Cricket 1884

470 CRICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. n o v . 27, im. innings. His successes for Notts in 1874were not only numerous but brilliant. Against Surrey at the Oval he delivered 61 overs for 14 runs and 6 wickets, all bowled, and his summary of the season showed 55 wickets —35 of them bowled—at an aggregate cost of|624runs. This was altogether an excellent performance, and his figures were the best of the year for Notts, a great distinction with such a skilful trundler as Alfred Shaw to compete against. On his form of 1874 Morley was quite entitled to a place in the Players’ eleven, and though not chosen at Lord’s or the Oval, he fully justified his selection at Prince’s, taking six wickets in the second innings of the Gentlemen at a cost of 62 runs. The season of 1875 was not one particularly favourable for fast bowlers, and Morley’s figures for Notts were poor by comparison with those of Alfred Shaw, who was in extraordinary form. He represented the Players, though, in all the three matches against the Gentlemen, and his performance in the great match of the year at Lord’s was quite out of the common. In the second innings Messrs, W. G. Grace and Webbe made 203 for the first wicket, but in the first Morley’s bowling was exceedingly fine and in all he delivered 47 overs for 36 runs and 5 wickets, after luncheon sending in 12 overs for three singles and five wickets. The early part of the season of 1876 found him a little out of form, and he only figured in one of the three matches between Amateurs and Professionals. Allen Hill was chosen in his place both at Prince’s aDd the Oval, but still Morley thoroughly justified the confidence of the Marylebone authorities in the fixture at Lord’s, and although the Gentlemen made a long score of 449, his six wickets only cost 73 runs. He failed to get a wicket for the Rest of England against Kenc and Gloucestershire at Canterbury in either innings, but otherwise he was very success­ ful in the August matches, and in the last week of that month against Yorkshire and Surrey he took twenty-two wickets at a cost of only 90 runs. Against ISurrey he was credited with 9 wickets for 45, but at Sheffield he was even more fortunate, and in the second innings of Yorkshire he did a great performance, delivering 22 overs for 12 runs and six wickets. On the whole, despite his early ill success, his bowling for Notts was much above the average, and his figures were highly creditable, though his average was just on sixteen runs. Illness pre­ vented Alfred Shaw’sappearancein more than two County matches of the following year and the brunt of the bowling for Notts had to be borne by Morley. He opened the season well by taking seven of ten Lanca­ shire wickets for twenty runs at Nottingham, and at the end he was at the head of the bowling averages, having 60 wickets for an aggregate of 929 runs. He represented the Players both at Lord’s and the Oval, but his best bowling was done for the Marylebone Club, and among many other good per­ formances may be cited his analysis in the second innings of Lancashire when he took eight wickets for 43 runs. Alfred Shaw’s return to the County eleven in 1878 found Morley in better form than even he had before shown, and, indeed, his success during that season was extraordinary. His opening fixture was for Notts against the First Aus­ tralian Team, and here the left-hander was of great use, taking eight wickets for 72 runs. In the first innings of the Gentle­ men, for the Players at the Oval, he was successful, but at Lord’s he was rather heavily punished, and his best trundling was certainly done for the County. Few bowlers, indeed, have ever been able to show such a record. In all he delivered 1,190 overs for 1,287 runs and 128 wickets, 70 of which were clean bowled. In four matches Alfred Shaw and he bowled unchanged throughout both innings, and against Yorkshire at Nott­ ingham his analysis showed 72 overs for 94 runs and 14 wickets. On his form of 1878 Morley was decidedly the best fast bowler of the day, and he fairly maintained his repu­ tation in the following year, though hardly quite as successful. The season of 1879 was, as cricketers will remember, a miserable one, and the grounds were all in favour of the bowlers. Morley’s opening match for Notts was once more against Lancashire, and he was again successful, taking six wickets at a cost of 38 runs. His best feat of the year, though, and one of the most noteworthy he ever achieved, was against Derbyshire at Nottingham, and in the first innings of the Derbyshire eleven in 42 balls he was credited with seven wickets at a cost of only seven runs. Daft, on the formation of his team for America in the fall of 1879, of course gave Morley a place, and his success was consistent. His hundred wickets, indeed, were obtained at an average cost of three and a half runs, and he was only second to his Nottingham comrade, Alfred Shaw, who did a great performance, obtaining 178 wickets for 426 runs. The American trip had certainly not a prejudicial effect on Morley’s form in the following summer. On the contrary, his bowling was even more effective than it had been in the best of his previous seasons, and in 1880 he was undoubtedly without a rival as a fast bowler. He was unsuccessful for the Players