Cricket 1886

66 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OP THE GAME. a p b i l 22, 1886. at Bradford, where he failed to score in either innings, and against the Somerset­ shire televen, who got rid of him in his one attempt for 3 runs. Wood, who had been previously engaged in Ireland, andfor two years with the Dover Club, during the winter of 1881 accepted an appointment offered him to take charge of the ground of the Streatham Club. This practically severed his connection with Kent, as he was unable to get leave of absence from Streatham, and he only played .once subsequently for his native County. His last appearance, like his first, was in one re­ spect a notable one. It was in the match against Sussex, played at Gravesend on June 22, 1882, when Lord Harris and Lord Throwley made such an extraordinary start for Kent. The fall of the first wicket saw 208 runs on the telegraph board, and before the last fell, the total was 521, to which Wood, wh,o went in tenth, contributed 25. During the remainder of the season of 1882, and the whole of 1883, Wood’s attention was mainly directed to the performance of his duties in connection with the Streatham Club. During this period he had been permanently residing in Surrey, and mainly through the influence of Mr. W. S. Trollope, the Streatham Captain, the summer of 1884 (by which time he had duly completed his residential qualification) found him attached to the staff of bowlers on the Surrey County Ground at Kennington Oval. The Surrey eleven were then in want of a regular wicket-keeper, and the executive were not slow to utilise Wood’s services. He made his first appearance for Surrey in the opening match of the season against Essex on May 15 at the Oval. Though unlucky enough to be dismissed without a notch on that occasion the next match proved more for­ tunate, and his score of twenty.three not out against Hampshire was got in a style well calculated to create a favourable impression on the authorities. The expecta­ tions created by that display were more than realised by a series of excellent performances during the rest of the season. His first really noteworthy achievement with the bat was his 52 against Cambridge University, at the Oval, and, as many C ricket readers will well remember, his stand with Lohmann towards the close of the County’s second innings had a very material effect on the result. Things were looking rather doubtfulwhen the two professors became partners, and the addition of ninety- five runs made to the total for the eighth wicket during their stay had no small influence In deciding the issue in favour of Surrey. His batting proved of great assistance, too, on another important occasion in 1884, and again at a time when things were not going well for the County. This was in the match against Lancashire at Liverpool, and Wood’s capital first score of thirty-four not out did much to redeem the effects of a very bad start, and helped, too, in no small measure towards acreditable victory for Surrey. Though an absentee on some few occasions, owing to a bad hand, Wood had firmly secured his position in the County eleven, and his cricket throughout the year was very much above the ordinary run. This received prac­ tical evidence in the statistics of 1884, and the end of the season saw him seventh on the list of batsmen, with an aggregate of 395 runs for 25 completed innings, a highly creditable average of close on twenty-eight runs. Last season, too, fully confirmed the form shown by the Surrey wicket-keeper in 1884. Though an injury to his hand again prevented his participation in several matches, lie was of the greatest use when he was able to play, and several of his innings were distinctly good ones. His best score was his fifty-seven, not out, against Leicestershire at the Oval, but the highest was his second innings of fifty-nine againstKent,in the return on the Surreyground. He was, indeed, singularly successful against his native county last year, and those who witnessed the memorable match at Gravesend, when Surrey gained such an unexpected victory through the plucky play of its last two batsmen, Mr. Horner and