Cricket 1887

SEPT. 22,1887. CRICKET:] A W E E K L Y RECORD OF THE 431 county elevens, for instance, with that of Lancashire or Surrey. Mr. A. J. Webbe’s energy and personal popularity have brought Middlesex cricket again to the front, and though, on the whole, tijeir records will not bear comparison with those of either of the two counties just named, still the eleven have every reason to be satisfied with their performances in 1887. In batting, Middlesex, with its practically unlimited supply of amateur cricketers, cannot fail to be very strong, and Mr. Webbe’s brilliant performances have been the great factor in their success on several occasions. It is open to question whether Middlesex has been better represented for many years. Their prominent position, too, in the season’s results is the more creditable, considering that their bowling has certainly not been anything like so formid­ able as that of many of their rivals, and they have, it must be admitted, done remarkably well to get their opponents out for, ia the main, moderate scores, especially in the favourable condition of the wickets for run- getting. Kent was, in ths earlier matches, unable to put anything like a representative eleven into the field, and it was not, indeed, until August that Mr. W. H. Patterson, beyond a doubt the most reliable batsman in the county, or Lord Harris oould see their way to assist. Under the circumstances, therefore, it is hardly to be wondered at that the season has been anything but a successful one. At the time these lines are written the match with Gloucestershire at Clifton, which has reached its last stage, seems certain to end in a drawn game, and unless the final engagement of the year against Notts at Maidstone should produce a victory, the record of Kent will only show one success, that is to say in important matches. Wootton, one of the best bowlers of the day, unfortunately for Kent never seems to reach quite his best until the summer is well on the wane, but some of his later performances have been very much above the average, and it was in a great measure to his excellent bowling that the Kentish eleven were able to make such a creditable and hard fight recently at the Oval. The result of that match was a remarkably even draw, and this alone will serve to satisfy any one who may be at all in doubt of the excellence of the all-round cricket of a thoroughly representative eleven of Kent. Nottinghamshire has, in spite of the unpre­ cedented succession of high scores by Arthur Shrewsbury, been unable to maintain the pride of place it held for so long in county cricket. It reflects great credit on the eleven that they did hold a foremost position for such a length of time, and it must not be assumed that there is any sign of deteriora­ tion in their play. The proverbial uncertainty of cricket is responsible for rapidity of changes, and the fluctuations of the game prevent the supremacy being monopolised by any of the numerous candidates for what we may term the highest honours of county cricket. The whirligig of time has brought Surrey, after years of ill success, of late more promineatly to the front, and though another season may see the positions reversed, the double defeat of Notts by the Surrey team, and in the second match by certainly not the full strength of that county, proves that on this year’s form at least the Nottinghamshire players have found their superiors in the south. Thanks to Shrewsbury's consistently high scoring, and in a lesser degree to Gunn, Barnes, Scotton, and Mr. Daft, the batting of the Nottinghamshire eleven has shown no material falling off, although it can be hardly said that the tail is as reliable as of old. There has, in fact, not been quite the same level about the batting of Notts, and their reverse at the hands of Lancashire, and moral defeat by Yorkshire, following on the two wickets of Surrey, show that the all-round cricket has certainly not been quite up to the average of former years. On the hard wickets prevalent this summer, the bowling in par­ ticular has been nothinglikeso formidable,and, indeed, in this respect the eleven have not come up to the 'standard reached by Lanca­ shire or Surrey, in the latter case when the eleven have been in their full strength. Sussex, though on several occasions it has proved its ability to plav an up-hill game, has not been at all successful this year. This is the more surprising as there is really no lack of good cricket in the eleven. In several respects,the county has beenvery unlucky. Mr. F. M. Lucas has played rarely, and, in addition, more than one batsman of whom great things were expected proved to be comparatively out of form. Several of the old hands have, indeed, been disappointing, but there is, at least, one ray of promise in the great improve­ ment of the young professional Quaife, and, if he only takes care, and his batting develops as it shows every sign of developing, he will have very few superiors as a batsman in a year or so. The Sussex eleven have always shown themselves to be better at home than they have abroad, and their records of last month on their own ground at Hove are certainly of a very gratifying kind. Their later achievements in particular show that the results of the season hardly reflect the real quality of the cricket to be found in the eleven, and their moral win over Yorkshire, following as it did so closely on- their bare defeat by only one wicket at the hands of Surrey, should repay the Sussex eleven for much of their early ill-success. Mr. W. G. Grace has shown that he has lost little, if any, of his remarkable powers of bat­ ting, and his elderbrother, too, has done sterling service throughout the summer in the way of scoring. Still, Gloucestershire has been sadly out of luck, it must be conceded, and, in spite of the excellent cricket shown by the brothers Grace, they have not been able to make certain enough of the help of the leading amateurs to bring Gloucestershire again to the fore. In the earlier fixtures, in particular, the elevens which Mr. W. G. Grace was able to place in the field were not in any way representative of the county, and Woof’s