Cricket 1884

AXJG. 28, 1884, GRICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 381 Surrey got 122 runs required to win mainly through the good play of Mr. W. W. Read. Last week Surrey after making 869 dismissed Derbyshire for 170, and the latter after the follow-on with 199 in arrear scored 806. The Surrey eleven were again much in­ debted to Mr. W. W. Read for their success in securing the 108 runs wanted to win for the loss of only three wickets, and in both matches Maurice Read was in at the finish. In 1888 921 runs were totalled for thirty- four, in 1884 958 for thirty-three wickets. A co rr espo n d en t writes asfollows— I notice that although you have given the averages ol the Australians both batting and bowling, and also the averages of the best English batsmen against them, you do not give the English bowling averages against the Colonists, I have carefully worked out the averages of a few of our most successful bowlers up to Saturday last, August 23rd, which no doubt will be interesting : Overa. Mdns. Rug. Wkts. Avtg Attewell.. .. 236.1 143 244 22 11,2' Peate .. .. 406,3 182 576 44 13.4 Christopherson 208,1 106 318 23 13.19 During their tour the Australians have made 51 duek’s-eggs, Palmer and Spofforth heading the list with eight each, while Mid­ winter is last with only one. Only one bats­ man has been dismissed for “ a pair,” to wit— Bonnor in the match against North of England. The giant was out of all form at that time and five consecutive innings (all completed) only realised four runs. The Australians have sent back no fewer than 86 of their opponents with the undesirable oval against their name. This calculation, of course, only in­ cludes completed innings. I t is not often that one has to re­ cord twenty runs to a batsman as the result of an over. Yet this was really done, according to the Athletic News, in a match between the Nomads and South Manchester, by G. Biddolph, from the bowling of R, Hulse. The first and second balls were each sent to leg for four, the third in the same direction for a couple, the fourth went over the boundary for six, and the fifth was cut for four. T h e Derbyshire Captain lost the toss on Monday at Bradford, for the tenth successive time this year in Inter-County matches. In C r ic k e t of Nov. 29, 1883, I suggested the advisability of testing the feeling of the representatives of Counties in the council, to be held in the following month at Lord’s, on the proposal to give to the side losing the toss in the first match, the choice of innings in the return, and I am still inclined to think the idea well worthy of careful consideration .---------- T he following are the chief batting averages of over 25 runs for not less than 10 completed innings in all county (first, as well as second-class) and principal matches up to Saturday last: Comptd. Most in Innings. Runs. Innings. Avge. E. O. Powell .. 10 551 140 55.1 A. 6 . Steel 21 918 148 43.15 Lord Harris 32 1302 112* 40.22 W. W. P. Pullen 10 396 161 39.6 Scotton 23 895 134 38.21 W. Newham .. 21 741 137 35.6 W. W. Bead 35 1213 162* 34.23 W. G. Grace 36 1235 116* 34.11 Gunn 20 662 138 33.2 Barnes 85 1074 107 30 24 Hon. A. Lyttelton 12 366 103 30.6 Shrewsbury 30 905 209 30.5 F. A. Mackinnon 10 302 102 30.2 H. B. Steel 13 388 100 29.11 T. C. O’Brien .. 37 1079 119 29.6 Ulyett 42 1120 134 29.2 Hall 35 962 135 27.17 I. D. Walker .. 25 674 83 26.24 C. T. Studd 15 398 141* 26.8 A. N. Hornby .. 32 831 94 25.31 Bates 36 917 133 25.17 Scotton’a name was accidentally omitted from last week’s table. T he fo llo w in g w ill sh ow the re co rd s o f the n in e first-cla ss co u n ties u p to present time this year- - Won. Lost. Drawn. .. 0 . 1 Middlesex ...... 4 .. 3 . . 3 .. 4 . . 3 .. 4 . . 3 .. 4 . . 1 Lancashire . . . . 5 .. 4 . . 1 Kent.................. 4 .. 6 . . 1 Gloucestershire. 1 .. 8 . . 3 Derbyshire . . . . 