Cricket 1892

8 9 8 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. SEPT. 1, 1892 Notts is as good as anything we have seen this year. And it was not in the least looked for after'the former’s tumble at the Oval early in the same week. But some of us couldn’t help calling to mind that Old Trafford has been Notts’ terror for many past years. I haven’t seen this noted anywhere, so I hope to score for once:—Notts have not won a match at Manchester since 1880 1 More than half have been drawn through rain, the rest have gone to the credit of Lancashire. That ground has certainly proved a nightmare to Notts, and may haunt them each succeeding year. But funk alone won’t account for their show on Friday afternoon last. The wicket had played well enough for their opponents to knock up the handsome aggregate of 277 on the same day, Briggs, too, was hors de combat as far as bowling was conoerned. The colt, Watson, was there, and so was Mold, “ all there,” one might add. But the best of bowling on such a wicket will not permit us to disgnise our opinion that the batting must have been deplorably weak for six wickets to fall at a cost of 18 runs, and such wiokets too, the wickets of veterans, and of veterans in their prime. The plea of staleness will hardly wash, for during August Notts have played less cricket than some of the counties, whilst none of Friday’s failures had been cricketing abroad during the winter. Enough, however; adverse critcism is not to my taste. Our likes to recall William Wilberforce and his magnanimity, when he had carried his Slave-Bill successfully through the Commons. Sixteen voted against it. His friends clamored for a list of their names. “ No,” said he, “ let us think of our glorious 280,” the number of his majority. No crowing over the defeated, by your leave. Let us rather sing the praises of the viotors. Lancashire may have had a disappointing year, but their closing engage­ ment goes a long way to make amends for a series of failures. No such good fortune attended their efforts against Surrey, though the Oval has usually been a lucky ground for them. It looks as if they might have taken South some of their “ second string ”—Tinsley, Paul, and Rowley might have proved handy. The Bank H oli­ day reverse, however, seems to have roused Surrey; anyhow, since then they have never looked back. Confidence goes a long way in cricket and everything else, especially when backed by proved ability. All the critics are agreed that winning the toss meant losing the match. I suppose they are right, as usual. A heavy dew, or something very like it. And so Lancashire pulled up at 99. Surrey got as far as 229, though they too on the second morning must have been bothered by “ that dew again.” It looked as if the Northerners would be beaten in an innings when all the cracks had gone before the arrears were wiped off. But Kemble was still in, and Mold, the rearer-up, joined him, and swung his bat about in scarcely an orthodox style, but with sufficient force to move the score on some 58 runs. Then the stumper (50) was bowled, and the fast bowler (31) carried his bat out. Mold can boast, if he likes, that he could get no one to stop in with him, else his county might not have been beaten by seven wickets. The batting throughout was on the modest side, John Shuter’s 5G being the best of the crowd. But the bowling was capital, Briggs’ eight wickets, and Lookwood’s twelve costing just 12 runs apiece. Nor did Kent fairly extend Surrey. The better team had the match well in hand from the outset, and a margin of ten wickets was but a confirmation of previous form. It was the wind-up of the London season, and, with tho match in progress at Old Trafford, com­ manded a lot of attention. That Friday at the Oval will not soon be forgotten by the crowd. Telegrams at intervals came from Manchester, the contents of which the Oval “ poet ” circulated freely. Everybody knows that w ag; and when at length he varied the announcement of his own wares with the statement that Notts had lost four wickets for eleven runs, tho “ ring ” looked dubious, not to say sceptical. It was too good to be true; a huge joke. When W. W. and the Suffolk colt had sent Surrey home victorious again, and the state of the poll up North was officially announced, there were high jinks down South. Yes—the County Championship has not passed into other hands. Surrey still retains it. A week ago, when a dead heat for first honours seemed more than probable, I de­ voutly hoped that something would turn up to prevent it, and that Notts would just shove their nose in first at the finish. Their double defeat of Surrey, up to ten days since, fairly entitled them to the leading honours, although I have an opinion of my own that the absence of Wood from both these matches went a long way towards his county’s failures. One trembles to think of the amount of ink that would have been spilled to show that no decision by “ points” could.have put Notts and Surrey on an equality. Luckily we have been spared all this. Surrey are easily first. They have occupied no other position since 1886. Once—in 1889—they tied with Notts and Lancashire; the other six years they have stood out in solitary glory. I wish the cham­ pionship had gone elsewhere for once; it’s never well that pre-eminence in any sport should rest in one place for a septennate. At the same time all of us Northerners would, like good sportsmen, be the first to send heaps of congratulations to John Shuter and his warriors bold. We admit that their cricket has long been of the highest order—dashing, able, and always with an eye to definite issues. In sevenyears they have played only ten drawn games, whilst they have won eighty, and lost sixteen: Lancashire’s record in the same order is—22—51—28; Notts’ (excluding the match now in progress v. Kent) 30—47—23 : so that in the one item of draws, Surrey’s show is more than twice as good as Lancashire’ s, whilst it is three times as good as Notts. That alone