Cricket 1889

834 CEICKET : A WEEKLY EECOED OP THE GAME. AUG. 15, 1889. view, while in command of the Australian station. His sympathy for erieket has taken an active shape, not only in the old country, but in the Greater Britain across the seas. I can vouch myself for his in­ terest in English cricket, as he has been a member of the Surrey County Club for some years. T h e r e are records and records. “ Merlin,” in last Monday’s livening Nrnvs, lays a claim fo r one which, I fancy, no one will be very keen to out-do. The story, however, is quite good enough to bear reproduction f o r the amusement of C E iC K E T -re a d e rs . Talking of record attendances reminds one that a unique record was obtained at Lord’s a little time back on the second day of a match between the M.C.C. and Cheltenham College, and I trust Mr. J. A. Murdoch, the courteous assistant secretary, will forgive me for disclos­ ing a State secret. So much progress had been made with the game on the opening day that it seemed most likely about half an hour or so on the Saturday would bring it to a conclusion. On this Saturday one unfortunate boy paid his sixpence at the gate, and he proved to be the only person who passed through the turnstiles. An attendance of one of the paying public at Lord’s is, 1 should say, without parallel. The M.C.C. authorities appreciated the humour of the situation, and promptly returned the boy his sixpence; but, alas for their mistaken generosity, the turnstiles at the very next match returned one solitary sixpence short. D u r in g the last few weeks I have had occasion to notice not a fewgood perform­ ances in the way of consistent scoring during the summer. The columns of C r ic k e t this season, though, havenot con tained many better instances of the kind than have been furnished by Mr. A. 8. Bull, of the Richmond Club, on whom the Middlesex executivemight do well to keep their eye, even if they do not “ have him by and by.” From the following list, which I have been at some pains to compile from the scores which have appeared in C r ic k e t this year, it will be seen that he has made up to the present time 597 runs in eight completed innings, giving an average of 74.5. Further, I may remark that in the matches on July 22 and 31 in each case he carried his bat through the innings. May 11—Richmond v. Upper Tooting 41* May 18—Richmond v. Beckenham 42 May 25—Richmond v. Streatham 21 June 1—Richmond v. Merchant Taylor’s Sch. 40* June 8—Richmond v. M.C C. & G. 103* June 22-Richmond v. Will-o’-Wisps 75 July 6—Richmond v. Bickley Park 26 July 16—Shepperton v. Walton E0 July 50—Richmond v. Crystal Palace 20* July 22—Burlington Wanderers v. Croydon 120* July 27-Richmond v. Teddington 17 Ju'y 31—Richmond v. Beckenham 27* Aug. 3—Richmond v. Wimbledon 2 Aug. 5—Richmond v. Chiswick Park 5* Aug. 8—Richmond v. Oundle Royers , 8 * Signifies not out Total.........597 1872. May 14, Lord’s, M.C.C. and G. v. Surrey. 1875. May 17, Lord’s, North v. South. 1877. May 24, Oxford, M.C.C. and G. v. Oxford University. 1878. May 27, Lord’s, M.C.C. and G. v. First Australian Team. 1884. May 26, Birmingham, An England Eleven v. Fourth Australian Team. 1886. May 18, Lord’s, M.C.C. and G. v. Tlon oocn ivo 1887. May 30, Lord’s, North v. South. 1888. August 2, Manchester, Lancashire v. Surrey. Of the eight, as will be seen, Lord’s has the credit of no less than five. All the first seven, too, were recorded during the month of May. T h e completion of the match between M.C.C. and Ground and Somersetshire at Lord’s, on Friday last, calls particular attention to the few instances of the kind, that is of important fixtures played out in a day. As far as I know, there are only eight recorded in first-class matches. CHIEF FIXTURES FOR NEXT WEEK. Thursday, A u g u st 15.—Kennington Oyal, Surrey v. Lancashire (Jones’ Benefit); Brighton, Sussex y. Kent; Bristol, Gloucestershire v. Notts; Halifax, Yorkshire v. Middlesex; Taunton, Somersetshire v. Warwickshire. Friday, A u g u st 16.—Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Glamorganshire; Northampton, Northamp­ tonshire v. Staffordshire. M on d a y, A u g u s t 19.—Kennington Oval, Surrey C. & G. v. Glamorganshire; Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Scarborough; Bristol, Gloucestershire v. Surrey; Derby, Derbyshire v. Essex ; Hitchin, Hertfordshire v. Northamptonshire; Maid­ stone, Kent v. Lancashire; Nottingham, Notts v. Yorkshire; Taunton, Somersetshire v. Hampshire. W e d n e sd a y , A u g u st 21.—Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v- Wiltshire. YORKSHIRE v. KENT. The ticket was never in a condition favourable for run getting in this match, begun at Sheffield on Monday, and the game was over on Tuesday evening, play having been prolonged ten minutes to admit of a finish that night. Kent, who were without Lord Harris and Mr. L. Wilson, won the toss, but made a very bad start, the total being only 27 when the sixth wicket fell. Mr. Fox, how­ ever, found a valuable partner in Alec Hearne, and the pair played with the greatest care, so much so that only 67 runs were added during their partnership, which lasted a little under two hours. The amateur was batting just over two hours, while Hearne’s 42 occupied him two hours and forty minutes, the credit of a respectable total of 121 being entirely due to their cautious and judicious cricket. Yorkshire, who had lost four of their best batsmen overnight for 27, made even a worse show on Tuesday morning. Not one of the side got double figures, and the last six wickets only added 20 runs. Entering on their second innings, 74 runs to the good, the majority of the Kent batsmen found the bowling of Peel and Wainwright too good for them, and the steady batting of Mr. Fox and Alec Hearne, this time well supported by Mr. Patterson, again proved of great use. The three batsmen together were responsible for 77 out of 92 from the bat, although Mr. Patterson, who was in an hour and a half, had the longest stay. Yorkshire had an almost impossible task when they went in on Tuesday afternoon, wanting as many as 177 runs fo win. Only an hour and fifty minutes remained for play, but the game was prolonged ten minutes to allow a definite result, and this was attained. Peel stayed some time, but Lord Hawke, Wade, and Wainwright alone of the rest got double figures, and when the tenth wicket fell at 94, Kent were left the winners by 82 runs. This victory was due chiefly to the batting of Mr. Patterson, Mr. Fox, and Alec Heame, and the bowling of Martin and Wright. Martin took nine wickets for 64, Wright ten for 46. On the other side, Peel’s all-round cricket was the best feature. His eleven wickets cost 87 K e n t . First Innings. Mr. W. H. Patterson, st Hunter, b Peel............... < Second Innings. F. Hearne, b Peel G. G. Hearne, run out ... 5 F. Marchant, b White­ head ........................... 8 Mr. J. Le Fleming, st Huncer, b Peel .... 4 Mr. C. J. M. Fox, c Hunter, b Ulyett ...................40 Bombr. Barton, b White­ head ........................... 0 Aleo Hearne, c Ulyett, b Peel ......................... 42 Mr. M. C. Kemp, c Moor­ house, b Peel ... *. ... 3 Wright, c Moorhouse, b Wainwright .............. 8 Martin, not o u t.............. 1 st Hunter,’ Peel......... st Hunter, Peel............. b Peel............. bP eel... b Peel.............. b Wainwright. b P eel... ,.. . not out ... . b ... 31 b ... 6 ... 1 ... 4 .. 3 29 , 0 . 17 B 1,1b 2... Total st Hunter, b Wainwright... 0 b Wainwright... 0 c Hall, b Wain­ wright ......... 1 B ............... 10 .............121 Y o r k sh ir e . Total ...102 First Innings. Second Innings. Lord Hawke, b Martin ... 3 c Kemp, b Martin ...... 14 Hall, Ibw, b Martin......... 5 st Kemp, b Martin ........ 1 Lee, c Le Fleming, b Martin ...................... 8 c F. Heame, b Martin ........ 4 Wade, b Wright................ 8 b Alec Hearne 15 Peel, b Martin ............... 6 c F. Hearne, b Wright ...... 24 Ulyett, b Wright ......... 3 not out ......... 8 Wainwright, c Fox, b Wright ...................... 5 c Kemp, b W right.......10 Brown, bMartin............... 2 b Wright ......... 4 Moorhouse, c Le Fleming, b Martin ...................... 4 b Wright ......... 3 Whitehead, b Wright ... 2 c Kemp, b Wright ........ 2 Hunter, not o u t............... 0 b W right......... 1 B ............................ 1 B ................ 8 Total ... 47 Total ... 94 BOWLING ANALYSIS. K e n t . First Innings. Second Innings. O. M. R. W. O. M. R. W. Peel ......... 57.234 37 5 . ... 34 10 50 6 Whitehead ... 32 19 31 2 . ... 23 12 23 0 Wainwright 17 11 11 1 . 7.1 4 6 4 Wade ......... 8 4 11 0 . ... 4 2 13 0 Ulyett.........10 5 17 1 .. ... 1 1 0 0 Hall ......... 1 0 11 0 Y o r k sh ir e . First Innings. O. M. R. W. Martin. 20 10 21 6 Wright.......... 2) 8 25 4 Second Innings. O. M. R. W. ... 21 7 43 3 _ ..........26.215 21 6 A. Hearne 6 1 22 1 WARWICKSHIRE v. GLOUCESTER­ SHIRE. The Gloucestershire eleven avenged their defeat at the hands of Warwickshire in May in their return match, played at Birmingham on Monday and Tuesday. Owing to heavy rain on Sunday, the ground was soft at the outset, and batsmen found run-getting difficult, so much so that the first day was occupied with an innings to each side. The play wras curiously alike, as not only were the totals identical, but the highest score and extras were the same, and in each case four batsmen got’double figures. On Tuesday, however, the Gloucestershire eleven, who, by the way, played Painter instead of Roberts, had all the best of the game, and were all round seen to great advantage. The ground had not yet thoroughly recovered, but Messrs. Grace, Cranston, Brain and Page all played good cricket, and their joint efforts enabled Gloucestershire to get what proved to be a winning lead. Messrs. Grace and Cranston put on 101 runs for the second wicket in an hour and fifty minutes. Mr. Cranston should have been caught when he had made 5, but Mr. Grace, who was in altogether two hours and a half, made only one mistake, when he had got 53, and both batsmen played admir­ able cricket. Warwickshire, wanting 201 to