Lohmann, will hardly forget Wood’s excellent display in the first innings. He was, indeed, the only bats­ man able to keep Mr. W. W. Read company for any time, and his score of 57, got as it was on a bad wicket, was not only an excellent performance but one of the greatest value to his side. Though not able to boast the exceptional ability of his predecessor at the wicket (Pooley), Wood has supplied a need much felt by the Surrey Team for some years previous to his appearance—the want of a reliable stumper. Possessed of great pluck he stands up well to all kinds of bowling. Though at times he has hardly been seen to the best advantage owing to injuries to his hands, he has proved himself most useful behind the sticks. At times particularly smart, he is altogether distinctly above the average in this particular position. As a batsman he has been of the greatestvalue. Though on the small side—his height is given as 5-ft. 3J-ins.—he hits hard. He plays, too, in excellent form, and scores fast when set, though he gets most of his runs behind the wicket, his cutting in particular being very effective. Wood is a good field, and in addition a fair change bowler if required. Thoroughly willing and obliging and a keen cricketer withal, Wood is very popular on the cricket field with all classes. C ricket of next Thursday will contain Portrait and Biography of F. S hacklock . MARYLEBONE CLUB. F ixtu res for 1886. The following is the official programme issued by the Marylebone Club for 1886. May 5. Anniversary Meeting and Dinner May C. Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Middlesex Colts May 10. Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Kent May 13. Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Derbyshire May 15. Catford Bridge, M.C.C. & G. v. Private Banks May 17. Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Lancashire May 19. Oxford, M.C.C. & G. v. Royal Military College May 20. Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Sussex May 21. Shepherd’s Bush, M.C.C. &G v. Pallings­ wick May 22. Crystal Palace, M.C.C. & G. v. Crystal Palace May 24. Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Australians (2-day) May 27. Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Parsees May 29. Dulwich, M.C.C. & G. v. The College May 31. Lord’s, Middlesex v. Kent May 31. Cambridge, M.C.C. &G. v. The University June 2. Bedford, M.C.C. & G. v. The School June 2. Elstree, M.C.C. & G. v. Elstrce School Masters June 3. Lord’s, Gentlemen of England v. Aus­ tralians June 5. Tonbridge, M.C.C. & G. v. The School June 7. Lord’s, Middlesex v. Yorkshire June 7. Birmingham, M.C.C. & G. v. Warwickshire June 9. Leatherhead, M.C.C. & G. v. St. John’s College June 10. Lord’s, Middlesex v. Gloucestershire June 10. Harrow, M.C.C. & G. v. The School June 11. Eton, M.C.C. & G. v. The College June 12. Richmond, M.C.C. & G. v. Richmond June 12. Hillingdon, M.C.C. & G. v. Evelyn’s School Masters June 14. Lord’s (Whit-Monday), North v. South June 14. Repton, M.C.C. & G. v. The School June 14. Streatham, M.C.C. & G. v. Streatham June 15. Hornsey, M.C.C. & G. v. Hornsey June 1G. Ealing, M.C.C. & G. v. Ealing June 17. Lord’s, Middlesex v. Nottinghamshire June 18. Oakham, M.C.C. & G. v. Rutland June 19. Kensington Park, M.C.C. & G. v. Ken­ sington Park June 19. Godalming, M.C.C. & G. v. Charterhouse School June 19. Carshalton Park, M.C.C. &G. v. Carshal­ ton Park June 19. Vincent Square, M.C.C. & G. v. West­ minster School June 21. Lord’s, Middlesex v. Surrey June 21. Ardingly, M C C. & G. v. The College June 21. Oxford, M.C.C. & G. v. The University June 22. WTalthamstow, M.C.C. & G. v. Forest School June 22. Bishop Stortford, M.C.C. &G. v. Stortford June 22. Lancing, M.C.C. & G. v. The College June 23. Cliessington, M.C.C. & G. v. Ne’er-do- Weels June 23. Eastbourne, M.C.C. & G. v. Eastbourne June 24. Lord’s, Middlesex v. Australians June 21, Brighton, M,C,C. & G. v. The College June 24. June 25. June 25. June 26. June 26. June 26. June 28. June 28. June 28. June 30. July 1. July 3. July 5. July 7. July 9. July 12. July 14. July 14. July 15. July 15. July 15. July 17. July 17. July 19. July 