Cricket 1894

442 O fflOMTs A WEEKL'i' BE COB© OV TH1 GAM®, NOV. 29. i894 T h e persistency o f Mr. W . Carless, the lion. sec. of the Hastings and St. Leonards Week, lia? at last been rewarded to the ■extent that the Sussex Committee have decided to play one match at Hastings in 1895 as well as in 1890. Mr. Carless’s success has, no doubt, been greatly due to the substantial argument he has be:n able to produce to the Sussex executive in the shape of a subscription of ,£80. Bumour has it that a similar application from Eastbourne is not unlikely to be made shortly. S ince the last number of C bicket appeared an old cricketer has passed away in the person of Mr. Samuel Colman, Wilby Hall, Attleborough. He was one of the eleven brothers Colman who appeared in the cricket field several times. Among their opponents were the Gentle­ men of Norfolk, over whom they were victorious. The Colmans are the only family—to the best of my knowledge— which has been able to place eleven brothers in the field. Only one of this celebrated family of fifteen still survives, Mr. Henry Colman, who is still a great enthusiast of the game in Norfolk, the native county of the Colmans. I n your issue of 24th October [writes Mr. H. C. Hobbs, of Albion Boad, Stoke Newington] you publish a list of cricket averages—sent you by a correspondent— entitled “ Thirty years of Cricket.” In the list Mr. W. W. Bead is given as below :— Comjletcd Most in liming?. Runs. an Innings. Average. 584 ... 18714 ... 333 ... 32 This does not agree with what I have com­ piled. In your issue of April ‘2(5, 1888, you published a record of Mr. Read’s doings, Irom when he started in 1873 up to the end of 1887. His record for 1888 I com­ piled from C b ic k e t , and for the years 1889 to 18(J4 inclusive, from “ Wisden.” The following is the record as I make it :— Comp’etei Innings. Runs. Most in It11Iuns. Aver. 3873 1 56 39 14.(0 lfc74 4 20 16 5.10 18/5 8 2 7 93 3l».fe7 j 876 14 19J ... 1 6 42.14 1877 It 399 ... 1.0 187 i ... 12 278 to 23.16 j 879 G 123 53 20.50 1880 ... 14 iOJ 9J 15.50 1881 29 931 ... 130 34.10 1882 34 884 ... J17 i6.l0 lfcBii ... 31 16 9 ... 168 48.t)7 1884 43 1255 ... 1-7 ‘<9.20 1S8-5 44 1880 ... 1(3 4J.76 1386 43 3845 ... 120 42.*4 18 7 ... 34 1615 ... 247 47.50 1868 39 14 4 ... 3 8 ;■6.25 It89 32 835 ... 115 23.15 3890 4(3 llt9 94 2j.41 38^1 ... 36 8ii 77 13.18 1894 ... 34 1083 ... 19,* ... 34 00 18J3 48 1377 ... 147* ... 3*02 18J4 34 844 ... 161 21.23 S89 19327 338 3U8 Of course I cannot be certain of being C3rrect, but if the liss you published on iiGih April, 1888, is correct, I am certain the rest is, as I have been very careful in compiling it. I have not got Mr. Read’s scores before 1888, so cannot check your list. If your correspondent is able, I wish he would let me know where he differs from me, as I want to keep a correct record of Mr, Read’s first-class scores. A recent number of the South African Review gives particulars of some good scoring by the Pirates against Pretoria towards the end of last montb. Among the chief rnn getters was G. Beves, who knocked the ball about to the tune of 98 runs in a total of 308. As a mere matter of information it will be of int?rest to C r ic k e i readers to know if G.B. is identical with the Old Leysian who played, if I remember rightly, once or twice for Notts and scored heavily, unless I am mistaken, down Brighton way, I f only for the reason that some thirty years have elapsed since the County was bold enough to try its strength against the pick of English players, the match between Surrey and England, which the County Committee propose to play at the Oval at the end of May, should attract general interest. But apart from the importance of the game, the fact that it ha3 been mainly arranged as a testimonial to Mr. W. W. Read in recognition of his brilliant cricket for Surrey, is bouud to add to the force of its claim on the public. The extent of Mr. Read’s services to Surrey can, of course, hardly be over­ rated. THE SEASON OF 1894. HUNDREDS IS FIRST-CL\SS MATCHES. A t el, Players of the South v. Gentlemen of tbe South, f-eptemter 17 ................. 104 A te1, Suriey v. Derbyshire, Jn y 16............... 12 1 Abel Surrey v. Middlesex, M*y 2 4 ................. 136* a i el, Gentlemen v. t-la^ers ("val), July 5 ... 168* Briggp, Lancashire v. Kent, June £8 ......... 101 Brockwell, Surrey v. Gloucesterdure, May 17 107 Brockwell, Surrey v. Yorkshire, Jane 25......... 1 3 Brockwell, Surrey v. Notts, Aug ist 6 .......... ]06* Brockwell, South v. Noith (Oval), August 2 128 B oekwell, Surrey v. E^sex June 18 ... 108 Brown (/. T.\ North v South (Oval , Aug. 2 lOi Brown (J. T.\ Yorkshire v. Gloucestershire, August 20 ... ......... ... ......... 100 Brown J. T.», Yoikshira v. Liverpool and Disirict, June 21 .......... ......... ^ ... 141 Chatterton, M. ).< j and Ground v. Caml ridge Univ. raity, May 21 ........................ 113 Dixon ( J. A ), No.ts v. Warwickshire. May ■1 160 Douglas (J.) cam l ridge University v.i'tr sex, June 21 ... ... 119 F owers Notts v. Gloucestershire, July 23 ... 