Cricket 1894

20 OEICKET s A WEEKLY RECORD OF IfflS GAME, fe b . 22 , 1894 CRICKET NOTCHES. By th e R ev . R . S. H o lm e s . YORKSHIRE CRICKETERS, 1833- 1894. With the exception of Tom Darnton (Durham), Lord Hawke, and possibly a few others, Yorkshire have played only home-born cricketers, though they have enriched several county teams with their own men, Lancashire (in 1893) most con­ spicuously. W . Gr. has left on record that “ quietness and unassuming manners have been characteristic ofYorkshire cricketers generally, ever since I played against them.” In their entire county history I can find but one reference to ructions ; that was in 1865, when five of the county eleven refused to play against Surrey and Kent, “ for reasons best known to them­ selves,” and were in consequence ordered off Bramall Lane Ground for that year ; the year after all differences had disap­ peared, and since then Yorkshire cricketers have thoroughly earned all the generous encomiums passed upon them as thoroughly good fellows. 1— B atsm en . Here are the m?n who represented Yorkshire in their first county match—v. Norfolk sn 1833 : \V. H. Woodhouse, E. Vincent, G. Smith, T. Marsden, G. E. Dawson, G. Rawlins, W . Lupton, P. S. Johnston, T. R. Barker, J. Dearman, and T. Deakin. Tom Marsden will be at once recognised as one of the finest batsmen ever seen in Yorkshire, the hero of the innings of 227 against Nottingham in 1826, though Barker and W . Clarke played for the Midland town. Dearman is best remembered by his plucky single wicket matches against Alfred Mynn in 1838; Dearman weighed 10 ttone, Mynn 18 or 19. The little man of 5 feet 4 inches had not the ghost of a chance against the famous Kentish giant, who stood well over six feet. The backbone of Yorkshire cricket has been the professionals; for amateurs of note have been played. Before 1861, we come across such names as Messrs. Barker, Skelton, Wake, and Ellison, the last the president of the County Club from its formation. Since 1861, the brothers Prest, C. M. Sharpe, Brian Waud, and E. Lumb have done fairly well as amateurs. Whilst in the person of Lord Hawke, P. S. Jackson, and Ernest Smith, Yorkshire have to-day a stronger amateur contingent than ever before. But Yorkshire owes everything to i s “ pros ” ; so let us have a good look at the work they have done : 1.—T h e L eading B atsm kn . Buns. Inns. Ater. G. Ar.deraon ... 1*51 to 1867 .. 891 .. 40 ... 2i.3 R .lddifon 185' to 1876 .... £087 ..,. 104 ... 19.8 J. Rowbotham 3861 to 1875 ... 2776 ... 164 ... 16.9 E. Lcckwood... 1868 to l fc84 7813 .. 337 ... 23.3 A. Greenwood 1S71 to I860 ... 5*739 ... 147 ... 38.7 L. flail .......... 1873 to 1892 ... 31465 ... 481 ... 23.8 G. Ulyett 1873 to 18P3 ... 15775 ... 647 ... 24.3 W. Bates......... 1877 to 1887 ... 66«5 ... 3 2 . .. 20.7 Lord Hawke ... 1882 to 1893 ... 4-297 ... 247 ... 37.1 R. Peel .......... 11-82 to 1893 ... 7486 ... 373 ... 20.0 F. le e ......... 1J-84 to 1890 ... 4424 J95 ... 22.6 E. Wainwiipht 1888 to 1893 .... 4447 .. 239 ... 39.0 F. S. Jackson... 1890 to 1893 .. 855 * 28 . .. 22.5 2 — C h ie f B atsm an e a ch ye a r . 1861 G. Anderson 1878 G. Ulyett 1862 G. Anderson 1879 G. Ulyett 1863 G. Anderson 1880 G. Ulyett 1864 G. Anderson 1681 G. Ulyett 1865 G. Atkinson 18*2 G. Ulyett 1866 J. Rowbotham 3883 L. Hall 1867 J. Thewlis 3884 L. Hell 1868 J. Thewlis 3885 G. Ulyett 1869 R. Iddison 1886 L. Hall 1870 R. Iddison 3887 L. Hall 1871 G. Freeman 1888 F. Lee 1872 E. Lockwood 1889 R. Peel 1873 J. Rowbotham 1890 Lord Hawke 1874 J. Rowbotham 1891 G. Ulyett 1875 E. Lockwood 1892 J. Wardall 1876 E. Lockwood 1893 F. S. Jackson 1877 A. Greenwood N .B .