Cricket 1884

258 CEICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. JULY 3, 1884, OXFOBD y. CAMBRIDGE. The fiftieth Inter-University match played at Lord’s on Monday and Tuesday, ended, as was generally anticipated, in an easy victory for the Dark Blues. On public form, though the winners were hardly up to the standard of some elevens which have done battle for Oxford, they were incomparably the better eleven. Cambridge had from the commence­ ment of the season shown very moderate cricket at all points, and in every department of the game they were undoubtedly] inferior to their opponents. A t only one period of the game were there any real hopes of an interesting finish. At luncheon time on Tuesday, Cambridge were 35 runs on with seven wickets still to fall, and there then seemed some grounds for believing that Oxford would after all have by no means an easy task to win. Too much praise can not be given to Bock for his cool play iij the second innings of Cambridge. He was batting altogether for three hours and twenty minutes, and had the tail of the Cambridge eleven lent any assistance the result might have been very close. As it was, though Wright, Studd, and Bainbridge played good cricket, after Bock’s dismissal an extraor­ dinary collapse took place, and the last six wicket# only added 17 runs. Oxford, when they went in with 80 to win began badly, and lost two of their best batsmen, Brain and O’Biien, without a run. Hine-Hay- cock’s sound play, and Page’s confident hitting, however, soon decided the game in favour of Oxford, and they won by seven wickets to spare. Hine-Havcoek played sterling cricket each time, and Brain, Page, and Key quite maintained their reputation. The last named, indeed, was batting well in the first innings, when he was stupidly run out. O’Brien and Kemp, of whom, on their form of this season, most was expected, did little, and after his extraordinary scoring recently the former’s dismissal both times without arun was remarkable. On Monday he was bowled the second ball he had, and on Tuesday the one ball he received was too much for him. Whitby’s fast bowling was again of great service to Oxford, and Bastard also had a good analysis. The former took ten wickets in the match at a cost of 113 runs The Cambridge bowling was much weaker than that of Oxford, and though there were fanlts in the fielding of both sides, beyond a doubt the winners were much the better eleven at all points. Kemp’s management of his team throughout the season has been admirable, and on this occasion his judg­ ment was as conspicuous as in the earlier matches. On the first day 11,462 paid for admission into the ground, and on the second 9,114. The aggregate is less than has been recorded during the last four years for two days, but it must be remembered that the match had been generally booked as a certainly for Oxford. Of the fifty matches which have now been played Cambridge has won 25, Oxford 23, and two have been drawn. C a m b r id g e . First Innings. Second Innings. C. W. Wright, b Whitby .. 10 c Kemp, b Page .. 31 H. W. Bainbridge, 1 b w, b Whitby ..........................2 J. E. K. Studd, c and b Bas­ tard ..................................4 P. J. dc Paravicini.b Whitby 37 D. G. Spiro, c and b Whitby 10 Hon. J. Mansfield, b Page .. 18 J. A. Turner, b Whitby .. 