Cricket 1882

SEPT. 7, 1882. w CRICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 279 BATTING AVERAGES. 49 . Is.9 i -2_ C3 'g s i "5 a . 8. au 8, S i ss u a o "o yA Most Matcl a 'aa M oH c3 <3 Barlow 16 28 . 6 . ,. 96 .. 68 .., 663 .. 30.3 F. Taylor . . 8 .’ 11 . 1 .. 62 .. 62 .., 290 .. 29 A. N. Homby . . 16 . . 28 .. . 2 . 139 .. 131 .. . 728 .., 28.10 Robinson . . , 15 . . 24 . . 2 .. 126 .. . 10^ . . 578 .., 26.6 V. F. Royle 6 . . 10 . . 1 .,. 64 .. 63 .. . 212 .. 23.5 A. G. Steel.. .. , 6 . . 11 . . 1 .,. 99 .. , 99 .. . 222 .. 22.2 C. H. Haigh , 5 . . 7 . . 0 .. 82 .., 80 .,. 133 .., 18.4 Crossland .. . 16 . . 24 . . 6 .. 51 .. 48a., . 232 .., 16.4 S. S. Schultz .,, 2 .. 4 . . 0 . 34 .. 23 .., 60 .. 15 Y a tes.................. , 1 . . 2 . . 0 .,. 28 .. 24 ... 28 .. 14 Watson .. , 16 . . 24 . . 3 .,. 51 .. 39 .,. 264 .., 12.12 E. Roper .. 5 . . 8 . 0 .,. 37 .. 31 .. .101 .. 12.5 Pilling.................. 16 .. 24 , 1 .. 78 .. 78 .., 229 .. 9.22 Briggs................. . 15 . . 23 . . 3 .. 30 .. 30 .. . 187 .. 9.7 O. P. Lancashire 10 . . 15 . 0 . . 32 .. 32 .. 120 .. 8 D. Q. Steel.. .. 1 . . 2 .. 0 .. 15 .. 15 .. 15 . . 7.1 R. O. Milne 1 .. 1 ... 0 . . 7a.. 7a.,, 7a... 7 C. G. Hutton . . g 5 E. H. Porter 4 . . 7 . . 0 .,. 21 .. 21 .. . 34 .., 4.6 W. S. Pattersen 1 . . 2 . . 0 . . 7 .. 6 .. 7 .., 3.1 W. E. Openshaw 1 . . 1 . . 0 .. 3 .. , 3 . 3 .. 3 N a s h .................. , 11 . . 16 . . 6 . ,. 4 .. 4 . 22 .. 2.2 C. L. Jones.. 1 . . 2 . 0 . . 2 .. 2 .. 2 .. 1 Horrocks . . 1 . . 1 .., 0 . . 1 .. 1 .. 1 .. 1 W. S. Butterworth 1 . . 1 . . 0 ,.. 0 .. 0 .. 0 .. 0 a Signifies not out. BOWLING AVERAGES. Overs. Maidens. Runs B a rlow ..................494.1 .. 279 .. 526 Nash .................. 351.3 .. 157 .. 552 Crossland . . . . 621 .. 276 .. 810 W atson.................. 740 .. 417 .. 684 A. G. Steel .. .. 314.2 .. 153 .. 416 B rig g s .................. 32 .. 21 .. 50 Schultz.................. 5 .. 1 .. 10 Hornby.................. 2 ., 0 . . 2 T a y lo r .................. 2 .. 0 . . 6 YORKSHIRE. Yorkshire had a fairly good season, winning nine matches out of 16. These were two each with Nottingham, Yorkshire, Middlesex, Gloucester­ shire, Surrey, Kent, Sussex, and Derbyshire. At tlie outset they bade fair to be very near the championship, but they were quite out of form at the finish, and their defeat by Kent in the last match of the season was only a moderate performance Ulyett’s batting was consistent, and his average good. Lockwood was out of health at the end of the season, and Emmett, Bates, and Hall were none quite in their best form. A promising new bowler was introduced in Peel, but he is too like Peate to be a prominent member of the eleven as yet. Ulyett came out again as a fast bowler at the end of the season, and Emmett at times was as difficult as ever. Bates’s bowling was only effective at times, but Peate was never in better form, and his average is exceptionally good. SUMMARY OF MATCHES. Played, 16; won, 9; lost, 5; drawn, 2. May 18.—At Nottingham, v. Notts. Lost by 90 runs. Notts, 104 and 241; Yorkshire, 191 and 64. aMay 22.—At Lord’s, v. M.C.C. and Ground. Lost by eight wickets. Yorkshire, 92 and 74; M.C.C. and Ground, 161 and 7 for two wickets. June 1.—At Huddersfield, v. Derbyshire. Won by eight wickets. Derbyshire, 159 and 64; Yorkshire, 207 and 16 for two wickets. aJune 5.