Cricket 1892

424 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OP THE CAME; 8SW. 8, 1892 at the wicket as it was on paper. A partial ex­ planation of this may be found in the fact that O’Brien was not in anything like the same form as he was in 1891. Another reason was that J. T. Hearne’s bowling fell considerably short of the standard of 1891. No doubt the South African trip did him little good, at all events the ball did not seem to do quite as much. A winter’s rest will probably restore the freshness that seems occasionally to be wanting. Rawlin’s bowling was at times of great use, and indeed he kept up his end with considerable credit throughout the season. McGregor’s completion of his residential quali­ fication gave Middlesex what it had long wanted, a first-class wicket keeper. His pre­ sence in the eleven removes a long-standing weakness in Middlesex cricket. As was the case with Middlesex, the later stages of the Yorkshire season altogether belied the promise of the early matches. At the outset the Yorkshiremen could do no wrong. Wainwright in particular was seen to advantage at every point, showing such ex­ cellent all-round form as to thoroughly warrant his selection to represent the Players against the Gentlemen. As the summer advanced, though, there was a notable deterioration. Peel and Wainwright, who had been doing some sensational scoring in second-class matohes, subsequently did comparatively little in first-class cricket. In some of the later matches Wardall showed batting of a high order, and just at the finish Brown made one or two good scores. Ernest Smith came into the eleven in July, and with considerable success, rarely .failing to make runs. While Lord Hawke and Ulyett were less reliable than of old, a useful addition to the bat­ ting was found in Tunnicliffe, who bids fair to be of use in the future. Yorkshire’s want of success was in a great measure due to the short-comings of her bowlers. Wainwright and Peel had to bear the brunt of the work, but when the ground was true neither was at all deadly, and the later opponents of Yorkshire were tolerably sure of a good score. The best that can be said of Kent is that its record was really better than that of Gloucestershire, with whom it is bracketed equal in the summary of the competition. It is a matter for regret, too, that the figures furnish little reason for extenuation in Kent’s poor performances. On paper the County seemed to have no lack of good batting at all events. Still there was a want of cohesion which was bound to have a preju­ dicial effect. Several batsmen who had been of great assistance in the past showed a great falling off. F. Marchant and C. J. M. Fox were both very disappointing, and G. G. Hearne was left out for a long time, only to be re-introduced late in the season, and with good results. W. H. Patterson was not able to take his place in the eleven till late in the year, and his play, and that of Aleo Hearne, were the only noteworthy features of Kent’s batting. W. L. Knowles, a young cricketer, showed great promise in the early part of the season, though unfortunately he could not play later on. J. Le Fleming and H. C. Stewart, too, shaped well in August, so much so as to emphasise the regret that they were not more often available. At no point could Kent be said to be strong. Walter Hearne showed a great advanoe as a bowler, but neither Martin nor Wright could be called quite first- class on the season's form. Gloucestershire’s solitary win was in its first engagement of the year, when it beat Kent. That was the only success out of sixteen matches, of which seven were drawn, several of them distinctly to the advantage of the other side. The introduction of J. J. Ferris, it was hoped, would add materially to the strength of the team bv the addition of a really good bowler. As it happened, he com­ pletely failed to realise the reasonable expec­ tations created by his Australian reputation. This was a great disappointment, and with practically little or no bowling Gloucester­ shire’s ill-success was hardly a matter for surprise. Nor was there any great amount of patting to compensate for other