Cricket 1894

80G (OBICKEts A WEEKLt EECORD OB’ THE GAME* AUG. 9, 1894 Rugby v. Marlborough in the 1867 match, the whole ten falling to his right hand in the secondinnings. As toYardley,I never regretted anything more in cricket tban h:s early retirement from the game, for I have watched him bat with perhaps greater pleasure than any other batsman in the last 35 years, with the exception of W. G. Most masterly, best' summarizes his style. Cne is glad to know that his pen is almost as busy in tbeinterests of cricket as his bat ones was, and onehopes he will score as heavily as in the days of old. Another score—55—from Shrewsbury’s bat makes one hopeful of seeing him again this season help his county, especially in this Bank Holiday match at the Oval which used to be the match of the season. The decision of the members of the Surrey Club respecting football was anticipated, I suspect, by the authorities. I have no doubt that the enor­ mous membership at the Ovalhas beenpartly owing to the fact that the ground was thrown open for sport all the year round. There is no such value for your money—only a guinea— to be had anywhere else. But tbe cricket enclosure must be jealously guarded, the Oval being a cricket, and not a football ground. When the matter was first mooted, it occurred tome that there might be sundry objections raised by the Duchy of Cornwall to the shutting of their ground for some seven months of the year. That is settled now, and I hope at some time to witness another Association Final on the dear old ground, though I had rather see one game of cricket to ten of football, tbe latter having almost ceased to be a pure and simple sport to-day. Last week's cricket is worth a careful study if only because Warwickshire, Leices­ tershire, and Derbyshire more than held their own against their superiors in rank, but in little else. The result was pre­ eminently satisfactory to all who share my sentiments in this direction. Thus, Derbyshire, pitted against Yorkshire, and losing the toss, won the match with ridiculous ease. The wicket was said to have been over-watered; that’s the excuse for the champions’ defeat; then first knock should have been of considerable advautage; what use did Yorkshire make of it? Innings of 81 and 50 ! As Mitchell's scores of late have taken the “ Irishman’s rise,” witness 75 and 92 against Yorkshire very early on—thence by a descending scale to 2 and 0 against Gloucestershire, the spectacles last week were quite in the eternal fitness. One was glad that Hulme had recovered from a fit of the sulks that kept him out of the Surrey match, for he could scarcely have been spared at Bramall Lane ; he was the highest scorer in the match (35 for once out), and his bowling in the second innings stuck up all his opponents. Nine wickets for 27 runs formed a pretty companion picture to David­ son’s eight for 33 in the first hands. What luck there was did not fall to Derbyshire's share; Yorkshire were simply out-played at every point of the game, and one spectator at least was happy on Tuesday evening. By Wednesday my barometer had risen still higher. Notts decisively thrashed by Leicestershire, though the latter batted one short in the last innings, and lost the services of their chief bowlei—Pougber—from start to finish, who is at the very top of all bowlers up to date. So that more than counter-balanced the luck in choice of innings. But Woodcock rose to the occasion, taking no less than fifteen wickets for nine runs apiece, the captain doing his share (89) of the second total—263. Flowers alone—50 and 38—left his mark on tbe Notts’ score- sheet, and Leicestershire beat Notts by 107 runs, just as they recently set Surreywonder­ ing why they could not score 35 more runs than they actually did. Warwickshire’s turn next; no point to their credit (they really did not want it), but putting both their matches last week into the scales, you will find that they did not kick the beam. Smarting from their recent defeats at Leicester and Catford Bridge, Surrey could scarcely afford to lose the return match even with a second-rater. No absentees this time, for an effortwas required to wipe out the recollection of Warwick­ shire’s seven-wickets’ victory on the Surrey ground in the early days of May. The loss of the toss further reduced the Midlanders’ chances. Surrey quickly set to work, and stopping in rather more than a day, ran up a great innings of 384 Another century scorer. There is no end of them in Surrey. Like Hayward, whose splendid scoring against Kent I quite forgot to notice last week, Lockwood (127) entered the charmed circle for the first time this year. As in several matches played at the back end of the week, Warwickshire opened each inDings in rare form—in the first reaching 100 with only two wickets gone, in the second getting to 111 without losing one ; and one was pre­ pared for heavier aggregates than 151 and 228. Bainbridge played a capital double—50 and 58—whilst the elder Quaife by his three efforts during the week, 26, 58, 77, seems at last to be returning to the form which iu 1889 secured him a place in the Players’ team. Key managed his bowling with far greater judgment than against Somerset; it was ridiculous, out of a total of only 260, that Lockwood’s bowling should yield 102 runs for one wicket, when Surrey have plenty of good changes. Has Richardson’s sprain returned? Or is he afraid to run any risks? Anyhow, he is just now no longer the terror to batsmen he was. “ But all very fine,” interposes the cynic, “ but what of Leicestershire's performanceat Old Trafford ? ” What, indeed ! They were not beaten, may be emphatically stated. That they would have been but for etc., etc., etc. You have first innings on a wet wicket, wet hut easy for batting, and correspondingly difficult for bowling, and Lancashire’s 228 for three wickets is not surpassingly wonderful. Decidedly creditable it was under any condi­ tions, and one rejoices that the County Pala­ tine is just at present quite a match for all­ comers. But let the floods descend with a dogged presistency for the better part of two days, as they can in Manchester, then put the ablest eleven in the world on an unplay­ able wicket against Briggs and Mold, and nine wickets for 69 runs can scarcely rank among the curiosities of cricket. Of course under the circumstances Lancashire would have won but for “ time.” But would not Warwickshire have notched a point against Gloucestershire, though the latter went in first? So the weekwas not quitedisastrous to the Midlanders, who have won morematches than they have lost against their greatest rivals. W.G. in a measure atoned at Bir­ mingham for his double failure against Lan­ cashire, and E. M. (44 not out) played the best innings that has come from his bat all the year. The same might almost be said of the brothers Quaife. For the first time for several matches W.G, went on to bowl, but neither he nor Ferris got a wicket. Roberts—5 for 49—as usual worked hard. I don’t know what is the cause, it may be constitutional, or the result of over-anxiety, but Roberts looks a middle-aged man. At Leeds my neighbours were guessing his age; not a soul put him down at a day under 45 years; when I told them he was born in April, 1862, everybody thought I was crack­ ing one more joke. Things are getting so mixed that we shall soon have to establish a Star-Chamber in cricket. Let me seeI how do matters stand? ^Kent have b?atenLancashire twice; Somer­ setshire beat Kent twice. Therefore—Lan­ cashire have demolished Somersetshire in both matches. Q.E.D. And who beat Lan­ cashire by fivewickets weeks ago ? Answer—■ Derbyshire. Never mind, such anomalies defy analysis. We have to deal with facts. And one fact worth mentioning is Somersetshire’s victories over Kent and Sussex in one and the same week, and when defeat seemed more than probable at certain stages of both games. Thus, against Kent, they followed on with 110 runs to the bad—just one-half Kent’s total. This they toppedby 10 runs in the second attempt: and then Kent, on an utterly rotten wicket, got no further than 83, or a deficit of 37 runs. Yet Marchant and Kemp scored 49 whilst together, so that one is compelled to lay the responsibility for this defeat on something else than the pitch. Marchant and Alec Hearne (118 for the partnership) can claim to have been the heroes with the bat; and the latter was credited with a bowling gem— 5 overs, 0 runs, 4 wickets. Against Sussex there was another surprise—a series, indeed. On Friday night Sussex seemed to he likely to score their third successive win ; and as Bean and Marlow scored no less than 82 before separation, Sussex’s total of 131 is ludicrous. But did not their opponents crump up in much the same way, scoring 110 for two wickets, andthe rest adding 56 only ? In Sussex’s first venture the last five wickets put on only 11 runs. The elder Palairet had a capital week with two innings above 50 runs apiece, for the weather has been taking all the heart out of batsmen. And jet nothing out of the common has been done by bowlers, if we except the Derbyshire men when Yorkshire went to pieces, Woodcock's fifteen v. Notts, and Mold’s thirteen for 123 at the cost of Glouces­ tershire. True, Tyler got eleven for 87 against Sussex ; Humphreys, nine for 129 in the same match; whilst Briggs wound up the week with six for 27 against Leicester­ shire. But as good as any, remembering that the wicket was protected by tarpaulin, was Lockwood’s eight for 107 in Wood’s benefit match at the Oval. It was the 18th match Surrey have, since 1845, set aside for their worthiest men, and like the matches played for the benefit of Mortlock, Stephenson, Griffith, Jupp, South­ erton, Pooley, and the Humphreys, Wood’s match bore the old familiar title of North v. South. It may be remarked that Lancashire andYorkshire give theirmen thechoiceof any match, and in consequence the most attrac­ tive county match figures for their benefit. Wood has done almost eleven years’ work for Surrey, and has proved a worthy successor to Lockyer and Pooley, though one must class him belowthese pastmasters “ behind." Lockyer many still call the greatest stumper of all time, and Pooley’s superior to slow bowling has yet to arrive. But here are their respective performances;— L o ck y e r............................... stum ped 68 cau gh t 181 P ooley ...................... stam ped 252 cau gh t 347 W ood (up to close of 1893) stum ped 72 caught 304 Pooley enjoys thedistinct'on of a record in first-class cricket, by taking twelve Sussex men behind in 1868. The disproportion between the two columns appended to Wood’s name may be easily explained : the Surrey bowling of late has been fast, and he has mostly stood back to it. Three full days’ cricket; an aggregate of just under 1100 runs: two individual score> of over 100 runs; and a draw after all when the South, with seven wickets in hand, wanted only 56 to win. But as long as Wood had a well-decorated list of subscriptions, and the general public rolled up in troops, who caren about the result ? It is miw to my interest, and my readoi’3, to be off to Brad­ ford, and to put an end to this chatter,