21. July 22. July 22. July 22. July 23. July 23. July 24. July 24. July 24. July 26. July 26. July 27. July 28. July 28. July 28. July 29. July 30. July 30. Aug. 2. Aug. 2. Aug. 2. Aug. 4. Aug. 4. Aug. 6. Aug. 6. Aug. 6. Aug. 6. Aug. 6. Aug. 7. Aug. 7. Aug. 9. Aug. 9. Aug. 9. Aug. 9. Aug. 11. Aug. 11. Aug. 11. Aug. 13. Aug. 13. Aug. 13. Aug. 16. Aug. 16. Aug. 16. Aug. 18 . Aug. 18. Aug. 19. Aug. 20. Aug. 20. Aug. 23. Aug. 23. Aug. 25. Aug. 25. Aug. 25. Aug. 27. Aug. 27. Aug. 30. Aug. 31. Sept. 3. Winchester, M.C.C. & G. v. The College Hurstpierpoint, M.C.C. & G. v. The College Willesden Green, M.C.C. & G. v. Law Club Haileybury, M.C.C. & G. v. The College- Sutton, M.C.C. & G. v. Sutton Leamington, M.C.C. & G. v. The College Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Cambridge University Southampton, M.C.C. & G. v. Hampshire Windsor, M.C.C. & G. v. Windsor Homo Park Blackheath, M.C.C. & G. v. West Kent Wanderers Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Oxford University Felstead, M.C.C. & G. v. The School Lord’s, Oxford v. Cambridge Highgate, M.C.C. & G. v. The School Lord’s, Eton v. Harrow Lord’s, Gentlemen v. Players Finchley, M.C.C. & G. v. Christ’s College Radley, M.C.C. & G. v. The College Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Northamptonshire Bury St. Edmund’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Bury and West Suffolk- Rickmansworth, M.C.C. &G. v. Rickmana- worth Epsom, M.C.C. & G. v. The Colloge Brookwood, M.C.C. & G. v. Brookwood Lord’s, England v. Australians Spring Grove, Isleworth, M.C.C. & G. v. International College Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Norfolk Shrewsbury, M.C.C. & G. v. Shropshire Hampstead. M.C.C. & G. v. Hampstead Charterhouse Square, M C.C. & G. v. Merchant Taylor’s School Chiswick Park, M.C.C. & G. v. Chiswick Wellington College, M.C.C. & G. v. The College Blackheath, M.C.C. & G. v. Blackheath Shrewsbury, M.C.C. & G. v. The School Lord's, M.C.C. & G. v. South Wales Cheltenham, M.C.C. & G. v. East Gloucestershire Enville, M.C.C. & G. v. Enville Hall Lord’s, Rugby v. Marlborough Llanfairfechan, M.C.C. & G. v. Mr. Platt’s XI. Uxbridge, M.C.C. & G. v. Uxbridge Tottenham, M.C.C. & G. v. Bruce Castle Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Rugby School Brighton, M.C.C. & G. v. Sussex Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Lincolnshire Leyton, M.C.C. & G. v. Essex Bath, M.C.C. & G. v. The College Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Rutland Knighton, M.C.C. & G. v. Radnorshire Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Hovingliam Hall Norwich, M.C.C. & G. v. Norfolk Stoke, M.C.C. & G. v. htaffordshiro Ludlow, M.C.C. & G. v. Ludlow Wooburn House, M.C.C. & G. v. Woo- burn House Leatherhead, M.C.C. & G. v. Leatherhead Southend, M.C.C. & G. v. Southend Lord’s, M.C.C. <fcG. v. Cumberland Hitchin, M.C.C. & G. v. Hertfordshire Swansea, M.C.C. & G. v. South Wales Hereford, M.C.C. & G. v. Herefordshire Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Cheshire Hackwood Park, M.C.C. & G. v. Hack- wood Park Tonbridge Wells, M.C.C. & G. v. Ton­ bridge Wells Lord’s, M.C.C. & G.v. Notts Castle Club Stamford, M.C.C. & G. v. Burleigh Park Swindon, M.C.C. & G. v. Wilts Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Somersetshire Eastbourne, M.C.C. & G. v. Eastbourne Mote Park, M.C.C. & G. v. Mote Park Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v.'Staffordsliire Hastings, M.C.C. St G. v. Hastings Brightling Park, M.C.C. &G. v.Brightling Park Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Hertfordshire Eastbourne, M.C.C. & G. v. Devonshire Park Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Leicestershire Plymouth, M.C.C. & G. v. The Garrison Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Wiltshire Exmouth, M.C.C. & G. v. Devonshire Ryde, M.C.C. & G. v. Isle of Wight Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Ealing & District Sidmouth, M.C.C. & G. v.Sidmouth Seaton, M.C.C. & G. v. Seaton Hull, M.C.C. & G. v. Hull Town Middlesboro’, M.C.C. & G. v. Hovlnjham Hall G entlemen ’ s V isiting 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 .