—At Bradford, v. Australians. Drawn. Australians, 128 and 135; Yorkshire, 146 and 30 for three wickets. June 8.—At Lord's, v. Middlesex. Lost by three wickets. York­ shire, 151 and 72; Middlesex, 182 and 43 for seven wickets. Juue 12.—At Sheffield, v. Kent. Won by an innings and 20 runs. Kent, ITSi and 39 ; Yorkshire, 172. June 15.—At Dewsbury, v. Sussex. Won by ten wickets. Sussex, 104 aud 100; Yorkshire, 184 and 22 for no wicket. aJuue 19.—At Sheffield, v. Australians. Lost by six wickots. Yorkshire, 92 and 153; Australians, 148 and 99 for four wickets. Juno 26.—At Sheffield, v. Notts. Won by eight wickets. Yorkshire, 264 and 29 for two wickets ; Notts, 143 and 148. aJuly 7.—At Sheffield, v. Yorkshire Gentlemen. Drawn. Yorkshire, 104 and 129; Gentlemen, 107 and 14 for two wickets. July 10.—At Sheffield, v. Surrey. Drawn. Yorkshire, 277 and 35 for no wicket; Surrey, 123 and 197. ttJuly 13.—At Dewsbury, v. Australians. Abandoned, owing to rain. Yorkshire, 129 and 64 for one wicket; Aus­ tralians, 141. rtluly 17.—At Bradford, v. Australians. Lost by 47 runs. Australians, 132 and 67; Yorkshire, 68 and 84. ttJuly 20.—At Middlesbrough, v. Australians. Lost by seven wickets. Australians, 222 aud 49 for three wickets ; Yorkshire, 129 and 140. July 24.—At Sheffield, v. Lancashire. Drawn. Lancashire, 152 and 75; Yorkshire, 98 and 67 for four wickets. July 27.—At the Oval, v. Surrey. Won by eight wickets. Yorkshire, 203 and 66 for two wickets; Surrey, 105 and 160. July 31.—At Sheffield, v. Gloucestershire. Won by 29 runs. Yorkshire, 112 and 146; Gloucester, 123 and 103. August 3.—At Manchester, v. Lanoashire. Lost by 16 runs Yorkshire, 158 and 141; Lancashire, 218 aud 97. August 7.—At Derby, v. Derbyshire. Won by seven wickets. Derbyshire, 217 and 68; Yorkshire, 181 and 105 for three wickets. August 14.—At Brighton, v. Sussex. Won by 201 runs. York­ shire, 208 and 285; Sussex, 139 and 153. August 17.—^t Cl;fton, v. Gloucestershire. Lost by an innings and 45 runs. Gloucestershire, 256; Yorkshire, 115 andffi. August 21.—AtnSheffield, v. Middlesex. Won by 20 ruus. York­ shire, 114 and 159; Middlesex, 135 and 118. August 24.—At Gravesend, v. Kent. Lost by 101 runs. Kent, 174 and 185; Yorkshire, 103 aud 152. a Not included in average. BATTING AVERAGES. 09 0) . •g.a M . a — a> 00to _p o fl to £ fl a . a Ptocs I t ga o ft O ® Ots S 3 o H o >< Ulyett .. 16 .. 30 .. 4 .. 123 . 145 . 903 .. 34.19 E. Lockwood .. 14 .. 24 .. 2 . 74 . 74 . 440 .. 20 Emmett . . 16 .. 26 .. 4 . 38 . 51 . 404 .. 18.8 Bates .. .. 16 .. 30 .. 1 .. 51 . 72 . 529 .. 18.7 Flaxington 4 .. 8 .. 0 .. 57 . 58 . 121 .. 15.1 Hawke, Hon. M. B.............- 8 .. 16 .. 1 . 63 . 76 . 212 .. 14.2 Grimshaw 16 .. 26 .. 2 . 48 . 48 . 331 .. 14 Hall................... 16 .. 30 .. 3 . 37 . 47 . 357 .. 13.6 Peate . . 15 .. 23 .. 3 . 38 . 59 . 248 .. 12.8 Haggas . . 4 .. 6 .. 0 . 25 . 35 . 69 .. 11.3 Hunter . . 16 .. 24 .. 14 .. 26a. 26 . 101 .. 10.1 H ill.................. 12 .. 17 .. 3 . 19 . 21 . 110 .. 7.12 Padgett . . 4 .. 5 .. 0 . 15 . 16 . 38 .. 7.3 6 .. 8 .. 1 . 35a. 35 . 45 .. 6.3 Lockweod, H. . 2 .. 3 .. 0 . 10 . 10 . 19 .. 6.1 Sidgwick, R. .. 6 .. 7 .. 0 . 17 . . 17 . 33 .. 5.1 Brackin . . 2 .. 4 .. 0 . 9 . 9 . 10 .. 2.2 L. G. Hill ha.s scored 13 in two inning S, C. M. Landon 0 in one innings, and Lee 3 in one. a Signifies not out. BOWLING AVERAGES. Overs. Maidens, Runs. Wickets. Avge Peel .. .. ... 