Cricket 1892

SEPT. 8, 1892 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECQRD OF THE GAME. 423 DUTCH ELEVEN v. BRIDLINGTON AND DIS­ TRICT.—Played at Bridlington on August 27. D u t c h E l e v e n . Eyken, b Atkinson ... 0 Schroder, b Atkinson 0 De Haas, b Taylor ... 5 Posthuma,bAtkinson 5 Spranger, c W. H. Cranswick, b Horn- sted ........................35 De Groot, c Nutt, b Atkinson................ 6 Moeder,lbw,b&tkinson 4 Van Oosterzee, not out ........................23 Kupfer, c Hornsted, b Atkinson .......... 4 Van der Bosch, b Hornsted ... ... 2 Rouffner, run out ... 27 Extras . Total B r id l in g t o n a n d D is t r ic t . ... 21 ...132 R.J.Miller.bPosthuma 5 C. A. Whittington, b De H aas................. 7 F. Atkinson, b Pos­ thuma ................40 Joe Cranswick, c Moeder, b De Haas 10 A.Hornsted.bDeHaas 0 and b ... 31 6 R. Crowe, Posthuma, J. Nutt, tUQ out W. H. Cranswick, b Posthuma .......... H. Taylor, not ou t... H. Beauvak, not out Total ...1C9 The Dutch team consisted mainly of students in the Dutch Universities, in one of which Dr. Gorter, who was one of the party, is a professor. H e is a poet, and known as the Browning of Holland. The players were all young, varying in age from about eighteen to twenty-six. Posthuma is a left-handed bowler, and with more experience would probably do well in good company. He has a considerable break from the off, aud uses his head, varying his pitch and pace with judgm ent. De Haas bowls fast. He stands well over six feet, and at times is very destructive. Schroder has the best record as a bowler at hom e. He is fast, and on Dutch grounds has proved very effective. Spranger is a naturalised Dutchman whose real name is J. Spranger Harrison. He is captain of the Johannesburg Club, and kept wicked with credit against Mr. W . W . Read’s team in South Africa last winter. Schroder is the best bat. He has plenty of strokes, and his seventy against the Scarborough Visitors was a very good innings. Eyken, who stands well over six feet, shows more freedom and is at times a dangerous bat. As a rule the team were fairly safe catches, but the ground fielding was uncertain, the effect of the different pace at which the ball travelled here. FIRST CLASS COUNTY CRICKET IN 1892. T he particulars which follow give, we believe, by far the most complete analysis of the doings of the nine leading Counties during the season j use over. The figures, for which we are indebted to a keen enthusiast, have been compiled with great care, and may be accepted, we may add, with confidencejjas correct. The close of the season left Surrey w ith an undisputed first. A good deal of sympathy Das been, and rightly, expressed over the later failures which robbed Notts of the honours which until almost the last, appeared to be within its grasp. A t the same tim e it would be very unjust not to recognise in the heartiest way the pluck of the Surrey eleven after their defeat by Notts at the Oval, pluck which enabled them to reinstate themselves in a position which, until an advanced stage of the season, seemed irrecoverable. In expressing regret at the ill-success of Notts in their later engagements, it is not inconsistent to write in appreciative terms of Surrey’s all-round cricket. That N otts beat them twice, and beat them fair and square, is indisputable. Still, the highest honours in a competition la?ed on the principles of that which regulates County cricket must fall to the side which has the uniform ly bestrecoid. Where the positions are decided by points, the success or ill-success of a side in any particular match or matches is of comparatively little moment. It^ is the aggregate alone which can be, and is, taken into account. And according to the conditions of the competition, which has, whatever irre­ sponsible critics may urge, on the whole worked well, and been generally ap­ proved, Surrey stands unquestionably first. Nor can anything but their double defeat by Notts be urged to their disparagement. The policy of their captain has always been to win if possible, and no better proof could be furnished of the risks he was prepared to run to attain this object than in closing his innings against Yorkshire at Leeds. That the Surrey eleven were quite as formidable a com bination as in 1891 is fairly open to doubt. There are some who urge that a winter’s cricket in Australia does no real harm. On the other hand, facts would seem to support the opposite view. At all events of the four Surrey professionals who were with L ord Sheffield in the Colonies during the winter, none was in his very best form . Abel was not such a certain scorer, and Maurice Read’ s hitting far from successful. Lohmann, well as he bowled, hardly gave one the impression of being quite as full of dash as usual, and Sharpe was so much out of form with the ball that he had to be replaced by Richardson. Fortunately for Surrey, Lockw ood’s bowling never failed. His extreme pace, combined with the devil in his bowling, made him irresistible, and he was quite the best bowler of the day. Though slightly less successful than last year, Lohmann bowled with excellent results, and when a great effort was wanted he was always equal to the occasion. As a change, Abel was never unsuccessful. He rarely failed to get a wicket when wanted, and as a bowler we are inclined to think his merits have not yet had their full recognition. Richardson, of M itcham , took Sharpe’s place, and in m inor matches his fast bowling proved very effective. In first-class cricket he was not so successful, and his real capacity has still to be proved. In batting the figures were generally good, even if as a side they were not so dangerous as in 1891. Singularly out of luck in the early part of the season, Mr. W . W. Read made full amends by his consistently fine oricket when he got into form. His average was far in advance of any other member of the eleven. One of the most gratifying features of Surrey’s batting was the success of the Captain. For many years Mr. Shuter has not been seen to better advantage. Though his best score was 56 he had an excellent average of over 22 runs, and on many occasions he was in ­ valuable whea things were going against the side. Henderson, too, played