102 try ( B.,i Sussex v. Giouces erehire. ^ug. 6 109 Fry ((’. B.), Oxford Univeisi y v. Sussex, June 25 ... .......... ... 119 Fry ( \ B ), Oxford University v. Cambridge University, July 2 ........................ ICO* Grice (W. >•>.,, M.C.C. & G. v. Cambridge University, May 24 ... ... 139 Grace (W. G.), M.O.C. & G. v. Cambridge Unveraity (return). une2> ................ 196 Grace (W. («.), lieLt’em n v. Piajerj (Hastings) September 10....................... 131 Gunn, Notts v. Sorm r et, July 12 ................ 121* bunn, Notts v. bom rset, August 13 .......... 101 Guttrid e, Sussex v. Oxford University, June 25 ...................... ... ... ... lit Hayward, Surrey v. Somerset^ »uly 2 6 .......... Ii3 Ha waid surrey v. Kent, August 20 ... ... 1 2 Hawke, Lord, Air. A. J. Wente’s Team v. Cairn ridge University, May 17 ... 157 Hewett (H. T.), Mr. A. J. v\ebbt’s Team v. Oxford Univ.rsity, May 2l ................. 110 Hill (J. E.), Vvarwickthire v. Notts, May 3 13S>+ Hirst, Yorkshire v. bloureatetshue August 20 IIS’* Jackson (F.S.), Yorkshire v. Sussex, M«y 24 131 Jao’cBon (F.S ), Y on srire v. Notts, July 2 ... 115 T h r e e D ozu -n O r d e h o f G o in g -in C A nns with latCBt im p rov em e n ts, tog eth er w ith Wooden Cise for hanging up in Favilion or tent, cent on receipt of2/9 by tne Manager of this Paper, 41, bt. Andrew’s Hill, Doctors’ Commons, E.O L ath&m (P.H.), Cambridge University v. M.C.O. and Ground, June 25 ................ 116 Lockwood. Suirty v. Warwickshire, July 30 15:7 Mason (J.R.), Kent v. Lancashire, June 58 ... 10i Mordauiit (G j.. Oxford University v. Suissx, June 25 ... ... ................. 103 Murdoch (W.L.), Gentlemen cf the South v. Plaj ers of tfce South, Septemter 17 ... 104 Newham (W.), Gentlemen of the South v. Players of the South, S -ptemoer 17 105 Nenham (W.), Sussex v. Lancashire, May 31 111.* O’ crien (T.O ), Middlesex v. Someiset, Aug. 6 110* Owen (fcLG.), Essex v. Oxford University, July 5........................................................... H9 Pa’airet (L.C.H.), Somerset v. Notts, July 12 111) PdJairet (u.C.B.).Someisjt v. Oxford Univer­ sity, May 24 ............................................. 181 Pougher. Leicestershire v. Essex, May 14 ... 10b* Rashleigh (Rev.W7.), Kent v. Warwickshire, August 6 ........................ ....................... 106 Read (W. W.), Suirey v. Ytrkshi e, June 25... 161 Stodd^rt (A. E.), Gentlemen of England v. Noits iBarnes's Benefit), June 18 ... 148 Sugg (F.H ), Lancabhire v. Somerset, July 23 157* Sug* (F.H.),Lancashire v. Somer.ef, July 17 105 bpurway (R.P.), Somerset v. uloucestershire, June 14 .......... ...................................... 108* Tomlin, Leicestershire v. M.C.C. and Ground, Ma) 24 ... ............................... 140 Wainwrigbt, Yorkshire v. Warwickshire, June i8 .................................................... 107 Ward ( a .), Lancashire v. Gloucestershire, July 19 ... ... ....................... - 1C9 Ward («.\ Lancashire v. Gloucestershire, Ju'y 30 ................................................. . 131 D eath of G eorge L e e .— This veteran, who for over half-a century was located and connected with Lord's Ground, died on October 29th last, at Portland Town, St. John’s Wood. He for a very great number of years [writes “ B.T.” |held a foremost position as an umpire, being regularly engaged by the M.U.C. in the great matches at Lord’s ; likewise at the Oval, and the various county grounds, as also by the Colleges, Public Schools, and the leading Metropolitan clubs, notably the St. John's Wood, the Hamp­ stead, the Kensington Park, etc., in the long, long ago, and when they were first formed. George Lee was a thorough goodumpire—lor he served an apprentice­ ship at the game, and therefore was practical, and being well versed in the laws also, he did his business with a watchfulness and rectitude that gained him the esteem and confidence of all classes of cricketers. 1 cannot but remember that George Lee watched me when in my teens 1 played my first matcn at Loid’s—and that some 15 years after­ wards 1 had the honour i f being selected to siand ‘ ‘ behind the sticks ” and officiate with him in the historical match of Surrey v. England at tne Oval—a match wherein the two Lectors—the little-’un and the big-’un—E. M* and W. G.— started the bailing, and exercised . urrey to an alarming extent. Therefore, as one of Lee’s fraternity—for umpires are apt to lake stock ol thtir surroundings on the cricket field, I can fully endorse the estimate formed by those with whom he was connected, and thus pay this tribu e to his memory. He for a long time suffered from ill-health, and hud fallen into indigent circumstances; but thanks to the kind influence of Mr. Henry Perkins, of the Marylebone Club, and also that of a prominent member, one o f the best of the very best “ all-round” cricketers of his day, the M.C.O. kindly granted hiui a weekly gratuity, winch smoothed his lauer jt-ars and kept the “ wolf from his door.” The deceased was in his 86th year, and is buried in Finchley Cemetery, Middlesex. NFXT TPSTJF. T'FCFMBF.R 2S