is enough to make them the most popular County Eleven, for who cares to see a match that isn’ t finished. Surrey have a big reputation for generosity to their cricketers. This year they can afford to excel themselves in this direction. Their exchequer must be bulkier then ever, and the men who have done most to make it so should be most handsomely rewarded, I should like to suggest that something, which would be worthy of being regarded as an heirloom, should be presented in appreciation of the invaluable servic s rendered to Surrey and Surrey cricket by their devoted captain, Yorkshire wound up with two draws— against the Western Counties. The first, against Glo’ stershire, was even enough, and tedious beyond degree. It looked as if the teams had arranged that little matter quite early on. Three days were exhausted in com­ pleting three innings of only moderate pro­ portions. F. S. Jackson (76) and Tunnicliffe (36 and 53) took the batting honors for the “ White R ose” ; whilst W.G. (61), B.M. (40), and R. W. Rice (39) were Glo’stershire’ s best. But why in the world did the Champion require three hours for his innings? The pokey style does not become him. I recall that half-hour of his in 1888 against Turner, Ferris and Co. at Lord’s, when 50 runs came from his bat alone. And Yorkshire’s attack to-day is certainly no deadlier than the Australians’ then. Rice is a slow-coach, though a real “ good-un ” ; he has been making lots of runs all through tho season, his best (67) being against Middlesex last week, when he helped his Captain $ 9) to add 145 runs to the score sheet, and the Western County in all ran up 353—their best effort of 1892. They might have notched a win had not rain and slow scoring put it out of court. As it was, Saturday, both at Bristol and Taunton, was a blank; and whilst Middlesex, at their only opening, had scored 113 with Stoddart, Webbe, and O’Brien gone, Yorkshire were spared the painful necessity of following on against a majority of 2^3 runs; about as lucky a draw as the weather had previously brought about when they faced Notts at Trent Bridge. P .S .—Good wine needs no bush. So G. Brann’s splendid double against Kent may be dismissed in one line. But give it a line all to itself— 105 First Innings ; 101 Second Innings. That has made his name immortal. Verily, after this, he “ wants but little here below.” The bat ought to be preserved either in the Sussex pavilion or up at Lord’s. If not there, 1 know of one cricket museum (picture gallery and library thrown in) where it would be placed in the seat of honour. YOUNG AMATEURS v. YOUNG PROFESSION­ ALS.—Played at Kennington Oval on August 29 and 30. Nice, of Redhill, bowled with great success on the second innings of the Amateurs. His six wickets only cost 13 runs. Y o u n g P r o f e s s io n a l s . First Innings. Braund, c Reid, b Edwards 7 Shears, b Edwards ...........12 Hayes,cThomas,bC.Druce 38 Holland,c and b J. Gilling­ ham ................... Second Innings. b C. D ruce........... 5 c Thom pson, b Edwards ... 5 c J. Gillingham, b W igram ... 14 57 Higgins, b Edwards........... 4 Earl, c Reid, b W igram ... 11 Steadman, b Edwards ... 0 Wardroper, c Schwatz, b C. Druce ..........................19 Nice, c Druce, b J. Gill­ ingham .......................... 0 rt Stockbridge, c and b C. Druce... .......................... 9 c Aldridge, c W igram , b C. D ru ce.................................. 0 Flinton, not out.................. 0 c C. Druce, W igram ... b W igram ... n otou t b Lohm ann c C. Druce, Lohmann Wigram, Lohmann 0 0 19 18 3 0 0 , 10 B 9, lb 1 .........10 Total ...........167 b W igram ... st Reid, b L oh ­ mann ........... 0 B 11, lb 1 ... 12 Total ... 86 Y oung * A m a t e u r s . Second Innings, b A ldiidge........... First Innings. F.H.Gillingham,b Aldridge 0 J. S. Lohmann, b Aldridge 24 b N ice... N. F. Druce, c Higgins, b Wardroper ...................13 E. H. Stanley, b Aldridge 0 C. Druce, c Nice, b Flinton 17 O. Schwatz, c Shears, b Flinton ..........................12 E. H. Beazley, c Flinton, b H iggins.......................... 7 C. W igram , c Steadman, b Nice.................................. 9 b N ice .................. b N ice .................. c Higgins, b Al­ dridge ........... H. Thomson, lbw, b Nice J.R.Gillingham, c Braund, b H iggins.......................... W . H. Edwards, not out C. J. Reid, b Higgins B 4, lb 1 ................... b N ice... b N ice... 0 ......... 18 ..........19 b Al- c Holland, dridge ........... c Wardroper, b N ice.- ........... not out ........... b Shears ........... b Shears ........... Lb ........... Total ...........98 Total ... 49 HAMPSTEAD v. STOICS.—Played at Ham pstead on August 24. S t o ic s . C. S. Knight, c Toller, G. W . T. Danier, g b Hale .................. 47 Toller, b L ip s­ F. H. Swinstead, b combe ................... 8 Hale .......................... 24 W. J. Burt, c Spink, H. J. Carver, c Gotto, b Hale ................... 4 b Hale .................. 7 F. C. Paetow, run out 5 Dr. F. Holton, b LipsW. J. Brabner, c and com b e ..................... 36 b Hale ................... 0 A. G. Every, lbw, b E. Rennie, not out... 0 Barnes .................. 0 B .......................... 2 W. J. H aycr?ft, c — Hale, b G otto........... 33 Total ...........168 H a m p s t e a d . E. W . Bishop, c Burt, b Swinstead ........... 7 S. H. Turner, b Hay­ craft ..........................62 W. H. Robson, c Rennie, b Carver... 67 H. T. Tewson.b Swin­ stead .......................... 2 W. 8. Hale, c Paetow, b H olton .................. 61 S. Gotto, c Rennie, b Holton ...................10 H. R. Lipscom be, c Danier, b Hay­ craft.......................... 10 T, Spink, not out ... 8 J.C. Toller, c Holton, b Haycraft ...........17 W . Barnes, not out 11 B4, lb 3, n b l ... 8 Total ......... 266 L G. Bishop did not bat. C rick eters not satisfied with the Balls and Bats they have used are advised to try the -HI-CO« ■ brand made by Geo. G. Bussey & Co., PecMiam Bye, S.E.—Advt.