— In 1867, W . Smith’s average was 76, but he had only two completed innings ; in 1888, Wormald’s average was 33, for three innings; in 1890, G. P. Harrison's average was 28 for 2 similar innings. Perhaps in 1893, A. Sellers with 45 completed innings, average 23.S, should take F. S. Jackson’s place, as he only completed 11 innings. Highest aggregate in any year—L. Hall, 1,400 runs in 1887 ; highest average in any year— L. Hall, 43.7 in 1887. The first match against Kent was played in 1849, the second in 1862; John Berry alone played in both matches. So in the first two Surrey matches, played in 1851 andl861, John Berry and G. Ander­ son played. Ulyett has headed the batting averages in seven different years; he has the largest iggregate, and the highest average, though his bat work ranks below that done for Notts by R. Daft, A Shrewsbury, and W . Gunn (see C r ic k e t , March 23rd, 1893) ; and as we shall see when dealing with Surrey cricket, it cannot compare with the averages of the leading Surrey batsmen. Later on we shall find that Yorkshire’s pre-eminence has been with the ball, rather than the bat 3. C en tu rie s S cored F or Y o rk sh ir e . 18 8 Thewlis .. v. Surrey................. 1C8 1869 Rowbotham .. v. Surrey................. l'la 1869 Lockwood ... .. v. Surrey................ 103a 1869 Rowbotham .. v. Cambridgeshire 100 3859 Iddison .. V. Cambridgeshire 112 1872 Lockwood ... .. v. Surrey................. 121 3873 Rowbotham .. v. Surrey................. 113 3873 Emmett .. v. Gloucestershire 1 4 1878 U*yett.............. .. v. Scotland .......... 307 3878 B a te s ............... .. V. N o tts ................. 102 3878 U lyett................. v. Gloucestershire 109a 1878 Lockwood ... .. V. Gloucestershire 107a 3879 Bates .......... .. v. Lancashire 118 1880 U lyett.............. .. V. Surrey................. 141 1881 U lyett.............. .. V. Surrey................ 112a 1881 Lockwood ... .. v. Surrey................. 1<9a 1881 Bates .......... .. v. Kent ................. ]08 1882 U lyett.............. .. v. Surrey............... 110 1882 Lockwood ... . .. V. 1 Zingari .......... 304* 1883 Hall .............. .. v. Su&sex................ 324* 1883 Lockwood ... .. v. Kent ................. 108 1884 Pall ............... .. V. Camb. Univ ... 336a 1884 Bates .............. .. v. Camb. Univ. ... 333a 3884 flrimshaw ... .. v. Camb. Univ. ... 115a 3884 U lyett.............. .. v. M.C.C.................. 146* 3881 Bates .............. .. v. Notts ................. 116 3884 Hall ............... .. V. Kent ................. 100 1884 Hall .............. .. V. Sussex .......... 128* 1884 Hall ............... .. V. M iddlesex......... 135a 1884 Ulyett............... . v. Middlesex.......... 107a 1885 Grimshaw ... .. v. Camb. Univ. i;9* 3885 Grimshaw ... .. v. N o tts................. 114a 1885 Lee................. .. v. N otts................. 101a 1886 Bates .......... .. v. Cheshire .......... 101 18S6 Bates .......... .. V. Derbyshire 106a 1836 Grimshaw ... .. v . Derbyshire......... al2i* 1886 Lord Hawke .. V. Sussex............... 144 1886 bates .............. .. V. Sussex................. 136 1887 Lord Hawke . .. V. Lancashire 125 1887 UJyett............... .. V. Sussex............... 111* 1887 le e ................. .. v. Cheshire .......... 206 1887 U lyett.......... .. V. Derbyshire 199* 1887 Hall ............... .. V. Lancashire 160a 1887 Lee .. .......... .. v. Lancashire 165a 1387 U lyett.............. .. v. Kent ................. 324a 1887 Hall ............... . v. Kent ................. 110a 1887 Lee................. .. V. Kent ................. 139a 1887 U lyett................. v. Gloucestershire 104 1887 B a te s ............... .. V. Derbyshire........ 103 1887 Hall ............... .. V. Warwickshire ... 336 1887 Lee ................. v. Cheshire .......... 344 1888 Hall ............... .. V. Gloucestershire 3-29* 1888 Wainwright .. V. Australians 305 1889 Peel ............... . V. Middlesex.......... 358 1889 Peel ............... . v. Leicestershire ... 145* 1889 W a d e ............... .. V. Leicestershire... 103* 1890 U lyett.............. . v. Gloucestershire 107 1890 Moorhouse... . . V. M.C.C.................. 105 1890 Brown............... . v. Staffordshire ... 