Cricket 1893

478 ■OKICKET’s- A WEEKLY RECOED OF THE GAMB: scores over 800 runs, Harrismith v. Newcastle* Cape Colony, 853 runs, in 1890. This is all bunkum. Newcastle (Natal) should have played Harrismith (Orange Free State), but the wet weather stopped them, and I suppose someone thought it a good chance of stuffing the usually badly-informed correspondent of a Natal paper, from which you obtained the information, 1 presume. Further than this, there never were batsmen in either of these teams capable of making such a score against ordinary bowling. Cricket statisticians, kindly note. C o n s k e r in g that Turner was never quite himself, owing at the outset to the ‘ •flu,” which seems to have engendered something like chronic rheumatism later on, C r ic k e t readers will easily understand his admission that he never enjoyed a tour less. Still, without taking any notice of his statements relative to the disagree­ ments among the team, his views on their cricket will be read with interest, “ W e had a deal of bad luck at the start. I was ill, and some of the leading batsmen never got going. Bruce particularly failed, being got rid of by the first ball no less than five times. Then the fielding was often very bad, and nothing but missing catches lost two or three important matches. Stoddart in the second England match was missed five times, and in the first match against England at Lord’s very bad blunders were made. In the se co n d in n iD g s, for instance, Trott missed Shrewsbury before he had scored. Trott must have been asleep, for it was an easy chance. Graham missed easy chances, although he made some wonderful catches; but then every one missed them. There is no doubt that when all the good wickets were experienced we wanted a fast bowler—one such as Richardson. He was positively dangerous on some wickets. W ith no men in the long-field, but with them packed behind the wicket, Richardson would simply bowl at the batsmen, and with the ball flying about one’s head cricket was not worth playing to be a batsman. George Giffen, from whom we expected so much, could never look at Richardson. Graham was often lucky in having chances missed off him, but he played some splendid innings, and so d id Gregory, particularly against the fast bowlers. As to Walter Giffen, sometimes he batted fairly well, but his fielding was weak, and so was Coningham’s. Taking us for all in all we did not do as well as we should have. They often ma3e too many runs for us, and sometimes when we did have a chance our batting failed miserablv. The innings for 60 against Kent and the 91 against England were incomprehensible.” To follow Australians and Blackham. So far the followingmatches have been arranged for the tour of the Gentlemen of Philadelphia in England next summer : May 31—Portsmouth, v. United Services June 4 —Cambridge, v. Cambridge University June 7—Oxford, v. Oxford University June 11—Brighton, v. Sussex. June 18—Lord’ s, v. Lord Hawke's Team June 25—Bristol, v. Gloucestershire June 28—Taunton, v. Somerset July 12—Portsmouth,v.Oxford aud Cambridge July 19—Lord’s, v. Middlesex Two •dates have yet to he arranged with the Gentlemen of Ireland. James W o otton has chosen the Surrey match at Catford Bridge, on July 23 and two following days, for his benefit, the Kent com­ mittee having given him the choice of any fixture outside the Canterbury Week. THE PROGRAMME FOR 1894. According to the custom which has prevailed for several years now, the County Secretaries met at Lord’s on the second day of the Cattle Show week (Tuesday, December 5), to arrange the principal fixtures for next year. Mr. H. Perkins, the Secretary of the Maryle- bone C.C., presided, and, in addition to several well known cricketers, the following couuties were represented:—Messrs. V. E. Walker aud A. E. Stoddart, Middlesex ; George Marsham, F. Marchant, W. H. Patter­ son, and A J. Lancaster, K en t; C. W. Alcock, K. J. Key, and VV. W. Head, Surrey ; H. T. Hewett, S. M. J. Woods, and T. Spencer, Somerset; J. M’Laren, S. H. Swire, and E. B. Rowley, Lancashire; E. M. Grace, Gloucestershire ; Lord Hawke, Messrs M. J. Ellison aud J. B. Wostinholm, York­ shire; W. H. C. Oates, W. E. Dei.ison, and K. Browne, Notts; W . Newham, H. F. de Paravicini, and W. Keen, Sussex; C. E. Green, O. R. Borrodaile, and C. M. Tebbut, Essex ; Dr. R. Bencraft, Hampshire; R. H. Mallett, Durham ; Arthur Wilson, W. B. Dela- combe, and D. F. E. Leek, Derbyshire; T. Bur- dett and J. Bonuer,Leicestershire ; J. Douglas, Cambridge University ; W. Ansell,H. W. Bain­ bridge, and G. H. Cartland, Warwickshire; H. E. Crawley and C. Pigg, Hertfordshire; E. G. Buxton, Norfolk ; F. Waters, Cambridgeshire; H M. Turner and H, Tubb, Oxfordshire ; J. Horner, H. Thornber, J. Healing, and W. F. Brown, Bedfordshire ; E. J. Sanders, Devon­ shire ; P. H. Foley, Worcestershire; F. T. Higgins and G. U. Ward, Buckinghamshire; E. Roper, Liverpool and D istrict; and R. J. Crawford, Northumberland, Before the regular business was commenced, Dr. Ander­ son. who had been, during a visit to England, interviewing some of the leading clubs, with a view to secure their good offices to send out a team of English Amateurs for a tour in the West Indies, extended to the cricketers of England, through the meeting, the invitation with which he had been en­ trusted, from the leading clubs of the West Indies (Barbadoes, Jamaica, British Guiana, Trinidad, and the Leeward Islands) to send out a team of amateurs to play a series of matches in these