Cricket 1891

CRICKET: A WEEKLT EECORD OF THE GAME, SEPT. 10, 1891 412 THE COUNTY SEASON OF 1891. I n conning over the results of first-class cricket matches played during the “ obsolete season called summer ” that has just come to a close, the most noticeable fact is the large proportion of games which have been more or less—generally more—interfered with by rain. Of first-class fixtures not even com ­ menced on this account, there have been some­ thing like half a dozen, including the initial match of the Scarborough Festival—quite a “ cricket curiosity ” so far as the Yorkshire Spa is concerned. As a direct consequence, that “ glorious uncertainty ” which imparts such a charm to our summer pastime, has been more in evidence than ever. In point of fact, and so far as the com­ petition proper between the leading Counties —increased again to the mystic number of nine by the very fitting elevation of Somerset­ shire—was concerned, there was hardly ever a “ possible, probable shadow of doubt ” as to which County would come out at the head of the poll. Until the middle of August, indeed, Surrey remained unbeaten by one of her own rank, and though at the finish she could not boast, as had been fondly anticipated, an unbroken record of successes, her two defeats by Somersetshire and Middlesex in no wav affected her position at the top. The splendid all-round form displayed by the eleven in every engagement down to the middle of August,was matter for great wonder­ ment among cricketers. Abel quickly showed himself to be in finer form with the bat than ever before, and this consistent run-getting he maintained throughout the season. In all matches for the County the popular little professional had an aggregate of consider­ ably over a thousand runs; while in first class inter-County matches he totalled 916 runs, with the fine average of 43.13. His best effort was his splendid 197 against Sussex at Brighton, but he scored largely in almost every match. Maurice Read comes second m the batting with an average of over thirty, but he owes this position to one big innings of 135. Lohmann, who batted brilliantly early in the summer, but fell away afterwards, comes third with 26.7, and Mr. W .W . Read is a good fourth. While Lohmann did so splendidly with the ball as to obtain 132 wickets for rather more than ten and a-half runs each, Lockwood showed a very marked advance in this department, and Sharpe’s bowling record was 88 wickets at a cost of under fourteen runs apiece. If Lock­ wood fulfils the promise he has already shown as a bowler, he should prove of infinite service to the ccunty of his adoption. Most of the other regular members of the eleven show up well. Two noteworthy facts in connection with Surrey cricket are, that Abel’ s is the highest county average of the year, and that the defeat by Middlesex at Lord’s is the first single innings reverse sustained by Surrey since 1889. Those who are responsible for the direction of Lancashire county cricket have every reason to be satisfied with their record of 1891. Mr. A. G. Steel could not find time to take part in more than one match, and the young and promising Harrovian, Mr. A. C. McLaren, could only play rarely, though when he did he played so well as to head the batting averages. Relatively, Albert Ward has the best figures, albeit he is largely indebted to a couple of big innings against Notts and Kent —notably his brilliant score of 185 against the last-named shire at Gravesend. Several of the older hands, notably Mr. Hornby, Barlow, Briggs, and Yates, show a falling off in batting. Mr. Crosfield and Frank Sugg played some capital innings, however, and the new professional, A. Smith, too, came out with figures that should ensure him a place in the future. The veteran Watson owing to an accident was absent from some matches and bowled comparatively little, the bulk of the work being done by Mold and Briggs. The former, who fully maintained his reputa­ tion as the most dangerous fast bowler we have, was responsible for the dismissal of no fewer than 112 batsmen for less than twelve and a half runs apiece. Briggs’ 89 wickets were got at a slightly higher cost, and he did many excellent performances. Lancashire won eight and lost four of their fifteen matches, the first fixture with Kent having to be abandoned through rain. Of the three drawn games, one was a moral victory, while the others were very open questions. That keenest of sportsmen, Mr. Hornby, is about to retire from the captaincy of the eleven, and if such be the case, as is only too likely, we fear there will be unfeigned regrets on every side. We may add that the void caused by the death of Pilling was admirably filled by Mr. Kemble, who kept wicket in the pluckiest of styles. Mr. McLaren, it is officially stated, will be more frequently available for 1892. Kent opened their season in good style, and did not lose a match until the middle of July. They suffered in a great measure from ill-luck, in that several of their fixtures were seriously interrupted by wet weather, and one absolutely abandoned. In fact, in this respect they suffered more than any other county, and altogether six matches were drawn, against five losses and only four wins. Martin was in fine form with the ball, as also was Aleo Hearne and Wright, though the latter proved a trifle expensive at times. The fielding, too, on some occasions was faulty. Martin delivered 853 overs and took two short of a hundred wickets, at the average cost of 13.10 runs apiece. The two big totals of 387 and 418 scored against themwithin six days (in August) by Lancashire and Notts respectively, rather spoilt the bowling averages. W ith the exception of Mr. Marchant, however, most of the batsmen of the side failed to perform up to their several reputations, and none save the gentleman named succeeded in averaging 20 runs per innings. Though socially a great success, the jubilee of the Canterbury "Week was altogether spoiled, from a cricket stand­ point, by the rain. We are glad to be able to record a highly successful season for