Cricket 1893

294 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OP THE GAME. JULY 27, 1893 The great, match is past and over, and a glorious fight it was. though pointless. Well played, both of you; a match worthy of a prominent place in the series of Inter— (well, what ? National ? no, scarcely that, though one can think of no better word) international contests in every Australian tour since 1880. The fifth at Lord’ s, the first there not taking place until 1881, which England won by an innings; a like result in 1886, and in 1890 a seven wickets’ victory ; once only, in 1888, did the Colonials come off best, and then with 61 runs in hand in a match of very modest pro­ portions. A draw was the latest verdiot, and each team can derive such comfort from it as they list, especially our visitors, who have always felt that a victory in this match —the match on their programme—was an adequate compensation for any number of other defeats. The match had an uncanny look in the absence of W.G., our standing dish on every great ocsasion since 1865 ; both players and specta­ tors felt there was something wrong through­ out in the absence of his well-known face and form. Fortunately our boys were put on their mettle to atone for his loss, ana right well did they succeed. There can be no doubt that the loss of a leader does often demoralize his followers ; an integral part of the machine is wanting, and the thing won’t go. I have no doubt whatever that Surrey are just now suffering from this cause. W ithout the services and moral stimulus of the greatest cricketer they have ever possessed, the whole eleven is out of year, and may not getproperly strung up for a year or more. But don’t we s Dinetimes err here ? When in 1890 Lancashire o ime out second to Surrey,certain folks loosely said that it was because Briggs could not play fjr a whole’month when county cricket was at its busiest. Yet the simple fact was that whilst he was away, his county suffered no defeat at all. Suppose a fortnight ago Gunn and Shrewsbury had been unable to help Notts when Yorkshire met them at Trent Bridge, and that then Yorkshire had won by an inniags and 20 runs, all the critics in Nottingham and outside it would at once have said—“ And what else could you have expected ? Put these men in their plaoe, and the verdict must have been in favor of their County.” I thought of this when Mold was not helping Lancashire in their match against Somersetshire last week. W ith him present would that draw have been changed into a Red-Rose victory----- or a Red- Rose defeat ? Nobody can say. But it was a splendid match, marred only by indifferent fielding here and there, and some serious “ butter-fingering.” England had the whip-hand throughout, though the memory of Lyons’ hitting on the same ground in May last during the second hands ought to rebuke our confident utterance that a second inniDgs last week of 300 runs was wholly beyond Australia’s ability; probably it would have been. Shrewsbury’s contributions (106 and 81) surprised nobody, though they delighted us all. A pity he did not notch just 19more the second tim e; that is the “ but little here below he wants ” to round off the most splendid record any professional batsman has ever made. But that missed chance at point shall not be forgotten. F. S. Jackson (91) perhaps played the finest innings of the match: a fearless slaughter of the bowling— a run a minute—that often makes the best bowling harmless for the rest of a side; nobody questions his claim to the honour of playing for England. It was Shrewsbury’s second hundred in this Lord’s match, for in 1886 his only innings was 164. Indeed, include A. G. Steel’s 148 in 1884, and the century list is completed. Graham (107) is the first Australian to reach the coveted distinction at Lord’s, and full well does he deserve it. He is emphatically the trump card of the present tour. It was only in the last Australian season that he came to the front, yet here he is playing more consistent and stylish cricket than perhaps any colonial batsman did in his first season in England, since we first welcomed the strangers in 1878. There have been several failures on the part of both batsmen and bowlers whose re­ putation at home was so great that English­ men were anxious to see them with their own eyes. It should be mentioned that Graham’s partnership with little Gregory (57) yielded four more runs than that of Jackson and Shrewsbury. And can we show finer fielders than either of them ? Turner did wonderfully well on the Monday with the wicket helping him, though Lockwood did better on the Tuesday when the wicket was firmer. It is surely fitting that at last Turner takes his rightful position at the top of the (bowling)poll. I don’t imagine he will be ousted again. Gunn (97) made amends for somewhat poor fielding— so unlike his real self. Yet, William G., I do wish you would not play with the ball and so occasionally give your opponents one run more. We all love to watch that graceful run of yours, and accurate pick-up; why don’t you send the ball in at once ? nevermind watching the batsman, your responsibility is the ball. I wonder whether W.G. meant you when he said one day that there was nearly always an extra run when--------- was after the ball. One had to rub one’s eyes before we could credit the extras given in this match. Only three innings, and yet extras scored 30, 16 and 27: had the match been completed, that item, at that rate, would have been 100! A sorry example, my masters! An ugly blot on an otherwise noble canvas. Don’t repeat it when I am present at the second match on August 14, else you will spoil all my enjoyment. W ith Surrey out of the running, the County supremacy is still open, Surrey need not despair; it’s time some other County had a look in, though it is certain that this year the fortunate first will be no worthy successor of either Surrey or Notts. From what I have seen of Hayward and Ayres, and from what one knows of Surrey’s patience with likely Colts, there will be two places well- filled when some of the older hands retire. Yorkshire of course show their nose well in front up to date, but it would be ridiculous to say that on present form