Cricket 1883

OCT. 25,1883. CEICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 427 ASSYRIAN CLUB. RESULTS OF MATCHES. Matches played 11, won 8, lost 5, drawn 3. May 25 and 26.—At Cambridge, v. Trinity College. Drawn* Assyrians, 45*; Trinity College, 827. * Two wickets down. May 28 and 29.— it Cambridge, v. Jesus College. Drawn. Assyrians. 159 and 78*: Jesus College, 458. * Six wickets down. May 30 and 31.—At Huntingdon, v. County of Hunts. Won by an innings and 14 runs. Assyrians, 181; County of Hunts, 03 and 107. June 9.—At Croydon, v. Croydon Oakfteld. Lost by an innings and 24 runs. Assyrians, 73 »nd 67 ; Croydon Oakfield, 164. June 23.— At Tonbridge, v. Tonbridge School. Lost liy 28 runs. Assyrians, 118; Tonbridge School, 146 and 33*. * Four wickets down. July 6 and 7.— At Rugby, v. Rugby. Lost by an innings and 100 runs. Assyrians, 86 and 69; Rugby, 255. July 9 and 10.— At Warwick, v. County of Warwick. Won by 126 runs. Assyrians, 122 and 170; County of Warwick, 52 and 114. July 28.—At Ealing, v. Ealing. Lost by 160 runs. Assyrians, 148 ; Ealing, 308. July 30 and 31.—At Eastbourne, v. Devonshire Park. Won by 304 runs. Assyrians, 205 and 395 ; Devon­ shire Park, 131 and 162. August 1 and 2.—At Eastbourne, v. Eastbourne. Drawn. Assyrians, 351 and 14*; Eastbourne, 246 and 170. * Three wickets down. August 3 and 4.— At Eastbourne, v. Rossall Rangers. Lost by an innings and 17 runs. Assyrians, 83 and 114; Rossall Rangers, 214. BATTING AVERAGES. Most Times Inns. Runs, in Inns, not out Avge. Wells Cole, G. F. .. 7 . . 4 2 1 .. 211 .. 0 ..6 0 .1 Miller, J. F.................... 6 .. 145 .. 72 .. 0 .. 34.1 May, R. C....................... 5 .. 100 .. 27 .. 0 .. 20 Bell, J. M....................... 4 .. 66 .. 36 .. 0 ..1 6 .2 Abraham, F................... 8 . . 1 0 7 .. 40 .. I .. 15.2 Bowman, W .................. 8 .. 106 .. 28* .. 1 .. 15.1 Norman, J. F. C. . . 1 3 . . 1 5 2 . . 52 .. 2 .. 13.9 Sapte, W .......................... 14 . . 1 8 2 .. 55 .. 0 . . 1 3 Impey, E .............................13 . . 166 .. 52 .. 0 .. 12.10 Oakley, J .B ................... 6 .. 77 .. 22 .. 0 .. 12.5 Biddell, E. S. B. .. 5 .. 41 .. 17* .. 1 .. 10.1 Norman, A C............... 6 . . 42 .. 12 .. 1 .. 8.2 Thursby, 0 . R............. 4 . . 33 .. 11 .. 0 .. 8.1 Sheard, W .....................5 .. 30 .. 11 .. 1 .. 7.2 Bridges, P.....................11 .. 62 .. 19 .. 1 .. 642 Firth, M .........................4 . . 18 .. 8 .. 0 .. 4.2 Wilkins,C. M............... 4 .. 16 .. 11 .. 0 .. 4 The following played in leps than four innings:—C. A, F. Campbell, 34, 12; W . N. Roe, £8, 15 ; W . H. Bather, 37, 23; M. Collett, 17*, 1 ; L, E, ChalmerR,0; M. F Tweedie, 12; H. A. Trevannion, 0, 0; N. L. Paliologus, 25 ; A, P. Caze- nove, 3, 5 ; M. Miller, 8*, 1; E. Drew, 1, 90*. UXBRIDGE CLUB. . Matches played, 20; won, 13; lost, 7* BATTING AVERAGES. Inns. Rims. Most Times in Inns, not out. Avge. Hughes, T. B. .. 6 . 140 . 68* . . 2 .. 35 Gardiuor, W. M. .. 24 . 426 .. 82* . 5 .. 22.8 Sugden, T. V. .. 5 . 66 .. 41 . 2 .. 22 Davies, T. A. H. .. 9 . 116 .. 35 . 2 .. 20.6 Boid, A. C.............. .. 7 . 136 .. 60 . 0 .. 19.3 Astley-Samuel .. . . 7 . 117 .. 66 . 0 .. 16.5 Thomas, O. .. 13 . 188 .. 43 . 1 .. 