Cricket 1893

28 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OP THE GAME; FEB. 23, 1893 * * C 0 I ^ E g P 0 P E N C E - S * TW EN TY YEARS OF COUNTY CRICKET—BOWLING. To the Editor o f C r ic k e t . S ir , —I was much interested in the figures respecting the batting in First class County Matches contained in the article by the Rev. R. S. Holmes in 3our issue for February, and, with your permission, will give the bowling figures for the same period. For the sake of making comparisons I have divided the period into four divisions of five years each. In the first, including the years 1873-7 inclusive, the following figure3 show the positions of the respective Counties. All averages are carried out to one figure of decimals, and are for first-class County matches only. Years 1873 7. Lancashire DerbyBhire N otts ... Yorkshire Gloster ... Kent Sussex ... Surrey ... Middlesex Lancashire Notts ... Yorkshire Derbyshire Gloster... Kent Middlesex Surrey ... Sussex ... Notts ........... Lancashire Yorkshire ... Surrey........... Kent .......... Derbysh re .. Middlesex ... Sussex........... W ickets Bnns made taken. against. Aver. . 638 ... ... 7432 .........,. 11.8 . 350 ... ... 4842 ......... . 13.8 . 761 ... ... 10929 .........,. 14.3 ,. 879 ... ... 12771 .........,. 14.5 . 588 ... ... 9270 ......... . 15.7 ,. 518 ... ... 8572 .........,. 16.5 . 599 ... ... 10758 .........,. 17.9 . 882 .... ... 16540 ......... . 18.7 . 412 .. . ... 8295 ........... 18.7 Years 1878-82. . 1014 ... ... 11983 .........,. 11.7 . 973 ... ... 12936 .........,. 13.2 . 1216 ... ... 1617.4 ......... 13.3 . 495 ... ... 7536 ... .,.. 1*.2 . 762 ... ... 12692 ......... 16.6 ,. 748 ... ... 12827 ... .,.. 17.12 . f49 .. . ... 11624 ... .,.. 17.9 .. 9 9 ..,. ... 17462 ... ... 19.2 .. 540 .,......... 11346 ... ... 20 Years 1888-7. 1<72 ... ... 17005 ... ... 15 8 1038 ... ... 16608 ... ... 16. 1325 ... ... 22912 ... ... 17 2 1394 ... ... 25255 ... ... 181 , 940 ... ... 20231 ... ... 21.5 556 ... ... 12254 ... ... 22.03 775 ... ... 17638 ... .,.. 22.75 904 ... ... 20771 ... ... 22.97 Years 1888-9? Surrey................... 1337 ... ... 18534 ... ... 13.8 Lancashire 1193 ... ... 16796 ... ... 14.0 Notts ................... 1124 ... ... 17635 ... ... 15.6 Kent ................... 1118 ... ... 19011 ... ... 17 Somerset, 2 years 434 ... ... 7642 ... ... 17.6 Y ork sh ire........... 1138 ... ... 2(515 ... ... 18 Middlesex ........... 1039 ... ... 18830 ... ... 18.12 Gloster ... 992 ... ... 2->309 ... ... 22.48 Sussex................... 936 ... ... 21905 ... ... 23 For the whole period 1873-92. Lancashire ... 3883 ... ... 52rl9 ... ... 13.6 Notts ........... ... 3930 ... ... 58505 ... ... 14.8 Yorkshire ... ... 4558 ... ... 7*370 ... ... 15.8 Surrey........... ... 4522 ... ... 77791 ... ... 17.2 Derbyshire... ... 1401 ... ... 24632 ... ... 17.5 Somerset ... ... 434 ... ... 7642 ... ... 17 6 Kent ........... ... 3324 ... ... 60*71 ... ... 18.2 Middlesex ... ... 29(5 ... ... CG387 ... ... 19.1 Gloster ... 3222 ... ... C6i2l ... ... 20.5 Sussex........... ... 2979 ... ... 64760 ... ... 21. So much for the relative performances and positions of the respective counties. It is interesting to note the general position of bowling in each of the four periods. In the first 5657 wickets were taken at an average cost of 15 8 runs each, while in the second 7,306 wickets fell owing to the efforts of the bowlers at an average cost of 15.6 runs each. From 1883-7 the average cost rose to 12.6 runs per wicket for 8884 wickets, only to fall in the next period to 17.5 runs each for 9311 wickets. These figures considered side by side with the batting tables enable us to reconcile some apparent contradictions which appeared in the article I have referred to. For example it hardly seemed possible that Lancashire, whose batting only ranked seventh among the counties, should have won a greater pro­ portion of their matches than any other of the first-class counties. W e now find that the secret of their success has laid in their wonderful bowling performances. If the County Palatine could have had several phe­ nomenal batsmen it would have ranked higher than either Surrey or Notts. As a Lanca­ shire man I hope to see the day when, while holding the position for bowling, at the same time being represented by one or more bril­ liant batsmen, she may be once again premier county of England. May the season of 1893 be long remembered as a good cricket year, when with fine weather, superb wickets, fault­ less batting, and equally good bowling, we may witness some of the finest cricket per­ formances ever recorded.—Yours, etc., T. S w in d e ll . 