Cricket 1894

410 8 A WEEKLY BEOOBD OF THE GAME, SEPT. 20, 1894 was stumped would seem to suggest that he was still affecting the style of bowling not unknown in Yorkshire erieket parlance as “ donkey drops.” “ O n their own merits modest men are dumb.” At least, so wrote George Col- man the younger, in his epilogue to The Heir-at-laiv, and no doubt he was right. Perish th e thought that C r i c k e t could be capable of self-assertion. Still, facts are stubborn things. And it is a fact, that C r ic k e t remains absolutely the only paper which devotes itself during the winter months wholly and solely to the interests of the national game of English­ men. C r ic k e t readers will, I feel sure, be gratified to know that there is not, nor has there been at any time, the smallest intention of breaking the con­ tinuity which has marked the publication of th e paper throughout. C r i c k e t will, in fact, appear as it has from the first, on th e last Thursday of each month from October to March inclusive. TWELVE YEARS OF SURREY CRICKET. — (1882-1893). — It can hardly be too much to say that the brilliant form of the Surrey eleven during the past decade or so has been quite the most prominent feature of English cricket. No other county except Nottinghamshire has ever enjoyed so long a period of success; and, in our opinion, the best record which even Notts can show for any ten consecutive years is slightly inferior to Surrey’s for the decade from 1883 to 1892. During that time 102 matches were won against the other first- class counties—all of whom were met twice each year—and only 29 lost; in all matches the figures were—178 won, 44 lost. For the purposes of this article, how­ ever, we have decided to include the year mmediately preceding and thit succeed ing the period spoken of. We have in­ cluded 1882 because in that year Surrey’s rapid upward progress may be said to have fairly begun ; and 1893, because we regard the county's comparative lack of success in that year rather as a check in their career of victory than as a termina­ tion thereof. The matches played, won. lost, and drawn in each of these years were as follows. We give two lists, the first in­ cluding first-class matches only, the second all matches. MATCH BKSULrS. FIRST CLASS COUNTY MATCHES. Matches Won. Lcs\ Drawn. ALL M.VICHE S. 188i .......... 17 6 8 3 1883 .......... 24 12 7 5 1881 .......... 24 13 6 5 1835 .......... 27 17 4 6 1883 .......... 26 20 5 1 1837 .......... 27 19 3 5 1883 .......... 26 19 4 3 188) ...... 25 20 4 1 1893 .......... 25 16 4 5 1891 .......... 26 19 4 3 1892 .......... 28 23 3 2 1893 .......... 57 16 .. 30 1 Total ... 802 20) 62 40 The small number of matches drawn is a very noticeable feature here. It will'be noted, too, that as nearly as possible two- thirds of the total number of matches engaged in have been won outright. The next table gives the results of Surrey’s matches with each of the opponents she has met during the twelve years:— SUMMARY OF MATCHES. Australians Cambridge Univ. D e cb jsh iie ........... E sse x ................. Gloucestershire Hampinire « ertfordshire ... Kent ................. Lancashire .. ... Leicestershiie ... M iddlesex.......... Notts ................. Oxford Universit Scotland ........ . Some: set .......... Sussex.......... Thornton’s Engl XI...................... Warwickshire ... Yorkshire .......... Three teams only have at all held their own with Surrey during this time—the Australians, Lancashire, and Notts. The Colonists have a match to the good; Lancashire is two to the bad, Notts one. It may be interesting to note the runs and average runs per wicket made by these teams against Surrey and by Surrey against them. Surrej’a. Oppsmnts.’ "Wkte. Wkts. Opponents. Bansdo«n Aver. Rune down Aver. N otts............... 7341 393 18.44 7626 396 19.25 .Lancashire ... 6973 E86 18.06 7251 334 18 88 Australians ... 3311 186 17.89 3193 176 18.1,, In each caso Surrey has slightly the worse record, but only slightly, for the largest disparity is only about three- quarters of a run per wicket. Throughout the whole period of twelve years, except in 1882, Surrey’s average of runs per wicket in all matches was con­ siderably higher than the average of her opponents, as the following table will prove :— SUMMARY OF RUNS FOR AND AGAINST SURREY. No. of Surrey Surrey Matches. Won. Lost. D*n. ... 