15.8 Benbow, H . C. , 10 . 124 .. 71 . 2 .. 15.4 Stevens,E............. .. 6 . 64 .. 54* . 1 .. 12.4 Ratcliff, J. J. .% 11 . 12 4 .. 38 . 1 .. 12.4 Ashby, F.................. . . 9 . 83 .. 23 . 1 .. 10.3 Roberts, W . R . .. .. 18 . 143 .. 38 . 3 .. 9.8 Wood, G. H. .. 9 . 75 .. 81 . 1 .. 9.3 . 12) .. 33* . . 4 .. 9;3 Stevens, C. E. .. 20 . 131 . . 23 . 4 .. 8.3 Roberts, C . H. .. 6 . 49 .. 24 . 0 .. 8.1 Willis, Jfi................. .. 8 . 65 .. 22 . 0 .. 8.1 Hancock, W . .. 8 . f4 .. 19 . 0 .. 8 Willis, F................. .. 11 . 66 .. 21 . 1 .. 66 Purdy, J. R. .. 11 . 53 .. 14 . . 0 .. 4.9 Mercer, H. J. . . 11 . 39 .. 20 . 2 .. 4.8 Faulkner .. . . 1 2 . 32 . 15 . 3 . . 3.5 BOWLING AVERAGES. Balls. Ruus.Mdns. Wickets. Avge. Thomas, O. .. 62 .. 34 . . 2 .. 6 .. 5 4 Sugden, T. V . .. 451 . . 168 .. 24 .. 21 .. 7.0 Rutter, F. J. .. 197 .. 87 . . 11 .. 11 . . 7.10 Frulkner .. .. 1009 .. 318 . . 78 .. 40 . . 7.38 Roberts, W . P. 76*3 .. 307 .. 44 .. 37 .. 8.11 Wood, G. H. . . 856 . . 319 . . 44 .. 33 . . 9.22 Astley-Samuel.. 578 .. 256 .. 31 .. 23 .. 11.3 Hancock, W . . . 240 .. 108 . . 13 .. 8 . . 13.4 Ratcliff, J. J. .. 339 .. 175 . . 14 .. 11 . . 15.10 Faulkner bowled 3 no-balls, W . P. Roberts 3 wid^r, and Astley-Samuel 1 wide aud 1 no-ball, KIBKHAM (THE FYLDE). Matches played, 17 ; won, 6; lost, 9 ; drawn, 2. BATTING AVERAGES. Times Most Ions, not out. in Inns. Runs. Av^e. Singleton. J............. 13 .. 1 .. 64 .. 263 .. 21.11 Hunt, T .H ............... 4 . . 0 .. 52 .. 72 .. 18 Peel, F. W................. 5 .. 1 .. 19* . . 55 .. 13.3 Shaw, W . W . .. 15 .. 1 .. 41 . . 1 8 3 .. 13.1 Carter, J.................... 7 .. 0 .. 41 . . 75 .. 10.5 Tattersall, J............. 12 . . 2 .. 24* .. 98 .. 9.8 Taylor, J.................... 14 .. 2 . . 89 .. 102 .. 8-6 Birley, R. M. (capt.) 14 .. 0 .. 17 .. 82 . . 5.12 Tattersall, G. .. 12 .. 1 . . 23 . . 64 .. 5-9 Redman, R .............. 7 .. 1 . . 13 .. 34 . . 5.4 Birley, C. A............. 5 . . 1 .. 18 .. 21 . . 5.1 Duckett, J. J. .. 3 . . 1 . . 6 . . 6 . . 3 Barrett, J. II. . . 11 .. 1 .. 11 .. 29 .. 2.9 Walmsley, F. . . 7 .. 1 .. 11 .. 16 .. 2.4 Bagot, G....................13 . . 0 . . 12 .. 37 .. 2.1 WIMBLEDON CLUB. Matches played, 13; won, 7 ; lost, 5J; drawn, 1. BATTING AVERAGES. Inns. Most in Inns. Runs Times not out. Avge. Archer, H. C. . 3 .. 26 . 35 . . 0 . . 11.2 Aston-Key, C. .. . 12 . 43 .. 182 . . 2 .. 18.2 Blake, H ...................... . 4 . 9 . 19 .. 0 .. 4 3 Bowden, C. J. .. . 5 . 40 . 105 .. 1 .. 26.1 Cox, C. J...................... . 4 . 29 . 53 . . 0 .. 13.1 Cosser, S. A. . 4 . 13 .. 23 .. 0 .. 5.3 Diver, E. J. .. . . 8 . 84 .. 357 .. 0 .. 44.5 Fielding, F. . 4 . 8 . 13 .. 0 .. 8.1 Hunter, J. T. .. . . 8 . 25 .. 85 . . 0 .. 10.5 Hay-Cooper, A. . 15 . 55 . 185 .. 1 .. 13.3 Hay-Cooper, B. .. . . 3 . 7 .. 11 . . 1 .. 5 Inglis, C. J. .. . . 11 . 54* .. 107 . . 1 .. 10.7 Lansdowne, G. A, . 3 . 10 .. 10 .. 1 .. 5 Muir, W ...................... . 6 . 76 .. 159 .. 0 .. 26.3 Oliver, W . H. .. . 5 . 11 . 21 .. 1 .. 5,1 Reeves, B. A. .. -. . 14 . 35 . 201 .. 1 .. 15.6 Reeves, E. W , .. . 11 . 25 .. 75 .. 2 .. 8,3 Rickett, W . H. .. . 7 . 11* . 45 .. 2 .. 9 Rogers, W . A. .. . 6 . 4 . 7 . . 0 .. 1,1 Adamson, J. K. . 1 0 .. 