61, London Road, Manchester.' CRICKET NOTCHES. To the Editor of Crickf. i , S ir , —I have perused with much interest the very exhaustive tables furnished by the Rev. R.StrattenHolmes in the last issue of C bicket . The statistics are certainly valuable, and appear to have been tabulated with more care than mnny of the inaccurate averages and summaries furnished in Dr. W. G. Grace’s book, statistics are all very well, but I have long since come to the conclusion that there was more rivalry among counties in the early days when statistics were almost unknown, than in thsse modern times of ‘fplaying for averages.” Mr. Holmes’ article too is a “ wee b it” faulty, inasmuch as Mr. W. E. Roller’ s 204 for Surrey v. Sussex in 1885 is omitted, while his facts as to dates of the establishment of County Clubs is open to serious question. Take for instance Sussex, the Rev. R. S. Holmes has fallen into the same error as many chroniclers, in giving the date of the Sussex County Club being formed in the year 1857. The present Sussex County Club was formed as far back as 1839, the original circular convening the meeting (whicft is in my possession) being signed by Mr. George Leopold Langdou. From July 1st, 1839, when Sussex met Kent at Brighton, Sussex has played genuine County matches each year, up to the present time, and it was the keen interest in the early days of the *•forties,” which led a Sussex crioket enthu­ siast, the late Mr. W . H. Mason, in 1849, to produce, at a cost of £1,500, that famous cricket engraving, so well known, of an imaginary inter - county match, Sussex v. Kent, at Brighton. Our bad luck of late years may in the “ dim and distant future ” turn once more, and the last, as Mr. Holmes truly remarks, may be first. Anyhow, there is life in Sussex cricket still, and our grand old county, so rich in old cricket associations, will, I trust, never be effaced from the cricket arena of first-class counties.—Yours faithfully, A lfr ed J. G aston . Ditchling Rise, Brighton. S portive S natchfs for 1892— A varied volume for Cricketers, Footballers, Swimmers, Golfers, and Athletes. Portraits and Biogra­ phies, W heezes from the W ickets, end Pungent Paragraphs. Price Sixpence.—W right and C o.,41, St. Andrew ’s Bill, E.C. VICTORIA v. NEW SOUTH WALES. TheVictorian eleven gained a very creditable victoryip this match,begun on the ground of the Melbourne Club,on Dec. 24, after five days’play. C. T. B. Turner was unable to help New South Wales, and his bowling was greatly missed. The scoring was above the average, and altogether 1023 runs were made in the match for thirty- two wickets. Moses was the highest scorer for New South Wales, and Bruce, Trott, and Dr. Barrett for Victoria. The Victorians had 187 to get to win at the finish, and it was a good performance for a fourth innings to make this number as they did for the loss of only two batsmen. The interest in the match was quite up to the best traditions of Inter­ colonial cricket. During the five days over 46,0C0 persons witnessed the match. In all, 33,824 paid for admission, and the receipts amounted to £1,970 Is. Od. N ew S outh W ales . First Inning?. S. P. Jones, c Trott, b Trum ble .......... .......... A. C. Bannerman, c Hous­ ton, b M cLeod................... 7 H. Moses, b Bruce ..........77 S. E. Gregory, c Carlton, b M cLeod ........................... 1 H. Donman, c Trott, b M cLeod .......................... 0 Iredale, lbw, b M cLeod ... 14 G. Youll, c Bruce, b Trott 18 A. Coningham, c W orrall, b Trott .......................... 0 S. Callaway, not ou t...........61 M. Pierce, lbw. b M cLeod 8 I. Wales, c H ouston, b M cLeod .......................... 0 B 6, lb 1, w l.................. 8 Second Innings. Total ...................197 V ictoria . 3 run out ..............45 b M cL eod ..............1R c and b M cLeod Cl cTrott,bM cLeod 17 b Trum ble.............. 58 b Trum ble............101 b M cL eod .............. 11 c and b Trumble 17 c Trott,bM cLeod 10 not out ............ 1 c and b Trumble 3 B 18, lb 3,n b l 22 Toial ...361 First Inniogs. R. M’Leod, b Pierce 14 R H ouston,cYoull.b Pierce ...................19 J. Carlton, c Jones,b Pierce . . . 4 R. M itchell, not out 7 H. Trum ble, run out 7 B f, lb 5, w l,nb2 16 W . Bruce, c Wales, b Pierce........................................................... 128 J. E.Barrett,cDonnan, b Coninpham ...........44 G. H. S. Trott, b Con­ ingham ................................. ....................63 J. Worrall, c Youll, b Pierce..............................................................31 H. Graham, hw, b Pierce.............................................................P0Total J. Phillips, b Iredale... 12 In the Second Innings Bruce scored, b Pierce 1G, Barrett (run out) 56, Trott (not out) 70, Trumble (not out) 34; b 3, lb 4, w 4—Total, 187. BOWLING ANALYSIS. ...375 N ew S outh W alks . First Innings. Second Inning?. B. M. R. W. B. M. R. W Trumble ..., ...216 18 38 1 ... . .. 318 23 61 4 M’Leod ..., ...227 16 54 6 ... ... 498 42 18 5 Trott .......... .. 72 1 81 2 ... ... 126 3 5 1 0 Carlton . ... 54 3 19 0 ... . .. 240 13 42 0 Mitchell .... ... 38 1 16 0 ... . .. 24 0 20 0 Phillips ..., ... 66 5 12 0 ... . .. 132 12 22 0 Bruce.......... , ... 42 5 10 1 ... . .. 72 4 25 0 W orrall ..,, ... 18 0 9 0 ... . .. 54 5 6 0 Barrett ... 66 3 14 0 Barrett bow led ano-tall. V ictoria . First Innings. Coningham Callaway .. Pierce........... Jones........... Gregory ... Donnan ... Iredale B. M. R W . ... 91 2 62 2 ..156 5 71 0 ...257 4 100 6 ... 78 4 31 0 ... 12 0 8 0 ... 60 1 26 0 ...168 9 61 1 Second Innings. B. M. R. W . . 54 5 14 0 99 114 24 , 36 , 18 42 Coningham bowled 5 wides and Pierce 2 no-balls.