short­ comings. Neither 0. G.Radcliffe nor Painter were quite as dangerous as of old, and with perhaps three exceptions, the eleven were not particularly successful as run-getters. The Old Marlburian, S . A. P. K itcat, proved himself to be a great acquisition in the few matches he was able to play in the early part of the season. The best batting, though, was shown by W . G. Grace and R. W . R ice. W .G. was not able to get a hundred in an innings, though once within one run of it. Still, he played with very m uch of his old judgm ent, and his position at the head of the averages will give general satisfaction. One of the m ost prom ising features of the year was the excellent batting of the Oxford freshman, R . W . Rice. His watchful cricket was throughout of the greatest value. In the later matches, with hardly an exception, he stayed in with W .G ., showing great confidence on more than one occasion at a critical point of the game. On his county form this year, he ought to be an acquisition to the Oxford Eleven next summer. Like Gloucestershire, Sussex had the small consolation of one victory against a sequence of reverses. Altogether he season was one of continuous ill success, hardly relieved by any ray of hope. George Brann’s brilliant performance against Kent, in August, was the one bright spot in the general dulness. On very few occasions was he un­ successful, on many his hitting was the feature of the Sussex batting. Fielding above the aver­ age,too, failed to bring the out-cricket generally up to the average. The veteran Hum phrey’s and Tate, who had to bear the burden of the bowling, were only moderately successful. Of the rest, Jesse Hide alone acquitted him ­ self with credit, and he was only able to play in a few of the matches. The general tables which precede the several statistics of the different clubs will be of great interest. The figures relating to the toss, in particular, will get rid of somo very erroneous impressions. From this it will be seen that Lancashire has won the toss more times than any other County, and that Glou­ cestershire, Kent, and Surrey have been suc­ cessful nine times, and lost it seven. It will be seen, too, that the side losing the toss has won the match twenty-nine times, while losing the toss has meant the loss of the match only twenty-five times. In run-getting, Surrey, it will be seen, has the best average, Lancashire in saving runs. To Somerset­ shire belongs the credit of the fastest scoring. Their average rate has been over sixty-seven runs for every twenty-five overs. T he averages will speak for them ­ selves. To our mind, they represent the only reliable test in first-class cricket, from the fact that all the matches are of the same value, and the players are tried under pre­ cisely similar conditions. THE COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP. Played. W en. Lost. Drawn. Points. Surrey ............. 16 ... 13 ... 2 ... 1 ... 11 Notts ................. 16 ... 10 ... 2 ... 4 ... 8 Somersetshire... 16 ... 8 ... 5 ... 3 ... 3 Lancashire ...... 16 ... 7 ... 6 ... 4 ... 2 Middlesex ...... 16 ... 7 ... 6 ... 3 ... 1 Yorkshire.......... 16 ... 5 ... 6 ... 6 ... 0 Kent ................. 16 ... 2 ... 9 ... 5 ... —7 Gloucestershire 16 ... 1 ... 8 ... 7 ... —7 Sussex ............. 16 ... 1... 12 ... 3 ... —11 THE TOSS. Lancashire.......... Gloucestershire Kent ................. Surrey................. Notts ................. Somersetshire ... Middlesex .......... Susex ................. Yorkshire .......... Won. .. 13 . .. 9 .. 9 , 9 .. 7 , .. 7 , .. 6 .. 6 .. 6 Lost-. . 3 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 9 . 9 . 10 . 10 . 10 Somersetshire and Gloucestershire won once the toss but did not go in first. Winning the match after losing the toss.......... 29 Losing the match and the toss ........................ 25 Drawn matches ... ... ...................................... 18 Total Side going in first . 72 ... won 27 ... lost 27 drawn 18 Total ... 72 COUNTY PLAYERS. Batting. Ams. Pros. Bowling. Ams. Pros; Surrey ........ ,. ... 6 •• 12 ... ... 3 ... 6 Notts..............., ... 5 14 ... ... 3 ... 10 Somersetshire ... 