0 .. 0 .. 0 Allen, G. E. .. . 1 . 2 .. 2 .. 0 .. 0 Banks, S. J. .. . 2 . 9 .. 13 .. 0 .. 6.1 Bond, D. V. .. . l . 0 .. 0 .. 0 .. 0 Bowles, C. E. .. . . 3 . 9 .. 15 . . 1 .. 7 Des Graz, C. L. M. . 2 . 10 . 12 .. 0 .. 6 Field, F........................ . 1 . 10 .. 10 .. 0 .. 0 Gore, F......................... Grundtvig, E. .. , 1 . 5 .. 5 . . o .. 0 1 . 0 . 0 .. 0 .. 0 Jenkins,E. W . . . . . 1 . 5 .. 5 .. 0 .. 0 Jenkins, T. A. .. . 1 . 3 . 3 .. 0 .. 0 Labat, L. de B. Morley, A............. . 2 . 4 . 4 .. 0 .. 2 . 3 .. 10 . 11 .. 0 .. 3.2 Murray, J.............. . 2 .. 0 . 0 . . 0 .. 0 Martyn, O. B. .. . . 1 . 17 .. 17 . . 0 .. 0 Martyn, W . E. .. . 2 . . 21 . 33 .. 0 .. 16.1 Merriman, H. M. . . 2 . 14 .. 16 . . o .. 8 Oliver, E ..................... . 2 . 31 .. 54 . . o .. 27 Poore, R. M. .. . Randolph, A. .. . . I . 50 . 50 .. 0 .. 0 . 1 . 0 .. 0 .. 0 .. 0 Savory, A.................... . 1 1 . 1 .. 0 .. 0 Sonnenschein, F. S. . 1 .. 33* . 83 .. 1 .. 0 Sommer, J. Van . 3 . 15 .. 28 .. 1 .. 14 Walters, R. .. . 1 . 5 .. 5 . . 0 . . 0 M id w in t e r , who has been very successful in winning speculations in the Colonies during the last few years, has recently been married. He has gone into business as a stockbroker at Melbourne. T he following have already been engaged as ground bowlers for next season at the Oval:— G. Burke (Superintendent), Barratt, Abel, R. Henderson, Yoss, Jones, E. Mills, Bowley, J. Riley, Beaumont, all of whom were on the Surrey ground last year; T. Wardall, of Mid- dlesborougb, F. Shacklock, Hyson of Green, Notts.| “ S p yb e y ’ s A nnu al R egiste r of N otting ­ h am sh ire C ricket M atc h e s .” —We have re­ ceived the seventh issue of the annual published by M r. F. G. Spybey, of Nottingham. Every item of interest in connection with Notting­ hamshire cricket and cricketers has been pre­ served for publication in the “ Register,” which cannot fail to be a useful work of reference. The price is sixpence. It can be had of Mr. W. R. Wright, at the office of this paper. A N O T H E R A U S T R A L IA N T E A M .} T he Melbourne Argus has the following remarks on the subject of the visit of another Australian team to England “ The arrangements for Eng­ lish teams visiting Australia are now established on the following scale—For all matches played in Melbourne the promoters of the team reccive 90 per cent, of the takings from the ground, and 33 and one-third from the grand stand. In Sydney they receive 80 per cent., and in Adelaide 85 per cent, from both stand and ground, while the Aus­ tralians when in England take only half the roceipts from the ground alone. On leaving England at the close of their last tour there was a sum of £269 5s. 8 d. standing to the credit of each member of the team, and when the expenses of the return trip have been deducted it will be seen that the profits of the undertaking have been largely over - estimated, and that the members of the eleven received a very moderate return for their months of hard work and the time wasted on the tour. As a matter of fact, the main source of pro­ fit was the series of matches played in Australia against the Hon. Ivo Bligh’s team, and the reports that havo appeared in many English papers as