Cricket 1885

226 CRICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. JULY 2, 1885. Gentlemen, but his highest score of the season was at the Oval against Surrey, and his hitting on this latter occasion was very vigorous. During the latter part of the sum­ mer Mr. Key was seen frequently in the Surrey eleven. More than once he showed up fairlywell, but on thewhole he did not quite come up to the expectations formed from his play in 1883, and his best score was one of 53 against Hampshire at Southampton. This season Mr. Key’ s batting for Oxford has been consistently successful. Though unlucky enough to play on in the first in­ nings against Cambridge he fhowed fine cricket in the second, and his score of 51 was not inferior to any during the match. As a batsman he is rarely seen except to advan­ tage. He has particularly strong defence, and when set hits all round very hard. He bowls slow round with a slight break from the off, though he has done very little with the ball since he left Clifton. He is a fair field. Mr. Key has, too, acquitted himself creditably as a Rugby Union footballer, having represented his University on many occasions with success. Our portrait is from a photograph by Hills and Saunders, of Oxford. ---------- C kicket of Thursday next will contain portrait aud biography of Db. E. M. G race . U N F A IR B O W L IN G . T he following reply, dated June 29, has been gent by Mr. S. H. Swire, the Hon. Sec. of the Lancashire Club, to the letter of the Kent Secretary, conveying the decision of the Kent Committee not to play the return match with Lancashire. D ear S ir , —Your letter of the 22nd inst. came duly to hand. My committee can only regret that Lord Harm has been able bo far to influence your executive to induce them to break an engagement made in all honour and good faith, without any reservation what­ ever as to wbo should or should not take part in the matches arranged for this season between our respec­ tive counties. My committee beg to remind you that since the bowling question was discussed at Lord’s in 1883, when the umpires were especially instructed to carryout strictly Rule 48, theboarlersto whom you refer have appeared at Lord’s, and frequently elsewhere in first-class matches without having their fairness chal­ lenged by any of the most competent umpires in the country. It would appear, therefore, that you have no •onfidence in the body of experienced and carefully selected men onthe list of umpires of the M.C.C. or even in the M.C.C. committee, but you are determined to set up a standard of your own with regard to what should be considered fair bowling, and to require cricketers throughout the country to conform to it. My com­ mittee desire me to refer to the amendment our representatives proposed to Lord Harris’s resolu­ tion at the meeting already alluded to, viz., “ Ihat the whole question of unfair bowling be left for decision in the hauds of the Af.C.C. Committee.” My committee leave your executive to tear the responsibility of the action th*y have adopted. For our part, so long as there is a recognised authority, we deeline to join any particular counties in the endeavour toovenide cricket rules, 01 to make lawsfor themselves, but any decision of the M.C.C. would unhesitatingly be accepted as final by the Lancashire Executive. My committee have quite lb much amount of confidence in Mr. Hornby and other members of our clut) as you Btate you possess in tbe gentlemen of your county team, so. under the circumstances, are quite willing to accept your ultimatum as to the return match. In regard to the character of Crogsland’s bowling, we may remark that he was selected by the M.C.C. Committee, and played last year in the match North v. 801 th at Lord's, and that the only reason why he did not play in the Kent and other matches at the close of last Eea«on was that he had injured his shoulder at Leicester, and was therof ;re unfit to bowl. In these matches Nash was omitted because the hard state of the ground was n rt suited to his bowling. A copy of the correspondence has been forwarded to the M.C.C. committee, with a request that they will pursue such a course iu regard thereto, as they may consider best for the future interests and welfare of cricket, OXFORD v. CAMBRIDGE. Cambridge won the fifty-first Inter-Uni­ versity match yesterday at Lord’s with seven wickets to ppare. The result may fairly be called a surprise in a sense, as though many were prepared for an even game the general impression was that Oxford were the better of two moderate elevens. There was, too, fortunately no reason for the losing side to complain of any ill luck in the ground or the weather. In fact they had the good fortune to win the toss and the wicket played well throughout, eo that neither eleven was unduly favoured. Toppiu’s fast bowling was the cause of the dismissal of Oxford in the first innings for a comparatively small total of 136. Brain was caught off a ball that got up, and Key played on, so that the two most dangerous batsmen of Oxford on this season’s form were unfortunate. Still Toppin’s bowling was very good and his figures worthy of special note. The batting of Bainbridge and Wright on the first eveDing turned the scale in favour of Cambridge. Better cricket has not been seen in these matches. Wright played with the strictest care and judgment, never taking a liberty. Too much praise, indeed, cannot be awarded to him for a display which was invaluable to his side. Bain­ bridge showed greater freedom, and was apparently bowled in trying to place a ball. The two batsmen, neither of whom made a mistake, got 152 runs, a number never previously made for the first