1 F. Marchant,1b w, b Whitby 0 C. W. Rock, c Nicholls, b Bastard ..........................8 c Kemp, b Page C. A. Smith, not out .. .. 0 n otou t.. .. H, G. Topham, b Bastaid .. ft c Kemp, b Whit B 8,1 b 1 ..........................9 B 9,1 b 4, w 1 O xfo rd . First Innings. Second Innings. T. R. Hine-Haycock, b Rock 40 n otou t.. .. . . 3 5 J. H. Brain, c and b Smith 42 b R o ck ...............0 T, C. O’Brien, b Bainbridge 0 b B ock ............... 0 H. V. Page, b Turner .. .. 25 cTurner,bTopham 38 M. C. Kemp, c Smith,b Rock 2 not o u t...............3 K.J. Key, run out................17 L. D. b ildyard, st Wright, b Turner...................................2 E. H. Buckland,bBainbridge 18 B. E. Nicholls, c Marchant, b T op h am ........................35 E. W. Bastard, b Smith .. 17 H. 0. Whitby, not ou t.. .. 3 B 5,1 b 1, w 1, n b 1 .. 8 B 3, w 1 .. 4 Total.....................209 Total .. 80 BOWLING ANALYSIS. C am b r id g e . First Innings. Second Innings. O. M. R.W. O. M. R.W . W h itb y.. .. 31 13 51 6 .. .. 41 15 62 4 Bastard.. ..23.310 29 3 .. .. 46 27 35 3 Nicholls.. .. 13 5 17 0 . . . . 20 10 22 0 Page . . . . 3 2 5 1 . . . . 23 11 31 2 Buckland 19 13 13 1 Bastard bowled a wide. O xford . First Innings. O. M. Rock Bainbridgo Smith .. Topham.. Turner .. R.W. 23 9 37 2 17 1 53 2 21.1 7 36 2 27 10 53 1 11 2 22 2 Sccond Innings. O. M. R.W. .. .. 14 8 13 2 .. ..5.2 1 . . . . 11 2 .. .. 6 Studd .. 14 0 29 0 2 11 1 2 7 0 2 0 Bainbridge bowled a wide and a no-ball,and Studd a wide. B a ttin g A ve r a g e s . a i 51 $1 a M 3D « S 3 1 ° h a < M. C. Kemp .. 16 411 95 2 29.6 H. V. Page .. 14 363 72 1 27.12 T. C. O’Brien 16 375 92 1 25 K. J. Key .. 13 263 55 2 23.10 J. H. Brain .. 15 322 75- 0 21.7 1 . R. Hine-Haycock 16 295 68 2 21.1 B. E. Nicholls 12 146 44 2 14.6 E. H. Buekland 8 89 28 1 12.5 H. O. Whitby 11 71 21 3 8.7 L. D. Hildyard 3 14 11 1 7 E. W . Bastard 11 41 17 4 5.6 B o w lin g A v e r a g e s . Overs. Mdns. Runs. Wkts. Aver. E. H. Buckland 95.1 48 135 13 10.5 H. V. Page .. 245.3 111 364 27 13.13 H. O. Whitby 404.2 132 830 53 15.35 E. W. Bastard 405.3 179 578 34 17 B. E. Nicholls 226,2 80 424 20 21.4 K. J. Key bowled in one innings—15 oyers, 4 maidens, 32 runs, 2 wickets. CAMBRIDGE. B a t t in g A v e r a g e s . c Kemp, b Bastard 29 c and b Buckland 28 b Whitby b Bastard b Whitby b Whitby b Bastard Total....................... Ill d m- ■rH a tn -p a © o §w to•'* EH fl > < H. W . Bainbridge.. 16 -367 80 2 26.3 J . E. K. Studd 16 386 82* 1 25.11 C. W . R ock.. 12 152 56 2 15.2 C. W. Wright 16 239 61 0 14.15 P. J. de Paravicini.. 16 214 53 1 14.4 F. Marchant 16 198 34 0 12.6 J. A. Turner 12 109 63* 1 9.10 Hon. J. W. Mansfield 14 98 18 0 7 D. G. Spiro.. 2 10 10 0 5 H. G. Topham 16 59 12 4 4.11 C. A. Smith 12 27 12 3 3 RESULTS OF MATCHES. Played 50. Cambridge won 25; Oxford 23; drawn 2. * Signifies not out. . 10 . 0 . 5 B owling A verages . Overs. Mdns. Runs. Wkts. Aver. . 1 C. W. Rock .. 279 1S7 374 21 17.17 . 0 H. G. Topham £85.2 168 616 33 18.22 F. Ma-chant .. 33 16 59 3 19.2 . 56 C. A. Smith .. 301 98 531 20 26.11 . 0 II. W. Bainbiidge 176 3 43 449 14 32.1 y 0 J. A. Turner .. 