Yorkshire is the best County team. I dare not make such a state­ ment on any of our County grounds up here where everybody is Yorkshire mad, but it’s my honest opinion nevertheless. Fancy the Cham­ pion County playing as Yorkshire did against Derbyshire, and as I saw them play only this afternoon against Essex ! If Yorkshire should be at the top after all, then I shall say they are the best of a poor lot. Weeks ago my tip was “ Lancashire,” it is the same to day. Yorkshire have been playing above their form, if that be possible, and I think it is, both at cricket and all other games of skill. Surrey are dead out of luck in the spin of the coin, though only just beaten both by Somersetshire and K ent; whilst Lanca­ shire for many years have always seemed to me to be a better team than results would indicate. Y et we can only go by results. W ith such weather and wickets as we had last week, luck plays no inconsiderable part in cricket; at all events bad wickets level all bats­ men down to a common height. Bowlers re­ joice and should be thankful. Briggs did well enough all through the week to make some fo us regret he was not chosen for England, especially as Peel and Wainwright got never a wicket between them; and Albert Ward’s sus­ tained batting ability ought to give him a place in one of the big matches at the Oval and Old Trafford. In a match in which the highest aggregate was 121, Somersetshire had, perhaps, all the best of a drawn game with Lancashire. Y et their last three wickets had tumbled so quickly that the remaining four might have found 23 runs a task beyond their powers. Frank Ward was very handy with four wickets for 14 runs, though Baker’s two for one were even better. Tyler, Nicholls, Oakley and Briggs take second place. And Lancashire deserve the thanks of Yorkshire for taking Middlesex down a peg. One batsman on either side showed up fairly well—Sugg (63 and 15), A. E. Stoddart (87 and 24). But for such batsmen as Middlesex possess to stop short at 89 in the last innings was a surprise. Mold’s twelve for 116 was the chief item in Lancashire’s 68 runs victory. Stoddart (six for 46) bowled so well that it looks as if he might go on oftener. He has never thanked W.G. for bringing him out as a bowler, and perhaps would fail to appreciate the compliment suppose his captain were to regard him as first change; his batting would suffer. Might not Brockwell bowl more for Surrey? At the end of last week he headed the poll with 4 L wickets, costing eleven runs apiece. If as second change a bowler can do so well against batsmen well set, the chances are all in his favour should he be elected to start the bowling. If Abel (21 and 44) had only been moderately backed up, Kent would never have caught the judge’s eye first. No bats­ man on either side ran up an innings of 50. Walter Hearne proved that his long rest had done him no harm ; it is not often a bowler is at his best under such conditions; it’s doubt­ ful whether against Surrey (10 for 89) he was not in quite as brilliant form as when he sent Lancashire to the right-about two months ago. C. M. Wells (seven for 31), Brockwell (four for 34), and Martin (five for 31) must settle among themselves which did most useful work for their respective Counties. It took but one day (virtually) for Australia to beat Somersetshire. A curious match, started when the umpire and captains had decided on a postponement, and the Colonials had gone a-tripping in consequence. But a gate of 4,000 was not to be thrown away. Not that all paid: certainly not all passed through the orthodox turnstile ; many got in otherwise, through the members’ gate, or over the fence. Let’ s hope they shelled out like honest men afterwards. Only one bats­ man made anything of a mark—G, Giffen (36 and 43): but Turner had a benefit (eleven for 69),whilst SamWood8(nine for,57)for once this year came out of his shell. The Australian list of victories thus received a useful lift. _If they can keep up their recent pace, Maurice Read will be a happy man, for everybody will wish to be present at his benefit next month. The Taunton week must have dragged on wearily to all concerned. Better luck next year. P.S.—Whenever I trip in my facts, §ome generous correspondent is sure to catch me. As I value accuracy in all matters relating to cricket, I beg to return thanks to one writer who informs me that Oxford played another Freshman than Leveson-Gower this year, to wit, G. J. Mordaunt, the old Wellington captain; and to another gentleman, who points out that an innings of more than 500 was scored by Oxford, viz., 555 v. Middlesex in 1887. Thus there have been four (not three) innings of 500 and upward in first-class matches played by the “ Varsities.” A second England eleven; W. G., W. W . Read, Albert Ward, Alec Hearne, G. Brann, W. H. Patterson, batsmen; Briggs, Martin, J. T. Hearne, and Richardson, bowlers; Hunter, the man behind. Could not they be trusted to look after the interests of England in one or other of the big matches ? STREATHAM v. W IMBLEDON. — Played at Streatham on July 22. \ S treatham . C. W . Grant W ilson, b Senders ........... 6 A. C. Broadbent. c Oliver, b Sanders... 56 L. Mortimer, b San* ders .......................... 0 W . S. Trollope,cTay- lor, b Sanders ... 22 R.H.deMontmorency, c Martin, b Sprigg 66 A. N. Morley, not out 25 W. R. Hlgson, c Bay­ ley, b Christopher­ son ........................... D. O. K err,b Sprigg... A. J. Robertson, b Sprigg ................... S. H. Fiindt, b Chris*- topherson ........... M.H.Melville,bSprigg B 25, lb 2, w 2 ... Total .210 W imbledon . First Innings. W. E. Martyn, c Rob­ inson, b Fiindt ... 5 S. Christoperson, b M ortim er.................. 0 T. Westray. run out 10 F.Bayley.b M ortim er 0 F. G. Oliver, c and b M ortimer.................. 6 F. L. Sanders, c Trol­ lope, b H indt........... 0 W . P. tiprigg.cBroad- feent, b M ortimer... 15 In the Second Innings Martyn scored (not out), 42, Christoperson, c Morley, b Mortimer, 4, We3ts ray (not out;, 17.—Total, 63. W . T. Boodle, b de M ontm orency C. L. Crickmay, b de Montmorency P. O’Bryen Taylor, not out ................... A. O’Bryen Taylor, b b M ortim er ........... B ........................... Total , 48