Cricket 1892

28 6 CRICKET A WEEKLY RECORD OE THE GAME. JULY 14, 1892 even though promising youngsters from the Universities have been, and still are, as plentiful as blackberries. Felix and Fuller Pilch played for twenty-three years, but in their day young cricketers were scarce, and in consequence, many an older hand was secured when long past his prime. "With W.G. it is altogether different. Not senti­ ment, but merit, still elects him to the seat of honour, and judging from present appear­ ances, he would be both bold and rash who would venture to prophesy that in five years’ time the dear old familiar name will be con­ spicuous by its absence. Well, the 123rd match is a thing of the past, and the Players have once more em­ phasized their present day superiority. Both sides were strong—very strong: not that the choices made gave satisfaction. How could they ? Somebody always prefers somebody noc chosen. You can’t please all, so it’s no good trying. The advantage of a second match lies just here, that it provides an opening for some passed over in the first. I never growl at the “ powers that be,” taking it for granted that they act in the best interests of cricket and cricketers in this and every other matter. Who knows but what some are asked to play, but can’t or won’t. Up in the North there was all-round satisfaction that Lord Hawke and Ernest Smith, Peel and Wainwright were picked, though some have said that they would have not objected had his Lordship stood down for H. T. Hewett or Walter Bead, if only Hunter had been behind the sticks. Many were doubtful about Barnes’s claims ten days a g o; to-day every mouth is silent, for a splendid 84, along with six wickets for 42 runs, proves conclusively that the Notts veteran is as good as ever. The Lacemen, indeed, shone throughout, Shrewsbury (98) and Gunn (103) just heading their old county chum. Wainwright, too, was all there: when has a man covered himself with greater glory in his first match ? let his unfinished 56, and five wickets for 37 runs, sing his praises. The Players ran up the heaviest total—454—ever scored by them since the match was started in 1806. Previously their highest—in 1887—was 405 ; a total often passed by the Gentlemen, who in 1870 reached 513, whilst in 1875, 1876, 1877 (both matches), and 1883, they topped the fourth hundred. The luck was against them last week, in the shape of rain,or, judging by their start—90 on the board, and no wicket down—there is no saying what they would have done. As it was, totals of 258 and 170, on a bowler’s wicket, go to show that the teams wore about as eveniy balanced as they could be. Let’s hope for fair weather and no favour in the return match of this week. I am glad Gunn has had a turn in the Lord’s match. At the Oval he has scarcely ever failed since he has appeared regularly, from 1885 onward. In that year he scored an innings of 93; and again, in 1889, did not E. A. Nepean most handsomely bowl him a oartain boundary ball in order that he might roach the ‘ century;” the four did not oome, only tw o; and so he stopped short at 98 (not out.) But though at Lord’ s he has twice scored 200 in a big match—against Yorkshire, and the last Australian band—80 was his biggest effort there in the match till last week. And what about the remaining matches ? Well, they were not of very much account. Yet Yorkshire have been putting the pot on Staffordshire and Leicestershire. Without Peel and Wainwright, they ran up 516 against the former; but with them, 509 for the loss of only six men against the latter. Something like form, that. Though these matches don’ t oount, they are a confirmation of the splendid abilities of the Tykes of 1892. A double 500—even against smaller foes—wants some scoring. It is a record so far as York- shiremen are concerned, even as Peel’s 226 <iot out, Wainwright’ s 122, and R. W. Frank’s 163 are the best that have hitherto been done respectively by them. I can recall only one similar instance, that happened in 1887. Surrey were the heroes. Within the space of seven days they piled up 557 against Lancashire, and 543 against Cambridge Uni­ versity, both first-class