Cricket 1884

SEPT. 25, 1884, CRICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 443 respectable average of 27, and generally the figures are creditable. Wood, the new wicket-keeper, proved a decided addition to the batting strength of the side, and as will be seen, he is fifth on the list. Middlesex is still exceptionally strong with the bat when it is able to put a thoroughly representative eleven into the field. In bowling, though, here is still the same weakness, and this year it was seen to even greater disadvantage, owing to the absence of Mr. C. T. Studd, who was unable to play on account of ill- hfalth. The loss of such a reliable bowler cinnot he over-estimated, and, indeed, Mid­ dlesex cricket could hardly be expected to make even as good a show as usual under such circumstances. Burton was generally successful, though a little expensive, and Mr. Robertson was still more costly. It is to be regretted that Mr. 0. E. Cottrell’s bowling was not more often available. The Hon. A lfred Lyttelton is at the head of the batting tables, but Mr. O’Brien’s figures are far more reliable, and his average o f 85 for fourteen completed innings is highly creditable. Mr. I. D. Walker played fine cricket throughout, and this will make it the more a matter for regret that he has deter­ mined to give up first-clas3 cricket. Mr. Pearson’s batting was again of great use, and Messrs. Webbe and Ridley both fully upheld their reputations. The only two hundreds made by Middlesex. batsmen in 1884 were both credited to Mr. O’Brien. Lancashire on the whole showed little im­ provement on its form of the previous year. The eleven it must be admitted, though, were rarely seen in their full strength, and their brilliant victory over Yorkshire, at Sheffield, proved that when fairly on their mettle the Lancashire team were able to take their own part with the best Counties of the year. Mr. Hornby was not so successful on the whole, though his hitting towards the finish showed much of its old vigour. His failures in the earlier matches had. evidently a depressing effect on the eleven generally, and though they played good all-round (Sricket in the Southern tour at the end of the summer, on tbe whole they were much below tbe standard of 1881 and 1882. Mr. A. G. Steel played on few occasions, or the County would, in all probability, have been seen to better advantage. Some of the best cricket was shown by Mr. Royle, and considering the excellent form he showed in the later, matches it is a pity in the interests of Lancashire that the ex­ igencies of his profession prevent a more frequent appearance in county cricket. Mr. H. B. Steel’s hitting was of great use to the County, and his scores at the Oval and Maidstone augur well for his future use to Lancashire if he is able to play much. Barlow was surprisingly unsuccessful with the bat, but he made amends by bis ex­ cellent performances with the bail, and his bowling was the best feature of the County’s cricket. Watson also bowled consistently well, but Crossland was hardly as effective, and an injury to his arm prevented his participation in the later matches. The Sussex eleven showed a marked im­ provement, even on their form of the previous year, and the excellent all-round cricket they played on several important occasions is a very hopeful augury for the future of the County. They had a strongish batting side with a greater variety of bowling than was possessed by the majority of the Southern shires. The brilliant show of the team against the Australians will be remembered, but this was not their only noteworthy per­ formance, and their run-getting against Notts, Yorkshire, and Kent, at Brighton, was ample evidence of the strength of the eleven with the bat. Mr. Newham was far in advance of the rest of the team in the averages. He was unlucky enough not to score in either innings in the last fixture of the season at the Oval, and indeed his play in both matches against Surrey was much below his usual standard. Otherwise,though, his play was brilliant throughout, and he was undoubtedly one of the best Amateur batsmen of the year. Mr. Whitfeld’s defence was invaluable throughout the season, and Mr. Blackman, Tester, Humphreys, and Jesse Hide, all did good service. The won­ derful stand made by Mr. G. N. Wyatt and Phillips, too, should receive prominent men­ tion in any record of Sussex in 1884. Another feature in connection with the season’s crieket, does not seem to have attracted the notice it deserved. In three different matches, and on three different grounds, the partner­ ship of Messrs. Whitfeld and Newham was productive of no less than 100 runs. At Tonbridge. v. Kent, they put on 198 for the 2nd wicket. At Southampton, v. Hants, thjy put on 100 for the 3rd ■wicket. At Brighton. v. Yorkshire, they put on 159 for the 2ad wicket, In each ease the achievement had. as was only be expected, a vital effect on the result of the match. The bowling figures of Sussex generally are very fair. Mr. Blackman, who seemed to have lost some of his “ devil” in 1883, was very successful throughout, and, as a bowler, we think he is hardly estimated gener­ ally at his proper value. Humphreys lobs