0 ... 10 . . 0 I n the last six matches played at the Oval, 5,184 runs have been scored for 189 wickets, or an average of 27 1-7 for each wicket. The figures will be interesting. August 4,5 and 6.—Surrey v. Notts, 948 for 37 wickets. August 7 and 8.—Surrey Club and Ground v. South Wales, 759 for 35 wickets. August 11, 12 and 13.—England v. Austra­ lia, 982 for 22 wickets. August 15 and 16.—Surrey Club and Ground v. Wiltshire, 749 for 30 wickets. August 18, 19 and 20.— Surrey v. Lan­ cashire, 743 for 32 wickets. August 21, 22, and 23.—Surrey v. Derby­ shire, 953 for 33 wickets. I n the last five matches of the Gloucestershire eleven in their own county, the record is as under :— August 7, 8 and 9.—Gloucestershire v. Australians, 845 for 22 wickets. August 14,15 and 16.—Gloucestershire v. Lancashire, 837 for 40 wickets. August 18,19 and 20 .—Gloucestershire v. Australians, 668 for 30 wickets. August 21, 22 and 2 3 .—Gloucestershire v. Middlesex, 978 for 30 wickets. August 25, 26 and 27.—Gloucestershire y. Surrey, 948 for 20 wickets. This gives an aggregate of 4,270 runs for 142 wickets, or an average of just over 80 runs. SUSSEX v, YORKSHIRE. The Sussex eleven did a very fine per­ formance at Brighton, on Saturday, when they defeated Yorkshire very decisively by an innings and 19 runs. Their victory wa<? the result of excellent all-round play, and their success considerably enhances the repu­ tation they had already gained by consistently good cricket during the present season. Winning the toss, at the end of the first day, they had made 256 for the loss o* uiily three wickets, a highly praiseworthy performance; To this total Mr. Newham had contributed 100 by very fine cricket, and Mr. Whitfeld, who had been five hours at the wickets, eighty, a most patient display of batting. Humphreys, who was not out fifty, was run out on the second morning for a well got sixty-five ; and except a freely hit 53 by Mr. W. Blackman, there was little worthy of note in the remainder of the innings, which closed for 359. Chiefly through the effective bowling of Humphreys, who took, with his lobs, seven wickets for only fifty-seven runs, the Yorkshiremen were dismissed for 164, and as they only fared slightly better in their second innings, Sussex had a very easy win as above stated. SusSgx, Mr.H. Whitfeld, c Em­ mett, b Peate .. .. 80 Tester, b Ulyett.. .. 6 Mr.W.Newham, cGrim- ehaw, b Bates .. . .100 Humphreys, run out.. 65 J. Hide, c Hunter, b Peate........................5 A .Payne, st Hunter, b Peate........................0 Mr. G. N. Wyatt, c Hunter, b Peel .. 13 Mr. W. Blackman, c Hunter, b Bates .. 53 Phillips, c Peate, b P e e l........................8 A. Hide, b Peel Juniper, not out B 8,1 b 8, w 5 0 2 21 Total Y o r k s h ir e . First Innings. Second InniDgs. Ulyett, c A. Hide, b J. Hide Hall, b Blackman Bates, b J. Hide Grimshaw, c Newham, b Humphreys Peel, st Phillips, b Hum­ phreys ........................ Lee, b Humphreys Harris, st Phillips, b Hum • phrey8 ........................ Peate, c A. Hide, b Hum­ phreys ........................ 26 c and b J. Hide.. 23 46 run out .. .. 80 14 c Newham, b J. Hide .. .. 85 j and b Hum* phreys b Tesler b Juniper not out . • .. 24 Whitfeld, b Tester .. 0 Emmett, c and b Humphreys 12 bTester T. Rawlin, not out .. .. 2c Phillips, b Tenter.. .» Hunter, c Newham, b Hum­ phreys .. .. .. 0 c J. Hide, b Hum­ phreys .. B l, 1-b 2, w l . . .. 4 B 4 ,1-b 1 .. Total.. .. 164 Total ..176 BOWLING ANALYSIS. O. Peate .. 98 Emmett.. 64 Ulyett .. 17 Bates .. 35 S u ssex, M. R W 58 58 3 63 0 44 1 41 4 15 57 2 Peel Rawlin . Harris . Hall . O. M. R. W 44 28 53 3 26 16 44 0 2 11 1 First Innings, O. A. Hide .. .. 12 Blackman J. Hide .. Tester Humphreys Y o r k sh ir e . 86 21 11 4 16.2 2 17 0 28 1 30 2 28 0 57 7 Fecond Innings. O. M. R. W . . 8 6 3 .. .. 20.2 3 JuniperS 2 13 56 23 48 60 2 4