Cricket 1892

8 8 2 CRICKET A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. AUG. 25, 1892 have never yet heard one sound argument. The Taunton match was of a different color. The Westerners for once won the toss. By the bye, Notts have not had their share of fortune in this respect during the present season, Spite of rain, Somersetshire just ran into the fourth hundred—309. The Captain scored at his usual rate—three out of every four runs notched, represent his pace. Against Surrey he got 61 out of 81, this time 60 out of the same total. That’s the kind of example every captain should set—a run a minute, or thereabouts. There’s inspiration in it. So Vernon Hill proved, for in about two hours he knocked up his best innings (93) in good company. Challen got near enough to 50; whilst Gerald Fowler (37) was anxious to efface the memory of the double “ spectacles ” —his summary during a recent week’s cricket. But what of Notts’ response? It was 118 aud 69; and Sam Woods was a spectator only during more than half the time. Well, put it down to the wicket and the weather combined ; still there’s a wide margin left, And what shall we write there ? Funk ? No, impossible. Bad bat­ ting? Charity forbids. Say rather, wonder­ ful bowling. Ay, there’s the rub. Tyler had a day out, such as only comes once in a blue moon to such masters as the late Jemmy Shaw and George Wootton, or to such moderns as Tom Emmett, Alfred Shaw, Briggs, and Lohmann. The left-handed slow bowler from the West may never surpass this effort. I hope he will many times reneat it. Whether he does or not, he must be pro­ nounced a very great bowler, inasmuch as one measures a man in any department —be it oratory, poetry, or invention, by his most masterful efforts, even though his average may fall below that of many of his rivals. I am glad beyond measure that he received the very handsome douceur of ^44— not a penny more than he deserved. Let’s hope that the Notts testimonial won’t hang fire after this reverse. It’s never desirable to take too long in matters of this sort. Bis dat qui cito dat. It should be mentioned that Somersetshire’s innings is tho largest total scored off the Notts bowlers this year. What’ s the matter with Attewell? In the last two matches he has taken only four wickets, and at a oost of some 37 runs apiece. Tyler’s fifteen for 95 are, all things considered, the best of the whole season. Ought not Surrey to start a testimonial for Somersetshire ? If ever Tyler has a benefit, Surrey should plank down something hand­ some. Shrewsbury tells us that he and Barnes once got a fiver from the Surrey Club for clouting the Surrey bowling. Surrey can be generous. And they can afford to, after their last week’s doings. Two splendid victories—against Somersetshire by 186 runs, against Gloucestershire by ten wickets; de­ cisive enough in both cases. Did the recol­ lection of their last appearance at Taunton haunt them? In their innings of 253 and 156, Walter Read, Abel and Lockwood played up gamely; but Henderson’ s 67 (for once out) beat all of them. For their opponents, only the captain (61 and 18) and Lionel Palairet (79) reached double figures either time ; their efforts, strangely enough, landed them among the “ 1000” scorers. Lohmann came out strong with ten wickets for 78; but Look- wood’s second try—five for 18—was the main cause of the rot—49 being the gross total. Before the week closed Lockwood had taken first place in the bowling analysis for all first- class matches. I do not hesitate to state that he has gained this honor by sheer ability. There can be no doubt that, all through the season, on good and bad wickets, he has shown himself to be the best bowler of the year. The Surrey v. Gloucestershire has little more than a historic interest to-day. This was the first County match played in the County of the Graces, in the olden times when they beat all comers. The famous Western County is now but a shadow of its old self, and one’s interest in it largely centres in the doings of its veteran captain. The result now-a-days can be foretold to a nicety. With the inclusion of