matches. Perhaps nobody wants reminding that out of these totals Walter Read was responsible for 247 and 244 not out. Since Tom Marsden hit up his historic 227 against Notts in 1826, no Yorkshireman has ever scored an innings of 200 in a front-rank match with the exception ot Ephraim Lockwood, who in 1883 made merry with the men of Kent to the tune of 208. When Lord Hawke, Ernest Smith, and F. S. Jackson can appear again in the ranks of good old Yorkshire,” it will be a case of embarras de richesses , whom to leave out will be the prime bother of the committee. Can any one inform me when Sussex beat Notts ? my patience was exhausted when I got as far back as 1880 in my research. Every other county can do it now and again. Thus Glo’stershire did twice in 1890, when but a shadow of their old self. True, Sussex looked like having a thoroughly healthy chance last week at one stage of the game, when they led on the first innings by no less than fifty-five runs. And then they went to pieces. The brilliant fielding of Thursday was missing on Friday: such masters as Gunn and Flowers should be shown no quarter; whilst on Satur­ day the batting heroes of the first venture were all at sea. They seem as if they cannot stay. With the solitary exception of their Brighton match against Cambridge last year, when they fairly excelled themselves in the fourth innings, the successors of Lillywhite and Wisden have almost always failed when the critical stage is reached. Notch No. 1.—Sixty-eight extras were given in the Gentlemen v. Players match last week. O, my masters, this was a sorry example to set. Such things ought not to be. For, sometimes, said extras turn a match. Thus, when Sussex met Oxford University on June 23 of this year, the Dark Blues won on the post by 10 runs; in that match Oxford gave but two extras, Sussex 24—a difference of 22. Hence the final result. Mr. “ Extras,” then, won that match. Our honoured friend, Fred Gale, used to rave no end on this topic, and not without sufficient reason. One year —1865—he went to the trouble of reckoning up this item so far as the counties were con­ cerned, and then he preached his homily. One likes the extras to be kept down. When Notts met Somersetshire on the afore-men­ tioned date—June 23—extras read thus— 0 and 3, 2 and 0. But in Surrey’s match against Yorkshire in 1883, when the latter ran up an innings of 388, every run came from the bat only. There was not one extra. Of course we know that many an extra is unavoidable ; but are not 68 in the crack match rather too liberal an allowance ? Notch No. 2.—Who decides what constitutes a first-rl&ss match? I ask this question, because the papers had been having their bit of fun out of Surrey on account of their match with Scotland. And yet said critics include these matches in the first-class averages. Well, if they are first-class, let’s hear no more about it. Surrey batsmen can hold their own in the best company. Suppose they had amassed totals of 391 and 484 against Scotland, say in 1888. when they were equal to scoring 650 against Oxford, and 698 against Sussex, there would have been nothing said on the matter. I hold no brief for Surrey, but cavilling of this sort raises my gorge. I simply ask one question; when the match was originally put in the fixture list, was it called first-class or no? If it was, these objections are untimely. If it was not, then who authorised our cricket statisticians to rank it as such ? The M.C.C. might be asked to settle the matter. Notch No. 3.—For the sake of peace, might not all umpires be instructed to have a copy of the Laws always in their pooket whilst a match is in progress ? My purpose in asking this must be rovealed next week. M e s s r s . H u g h L o w & Co.’s Nurseries—Clapton Nursery v. Bush Hill Park Nursery.—Played at Clapton on July 5. Clapton, 98 (Walters not out 29); Bush Hill Park, 47 (C. SpeDce not out 16.) C r ic k e t e r s not satisfied with the Balls and Bats they have used are advised to try the <-G-££H<r brand made by Qeo. G. Bussey & Co., Peckham Rye, S.E.