11 .. 4 . . 5 .. 2 ... 12 .. 8 . . 3 .. 1 ... 21 .. 19 . . 2 .. 0 ... 19 .. 15 . . 2 ... 2 ... 24 .. 16 . . 4 ... 4 ... 17 .. 15 . . 0 ... 2 ... 1 .. 1 . . 0 ... 0 ... 24 .. 14 . . 3 ... 7 ... 24 .. 11 . . 9 ... 4 ... 22 . . 17 . . 4 ... 1 ... 24 .. 17 . . 7 ... 0 ... 24 . . 10 . . 9 ... 5 r... 11 ... 6 ... 3 ... 2 ... 2 . . 2 ... 0 ... 0 ... 10 . . 8 . . 2 ... 0 ... 24 . nd . 19 .. 3 ... 2 ... 1 . . 0 .. 0 .. 1 ... 7 . . 5 .. 0 ... 2 ... 24 . . U .. 6 ... 5 ___ — — — ... 302 200 62 40 1*81 1883 1F81 1885 1886 1887 11:88 188’J 18s0 I89i 18J2 1393 Played. n li 16 1« 6 16 14 14 I t 16 16 16 Total . 7 7 8 12 12 12 10 9 11 13 7 113 4 4 3 2 1 3 3 ‘2 2 8 S u r r e y . Wkts. Yeai Runs down 1883 ... 43 9 ... 5:79 1883 ... 83*3 ... 378 lt-81 ... 7718 ... £68 18^5 ... 933» ... 368 1885 ... 7910 ... 87/ 1687 .. 100J5 ... 356 1888 ... 7790 . 335 1S89 ... 8305 ... 352 1891 ... 8319 ... 318 1891 ... 7710 .. 36 1 189J ... 9 48 ... *90 1893 ... 8339 ... 418 Average per Wkt. ... If.SI .. ... 22.07 . ... 1.0.97 . ... 26.!9 . ... kl.(J6 ., ... 27.52 ... 23.25 23.69 , ... 2 ‘.61 ., ... 21.00 ., ... *3.15 . ... 19.99 . But, some classification enthusiast may object, this includes all matches; Surrey cannot show such a record as this against the first-class counties. Not quite, it is true, but still one sufficiently good. In the 184 matches played against counties ranking as first-class during the twelve years, the figures total up to ; 8urrey ... Opponents 58.6 3 54 0 0 W icket5. 2735 .. £252 21.45 16.61 O ppo n e n ts . Wkts. Average Runs down per Wkr. .. 4715 ...250 ... 18.86 .. 7786 ...413 ... 19.85 .. 78 8 ...419 ... 1P.68 .. 7936 ...491 ... 16.16 .. 6833 ...475 ... 14.V8 . 80 3 ...497 .. 5727 ...463 .. 666) ...471 .. 7455 ...4€8______ .. 5S05 ...47L ... 12.53 .. 8118 ...534 ... 15.50 .. 8>01 ...516 ... 16.08 , 16.10 , 12.86 , 14.14 . 15.93 But it must be remembered that at least 35 of the matches not included in these 184 (those against the Australians, Cambridge, Oxford, and that v. C. I. Thornton’s England Eleven, to wit) must be reckoned as first-class; hence the increase in the average on all matches cannot be said to have been wholly due to “ a slaughter of the innocents " in the shape of the second-class counties. During the twelve years Surrey scored 300 and over no fewer than eighty-four times, thir!y-two of these scores reaching into the fifth hundred. Among them were: 698, 631, 501, and 418, v. Sussex 635, 449, and 449, v. Somerset 650, 614, and 424, v. Oxford University 650, v. Hampshire 541, 494, and 491, v. Derbyshire 507 and 425, v. Middlesex 441 and 440, v. Kent 464 and 464, v. Gloucestershire 557, v. Lancashire 543, v. Cambridge University 501, v. the Australians 455, v. Yorkshire (To be continued). GOLDSMITH’S INSTITUTE v. LONDON RIEL'S BRIGADE.—P’ ayed at New Cross on Septem er 15. L. R. B. F. M. Gill, c Fastor, b W indebank......... 6 A. L. Ryder, c Best, b Dutton ................. 5 C. W. Yourg, b Cryer 21 E. Westcotr, c Stone, b D utton................. 3 J. E. Toone, b Dutton 0 A.E Pedde)l,b Dutton 0 P. L. H. Canning, b Dutton ................. 1 W. C. Ta.ey, b Dut­ ton ........................ 0 P. E. Tacey, not out 12 F. B. Car *, b Cryer... 0 C. E. Laurence, b Dutton ................. 0 B ........................ 8 Total 56 G o ld sm ith ’ s I n stitu te . Total.. 97675 ...4346 .« 22.47 85268 ...5168 ... ,15.59 J. C. Stone, c Gil1, b Toone .................3> H. Cryer, b Toone ... 0 L.T.Kaston, b Young 5 F. 8hearman,b Yount* 0 S. R. Best, Ibw, b Young ................. 5 H. flymon, b Youn j .. 17 K. Wmlebank.b Can­ ning ........................ 3 W. H. C o o k , b Toone ... ......... A. J. Buck, b Young H. Drake, b Toone ... J. Dutton, notout ... B 10, ID 3, w 1 ... Total 4 3 7 , 0 14 93 Brockwell has not only the highest aggre­ gate in firs'o!a s matches this year, but also the best aveiage. liis figures are Times ti.heBt Inns, rot ouf. Total. Score. 45 ... 6 ... l,t?l ... 128 Aver. 38.9 NEXT ISSUE OCTOBER 25