against the Gentlemen both at Lord’s and the Oval. For the third successive year, though, he was credited with the largest number of wickets obtained by a Notts bowler, andin all he secured 97 wickets at an average cost of ten and a half runs. His most noteworthy feat of bowling was against Surrey at the Oval, and on this occasion his seven wickets only cost nine runs. It was only a fitting tribute to his merit that he was included in the eleven to represent England against Australia at the Oval, at the end of 1880, and he justified his selec­ tion, capturing eight wickets in the two inn­ ings of the Australians. The schism of 1881 kept Morley for the greater part of the sea­ son out of the Notts County Eleven, and it was comparatively an uneventful one for him. An injury to his foot, too unfortu­ nately reduced his cricket in the following season. This was the more to be regretted as in the first few matches in which Notts was engaged he had shown himself to be as deadly as ever with the ball, as his twenty three wickets in the two first fixtures will prove. There was considerable difference of opinion with regard to the advisability of his selection as one of the Hon. Ivo Bligh’s team for Australia, at the end of 1882, and the trip proved a very unfortunate one for him. In the collision between the P. and O. steamer “ Peshawur ” and a barque called the “ Glenroy ” off Colombo, he received a severe blow, which afterwards turned out to have broken a rib. The exact nature of his injuries was not discovered until he had taken part in two matches, and though he played once afterwards, he was really lost to the team for the rest of the tour. Ou his return to England in 1883, he figured in one match, but his engagement against Lanca­ shire at Nottingham was his last for the County, and his cricket career practically came to a close then. From that time his health became worse, and though the execu­ tive of the Marylebone Club provided him with the best of medical advise, he died of congestion of the lungs on the 28 of Sept. last, in his native village. Morley was left handed both in batting and bowling. His delivery was rather high with a break from leg, and, as he got plenty of pace on to the ball, he was rarely unsuccessful, being par­ ticularly dangerous if the wicket helped him at all. During the time that he was at his best he had few superiors. Though he occa­ sionally showed by no means bad form as a bat he rarely scored, and in the field he was not always safe. He was a civil, unassuming fellow, and as he was always ready and eager to do his best, he was deservedly popular both with amateurs and professionals. WATERLOW & SONS’ CRICKET CLUB. Matches played 28; won 11; lost 5; drawn 12; F ibst E lev en . B a tt in g A v erag es Times Most Inns. Kuns. not out. in Inns. Aver. W. Spilling .. 13 . 184 . 4 . 61* . . 20.4 C, Taylor 3 . 38 . 0 . 16 . . 12.2 J. Frith .. 8 . . 76 . 0 . 22 . . 9.4 S. Johnson 13 . . 118 . 0 . 62 . . 9.1 J. Howard 15 . 121 . 1 . 41 . . 8.9 A. J. Billings .. 14 . . 87 . 2 . 34* . . 7.3 J. Osman 3 . 21 . 0 . 19 . . 7 J. Donald .. 3 . 17 . 0 . 11 . . 5.2 R. Hoare 16 . 65 . 3 . 21* . 5 C. Feild 18 . . 78 . 2 . 16 . 4.14 S. W. Pringle .. 9 . . 23 . 2 . 11 . . 3.2 J. Foot 5 . . 15 . 0 . 7 . 3 C. Vines 4 . 11 . 0 . 8 . 2.3 J. W. Thorpe .. 5 . . 12 . 2 . 11 . . 2.2 C. W. Wade .. 7 . 12 . 2 . 7* . . 2.2 J. Brister 4 . 6 . 0 . 3 . 1.2 W . Goodship .. 3 . 2 . 1 . 1 . . 1 The following also batted—J. Herbert, J. Coats, J. T. Meld, J. Milton, C. J. Bennett, T. W. Goldsack, Rowbottom, J. Hailey, R. Young, T. Rayner, W . Hem­ ming, W . T. Rayner, A. Humphrey, E, Sparks, and J. Crisp. B ow ling A v e r a g e s . Balls. Mdns, Runs. Wkts. Aver. W. Spilling .. 49 .. 1 . 17 . 7 .. 23 T. W. Goldsack 40 .. 2 . 17 . . 5 . 8.2 J. Howard 691 .. 48 . 232 . . 86 . 6.16 J. T. Field .. 185 .. 8 . 32 . . 4 . 8 S. Johnson 177 . 87 . 252 . 30 . 8.12 R. Hoare 457 .. 25 . 143 . 17 . 8.7 J. W . Thorpe .. 135 .. 6 . . 77 . 8 . 9.5 J. Frith 146 .. 9 . . 81 . 8 . 10.1 C. Feild .. 48 .. 1 . 22 . 2 . 11.0 C. Vines .. 103 .. 3 . . 48 . 3 . 16.0 Also bowled—J. Osman, A. J. Billings, C. J, Bennett J. Coats. S econd E l e v e n . B a ttin g A v e r a g e s . Times Most Inns. Runs, not out. in inns. Aver E. Sparks 8 .. 24 . . 1 .,.1 2 . . 12 G, Picken 3 .. 81 . . 0 .,.2 6 . . 10.1 H. Baldwin .. 6 .,. 49 . . 1 . . 32* . . 9.4 G. Cooke 6 .. 26 . . 3 . . 10* . . 8.2 J. Milton 9 .. 44 . . 1 . .1 7 . . 5.4 J. Brister 9 . 49 . . 0 ,..1 5 . . 5.4 J. Herbert 9 .. 49 . . 0 .,.2 4 . . 5.4 J, Crisp 10 .., 89 . . 1 .,.1 8 . . 4.3 J. Heal 7 .. 24 . . 2 .,. 9* . . 4.2 H. Knight 8 .,. 23 . . 0 .,.1 0 . . 2.7 A. Humphrey .. 9 .,, 22 . . 0 ,.. 9 . . 2.4 T. W. Goldsack 9 .., 21 . . 0 .,. 9 . . 2.8 W. J. Rayner .. 10 . . 12 . . 1 .. 5* . . 1.3 J. Adams 4 5 . . 1 ,.. 5 . . 1.2 R. Castles 5 5 . . 0 ,.. 2 . . 1 H. Banner 4 4 . . 2 . . 2* . . 1 Also batted—J. Hailey, S. W. Pringle, Strothard, Novell, Wells. B ow ling A v e r a g e s . Balls. Mdns. Runs. Wkts. Aver. W. T. Rayner .. 888 .. 14 . .1 0 6 .. 81 .. 8.4 T. W . Goldsack 353 .. 21 ..1 1 9 .. 84 .. 8.17 J. Heal .. .. 45 .. 2 .. 12 .. 2 .. 6.0 A. Humphrey .. 224 .. 13 .. 71 .. 10 .. 7.1 J. Ciisp . . . . 80 .. 0 .. 18 .. 1 ..1 8 .0 Also bowled—G. Cooke, J. Herbert, J. Strothard, H. Baldwin. Next issue o f Cricket Dee- 25-