Cricket 1886

SEJ?T. 23, 1886 CBICKET: A WEEKLY KECOBD OP THE GAME. 435 TH E Y E A R ’S COUN TY CR ICK E T . (From tlie World) With the end of August comes the close of the legitimate cricket season. Shortening days and uncertain light, with ground-rot set­ ting in from below, are the characteristics of September, from the point of view of the popular game. All these tend to make the proverbial uncertainties of cricket a still more irregular quantity. For these reasons “ record ” matches are played earlier in the year. The visit of the Colonial eleven in one way over­ shadows the usual interest in the county con­ tests. In another it enhances it, for the crack elevens of the shires are able to measure their strength not only against one another, but to get a line of comparison through the Austra­ lians as well. This year the latter test has been more accurate than heretofore, from the fact that the Colonial eleven has proved itself, on the one hand, weaker than any cen­ tral team, whatever it may have been called— whether Lord Sheffield’s eleven or the Eleven of England—which has been arrayed against it; t>ut, on the other, a very worthy foe to meet the steel which any single county could bring to bear upon it. The two counties which stand at the head of the list are undoubtedly Surrey and Not tingham; the former has played perhaps the strongest eleven, notwithstanding the laudatores temporis actiy that any county has ever consistently put into the field. Of its future there can be little fear; for whereas in other counties scarcely any new talent seems to be in reserve, in Surrey there is a second eleven available, almost as good as the first, and the latter has the advantage of containing young players like Lohmann, Abel, and Diver, who cannot yet in all cricket probability have displayed their mature strength. We place Surrey, notwithstanding Nottingham’s un­ beaten record, unquestionably first. If the fact that an eleven had never been beaten were to be taken as conclusive evidence that the county which it represented should stand at the head of the poll, it is evident that the wisest policy for any committee would be to arrange for the fewest possible number of matches, consistent with being counted at all. The right, and generally recognised rule is to count drawn games as half-wins; and if this be taken as a test, Surrey is fractionally ahead of Nottingham. But what satisfies us in giving Surrey such a decided preference is the fact that the eleven has twice beaten tho Aus­ tralians, and the second time with an innings and 209 runs in hand, a magnificent display which no other county even approaches. Why these Australian matches are not counted in the averages is not quite clear, unless it is the fact that they are incidental to certain years and not annual. But when two counties are so nearly equal, and such a splendid test is provided ready to our hand, as the Australian tour provides, it seems only common sense to let it weigh for something in the balance. Surrey has won twelve matches out of sixteen, and lias beaten the Australians twice. Nottingham has won seven out of fourteen, and played two drawn matches with the visitors. On the other hand, Surrey has been defeated three times, while Nottingham has only seven drawn games to set off the seven victories. Derbyshire has a singular aptitude for performing the exactly converse feat to thatconsistentlydisplayed byMurdoch’s Colonial elevens. Directly a match seems well in hand the team promptly collapses. Except against Essex, which, not being afirst- class county, unfortunately does not count, the Midland shire has not won a single match. Lancashire rarely plays its full strength. The puzzle of the cotton county is what became of the professional Hudson, who shone like a meteor in one match, collapsed in another,and then disappeared. Few men, especially pro­ fessionals, are permitted to make 98 for their county, and then retire, after only