Cricket 1891

APR IL 23, 1891 CRICKET: A WEEKLY EECORD OP THE GAME. 71 There is no question that the Germantown Club now presents a very strong aggregation, and with such batsmen as George S. Patterson, F. H. Bohlen, E. W . Clark, R. D. Brown, Wm. Brockie, S. Welsh, Jr. and others almost equally good, they can always be depended on for a lot of runs, while they have in Pat­ terson, Walter Clark, H. J. Brown, Welsh and Brewster a very strong quintette of bowlers. Their fielding is also always up to the mark, and any club playing them has the hardest kind of work cut out for it from the outset. The Merion Club did not seem to be up to its standard during the season just closed, though it must be admitted that the luck was in some measure against them. It is some­ what curious to note that the American plan, upon which the second innings of some of the matches were played, and which had been especially championed by Mr. John B. Thayer, of the Merion Club, should have worked to the signal disadvantage of his own organization, as in one of their matches with Belmont the latter were able to pull the match off in the second innings on the “ block of three plan 99 after losing the first innings, and in the other their stubborn defence prevented the Merion from reversing the result of the first innings. It seems to be conceded that the American plan has not grown in favour as a method of play in both innings, but that after the first innings has been played it works admirably in keeping up the interest in the contest almost until the last ball bowled, and in that way has been of material service to the game. The falling off in the form of the Merion Club is shown by the fact, that while in 1889 they averaged 13.37 runs per wicket to their opponents’ 8.77 runs, they made in 1890 but 11.84 runs as against their opponents’ 12.16, thus showing that while their batting had fallen off their bowling had also considerably weakened. It maybe noted here that Lowry was able to play but very little during the season and when he did play seemed to have lost his cunning with the ball. Their principal bowl­ ing was done by H. P. Baily, A. G. Thomson, Sharp and Farnum ; while Etting, H. C. Thayer, and S. Law did the best batting. The Philadelphia and Tioga Clubs show no material change as compared with the pre­ ceding year, their averages as compared with those of their opponents being very nearly the same. They both seem to have plenty of vim and pluck, and certainly have the making of strong organizations, if they will hold together and not permit themselves to be discouraged by defeat. The Philadelphia Club has in Butler not only au excellent bat, but one of the very best of our wicket-keepers ; and in Rowland an excellent slow bowler as a strong vis-a-vis for Goodman and their other fast bowlers. The Tioga Club seemed to miss the services of Crowhurst very seriously in bowling, for while Bristol, Howell and Cregar all did good work, not one of them had a record to compare with Crowhurst, who took 55 wickets in 1889 at a cost of 7.59 runs per wicket. J. P. Morgan and Van Dusen did the best batting during the season for that club. The Belmont Club made a long stride forward in 1890 as compared with the previous season. Their greatest improvement was in batting, as they had an average of 16.98 runs per wicket as against their opponents’ 11.65 runs, while in 1889 they had but 11.38 runs against 11.25. Their scoring was uniformly good, and while Mr. Wood, their captain, has the highest average, he was closely followed