thoroughly good cricket throughout, showing himself to be one of the m ost reliable batsmen in the eleven. Baldwin’s success in first-olass cricket in the later matches leads to the belief that Surrey has a new batsman of considerable promise. W ood’s inabilty to keep wicket on several occasions, owing to bad hands, was a serious loss. In the latter part of the season he was a great success standing back, bo much so as to emphasise the regret at his absence on both occasions against Notts. Up to the m iddle of August, it seemed as if Notts were certain of an unbeaten record. Their defeat by Somersetshire was in a great measure a matter of luck, but no real excuse could be made for their complete failure against Lancashire in the following match. The Nottingham men do not appear to be good finishers, at least this is the experience of recent years. A ll the same, their record was one of which the county had good reason to be proud. Their all-round cricket was much above the average. Quite out of it at the outset, Shrewsbury eventually played himself into his best form . Altogether he showed himself to be quite the best batsman of the day, although his record, as a whole, will not quite bear comparison with his performances of 1890 or 1891. Gunn, though not in the best of health, was the same polished batsman, and Flowers’ hitting was generally of use. As a batsman Shack­ lock showed a marked advance, playing good cricket at times. Daft, left out of the earlier matches, was drafted into the eleven subse­ quently and with the best results, his defence on more than one important occasion being invaluable. Attewell and Shacklock bore the brunt of the bowling with credit. The latter did good service in both Surrey matches and generally took a lot of watching. The out cricket of Notts as a rule was considerably above the average, the fielding occasionally brilliant. In many respects Somersetshire’s cricket was the most interesting of the year. In one particular the eleven had the best record of all, for the rate at which they scored was higher than that of any of the other Counties. As a consequence, their play was infinitely more attractive to the public, whose support, after all, is the back-bone of the game. Somersetshire’s success in the way of run- getting was, in a measure, the success of two batsmen. Tim e after time Hewett and Palairet, who went in first, took off the edge of the bowling, and laid the foundation of a big score. T o say that the play of the two amateurs was the feature of some re­ markable batting is not to reflect on the record of others who did good service, notably of Hedley and Challen, both of whom played up well on important occasions, though over-shadowed by the two Oxonians. The splendid performance of Hewett and Palairet against Yorkshire at the end of August is too recent to require more than bare notice. It will be sufficient to say their record of 346 for the first wicket beats the previous best in a first-class m atch by no less than 63 runs. The aggregate of the Somersetshire eleven (592), too, was the best of the year in an important contest. A gainst every kind of bowling, the captain, H. T. Hewett, scored equally well. H e hit every bowler with the same fearlessness, and he stands out in bold relief as decidedly the best left-handed batsman of the day. To his credit, too, be it said, he was the only cricketer to get over a thousand runs in first-class Inter-County matches during the season. If Somersetshire’s run-saving powers were level with its capacity in making them it would indeed be a formidable combination. As it is, consistently good fielding did much to remedy the lack of first-class bowling. Y et with Woods, Hedley, Tyler, and Nichols the attack was not to be despised. In the later matches Tyler was particularly successful, and to him, indeed, belonged much of the credit of the victory over Notts. Still, another reliable bowler would add materially to the strength of an already strong all-round side. On paper Lancashire were a better com ­ bination than their form would lead one to believe. Still, the cricket was a little uncertain at tim es, and the eleven in more respects than one failed to realise expectations. It was not that there was any particularly notable deterioration. At the same time the side did not show the uniform excellence of some previous seasons. The figures of the m ost successful batsmen hardly came up to the best standard of some of the other CouLties. Sm ith’s watchful cricket gave him the highest average, and Sugg and Albert Ward were fairly successful, if the latter did not come up to his form of 1891. A. C. McLaren, who was hardly in form in the earlier matches, was unlucky enough to be injured towards the end of the season, just as he was apparently full of runs. A much improved batsman was Baker, who played with confidence and judgment, particularly in some of the later matches. In bowling there was little to find fault with. Briggs, M old, and Watson all had good figures. At the same time, it seemed as if at times there was a lack of the old devil in the bowling. One of the best features of Lancashire’s cricket was A. T. Kemble’ s wicket-keeping. Con­ sidering that he had to face a bowler of M old’s pace throughout the season, his ability was proved beyond all doubt. He kept, indeed, with such marked success as to make it a matter of regret that circumstances prevented him representing the Gentlemen against the Players, either at Lord’s or the Oval, when McGregor was not available. In the early part of the season, it seemed as if Middlesex and Yorkshire would both be well in the running for the premiership of county cricket. A succession of brilliant innings by Stanley Scott, in conjunction with the g o o l bowling of J. T. Hearne and Rawlin, created great expectations, which subsequent events failed to realise. Later in the year, indeed, the M iddlesex eleven did not play by any means up to their form. Unfortunately for them, E . A. Nepean was not able to play very much, or their all-round oricket would have been materially strengthened. As it was, though Stoddart, as well as Stanley Scott, was generally seen to great advantage as a run getter the side was not so dangerous