135* 1891 Lord Hawke . . V. Somersetshire .. 126 1891 U lyett.............. . v. Somersetshire... 1)8 1891 U lyett............... . V. Sussex................. 102a 1891 Peel .............. . v. Sussex............... 12:a 1891 Hall ............... . v. Durham .......... 102 1892 Wainwright .. V. Sussex................ 304 1892 Wardall ... .. V. Gloucestershire 305 1892 R. W. Frank . . V. Staffordshire ... 363 189J Peel ................. v. Leicestershire... a226* 1892 Wainwright . V. Leicestershire .. 322 a 18)2 Wardall ... . . V. Durham .......... 307 a 1892 Wainwright . V. Durham .......... 3G7a 3892 U lyett.............. . V. Middlesex.......... lit 3893 Wardall ... . . v. Gloucestershire 116 I j -93 A. Sellers ... .. v. Midd esex.......... 105 3833 A. Sellers ... . . v. Somersetshire ... 103 3893 F. S. Jackson . . V. M.C.C................... HI* 1893 Peel ............... . V. Leicestershire... 121 3893 Peel .............. .. V. Warwickshire ... 330* 3893 Wardall ... .. V. Durham .......... 1 8 79 centuries altogether ; of these Ulyett claims 15, Hall 10, Bates 9, Peel and Lockwood 6 each. The (a) denotes that the centuries were scored in the same innings. On two occasions have Yorkshire scored 3 centuries in the same innings, in 1884 and 1887 ; in 1887, the century scorers were the first three batsmen in. P er contra, 62 centuries have been scored by their opponents ; here is a com­ plete list of CENTURIES SCORED AGAINST YORKSHIRE. 834 Fuller Pilch .. for N orfolk ................ 153* 855 J. W isdea........ for Sussex .......... .. 148 864 H. Jupp ........ for Surrey ................ 110 8^5 T. Hayward for All-England........ 112a 8-55 R. Carpenter ... for All England......... 134a 874 W. G. Grace ... for M.C.C.................... 101 872 W. G. Grace .. for Gloucestershire .. 150 8'3 R. Daft .. ... for Notts ................ 361 873 G. F. Grace ... for Gloucestershire .. 365k 874 H .Jupp .......... for Surrey ................ 30^* 874 W. G. Grace ... for Gloucestershire .. 1*7 874 W. G. Grace ... for Gloucestershire .. 167 875 W. G. Grace ... for Gloucestershire .. 331 876 W. G. Grace ... for Gloucestershire .. a338* 876 W. O. Moberly for Gloucestershire .. 302a 876 A. Shrewsbury for Notts ................ 338 877 W. W, Read ... for Surrey ................ 340 878 J. Selby .......... for Notts ............... 307 878 A. J. Webbe for I Zingari ......... 300 88J H. Jupp ........ for Surrey ................ 1 7* 8SI A. G. Steel for M.C.C..................... 306* 8S4 W.Newfcam for Sussex ............... 100 884 F.A.Mackinnon for K en t...................... 302 885 W. Gunn .......... for M.C.C...................... 23 a 885 W. Barnes ... for M.C.C..................... al40* 885 G. M. Kemp ... for L ancashire......... 309 885 W. G. Grace ... for Gloucestershire .. 332 8S5 W. Newham for Sussex ... 30L 88 i G. M. Kemp for Cambridge Univ 103 ^86 G. M. Kemp ... for Cambridge Univ 125 8S6 C. W ilson.......... for Kent........................ 12 a 836 G. G. Hearne ... for Kent....................... 1.7a 887 W. Robinson ... for Lancashire......... In * 887 A. J. Webbe ... for Middlesex ......... 243* 837 F. Hearne for K en t..................... 1»4 f-87 W. G. Grace ... for Gloucestershire .. 183* 887 F. Thomas for Cambridge Univ 114 888 W. W. Read ... for Surrey ................ 103 888 M. Read ... ... for Surrey .......... .. 303a 888 K. J. Key ... ... for Surrey ................ 108a 888 W. G. Grace ... for Gloucestershire .. 3.8a 888 W. G. Grace ... for Gloucestershiie ... 353a 888 G. J. Bonnor ... for Australians......... 335 889 T. C. O’Brien ... for Middlesex ......... 300* 889 W. Newham ... for Sus-ex ................ 310 889 R ichards.......... for Warwickshire 320* 890 W. Lockwood ... for Surrey ............... 302 890 J. Cranston for Gloucestershire .. 301 891 w. Barnes for Notts ................ 304 891 M. Read .......... for Surrey ................ 135 891 W. Chatterton for D erbyshire......... 1C6