Middlesex County— a success almost entirely owing to the marked improvement in their bowling strength, com­ bined with the consistently brilliant cricket of two batsmen, Messrs. T. C. O’Brien and A. E. Stoddart. A glance at the averages will show that whereas Phillips, the Melbourne Club bowler, did not this year show to particular advantage, J. T. Hearne made such remark­ able progress as to push himself at a bound into the front rank of bowlers. The young professional has, indeed, every reason to be satisfied with his summer, for which he is able to show better results than even Lohmann for Surrey—viz., 118 wickets for 10,39 runs each. Rawlin and Mr. Nepean have between them taken over 100 more wickets, sixty-five of these falling to the professional, who showed great improvement on previous form. Although materially assisted by his fine score of 215 (not out) at Manchester—the highest in an inter­ county match during le»91—Mr. Stoddart playecTseveral other brilliant innings. Still,he ' was headed in the batting by Mr. O’Brien, who led the way with an aggregate of 755 runs and a fine average of over 35 per innings. Mr. O’Brien scored two hundreds for his county, and his brilliant hitting was a feature of the season. Though Mr. Stanley Scott played several good innings, Mr. A. J. Webbe failed to get into form, and owing to an accident his place as captain was filled during the latter part of the season by Mr. O’Brien. The most noteworthy incidents of the year for Middlesex were the decisive defeat of Surrey in the return match at Lord*&, and the victories over Notts and Lancashire earlier in the season. Tho way in which Arthur Shrewsbury played himself into form, after starting the summer in a manner unworthy of so great a batsman, was the most notable feature of Nottinghamshire cricket during 1891. On two separate occasions did he and Gunn each score over 100 in the same match, until at the close their statistics read singularly alike, though Gunn (43.6) in the end managed to get the best. Each of them scored nearly 800 runs, and it is a fact worthy of mention that Shrewsbury has now scored the hundred against every first-class County save Somer­ set, whom Notts have not yet encountered. The veteran Barnes, who was handicapped by a strained leg, yet comes out with the credit­ able average of thirty, and Flowers with 24J. In bowling the principal weakness of the team now lies. William Attewell secured seventy- three wickets at the average cost of under 15 runs each, but he did not receive adequate support, Shacklock (who took 46 wickets) and Flowers both being pretty expensive. It is to be hoped that the colt Bagguley may train on into something. Sherwin’s wicket-keeping was as good as ever. Although they lost seven matches and won only four, the record of Sussex cricket is by no means discouraging. Bean batted through­ out as he had never batted before. Mr. New­ ham, too, often proved to be in a run-getting vein when an effort was required, and several other of the old hands sustained their reputa­ tions. Bean deservedly stands well in front of all the rest, with the fine average of 33.60 for 23 completed innings. Marlow played well, especially for a first season in important cricket, andi in the Surrey match at the Oval, on a difficult wicket, carried his bat through the innings—a good achievement. His best performance for the county was against Mary­ lebone Club at Lord’ s. The'.bowling averages will not, perhaps, bear too close a scrutiny. Humphreys’ lobs,though expensive, frequently got wickets, and Tate, with sixty wickets, did much better than ever before. Middlesex were encountered for the first time for many years. One of the most pleasing features of the cricket season of 1891 was the success of the Somersetshire Eleven, who proved in every way their claim to a place among the leading Counties. It is true that of the twelve first- class County engagements in which they took part, six ended in defeat and only five in wins. But this record in no way indicates the true form of the team. Of the six defeats, that at the hands of Kent was by the narrow margin of four wickets, while against Yorkshire at Taunton they played a good and even game up to a certain point. Their five victories were gained over Surrey at Taunton—a per­ formance which alone would stamp them as a most formidable combination even had they done nothing else—over Gloucestershire (twice), Yorkshire, and over the powerful Kent eleven in the first encounter. In addition they defeated a team of the M.C.C. at the close of the season. The drawn match, it will be remembered, was the “ wet Whit M onday” fixture with Middlesex at Lord’s. The success of Somersetshire was the more noteworthy, as their crushing defeats by Surrey and Lan­ cashire at the opening of the summer cer­ tainly did not portend Jsuch an excellent exhi­ bition of all-round cricket. Quite a mainstay of the side was theCantab,Mr.S. M.J.Woods,whose fast bowling captured no fewerthan 72 wickets for an average of 17.6 runs each, and whose plucky hitting more than once pulled a match out of the fire. Nichols, Tyler and he proved indeed a formidable trio of bowlers, taking together 169 wickets. With the bat, the Oxonian, Mr. R. C. N. Palairet, stands well at the top with 560 runs, averaging 31.2 for 19 innings. He played a specially fine innings of 100 against Gloucestershire at Cheltenham. His younger brother, too, showed great promise of future excellence. The other most successful batsmen were Messrs. Challen and Hewett, and the latter captained the side with complete success. With two excellent wicket­ keepers in Mr. Newton and the Rev. A. P. Wickham, who, born in Surrey, played for some time for Norfolk, there seems every chance of a good season for 1892. Yorkshire had a most unsatisfactory season, especially if we take into account the lengthy programme they went through. Several of their ten defeats, too, were by big majorities, and their summer was only redeemed from failure by handsome victories over Glou­ cestershire (twice), Sussex, Middlesex, and