one further trial. A dry season enhances some reputations and buries others. That of 1886has been no excep­ tion to the rule, It may be safely assumed that Ulyett has played his last innings for an All-England Eleven. The remarks of the Surrey crowd at his selection to play in the third match against Australia were anything but complimentary, and the result justified the criticism—a more feeble display of cricket is not often seen on a splendid wicket in a repre­ sentative match. W. G. Grace has a worse record for his county than in other matches. He comes out with an average of 28 against 45 in 1885. On the other hand, he has three times scored more than a century, during the season, against Colonial bowling. Those who were present on the first day of the last repre­ sentative match, and witnessed his 170 not out, were reminded of the best days of the champion cricketer. He is still, alike in batting and' bowling, the mainstay of Gloucestershire cricket. Whether anotheryear a change of captain in the western shire might not be an advantage is a point upon which we dropped a hint earlier in the season. It would be no disgrace to the veteran doctor to stand on one side, and let a younger man —why not Mr. J. H. Brain ?—handle the team. From criticism we turn to praise. If Surrey has achieved the finest record, Mr. Shuter would be the first to acknowledge that the lion’s share of the credit falls to Mr. W. W. Read. The season of 1886 has increased his already brilliant reputation. All bowling has been treated alike; he stands at the head of the gentlemen bats of England, as Arthur Shrewsbury is firstamong professionals. Loh­ mann and Briggs—the former a protege of Mr. W. W. Read, discovered by his quick eye, ever on the watch for rising Surrey talent, and the latter the hero of the Australian tour, small and supple as whipcord, aud quick as lightning—are bright stars in the firmament of the year. Of Louis Hall, the veteran Emmett, Mr. F M. Lucas and others lack of space forbids us to speak. We remember some twelve years ago Mr. W. G. Grace, then at the zenith of his fame, remarking that there was no bowling so difficult to meet as that of Emmett on his day. We are pleased to notice 'with regard to so popular a cricketer that what was true in 1874 is most equally apposite in 1886. One sugges­ tion before concluding. The announcement of a benefit on behalf of the indefatigable secre­ tary of the Marylebone Club has given general satisfaction, We venture to ask him and the cricketing public whether it is not possible to arrange the M.C.C. matches against the nine first-class counties, to be reckoned amongst the averages, to be annual fixtures, and to take the place of the Australian tours when Colonial elevens do not visit our shores. In our opinion such matches, with elevens secured as far as possible during the winter, and full use being made of the variety of the material which the premier club has at its disposal, would prove very attractive to the public and beneficial to the world of cricket UPPER CLAPTON.—MARRIED v. SINGLE. Played at Upper Clapton on September 18. S in g le . G. Meredith, b J. G. Hartley, b J. Wil­ locks .................... 16 A. W. How, b J. Wil­ locks .................... 22 E. A. Johnson, b J. Willocks.............. 2 J. R. Mason, not out 19 T. King, b C. Shackel 1 P. King, b J. Willocks 0 G. Harper, b J. Wil­ locks ..................... 1 Willocks... Rev. Brown, b J. Willocks.............. J. Litchfield, b J. Willocks.............. B. Elliott, b J. Wil­ locks.................... B .....................1 Total ........ £ S. W. Scott, c How, b | Hartley .............. 5 | J. Willocks, run out... 2; J. Shepherd, not out 44 j F. C. Jacomb, b Hart­ ley .....................12 ( Dr. T. V. Nicoll, Dr. Elliott and Dr. Aveling did not bat. C.Shackel, bHartley 6 C. S. Simpson, not out .................... 14 B .....................17 Total ........ 