258.1 .. I ll .. 323 .. 23 14.7 Peate.................. 1,000.3 .. 464 ..1.212 .. 116 .. 10.52 Emmett .. .. 372.3 .. 181 .. 505 .. 41 .. 11.21 Ulyett .. .. 342.2 .. 163 .. 537 .. 37 .. 14.19 Bates.................. 698 .. 805 .. 926 .. 57 .. 16.18 H i l l .................. 822.2 .. 174 .. 424 .. 22 .. 19.6 Hall has bowled 11 overs for 26 runs and no wickets, and C. W. Landon 4 for 15 runs; Emmett has bowled 13 wides, and Peate 1. MIDDLESEX. Middlesex can only show a record for the season of five victories, five defeats, and one drawn game. The eleven played two matches with Nottingham, Lancashire, Gloucestershire, Surrey, and York­ shire, and a single match with Kent. The county possesses a very strong batting team, but, despite seme fine bowling, they were less successful than was expected. Messrs. Webbe and 1. D. Walker more than once made long scores for the first wicket, and generally the batting figures are good. Mr. C. T. Stmdd, though he had no long innings, was very useful with ball as well a? bat. Barton as a bowler quite maintained his reputation, and was generally difficult to score from. The highest score for the county was Mr. Leslie’s 141 at Nottingham This was the more gratifying, as he had previously been apparently altogether out of form. Both at Nottingham and Manchester, the tsvo closing matches of the season, Middlesex had decidedly bad luck. SUMMARY OF RE3ULTS. County|Matches played, Ilf; won,"5 ; lost, 5 ; drawn, 1. Junel.—At the Oval, v. Surrey. Lost b / 23 ruu?. Surrey, 226 and 232; Middlesex, 147 and 256. June 5.—At Lord’s, v. Gloucestershire. Won by ten wickets. Middlesex, 213 and 10 for no wicket; Gloucester­ shire, 8» and 135. June 8.—At Lord’s, v. Yorkshire. Won by three wickets. York­ shire, 151 and 72 ; Middlesex, 182 and 43 for seven wickets. June 12.—At Lord’s, v. Notts. Lost by an inuings and a run. Notts, 210 ; Middlesex, 32 and 177. aJuly 10.- At Lord’.i, v. Australians. Lost by eight wickets. Middlesex, 104 aud 91; Australians, 136 and 61 for two wickets. July 17.—At Lord’s, v. Lancashire. Lost by nine wickets. Middlesex, 123 aud 138 ; Lancashire, 243 aud 49 for one wicket. July 20.—At Lord’s, v. Surrey. Won by eight wickets. Surrey, 117 and 209; Middlesex, 235 and 93 for two wickets. August 10.—At Canterbury, v. Kent. Won by ten wickets. Middlesex, 338 and 45 for no wicket; Kent, 195 an \ 182. August 14.—At Cheltenham, v. Gloucestershire. Won by eight wickets. Gloucestershire, 144 and 176; Middlesex, 228 and 94 for two wickets. August 17.—At Nottingham, v. Notts. Drawn. Middlesex, 352 ; Notts, 117 and 287 for seven wickets. August 21.—At Sheffield, v. Yorkshire. Lost by 23 ruus. Yorkshire, 114 and 159 ; Middlesex, 135 and 118. August24.—At Manchester, v. Lancashire. Lost by an innings and 273 runs. Lancashire, 439; Middlesex, 68 aul 93. a Extra county. Not included in averager. BATTING AVERAGES. 0) . a 089 S 3 r=< S> .9 1 2 to Z .2 •JN 3« *3 <v 60 § . a £ ~ 1aM o ft o a S C o H s < Scott, S. W. .. 2 . 4 . . 0 . . 123 . 161 . . 202 . . 50.2 Lyttelton,Hon.E. 2 . . 3 . . 1 . . 40 . 40 . . 60 . 30 Lyttelton,Hon.A. 5 . 10 . 1 . 75 . 124 . 220 . . 24.4 Pearson, T. S... 11 . . 17 . . 2 . . 83 . 88 . . 349 . . 23.4 Studd, C. T. 7 . 11 . . 1 . . 42 . 81 . . 227 . . 