15 3 ... ... 4 .. 3 Lancashire .. ... 6 •• 10 ... ... 1 .. 5 Middlesex .. ... ... 18 ... 4 ... .... 7 ..,. 3 Yorkshire . ... 5 16 ... ... 3 ..,. l i K ent............... . ... 18 8 ... ... 9 .... 6 Gloucestershire ... 12 6 ... ... 6 ... 6 Sussex .......... ... 9 10 ... ... 6 ..,. 7 94 83 42 58 177 100 R uns F or . Runs Extras Total Wkts Aver. Surrey ........ ,. 4708 ... 185 ... 4893 .... *19 .... 22.34 Notts.............. .. 4492 .... 160 ... 4652 ... 519 ..,. 21.24 Middlesex 4942 ... 238 ... 5180 ... 250 .. 20.72 Lancashire ... 4681 ..,. 192 ... 4873 ... 237 ..,. 20.56 Gloucestershire 4871 .... 256 ... 5127 ... 272 ..,. 18.84 Somersetshire 4178 .., 351 ... 4329 ... 231 ... 18.74 Yorkshire . 4607 .... 223 ... 4830 ... 259 ..,. 18.64 K en t.............. .. 44?9 .... 232 ... 4661 ... 260 ..,. 17.92 Sussex ........ . 4177 .... 165 ... 4342 ... 282 ..,. 15.o9 41085 ... 1802 ...42887 ....2229 ... 19.24 R uns A gainst . Run s Extras Total Wkts Aver. Lancashire . 3513 .... 190 ... 3703 ... 258 ... 14.35 Surrey .......... 4262 ... 267 ... 4529 ... 296 ... 15.31 Notts............... . 4169 , 192 ... 4361 ... 273 ... 15 97 Somersetshire 4133 ..., 130 ... 4263 ... 264 ... 1611 Middlesex . 49 6 ... 192 ... 5098 ... 262 ... 19.45 Yorkshire . 4997 ... 234 ... 5231 ... 218 ... 21 09 K en t............... . 50S9 .. 186 ... 5225 ... 235 ... 22.23 Sussex ........ . 4861 ..., 199 ... 5060 ... 212 ... 23 68 Gloucestershire 5205 . 212 ... 5417 ... 181 ... 29.92 41085 ... 1802 ...42887 .. 2259 .. . 19 24 RATE OF SCORING PER HOUR*. Total Runs* in Overs. runs. 25 overs. Somersetshire... ... 1603 . . 4329 67.51 Surrey .......... ... 2196.2 . . 4693 55.7J Middlesex.......... ... 2337 . 5180 55.41 Yorkshire........ . ... 2237 . . 48<0 5?J.97 Lancashire ... 2266 2 . . 487 i 53.76 Sussex .......... ... 2046.2 . . 4342 53.05 N otts.......... ... ... 2345.2 . . 4652 49.59 K e n t................. ... 2372.4 . . 4661 49.10 Gloucestershire ... 2809.2 . . 5127 45.61 * The average number of overs per hour is about 25. BATTING AVERAGES. Times Most in Inns. not out. Runs an Inns. Aver. Shrewsbury... 24 .. 2 ... 920 ... 212 .. 41.81 W. W. Read ... 27 .. 5 ... 896 ... 196* .. 40.72 H. T. Hewett... 27 .. 1 ... 1047 ... 201 .. 40.26 W.H.Patterson 14 .. 1 ... 511 ... 114 .. 39.30 S. W. Scott ... 27 .. 5 ... 861 ... 224 .. 39 13 W. G. Grace... 25 .. 3 ... 800 ... 99 .. 36.36 L C.H. Palairet 21 .. 1 ... 6)9 ... 146 .. 32.95 A. Hearne ... 21 .. 2 ... 626 ... 116* .. 32.94 Gunn .......... 24 .. 2 ... 714 ... 98* .. 32.35 A. E*. 8toddart 29 .. 1 ... 848 ... 130 .. 30.28 A. Smith.......... 22 .. 1 ... 615 ... Ill .. 29.28 G. Brann 29 .. 0 ... 833 ... 147 .. 28 89 E. Smith......... 13 .. 0 ... 368 ... 88 .. 23.30 Wainwright... 26 .. 3 ... 641 ... 1 4 .. 27 83 R.W . Rice ... 23 .. 2 ... 582 ... 67 .. 27 71 A. C.Maclaren 15 .. 1 ... 379 ... 135 .. 27.07 H. B. Daft ... 16 .. 6 ... 270 ... 43* .. 27 F.Sugg .......... 25 .. 1 ... 646 ... 107* .. 26 91 E. A. Nepean 10 .. 2 ... 213 ... 61 .. 56.6-2 Ward .......... 25 .. 1 ... 633 ... 180 .. 26.37 W. C. Hedley 20 .. 3 ... 446 ... 102 .. 26.23 J. Le Fleming 10 .. 0 ... 26) ... 134 .. 26 Abel........ 26 .. 1 ... 647 ... 64 .. 25.88 S. A. Kitcat ... 14 .. 1 ... 334 ... 55 .. 25.69 R. Henderson 23 .. 4 ... 471 ... 74* .. 24.78 T. C. O’Brien 26 .. 0 ... 635 ... 76 .. 24.42 F. S. Jackson 11 .. 0 ... 267 ... 76 .. 2427 Baker .......... 23 .. 0 ... 555 ... 109 .. 24.13 P. T. Henery... 18 .. 1 ... 403 ... 81* .. 23 70 Tunnicliffe ... 21 .. 5 ... 379 ... 53 .. 23.68 Lockwood 21 .. 1 ... 369 ... 80 .. 23.45 O. G. Radcliffe 29 .. 1 ... 655 ... 117 .. 23.33 J. B. Challen 17 .. 2 ... 835 ... 72 .. 2 *.33 W. Newham ... 20 ... 2 ... 399 ... 69 .. 22.16 J. Shuter 23 .. 1 ... 486 ... 56 .. 22.09 W.G. Heasman 13 .. 0 ... 587 ... 45 .. 2?.07 G. Hearne ... 15 ... 4 ... 238 ... 62 .. 21.63 Read................ 22 ... 3 ... 405 ... 86 .. 21.31 Flowers .......... 22 ... 1 ... 435 ... 72 .. 20.71 G. Fowler.......... 17 ... 2 ... 309 ... 54 .. 20.60 Painter .......... 23 ... 1 ... 545 ... 85 .. 20.18 Shacklook 20 ... 5 ... 802 ... 36 .. 20.13 H. Braybrooke S. M. Crosfield 18 20 ... 0 ... ... 2 ... 362 36) ... 53 .. ... 82* .. 20.11 20