100 •Buck, R. Jacomb, E. UXBRIDGE CLUB. Matches played 20—won 6, lost 10, drawn 4. RESULTS OF MATCHES. May 15—v. Pallingswick. Lost. Uxbridge, 78; Pallingswick, 100 and 21 for 4wickets. May 22—v. Kensington Park. Won. Uxbridge, 107; Kensington Park, 46and14. May29—v. WindsorHomePark. Lost. Uxbridge, 24 and 113 for 7 wickets; Windsor Home Park, 107. June 2—v. Ne’er-do-Weels. Lost. Uxbridge, 32 ; Ne’er-do-Weels, 76 and 65for 5wickets. June 5—v. Mr. H. F. Loft’s XI. Lost. Uxbridge, 123; Mr. H. F. Loft’s XI., 228 for 5wickets. June 14—v. Mr.G.H.Wood’sXI. Lost. Uxbridge, 103; Mr. G. H. Wood’s XI., 114 and 97 for 2 wickets. June 19—v. Chiswick Park. Lost. Uxbridge, 66 and 48for 4 wickets; Chiswick Park, 226. June 23-v. Chatham House Wanderers. Lost. Uxbridge, 202; Chatham House Wander­ ers, 2G1for 7wickets. June 26-v. Marlow. Lost. Uxbridge, 57 and 64; Marlow, 165. July 7—v. Pallingswick. Drawn. Uxbridge, 271; Pallingswick, 233for 8wickets. July 10—v. Ealing. Drawn. Uxbridge, 304; Eal­ ing, 252 for fourwickets. July 14—v. Kensington Park. Lost. Uxbridge, 132; Kensington Park, 294. July 24—v. Hampstead. Lost. Uxbridge, 101; Hampstead, 359for 6 wickets. July 28—v. M.C.C. &G. Drawn. Uxbridge, 179; M.O.C., 152for 6wickets. Aug. 2—v. Harrow. Won. Uxbridge, 195; Harrow, 122 and 88. Aug. 7—v. Hampstead. Won. Uxbridge, 307; Hampstead, 52and 104 for 7wickets. Aug. 11—v. Ealing. Won. Uxbridge, 153 and 31 for no wickets; Ealing, 140. Aug. 17—v. Marlow. Won. Uxbridge, 276; Mar­ low, 69. Aug. 28—v. Henley. Drawn. Uxbridge, 153 for 4 wickets; Henley, 188. Sept. 4—v. The District. Won. Uxbridge, 202 for 7wickets; Uxbridge, 71. BATTING AVERAGES. Inns. Times Most in not out. an Inns. Runs. Aver. F. Ashby ... 7 ... 1 .. 162* ... 442 .. 73.4 E. C. B. Ford 8 ... 0 .. 72 ... 241 .. 30.1 Hon. C. Mills 5 ... 1 .. 42 ... Ill .. 27.3 Woods ........ 22 ... 2 .. 74 ... 455 .. 22.15 W. L. Eves ... 14 ... 2 .. 59 ... 25G .. 21.4 T. B. Hughes 3 ... 1 .. 27 ... 42 .. 21 W. H. Miles... 11 ... 1 .. 56 ... 193 .. 19.3 A. W. Carrick 5 ... 2 .. 23 ... 50 .. 16.2 W.M.Gardiner 10 ... 0 .. 64 ... 159 .. 15.9 E. Stevens ... 5 ... 1 .. 32* ... 56 .. 14 C. E. Stevens 18 ... 1 .. 39 ... 224 .. 13.3 J. C. Hibbert 7 ... 0 .. 25 ... 72 .. 10.2 F. J.Rutter ... 14 ... 4 .. 29 ... 100 ... 10 E. D. Shaw ... 3 ... 0 .. 14 ... 27 ... 9 J. B. Mercer... 3 ... 0 .. 23 ... 24 .. 8 H. J. Mercer 5 ... 0 .. 18 ... 36 .. 7.1 F. Ratcliffe... 7 ... 0 .. 22 ... 41 .. 5.6 L. Shaw ... 7 ... 0 ... 15 ... 40 ... 5.5 C. N. Heron 4 ... 0 ... 16 ... 21 ... 5.1 H. L. Ames ... 4 ... 0 ... 9 ... 21 ... 5.1 W. Coleman... 3 ... 1 ... 8* ... 10 ... 5 C. Coles........ 3 ... 0 ... 8 ... 14 ... 4.2 H. S. Turner 15 ... 0 ... 16 ... 61 ... 4.1 H. Borton ... 3 ... 2 ... 2* 2 ... 2 G. H. Wood 9 ... 1 ... 4 11 ... 1.3 W. H.Stait... 5 ... 1 ... 3* ... 7 ... 1.3 The followingplayed in less thanthreeinnings— E. Bradley-Hunt, 9; C. M. Woodbridge, 0, 34; G. Garrard, 0, 3; D. W. Lee, 0, 3; E. H. Roberts, 0, 5 H. F. Morice, 0; H Burge, 0, 3; C. R. Mayo, 8, 6; C. W . Parry, 10, 44; W. W. Robinson. 17; E. Willis; 8; Capt. Montresor, 8, 15; vv. K. Stephenson, 1 Hon. E. Mills, 4*; R. G. Woodbridgc, 1; C. H.; Roberts 13. * Signifies nofc out. BOWLING AVERAGES. Balls Runs Mdns. Wkts. Aver' E. D. Shaw........ 345 ... 71 ... 35 ... 18 ... 3.17 Woods.............. 3 85 ... 1126 ... 215 ... 94 ... 11.92 A. W. Carrick ... 71 ... 47 3 ... 4 ... 11.3 Hon. C W. Mills 145 ... 75 ... G... 6 .... 12.3 W. H. Miles ... 884 ... 441 ... 51 .,.. 27 ... 16.9 C. N. Heron 200 ... 134 ... 11 ... 7 ... 19.1 C. E. Stevens ... 215 ... 132 ... 9 ... 5 ... 26.2 G. H. Wood 556 ... 280 ... 26 ... 9 ... 31.1 H. S. Turner ... 327 ... 212 ... 7 .... 6 ... 35,2 T.B. Hushes ... 165 ... 75 ... 10.... 2 ... 37.1 T. Ratcliff........ 130 ... 39 ... 8 . ... 1 .. . 39 C. W. Parry 170 ... 128 ... 7 . 2 . 64 G e n t le m e n ’s V is it in g C ards .—50, name only, 1/6; with address, 2/-. 100, name and address, 2/6. Wright & Co., General Printers, 41, St. Andrew’s Hill, London, E.C.