22.7 Studd, G .B . .. 7 . 10 . . 0 . . 34 . 84 . . 216 . . 21.6 Vernon, G. F. . . 8 . 12 . . 0 . . 77 . 77 . . 245 . . 20.5 Walker, I. D. .. 11 . 2) . . 2 . 79 . 79 . 380 . . 20.2 Ford, A. F. J. .. 3 . 5 . . 1 . . 33 . 43 . . 65 . . 16.1 Leslie, C. F. H. 9 . 15 . . 0 . . 141 . 141 . . 235 . . 15.10 Clarke 4 . 7 . . 4 . . 20a. 20 . . 32 . . 102 Wilkinson, W. 2 . 2 . . 0 . . 13 . 13 . 21 . . 10.1 Burton . . 10 . 14 . . 5 . . 34 . 34 . . 67 . . 7.4 Bnrrowes, Capt. 4 . 5 . . ft . 20 . . 33 . . 7.1 Ridley, A. W. .. 2 . . 4 . . O'. . 14 . 14 . 28 . 7 Robson, C. 4 . . 7 . . 0 . . 15 . 16 . . 34 . . 4.6 Robertson, J. .. 7 . . 7 . . 1 . . 16 . 17 . . 20 . . 3.2 Tuke, C. M. .. 7 . . 10 . 2 . • 8 . 8 . . 25 . . 3.1 Heuery, P. J. T. 4 . 7 . 1 . 5a. 5 . 13 . 2.1 a Signifies not out. The following have also played for Middlesex:—C. I. Thorn­ ton, 2 innings for 95; T. C. O’Brien, 1 for 4; E. D. Shaw, 2 for 28; and A. Franklin, 1 for 0. BOWLING AVERAGES. Overs. Maidens. Runs. Wickets. Avg3 Studd, C. T. . 470.3 .. 209 .. 731 .. 51 .. 14.7 683.2 .. 333 .. 833 .. 55 .. 15.10 Ford, A. F ... . . 192 .. 85 .., 280 .. 16 .. 17.8 Walker, I. D. . . 137.3 .. 43 .. 267 .. 14 .. 19.1 Clarke ............... ,. 213.1 .. 124 .., 226 .. 9 .. 25.1 .. 10 .. 81 .. 3 27 Webbo, A. J. . .. 82 .. 32 .. 146 5 29.1 Ridley, A. W. . . 31 2 29.1 Henery, P. J. . . 40 .. 19 .. 66 ,.. 2 .. 33 Tuke, C. M ... ... 249.2 .. 83 .,, 505 .. 15 .. 33.10 Wilkinson .. . . 15 4 . 35 .. 1 .. 35 Robertson .. ... 93.2 .. 4ft . . 162 .. 4 .. 40.2 Scott, Shaw, aud A. Lyttelton have also bowled. KENT. Kent had a Tory unsuccessful season. Honie- and-home matches were played with Surrey, Sus­ sex, Yorkshire, and Lancashire, in addition to one fixture with Middlesex, one with Australians, and one with Marylebone Club and Ground. Of these nine only two were won, the Sussex match at Gravesend and the last game of the year against Yorkshire at Gravesend. The latter was a most creditable achievement, but generally the county was out of luck, and they usually had the worst of the game in losing the toss. The brothers Penn and the Hon. Ivo Bligh were greatly missed, but the want of a good bowler was still the weak point. Lord Harris’s batting was the feature of the season, and his average of 41.13 will spaak for itself. Mr. W. H. Patterson, Mr. Tylecote, and George Hearne were all successful with the bat, and Mr. Tylecote’s 101 against the Australians was one of the most notable performances of the season. The county was fortunate in securing the help of such a very promising young amateur as Mr. C. W. Wilson of Cambridge University. He has in him the making of a very fine bat. SUMMARY OF RESULTS. Matches played, 9; won, 2; lost, 6; drawu, 1. aMay 25.—At Lord’s, v. M.C.C. and Ground. Lost by nine wickets. Kent, 103 and 33 ; M.C.C., 92 and 47. Juno 12.—At Sheffield, v. Yorkshire. Lost by an inuings and 20 runs. Kent, 113 and 93 ; Yorkshire, 172. Juuc 15.—At Manchester, v. Lancashire. Lost by 26 runs. Lancashire, 138 and 98 ; Kent, 71 aud 139. Juno 22.—At Gravesend, v. Sussex. Won by an innings and 175ruus. Kent, 521 ; Sussox, 128 and 218. July 10.—At Brighton, v. Sussex. Drawn. Sussex, 145 aud 247 ; Kent, 275 aud 33 for two wicktts. Wickets. Avge. .. 57 .. 9.13 .. 59 .. 9.21 .. 83 .. 9.63 .. 64 .. 10.44 .. 28 .. 14.24 .. 1 .. 50 .. 0 .. — .. 0 — .. 0 —