J. J. Ferris in the team, a fairly successful future seemed certain. There is no disguising the fact that the famous Australian bowler has been a dead failure so far, his wickets haviDg cost more than 24 runs apiece. W .G. is still all there, liis latest innings being 25 and 64—nearly one third of his County’s double venture against Surrey. It does one’s eyes good to see the familiar name high up still, with an average of 29 against it. Walter Read notched his fourth century for Surrey during the present year, in which there were six more boundary hits than singles— proof positive that both eye and hand have lost none of their old keenness and vigour. Baldwin—one of the second string—hit up a very creditable 60. But Lockwood was once more the best man on his side, with twelve wickets in all for 115 runs. Lancashire also had a busy week. Sussex gave them a point, which Middlesex later on took from them. A. C. MacLaren (132). Arthur Smith (111), were alone among the run getters ; whilst Mold’s fourteen wickets made him equally conspicuous among the bowlers. Sussex can’t get runs even on a firm wicket; 105 and J26 were miserable ventures. And Briggs was an absentee. Can the Southern County much longer be reckoned first-class ? If so, the list will have to be enlarged, if peace is to be preserved in the cricket world. But what was the matter with Lancashire at Lord’s ? Tho weather was nasty, certainly, but Frank Ward—the rejected—scored 106 in all ; the others got k147 in their two innings, of which 52 went to Sugg’s credit. John Hearne looked after his county’s in­ terests, with eleven wickets as his share of the spoil. One expected better things from such a team ; man for man, it compares well with any of its rivals. Yet it “ crumps” up in a fashion that reminds one of the old York­ shire days, when real genius, true to its reputation, varied some of the most wonder­ ful achievements with performances that would have done discredit to a parcel of schoolboys. Their bowling is good enough ; but somehow their batting disappoints ; and yet A. Ward, Sugg, Smith, and A. C. Mac- Laren form a quartette any county might be proud to possess. Kent’s drawn matches against Middlesex and Yorkshire deserve notice if onlyj because of the resurrection of George Hearne. I should say, at a guess, he has been represent­ ing his County for some eighteen years : and after such a service one does not look for rapid scoring. But surely four and a half hours was a tedious long time to run up 62 runs. Ilis 37 against Yorkshire was a little livelier. Anyhow in both matches he helped his Captain, who scored 65 and 47, to turn possible defeats into respectable draws. Stoddart’s 88 and Ernest Smith’ s ditto, for their respective counties against Kent, were worth watching : whilst P. Henery’s brilliant 50 against Lancashire, at the rate of less than a run a minute, was one of the reasons why Mold, Briggs, and Watson had no opportunity of improving their bowling analysis. THAMES DITTON v. ALBURY.—Played at Albury on August 17. A lbu ry . First Innings. Second Innings. C. A. Botting, b Milbourn 27 b Sharpe ............ 1 W. Belk, b Milbourn ... 3 b Watts ............ 0 W. Cumper, bF. Crowther 0 b Watts ............ 2 W . Sherlock, b Milbourn 3 b Sharpe ............ 1 W. Reffell, b Milbourn ... 16 b Sharpe ............ 0 C. A. Reffell, c F. Crow­ ther, b Callingham ... 16b Sharpe ............ 0 W. Maipey, m n o u t ........ 4n otou t .............. 0 F. Sherlock, b Milbourn... 0 b Watts ............. 0 E. Killick, b Milbourn ... 5b Watts .............. 0 F. Poulter, b Milbourn ... 0b Watts .............. 0 G. Sherlock, not o u t ............. 0 b Sharpo ............. 6 B 5, lb 1 ................ 6 Lb ............... 1 Total ................. THAME8 W. T. Milbourn, b Cumper ..................29 W. Deane, c O., b W. Reffell ..................25 Clifford Crowther, b W. Sherlock .......... 12 G. H. Watt8, c Porter, b w. Reffell .......... 0 J. W. Sharpe, b W. Reffell .. ... ... 24 E. Henfield, b W. Refill ............... 3 . 80 T o ta l... 11 D itto n . R.Uawkins.cMaisey, b W. Reffell ........... 