Cricket 1894

p l € i n 3% ®af?. imrnmni CO /?i j j p r c 'j ’s w f iK ^ = 8 e l c z _ 3 -H e 6 — e::: idM c z ezDfiefic . ^ “ Together joined in cricket’s manly toil.”— Byron, B g'BtM edfor'?ranBm °won?;JrIoacl THURSDAY, N 0 \ . 2 9 , 1 8 9 4 . P R IC E 2d. TWELVE YEARS OF SURREY CRICKET. (1882-1893). Continued from C ricket, September 20th . (Page 410). N otts is the only first- class county against which Surrey has not scored at least one innings of 400 during the lime. And Notts is the only county which has scored an innings of 500 against Surrey during the twelve years ; though the Midland County’s 501 was made in 1882, the year which we have included more for the sake of contrast than because it can be said to belong to Surrey’s time of triumphs. The only other scores of 400 were Notts’ 405, Lancashire’s 424, and Gloucestershire’s 4 8 4. There were nineteen other scores of 300 and over—23 in all, against Surrey’s 84. Neither Sussex nor Yorkshire has made an innings of 300 against Surrey since be­ fore 1882. The contrast is almost as great when one comes to liok at the individual big scores. Eighty - nine centuries were made for Surrey, thirty - eight against. A list will be found after the individual batting averages, to which we shall come when the events of the twelve years have been briefly run through. Surrey’s innings closed for less than three figures on 49 occasions. Her opponents were put out for such scores 139 times. Surrey won 83 matches in an innings; her opponents but 9. Enough has now been adduced in the way of figures. After all, the most rabid hater of Surrey can hardly deny that from 1887 to 1892 her team was, on the whole, the most powerful and consistent possessed by any great county, and that for some years before the earlier date it was at least a good second to that of Notting­ hamshire. And now to the matches. Space does not allow of our going greatly into details, but we shall endeavour to give as briefly as possible a clear idea of the great doings of each season, II. It cannot be said that Surrey began the season of 1882 with especially bright prospects. In the previous year ten matches had been lost and only four won, in spite of the fact that Mr. W . W. Read had been able to play regularly, in­ stead of only occasionally, as in former years, and had batted wonderfully well. There seemed no valid reason for anticipat­ ing a decided improve­ ment in 1882. Three of the cracks of other days— Jnpp, Dick Humphrey, and Southerton, good men and true all—had dropped out of the team during the last few years; and their W . H. LOCKWOOD (Surrey). F rom a photograph by Hawkins <(■ Co. of Brighton,