absence during the first part of the summer, when the wickets were, to some extent, in favour of the bowlers, was severely felt. Just latterly, the addition of Mr. H. V. Page has strengthened the all-round cricket of the team, and the excellent show they made against a strong side of Middlesex at Clifton, was an unmistakable proof of their capacity with any­ thing like ordinary luck. They were only beaten, after a most exciting finish, by one wicket, and considering the ill-fortune that had attended them throughout the summer, it was particularly hard lines that a mistake in the field when the last two batsmen were in should have robbed them of what would have been a creditable victory. Derbyshire, deserted by two of its best native cricketers, F. Sugg and Shacklock, and deprived of the services of Mr. L. C. Docker, who, after playing for several years under the birth qualification, found that he had no claim at all to represent Derbyshire, has not been able to claim even one victory over the three leading counties to which it has been opposed. As a consequence, its claims to remain in the first grade have been freely discussed, and already, indeed, the reporters, who assume the right to determine the positions of the various county teams, have announced their intention to relegate Derbyshire to the second rank. We have frequently pointed out the obvious absurdities which mark the system which guide.s these same critics in apportioning the positions to the several competitors for county honours, and we cannot ourselves see on what grounds they can justify the removal of Derby­ shire from the division they have themselves constituted first-class. Though defeated, the Derbyshire eleven showed very fair cricket against both Yorkshire and Surrey at the Oval, and, indeed, on the latter occasion they had, up to a late stage of the game, if anything rather the best of the match. So far as we know, Derbyshire has not been beaten this year by any of the so-called minor counties; on the contrary, if we remember rightly, the eleven have beaten both Essex and Leicester­ shire, wl:o are regarded as among the foremost representatives of the lower grade, and have consequently proved themselves to be better than the best of that division at least. Were the Derbyshire team an effete lot, we should understand the unfavourable criticism to which they have been subjected, but, as a matter of fact, they are mostly composed of young players, and more than one of them are excellent all-round cricketers. Considering the difficulties against which they have had to contend in the desertion of professionals, the withdrawal of amateurs, as well as the greatest disadvantage of all, a scant exchequer, the Derbyshire committee deserve the greatest credit for their unceasing pluck, and they have little reason to be dissatisfied with the eleven they placed in the field this season. A little luck would have worked a wonderful change in all probability in the play of the team, and luck we need hardly say plays a very im­ portant part in the game of cricket at all times. Of the younger counties, Somersetshire has been showing creditable all-round cricket, and Leicestershire has quite sustained its claim to be considered the equal of any of the juniors. Essex, not in the best of. luck, too, by the way, though not very successful in its August en­ gagements, has not suffered in any way in reputation by the cricket it has shown this year. Warwickshire, one of the most promis­ ing of all, has done well on the whole, but the same cannot be said of some of the others, particularly of Hampshire, Cheshire, and Northamptonshire, who have hardly come up to the average in any way. BLACKHEATH JUNIORS v. MEMBERS OF ST. JOHN’S INSTITUTE. Played at the Rectory Field, Charlton, on September 16. S t . J o h n ’s I n s t i t u t e . Eev. J. Marshall, c Hemmerde, b J. E scom be ... ...........33 W. Storey, c Eem- mant, b J. Mason ... 17 W. Murton, b J. E sco m b e .................. 1 H. Asquith, c Hem- mant, b J. Escom be 24 W. W est, c W. E s c o m b e , b J. E sco m b e ................... 3 R. Dom iny, c Blaker, b J. E scom be........... 1 a. Hollis, c '"’.Mason, b H em m an t........... L. Barrett, b J. Escom be ........... J. Hartsharn, c M. Christopherson, b Hemm ant ........... C. W atkins, c H em ­ m erde, b J. Es­ com be ................... E. Lamb, not out ... B .......................... Total ........... 0 B l a c k h e a ih J u n io r s . J.Escom be, b Murton 18 H. Blaker, b W est... 4 W . E s c o m b e , b S. Barron, bW e=t ... 0 Asquith .................. 4 A. Soames, c Storey, J. Mason, c Asquith, b We it .................. 0 b M urton.................. 7 H. Christopherson, M. Christopherson, b W est ... ........... 5 not out .................. 30 B .......................... 1 E. Hemmerde, b — W e s t.......................... 0 Total ...........101 C. Mason, b Murton... 3 T.Hemm ant, c Hollis, b M u rton .................. 29 MR. PERCY CHLUSTOPHERSON’S XI. v. BLACKHEATH JUNiORS XV. Played at ISlackheath on September 19. B l a c k h e a t h J u n io r s . F. Hemmant, Hemm erdie ... J. Mason, run out A. Marshall, b Hem- m^rdie .................. 0 M. Christopherson, c and b Hemmerdie 0 T. Hemmant, run out G E. G. Hemmerde, b Hemmerdie ........... 0 W. Flemm ing,b Hem­ merdie .................. 2 C. Mason, c Living- stone,b Hemmerdio 13 H. Blaker, not oat ... 12 b ... 12 0 T. Baron, c P. Christopherson, b H em m erdie........... H. Christopherson, b Livingstone W . Green, b Hem - mcrdie ................... A. Green, c and b H em m erdie........... 0 .Omniany,c Druitt, b Hemmerdie H. Livingstone, b H em m erdie........... B 11, w 1 ........... Total M r. P. C h r is t c p h e r s o n ’s XI. 62 Bev.W . Marshall, b F. Hemmant ........... C. L. Hemmerdie, b Flemm ing ...........55 M. J. Druitt, b F. Hemm ant ........... 8 P. Christopherson, b J. M a s o n ..................14 K. christopherson, b J. Mason .......... n A.St.Cousins.bBlaker 3 W. J. Livingstone, b T. Remm ant...........13 B 13, lb 1 ...........14 Total ... ...114 F. B. W oodman, G. P. Crookm den, J. Pceblea and H. Law did not bat. N E X T IS SU E , OCTOBER 27