colonies. He could assure them that though they were unable to ask such a team to come altogether as their guests, the visitors would meet with the heartiest welcome that could possibly be extended to an eleven of cricketers, and with an entertain­ ment that certainly would not disappoint any expectations that might be formed of it. He could promise them good grounds to play upon, and one of the most delightful tours that could possibly be arranged. The tour would last three months, or at the most three months and a half, and could be concluded before the beginning of the season at home. The inclusive expense would be from 110 to 120 guineas, and he would be a little surprised if amongst the many English cricketers there were not a few who would be willing to spend their money on an enjoyable tour. Mr Ellison (Yorkshire) introduced the sub­ ject of the classification of counties, and moved the following resolution :—“ That for the purposes of classification there should be no distinction drawn between counties who play out and home three-day matches with not less than six other counties.” He thought such a motion, if adopted, would do away with that very invidious distinction which had existed for some years, aud would also abolish that hated word “ championship,” which he thought the whole of the cricket world would be glad to get rid of. Mr. Wilson (Derbyshire) seconded the resolution. Exception was taken to the proposi­ tion on the ground that the representatives present had not had any opportunity of con­ sulting their several committees, and it was subsequently withdrawn on the understanding that the Yorkshire Committee would take the opinions of the different county clubs on the question for submission to another meeting in January. A suggestion that the County Cricket Council should be revived to deal with this, as well as other matters affecting County Cricket was favourably received. Mr. C. W. Alcock reported that the Gentle­ men of Philadelphia proposed to visit England in 1894. The tour would not in any way inter­ fere with the County fixtures. The Phila­ delphians would not play any representative matches, and would not disorganise their fixtures. He reminded the meetiug that previous teams from Philadelphia had never taken a penny of their expenses, and that the proceeds of the last tour were handed to the ‘ ’ricketers’ Fund. He thought the Phila­ delphians were entitled to every consideration from English cricketers, and would, no doubt, receive it. It was proposed to play matches with the following eleveas :—United Services, Sussex, Oxford University, Cam­ bridge University, Gentlemen of Eugland, Middlesex, Gloucestershire, Somerset, Oxford and Cambridge Past and Present, Gentlemen of Ireland, and Lord Hawke’s American team. It had been also understood that the South African clubs intended sending over a team to this country next summer, but Mr. Alcock s;a»ed, in reply to the Chairman, that he had as yet not received the necessary instructions to proceed with the programme. The Committee of the Notts County C.C. had taken the sense of the Counties on the question of giving a Captain additional i ower to close his innings at two o’clock on the second day of a match, and if not then not until the third day, with a view to discussion at the meeting. It was not, however, perse­ vered with, as the general opinion was unfavourable. General regret was expressed at the absence of W. G. Gr ce, who was unable to attend the meeting owing to illness. The following was the programme arranged. MAY. 2 —Lord’s, M.C.C Anniversary Meeting and Dinner 2—Lord’s, M.C.C. and Ground v. Sussex 3—Nottingham, Notts v. Warwickshire 7—Lord’s, M.C.C. and Ground v. Notts 7—Oval, Surrey v. Warwickshi e ID—Lord’s, M.C.C. and Ground v. Lancashire 10—Oval, Surrey v. Derbyshire 10—Cambridge, Cambridge University v. Mr. C. I. Thornton’s Kngland XL. 14—(Whit Monday)—Lord’s, Middlesex v. Somerset (Sherwin’s benefit) 14-Birmingham, Warwickshire v. Kent 14—Brighton, Sussex v. Gloucestershire 14—Nottingham, Notts v. Surrey 14—Manchester, Lancashire v. Yorkshire (Briggs’ Benefit) 14—Soutlnmpton, Hampshire v. Derbyshire 14—Leyton, Essex v. Leicestershiie 14—Oval, Surrey 2 ) v. Bedfordshire 17—Lord’s, M.C.C. and Ground v. Derbyshire 17 - Manchester, Lancashire v. Kent 17—Oval, Surrey v. Gloucestershire 17—Leicester, Leicestershire v. Yorkshire 17—Cambridge, Cambridge University v. Mr. A. J. Webte’s Gentlemen of England Team 17—Brighton, Sussex v. Somerset 21—Lord’s, M.C.C. and Grouid v. Kent 21—Cambridge, Cambridge University v. Yorkshire 21—Oxford, Oxford University v. -‘Omerset 2 1 —Birmingham, Warwickshire v. Notts 24—Oval, Surrey v. Midd eeex 21—Oxford, Oxford University v. Mr. A. J. Webbe’s Gentlemen of England ream 24—Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. v. 'A. C.C. & G 24—Brighton, Sussex v. Yorkshire 28—Lord’f, Middlesex v. Gloucestershire 28 - Nottingham, Notts v. Yorkshire 28—Leicester, Leicestershire v. Cheshire 28—Leyton, Essex v. Warwickshire 31—Lord’s, Middlesex v. Yorkshire 31—Bristol, Gloucestershire v. Notts 31—Oval, Surrey v. Cambridge University 31—Manchester, Lancashire v. Sussex 31 -Leyton, Essex v. Kent (provisional) JUNE 4—Bradford, Yorkshire v. Kent 4—Nottingham, Notts v. Sussex 4—Oxford, Oxford University v. Lancashire 4—Birmingham, Warwickshire v. Leicestershire 7—Cambridge. Cambridge University v. Surrey 7—Dewsbury, Yorkshire v. Sussex 7 —Liverpool, Lancashire v. Middlesex 7—Nottingham, Notts v. Leicestershire (pro­ visional)