2 A. F. Maklen, ltw , b Killick .................. 7 T. Callingliam, c Bot- tiog. b G. Sherlock G J. T. Ayres.c W ., b G. Sherlock.................. 3 F. Crowther, not out 0 B 9, lb 4, w 4 ... 17 Tot^l .,.128 THAMES DITTON v. M ERTON—Played at Thames Ditton on August 20. M e r to n . C. A. Godward, c Ar­ nall, b Milbourn ... 0 A. L. PattisoD, b M ilbourn.................. 4 H. S. Barkwith, c Milbourn, b ArnaU 1 G. A. E. Smith, run out ..........................21 F. D. Head, c C. Law­ less, b Milbourn ... 0 C. A. Kempson, b Arnall .................. 3 T h am es D itto n . E. Godward, b C. Lawless ...................15 M. H. W hitley, c and b Milbourn ...........12 J.P.Bevan,bMilbourn 4 C. K. Fairless, b C. Lawless P. Craven, not out B 11, lb 3 ... Total ... , 7 0 14 W. Deane, st Craven, b Whitley ...........10 S. B. Lawless, bW bit- ley .......................... 4 W. T. Milbourn, b C. G odw ard................. 0 H .S. Betts, b C. God­ ward .......................... 0 L. H. Middleton c V. Total ...........113 Godward, b Head 42 H. Reddick and F. Crowther did not bat. C: T. Lawless, run out .......................... 2 P. J. Arnall, b Head 44 W. A. Shears, not out 7 T. Callingham, c Craven, b Head ... o B 3, nb 1 ........... 4 -Played at BLACKHEATH v. PL A ISTOW .- Rectory Field on August 21. P laisto w . W . Hodgson, c Baird, b R. Fegan ........... G H. W. Keeling, run out .......................... 11 H. B. Smith, c Jacob, b Hubbard ........... 8 C. E. Corthornc, b H ubbard..................24 W. L. Knowies, c Budworth, b R. Fegan .................. 74 S.A.Smith.c Parsons, b Budworth ...........18 W . Escombe, b Hub­ bard .......................... 1 T, Hodgson, c Par­ sons, b Thurston... 10 B la c k h e ath , A. E. W illett, Thurston ........... R. S. Mayne, run out W. Parker, not out... B 4, lb 2, w 2 ... Total ...166 R. B. Stewart, b Keeling .................. 6 R. Young, not out ... 34 J. II. C. Fegan, not out ...........................47 B ........................... G Total ...........93 G. C. Hubbard, R . D. Budworth, E . de B. Thurston. R. A. Fegan, F. E scom be, E. P. Parsons, G. O. Jacob, and H. Baird did not bat. ______ _____________- ________ LONDON AND COUNTY BANK (2) v. LONDON AND WESTMINSTER BANK (2),—Playtd at Dulwich on August 16 and 17. L. & W. F. F. Musson.bMorti- mer ..........................20 H. O. Manfield, b Cramphorn ...........27 G.B.Stopford.cOxley, b Mortimer ........... 2 W.S.Roberts,bTrowell 11 T.H.Pritcbard.uotout 6 C C. Simpson, stW al- dock, b Trowell ... D. K. H ole,b Cramp- horn .......................... F. W. Purser,not ou t B 2, lb 3, w 2 ... Total ...112 A. J. Richardson, T. H. Fisher, and T.W .Haiues did not bat. Innings declared closed. L .& C. B. M. W aldock, b H.R.Oxley.cStopford, b Richardson 20 S.L.Walker,bStopford 0 R H. King, not out ... 37 A. A.Yeoman,bSimp- son .......................... 1 Stopford...................30 C. R.Trowell,not out 14 B 2,1b 1, nb 1 ... 11 Total ...........93 R. J. Cramphorn, C. Day, P. Mortimer, S. W en- man, and F. Bletcher did not bat. LONDON AND COUNTY BANK v. BANK OF ENGLAND.—Played at Catford on Augu-t 16 and 17. L. & C. A. Jackson,bLawless 2 S. H. Sargant, b Roe 0 J. Hearsum, b Roe... 17 W. Ii. Pattinson, c Hay Cooper,bNew- h a m .......................... 9 C. E.Blomfield,lbw,b Hay C oo p e r........... 8 G. F. Wells, c Roe, b Hallam ......... . ... 22 C. V. Booth, b Roe ... 4 W . R. Sutherland, b Roe .................. ... 2 F. J. Finlinson.bHay- Cooper .................. 10 F.H.Thirlwall,notout 43 T Bishop, b Roe B 35, lb 3, w 5 Total B ank op E ngland . A. P. Roe, not ont 1 ... 40 27 W . B.Tyndall.cSuth- erland, b Sargant 30 M. D. Hallam, lbw, b Sargant .................. 4 B. Hay-Cooper, c Sutherland,bBishop 27 R. P. Newham,c Pat­ tinson, b B ishop... 1 A. H. Hume, J. B. Sumner, H. P. Young, and V. n. Howell did not bat. R. J. Hutchinson, b Bishop ................... u S. B. Lawless,not out 21 B l . l b l , w l ... 3 Total ...139 C ricketers not satisfied with the Balls and Bats they have used are advised t » try the MICCK^ brand made by Geo. G. Bussey & Co., Pectaham Rye, S.E.—Advt.