were at times singularly effective notably against Yorkshire and the Australians, and his figures were, on the whole, exception­ ally good for a slow bowler. At the commencement of the season the prospects of Kentish cricket were anything but hopeful. Altogether, though, the eleven showed up better than was anticipated, and if for nothing else, the year would be memorable for the brilliant victory of the county over the Australians at Canterbury. The team suffered Reverely from the loss of Mr. E. P. S. Tylecote, but towards the endof the summer they played up in capital form, and at times their cricket was excellent all round. The chief feature of the season was the extraordinary batting of Lord Harris. His continuous successes for the County are indeed remarkable- His aggregate for twenty completed innings was 889, a won­ derful performance. Messrs. Mackinnon and Patterson also rendered efficient service throughout the season, and the brothers Hearne, G. and P. Hearne, were of use, though the former hardly came up to his best standard. Wootton bowled with great success, and, as will be gathered from his figures, the County eleven would have fared very badly without him. Mr. Cbristopher- son’s fast bowling was very effective, though towards the end of the season he seemed to have been rather overtasked. A very useful addition to the bowling was introduced during the season in the person of A. Hearne, a younger brother of George and Frank, He bowls slow round, something after the style of Mr. A. G. Steel, with a break from leg, and his success against the Australians and in subsequent matches stamps him as one of the most likely young bowlers of the day. Gloucestershire begun the season in a very inauspicious manner, and indeed their only victory of the year was in the return with Lancashire, and that only by seven runs. The eleven, though, showed brilliant form with the bat when their full strength was placed in the field, and some of their later performances were exceptionally good. Messrs. Pullen and Brain played admirable cricket throughout, and Painter’s hitting was at times very effective. Mr. W . G. Grace, despite an injury to his hand and subsequently to his leg, batted in quite his best form. Woof was the mainstay of the eleven with the ball. His wickets were rather expensive, but it must be remembered that he had to bear almost the whole brunt of the bowling. The Derbyshire eleven were altogether out of luck. To a side, at any time rather lacking in confidence, their continuous ill- fortune in losing the toss had naturally a very depressing effect. Some allowance must, therefore, be made for their poor show, although their cricket, on the whole, was unreliable. The introduction of Shack­ lock strengthened their bowling materially, and he ought to be a useful all round member of the eleven next year. In Sugg, too, the County has a very promising young batsman, and he should also develop into a valuable player for Derbyshire. There is more than one likely batsman in the team, but the cricket showed a great want of stability and the out-play is altogether susceptible of im­ provement. A season without even a drawn game, much less a win, is a most unsatis­ factory record. Still the cricket of Derby­ shire is not without promise, and a change of luck would work a wonderful alteration in the play of the team generally. Altogether fifty-fonr matches were played by the nine counties reckoned first- class. The highest innings of the year was 484 by Gloucestershire against Surrey, the lowest was 40 by Yorkshire against Notts. Twenty-five individual innings of over a hundred were obtained. Five (Hall, 135, 128 not out, and 100 ; Ulyett, 107 ; and Bates, 116) were hit for Yorkshire; four (Shrewsbury, 209 and 127, and Gunn, 138 and 122) for Notts ; four (Painter 133 and 116, Mr. Pullen 161, and Mr. Brain 143) for Gloucestershire ; three (Lord Harris 112 and 101, and Mr. Mackinnon 102) for Kent; three (Mr. Newham 137 and 100, and J. Hide 112) for Sussex ; two (Mr. O’Brien 119 and 110) for Middlesex ; two (Mr. W. W. Bead 135, and Mr. J. Shuter 101) for Surrey ; and two (Briggs 112, and Mr. H. B. Steel 100) for Lancashire. STREATHAM.—JOHNSON’S (Ground Bowler) X I. v. THE CLUB. Played at Streatham on September 20. J o e n s o n ’ s XI, J. Bowley, b Vincent.. 6 J. Rilej, b Vincent .. 6 O. Lohmann, b Evelyn 00 E. Barrett, b Yincent 1 .W. Peters, c Roughton, bVir.cent.................0 J. Beaumont, c Rongh- ton, b Evelyn .. .. 7 E. Street, b Evelyn .. 9 F. Johnson, b Evelyn 14 W. Wood, b Evelyn.. 0 Lieut. Linghain, b V in cent.................20 Col. Cary, not out .. J A. M. Case, c Powell, b Vincent................ 0 B 5,1b 7 .. . . 12 W. S. Trollope, c Bar­ ratt, b Beaumont .. 20 D. Hallam, c Lingham, b Johnson.................40 E. C.Evelyn,b Johnson 33 C. H. Vincent, c Ling­ ham, b Bowley.. .. 6 H. H. Scott, b Johnson 10 E. Jeffrey, b Johnson 0 F. W. Miles, run out.. 38 Total .. ..181 T he C lu b . H. B. Powell, b Riley 0 H. Hardy, e Lingham, b Beaumont .. .. 2 J. W. Roughton, run o n t ........................12 J. A. Druce, b Beau­ mont........................1 W.Green-Price,not out 0 B 16, l b l .. ..1 7 Total ..1