to the fabulous profits made by the Australians in that country were purely fictitious. Several lead­ ing cricketers, without whom no Australian team would be complete, have declined to again visit England under the old arrangements, but in the event of the English authorities making some con­ cessions, it is probable that the fourth Australian Eleven will be the strorgest that has upheld the reputation of colonial cricket in the old world.” “ Mid-on,” in the Melbourne Leader , also com­ ments on the matter in the following fashion :— “ On the conclusion of the tour of the last Austra­ lian eleven their financial position was reported by certain sections of the Australian press with more attention to detail than good taste, consider­ ing that the monetary transactions of the team concerned themselves and the promoters only. Moreover, the glowing accounts published in Australia and produced with more or less accuracy by the English press were altogether misleading and unreliable. In the old country, and indeed here also, an impression has prevailed that the result of the English tour was a profit of some­ thing like £700 per man to the Australians, where­ as from duly attested official documents I find that the total profit made in England was £3563 0 s. 10 d., whieh divided by fourteen gives as the individual credit balance to each member of the team the sum of £254 10s. The above-men­ tioned sum, it must be remembered, was the net result of 38 matches j and asit will be remembered that unprecedented attendance ruled wherever the Australians played, some idea mty be formed of the amount of money accruing to the various English clubs from the Australian matches. Re­ turning h»me the colonials played in all six matches, three against the Hon. Ivo Bligh’s team, and one each against Ballarat and Sandhurst and Adelaide, the result being a profit of £2,972, or an average of £495 per match in Australia, as against an average of £94 per match played in England. Let it be remembered that these authenticated figures are only to remove an incorrect idea which has been stamped upon the public, that the last Australian eleven came back from tlie old country laden with English gold, whereas in point of fact the matches played in Australia after their retui n resulted in an average profit of over 500 per cent. more per match than did those played in England.” “ Mid-on ” is finally “ forced to the opinion thr.t in stipulating for a fair half all round the Austra­ lians are acting in perfect fairness, to say the very least of it. The fact that they have on previous occasions foregone any participation in the stand returns can, I think, only come into the subject an proving that, all things considered, the English clubs have had them very cheap, and know too much for them in business if not in cricket.” The Australasian says—“ The terms so dogma­ tically insisted upon by tho cricketing authorities in the old world are iu striking contrast to those allowed to English teams in the new ; yet though the autocrats of the Surrey Oval and Lord’s may refuse to concede anything more favourable to the Australians, we hope that they will not be deterred from paying Mother England another visit. The