—Advt. SURREY v. SCOTLAND. Though they made a slightly better show than in the previous week at Edinburgh, the Scotch Eleven were beaten at the Oval in the return match last Friday decisively. Messrs. G. McGregor and A. Grant-Asher were unable to play for Scotland, aud their absence weakened the side considerably. Onthe other hand, Surrey was without Mr. Shuter and Lohmann, who had injured his hand at Edin­ burgh, while Watts again kept wicket in place of Wood. Mr. Balfourhaving beaten Mr. Read in the toss, Scotland had the advantage of first innings on Thursday. They failed however to make any use of the opportunity, and soon after half-past three o’clock the innings was over for the small total of 114. The Scotch bowling when Sutrey went in was well on the wicket, and when the fourth bats­ man was out, the total was only 73. Abel and Henderson, however, later on took all the sting out of it. and just as time was up on Thursday night, Abel was run out through a bad piece of judgment of the two batsmen. He had played excellent cricket for his 88. With the total 183 for five wickets, Mr. Key joined Henderson, who was not out over night on Friday. The wicket, which had been a little slow on the previous day, had become much faster, and both batsmen playing with confidence and freedom the score was increased by 172 before Henderson was caught. He had been batting three hours, and his innings of 138, the highest he has yet made for the County, was not disfigured by a mistake. Watts hit freely for 86, and after Sharpe had been dismissed the innings was closed by a catch in the slips which got rid of Mr. Key. The amateur, though at first a little cautious, batted in his best style when he had got set, hitting all round with considerable freedom. He made his 143 in three hours and a half without a chance of any kind. With 370 to save an innings defeat, Scotland bad a heavy task tefore them. This time they fared better, though the success was in a great measure the result of the slack out cricket of their opponents. Towards the fini«h, indeed, the fielding of Surrey all round was very faulty, and the later batsmen of Scotland profited ac­ cordingly. Messrs. Balfour, R. H. Johnston, and H. J. Stevenson all hit freely if with luck. With the close of Scotland’s second innings for U24 Surrey were left with an easy victory by an innings and 146 runs. S cotland . First Innings. Second Innings. Mr. L. M. Balfour, lbw, b Richardson ................. 2 c W. Read, b Lockwood ... 35 Mr. J. Robertson, c Abel, b Richardson................. 0 cHenderson, b S harpe........... 6 Mr. T. Johnston, c Abel, b Lockwood .................25 b Lockwood ... 17 Mr. R. H. Johnston, b Richardson ....................17 c Lockwood, b Richardson ... 44 Mr. H. Hay Brown, b Lockw ood......................... 28 b Sharpe ............. 1 Mr. C. T. Mannes, c BrocVwell, b A t e l .......... 9 c Abel, b Sharpe 8 Mr. A. D. Dunlop, c. Baldwin, b Richard­ son ................................ 8 c W. Read, b Richardson ... 11 Mr. A. V. M’Gregor, b Lockwood .................. 7 b Sharpe ...............16 Mr. H. J. Stevenson, b Lockwood........................ 0 not out .............. 48 Mr. D. L. Addison-Smith, not out ...........................10 b Richardson ... 15 Mr. R. Scott, b Richard­ son ................................ 1b Richardson ... 2 B 3, lb 3, nb 1 ... 7 B 18, lb 3 ... 21 Total ......... 114 Total ...224 S urrey , Mr. K. J. Key, c Scott, b Robert­ son ........................143 Brockwell,b Robert­ son ........................ 2 Watts, c Mannes, b Robertson ..........36 Sharpe, b Smith ... 12 Richardson, not out 16 B 9, lb 7, w 1 ... 17 Total ..........481 BOWLING ANALYSIS. S c o tl a n d . Firstlnnings. Second Innings. O. M.R. W. O. M. R. W. Sharpe......... 16 7 26 0 ........... 84 9 75 4 Richardson 32.314 62 5 .......... 16.4 7 44 4 Lockwood... 19 11 17 4 .......... 26 6 69 2 Abel ......... 2 1 2 1 ... .. 4 0 7 0 W.W. Read 2 0 8 0 Lockwood delivered one no-ball. au ci, ruii uuu ... ... oo Baldwin, c Dunlop, b Smith ................. 4 M. Read, c Brown, fc Scott ... ................. 0 Mr. W. W. Read, c Balfour, b Scott ... 33 Lockwood, c and b Robertson .......... 0 Henderson, c Scott, b Robertson .........,133