by A- E . Smith (a new acquisition), while Muir, Coates, Stoever, McCall, Evans, and Burr all had excellent records. Mr. A. E. Smith was also a strong accession to the club in the fowling department, as in all matches he took 52 wickets for 10.57 runs per wicket, while Rainey, Wood, Muir and Coates also did very good work. In looking over the results of the season it will be seen that the Germantown Club had the honour of having not only the premier bowler in Mr. Patterson, but also the premier bat in Mr. Bohlen, It is hard to measure the obligations of the club, from a cricketing point of view, to the two gentlemen just named. On a hard wicket Mr. Bohlen is perhaps a quicker and surer run-getter than we have ever had in Philadelphia, while Mr. Patterson is a superb bat on any wicket, and on slow ground will probably show to better advantage than Mr. Bohlen. The Cricketers who look back over the thirty years’ life of the game in Philadelphia, can gauge the immense improvement that has taken place, by comparing the form of these two gentlemen with that which existed when the first English Team came to America in 1859. The entire cricketing community share in the regret that was caused by the enforced absence from the turf during the last season of Mr. Robert S. and Daniel S. Newhall, two names familiar as household words, and whose appearance on the cricket field was always a source of the greatest pleasure to both friend and foe. It was also a source of regret that the professional engagements of Dr. J. Allison Scott, and the removal to Pittsburg of Mr, Walter Scott, prevented either of these fine players from being seen on the grounds until the closing matches of the season. UXBRIDGE CLUB. F ixtures f o e 1891. May 9—Uxbridge, v. London Hospital May 16—Uxbridge, v. Ealing May 18—Uxbridge, v. South Hampstead May 23—Windsor, v. Home Park May 30—Kensington Park, v. KensiDgton Park June 3—Uxbridge, v. Hampstead June 6—Uxbridge, v.Old Wykehamists June 13—Uxbridge, v. Marlow June 20—Uxbridge, v. Ne’er-do-Wee’s June 27—Hampstead, v. Hampstead July 4—Uxbridge, v. Clapham Wanderers July 11—High Wycombe, v High Wycombe July 18—Uxbridge, v. Kensington Park July 22—Uxbridge, v. M.C.C. & G. Aug. 1—Henley, v. Henley Aug. 3—Uxbridge, v. High Wycombe Aug. 4, 5 -Uxbridge, v. Mr. J. W. F. Taylor’s XI. Aug. 7—Uxbridge, v. Wellington Blues Aug. 19—Ealing, v. EaliDg Aug. 22—Marlow, v. Marlow Aug. 29—Uxbridge, v. Henley GREENJACKETS CLUB. F ixtures for 1891. May 14—Winchester, v. Winchester College May 19—Staff College, v. Staff College June 5, 6—Burton’s Court, v. Household Brigade June 17, 18—Chatham, v. Koyal Marine Corps June 26, 27—Woolwich, v. R A. July 9—St. Cross, v. Winchester College C ricket W eek . July 13,14—St. Cross, v. I Zingari July 15,16—St. Cross, v. Free Foresters July 17,18—St. Cross, Past and Present K.R.R. v. Past and Present R.B. July 20, 21—St. Cross, v. Eton Ramblers Aug. 5, 6—St. Cross*, K.R.B. v. R.B. Aug. 10,11—Bramshaw Park. v. Bramshaw Park Aug. 14,15—Aldershot, v. Aldershot Division Aug. 17,18—St. Cross, v. Will-o’-the-Wisps Aug. 19, 20—St. Cross, v. Hampshire Hogs Aug. 21,22— Chatham, v. R.E. Aug. 24,25—Lyndhurst, v. New Forest Aug. 28, 29—St. Cross, v. Past and Present Hamp­ shire Kegt. T h e lately formed Bucks County Club will play home and home matches with Oxfordshire and Bedfordshire during the coming season. T h e Executive of the Notts and Surrey Clubs have declined the request of Sussex to allow Mr. W . L. Murdoch, who is qualifying for Sussex, to play in the matches ~against those Counties. A m atch was decided at West Maitland (N.S.W.) recently, between two teams of lady cricketers hailing from Sydney and Morpeth, in which Miss Dean and Miss Harper scored 139 and 61 respectively for Sydney. SURREY COUNTY CRICKET CLUB F ixtures for 1891. May 1—Kennington Oval, Surrey Colts v. Barnes Club May 2—Bickley, Surrey C. and G. v. Bickley Park May 4a—Kennington Oval, Surrey v. Leicester­ shire May 6—Honor Oak, Surrey Colts v. Honor Oak May 7a —Kennington Oval, Surrey V. Hampshire May 7—Kennington Oval, Annual General Meeting May 8—Lordship Lane, Surrey Colts v. Grove Club May 11—Kennington Oval, Surrey Colts v. Guy’s Hosiptal May 12—Mitcham, Surrey ColCs v. Mitcham May 14a—Kennington Oval, Surrey v. Essex May 186 —Kennington Oval, Surrey 2nd XI Notts 2nd XI May 18a—Nottingham, Surrey v. Notts May 20—Kennington Oval, Surrey Colts v. Non- Com. R.A. May 21a—Manchester, Surrey v. Lancashire May 2-2—Cane Hill, Surrey C. and G. v. Cane Hill Asylum May 22b—Lyric Club (Barnes), Colts of East v. Colts of West Surrey May 25a—Derby, Surrey v. Derbyshire May 28—Crystal Palace, Surrey C. and G. v; Crystal Palace Club June la —Kennington Oval. Surrey v. Somerset­ shire June 4a—Kennington Oval, Surrey v. Gloucester­ shire June 9—Barnes, Surrey Colts v. Barnes United June 10 —Guildford, Surrey C. and G. v. Guildford June 11a—Kennington Oval, Surrey v. Cambridge University June 15a—Kennington Oval, Surrey v. Middlesex June 16 —Addiscombe, Surrey C. and G. v. Addis­ combe Club June 17—Dulwich, Surrey C. and G. v. Dulwich College . . June 38 a—Birmingham, Surrey v. Warwickshire June 22a-Sheffield, Surrey v. Yorkshire June 25 —Bellagio, Surrey C. and G. v. Bellagio Club June 25a-Leicester, Surrey v. Leicestershire July 1 —Norwood, Surrey C. and G. v. Norwood Club July 1—Honor Oak, Surrey C. and G. v. Honor Oak Club July 2a—Kennington Oval, Gentlemen v. Players July 6—Balham, Surrey C. and G. v. Eighteen of Balbam July 6a—Southampton, Surrey v. Hampshire July 7—Epsom, Surrey C. and G. v. Epsom College July 8-Kennington Oval, Surrey C. and G. v. Clapham Wanderers July 9 —Kennington Oval, Surrey C. and G. v. East Molesey July 1C6—Kennington Oval, Surrey 2nd XI v. Hertfordshire July 11—Mitcham, Surrey C. and G. v. Mitcham July 13a—Brighton, Surrey v. Sussex July 15 —Dulwich, Surrey C. and G. v. Dulwich Club July 16—Streatham, Surrey C. and G. v. Streatham Club July 16a—Kennington Oval, Surrey v. Yorkshire July 23b —Kennington Oval, Surrey 2nd XI v. Bedfordshire July 27 —Surbiton,Gentlemen of Surrey v. Surbiton July 27a—Kennington Oval, Surrey v. Sussex July 29—Cobham, Surrey C. and G. v. Cobham July 80&—Kennington Oval, Surrey C. and G. V. Clifton College July 30a—Leyton, Surrey v. Essex August 3 a—Kennington Oval, Surrey v. Notts August 3b— Nottingham, Surrey 2nd XI v. Notts 2nd XI August 5—Denmark Hill, Surrey C. and G. v. Brixton Wanderers August 6a—Canterbury, Surrey v. Kent August 6b —Luton, Surrey 2nd XI v. Bedfordshire August 7 —Beddington. Surrey C. and G. vl Beddington Club August 10a—Clifton, Surrey v. Gloucestershire August 12—Famham, Surrey 2nd XI v. Sixteen of Farnham August 13a—Taunton, Suney v. Somersetshire August 17a—Lord’s, Surrey v. Middlesex August 20a—Kennington Oval, Surrey v. Lanca­ shire August 24a—Kennington Oval, Surrey v. Warwick­ shire August 27 a—Kennington Oval, Surrey v. Kent a three day matches; b two day matches. CRICKETERS— B e st < C G B « G oods Cit'/ Agents — b e a r th is M a iik .— A d v t. P a e to n & L e s t e r , 94, Q cf . bn S t ., C h e a p sid e