95 33 182 4 45.2 14 J. E. K. Studd 21 5 52 1 52 — P. J. de Paravicini 60 19 129 1 129 .177 Hon.J.W.Mansfield 10 3 17 6 — 1827 Drawn owing to rain 1829 Oxford won by 115 1836 Oxford by 121 runs 1838 Oxford by 98 runs 1839 Cambridge in one in­ nings by 125 runs 1840 Cambridge by 63 1811 Cambridge by 8 runs 1812 Cambridge by 162 1843 Cambridge b 54 run3 1844 Drawn owing to rain 1845 Cambridge by 6 wkts. 1846 Oxford by 3 wickets 1817 Cambridge by 138 1818 Oxfo'd by 23 runs 1819 Cambridge by 3 wkts. 1850 Oxford by 127 runs 1851 Cambridge in one in­ nings by 4 runs 1852 Oxford in one in­ nings by 77 runs 1853 Oxford in one in­ nings by 19 runs 1854 Oxford in one in­ nings by 8 runs 1855 Oxford by 3 wkts. 1856 Cambridge by 3 wkts 1857 Oxford by 81 runs 1858 Oxford in one in­ nings by 33 runs 1859 Cambridge by 28 1860 Cambridge by 3 wkts. 1861 Cambridge by 133 1862 Cambridge by 8 wkts. 1863 Oxford by 8 wkts. 1864 Oxford by 4 wkts. 1865 Oxford by 114 runs. 1866 Oxford by 13 runs 1867 Cambridge by 5 wkts 1868 Cambridge by 168 1869 Cambridge by £8 1870 Cambridge by 2 runs 1871 Oxford by 8 wkts. 1872 Cambridge in one in­ nings by 166 runs 1873 Oxford by 3 wickets 1874 Oxford in one in­ nings by 92 runs 1875 Oxford by 6 runs 1876 Cambridge by 9 wkts. 1877 Oxford by 10 wkts. 1878 Cambridge by 238 1879 Cambridge by 9 wkts. 1880 Cambridge by 115 1881 Oxford by 131 runs 1882 Cambridge by 7 wkts 1883 Cambridge by 7 wkts 1884 Oxford by 7 wickets CLIFTON COLLEGE v, CHELTENHAM COLLEGE. Some capital cricket was shown in the annual match between these two Schools, played at Clifton on 7une 24 and 25, In all 824 runs were scored in the two days, and the game was drawn, Clifton wanting 158 to win with five wickets to fall. Robin­ son not only batted well, but bowled with some success for Cheltenham. Hamil ton’s hitting in their second innings was very fine. His 130 was made up of six fours, fourteen threes, twenty-four twos, and six singles. For Clifton Cuyler, Johnston, and Sandford batted well, and Fowler proved the most effective bowler. C h e lte n h a m . First Innings. Second Innings. A. Robinson, b Fowler .. 72 c Mayo, b Fowler .. 21 E. M. Hamilton, b Hinton 8 run o u t ...................130 A. B. Champain, c Wood, b Mayo................................. 35 A. L. S. Jackson, b M ayo.. 4 A. B. Heath, b Mayo .. 9 C. E. Pierson, b Fowler .. 2 V. Ferguson, b Fowler .. 11 J. B. Rennie, b Fowler .. 7 A. A. Glass, b Hinton .. 49 E. W . Richardson, not out 3 A. A. Lutyens, c Wood, b Fowler ..........................0 E xtras..........................25 Total..........................225 b Fowler.................. 0 b King .................. 0 b King ..................11 c Johnston, b Fow ler..................42 b King ..................3 c Fowler, b Norbury 22 1b w, b Norbury .. 12 c Johnston, b Hin­ ton..........................0 not out .................. 0 Extras .. .. 25 Total .. ..266 C lifto n C o l le g e . First Innings. Second innings C. C. Bradford, run out .. 2 b Ferguson .. 3 C. Cuyler, c Hamilton, b 28 b Lutyens .. .. 43 C. D. Sandford, st Rennie, b Robinson .. ,. .. 88 b Robinson .. 29 G. H. Whitehead, c Rich­ ardson, b Robinson C. F. Wood, b Robinson .. 9 2 6 6 G. M. King, c Heath, b L u tyen s........................... 2 F. P. Norbury, b Lutyens 7 G. Fowler, b Lutyens .. 19 b Robinson .. .. 6 R. H.Jolin8ton,b Richard­ son .................................23 c Heath,b Lutyens 54 L. n. Hinton, not out .. 15 F. G. Mayo, c Rennie, b Ferguson............................1 Extras ..................22 Extras Total. .172 .. 18 Total .. ..161