wicket in this fixture. Their stand will thus rank among tho most noteworthy incidents in a long series of Oxford and Cambridge matches, and it may safely be said that their batting had a very great influence on tho result. Though in a minority of 151 runs, Oxford played up well in the second innings. Brain was again very unlucky in b ing given out 1-b-w without a run, and thus the test batsman on the Oxford side was dismissed twice with a single as the result of his two essays. Messrs. O’Brien and Bolitho, both of whom had scored well on the first day, again did good service, and it is to be regret­ ted that the former should have sacrificed his wicket. The best cricket, though, was displayed by Messrs. Pago and Key. The latter not only showed good defence, but hit freely. Page, too, batted with great pluck and freedom,and his play caused the game to assume a very much improved appearance for Oxford. Though he should have been run out when he had got about twenty, he showed nerve and judgment at a trying time, and the value of his help cannot be overestimated. On Tuesday night Cambridge had made 28 of the 89 wanted to win, for the loss of perhaps their best batsman, Wright. Yesterday, though two other wickets were secured, the runs still wanted were soon got, and the match was over by half past twelve o’clock, Buxton taking out his bat for a well played 36. Mention has already been made of the be3t performances with the bat. Messrs. Toppin and Smith were the most successful bowlers for Cambridge, and the latter again came off in this match. Indeed, his bowling in tho second innings of Oxford was very good. Neither Messrs. Rock nor Bastard came quite up to their reputation, though the latter bowled well at the finish. The Cantab was certainly not in his best form, though Mr. Bastard proved very effective at the finish. The wicket-keeping of both Messrs. Wrighf and Newton was good. The fielding, too, on the whole, was up to the average, better, indeed, than might [have been expected from the form shown in the trial fixtures. Cambridge has now won 26, and Oxford 23 of the 51 matches pietyeel. O xford . First Innings. Second Innings. Mr. J. H. Brain, o Rock, b Toppin.................................. 1 1 b w, b Bock ., 0 Mr. E. H. Buckland, b Bock 16 b Smith .. .. 0 Mr. K. J.Key, b Toppin .. 5 c Hawke, b Toppin 61 Mr. T. C. O’Brien, c Smith, b B ock ..................................44 run out.....................28 Mr. H. Y. Page, b Smith .. 2*2 n otou t................78 Mr, L. D. Hildyard,b Toppin 13 c Wright,b Buxton 18 Mr.W.E.T.Bolitho.bToppin 24 b Smith .. . . 3 0 Mr. A. E. Newton, 1b w, b Toppin.......................... .. 1 b Smith •• . . 1 1 Mr. A. H . J. Cochrane, b Toppin ..........................1 b Smith .. .. 0 Mr. H. O. Whitby, b Toppin 1 c Hawke, b Bock 0 Mr. E. W . Bastard, not out 4 b Smith .. . . 1 2 B 2,1 b 2.......................... 4 B 6,1 b 5 . . 1 1 Total .................. 136 Total ..289 C ambridge . First Innings. Second Innings. Mr. C. W. W iight.b Whitby 78 c Buckland, b Bastard .. . . 1 5 Mr. H. W . Bainbridge, c Cochrane, b Brain .. . .101 1b w, b Bastard.. 7 Hon M.B.Hawke,b Cochrane 17 not out.. .. 5 Mr. C. W . Bock, b Coohrane 6 Mr. J. A Turner, b Whitby 8 Mr. G. M. Kemp, c Bolitho, b W h itb y .........................29 b Bastard .. .. 2G Mr. C.D. Buxton, c Newton, b W h itb y ..........................2 not oat .. .. 36 Mr. F. Marchant, run ou t.. 8 Mr. P. J. de Paravicini, b C och ra n e.......................... 0 Mr. C. Toppin, not out .. 11 Mr. C. H. Smith, o O’Brien, b Bastard .. .................. 23 B 4,1b 5 .......................... 9. Total ................287 Total .. 89 BOWLING ANALYSIS. O xford . First Innings. Second Innings. 0. M. B. W. 0. M. B. W. Bock .. .. 84 15 45 2 .. .. 41 12 82 2 Toppin .. 27.3 0 61 7 . . . . 26 6 68 1 Buxton .. 5 1 12 0 .. .. 9 1 28 1 Smith .. 11 8 24 1 . . . . 82 11 57 6 Turner 8 0 8 0 C ambridge . First Innings. Second Innings. O. M. R. W. o . M. R. W. Cochrane .. 48 27 49 8 . . . . 10 6 14 0 Whitby .. 45 11 96 4 .. .. 7 1 28 0 Bastard .. 88.8 20 56 1 .. .. 22 14 15 8 Page . . . . 20 11 83 0 .. .. 6.2 8 18 0 Buckland .. 10 4 18 0 . . . . 10 6 11 0 O’Brien . . 3 1 8 0 . . . . Brain . . . 9 8 23 1 .. .. SURBITON v. SURREY C. & G. Played at Surbiton on June 27. S urbiton . First Innings, Second Innings. A. E . Burr, c Voss, b Gals­ worthy.................................85 b Gorman .. .. fl F. Capper, o Galsworthy, b Gorman .......................... 3 c Banks, b Gals­ worthy .. .. 0 S. Castle, b Galsworthy .. 6 st Voss, b Wodd- Sims...................10 R. Howell, c Voss, b Gals­ worthy.................................. 3 lbw, b Wood Sims It. A. Bead, b Galsworthy .. 1 b Wood Sims .. G. H. Windelcr, c Voss, b Galsworthy.......................... 2 b Wood Sims .. C. A. Trouncer, c King, b Oaboruo .........................12 b Galsworthy .. C . P. GosneU, inn ou t.. .. 4 c V obf , b Gals- ^ „ worthy .. .. L. Easum, c Galsworthy, b .....................................10 cBanks.b Gorman G. Pinkerton, c King, b Voss 0 b Wood Sims .. Burghes, not o u t ..................4 n otou t.................... B 15, lb 3, w 4 .. ..2 2 B 8, lb 2 .. Total ................ lul S u rre y C. & G. First Innings. Total 88 Bilks, b Easum .. .. 0 Galsworthy,bWlndoler 18 Walbourne,b Windcler 0 R. Broadley, not ou t.. 5 B 6 , 1b 1, w I .. 8 Wood Sims, b Easum 25 Banks, b Pinkerton .. 0 Chilton, h Windeler .. 17 King, 0 Bead, b Win­ deler .......................... 3 Ofborne, b Easum .. 1 Voss, b Easum .. ..1 3 Gorman, b Easutn .. 8 In the Second Innings Wood Sims scored (run out), 26, Chilton (not out). 15, King (not out), 2 ; b 5.— Total 48, Total 93