of averting a defeat seemed very poor, but a plucky stand by W. F. Cave, whose 49 was the highest and best innings of the match, saved them from disaster. Until almost the last, Harrow had good hopes of a win, but Richards, the youngster who played up so well last year, again showed great coolness at the finish, and the game was drawn. Eton were still wanting 57 to win, with three wickets to fall, and under the circumstances Harrow may fairly be accounted to have had the best of the draw. The ground through­ out was hardly in a fit state to show off either the batting, bonding, or fielding of either eleven. On the form shown, Harrow were perhaps the better side, but Eton had all the worst of the luck, and when they went in on Saturday afternoon for the second time the wicket was very diffioult. Cave’s second score of 49, as already stated, was the best batting display of the match. He played steadily, without losing any chance of hitting. Ward, Spiro, and Moncreiife showed the best cricket on the Harrow side, but there was no very dangerous batsman among the twenty-two players, though we fancy Spiro will develop into a very useful batsman. Jar dine,who is fast round arm, was the most success­ ful bowler for Eton, buthowas veryerratic. Richards,