Cricket 1895

164 CRICKET A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. M ay 30, 1895. ings of 520 eclipses Yorkshire’s 360 and 109 for two wickets; and further, Surrey dis­ missed Warwickshire for 123 and 174, whilst Yorkshire had far more trouble—198 and 271. And the conditions were fairly similar—a perfect wicket and searching cold in both matches. I am confidently expecting a big .fight at Bradford next month when Surrey come into these parts. The match under notice showed batsmen off to advantage, whilst bowlers like Peel and Wainwright were almost harmless. Law (89 and 42), the elder Quaife (74), Lilley (23 and 50), stood out prominently among the Midlanders; whilst his Lordship (79), Moorhouse (74), and Hirst (64), were the best of the Tykes until the last stage was reached, when Brown, whose first contribution wras 44, rattled up 65 runs in 53 minutes, and fairly roused the enthusiasm of the crowd by so largely aiding Yorkshire to win by eight wickets within six minutes of time. The latest recruit—Charlesworth, of Hull—though at present scarcely a “ classy” bat, is a dangerous hitter and on hard wickets is certain to be very useful. Moorhouse, the much-tried, at last seems to be justifying the forbearance and confidence of his committee, whilst Hirst, like Ulyett before him, tried at first as a bowler, looks as if he would train on into a first-rate batsman ; at least that is his fixed ambition. Would it not be wise on the part of his skipper to move him up in the order of going-in? Bowlers who can bat, especially if fast bowlers, ought to have a good rest between their different departments of work ; if you win the toss, put your fast bowler in early on ; but if you lose the toss, drop him three or more places. I see that exception has been taken to the refusal on the part of Yorkshire to release Brown and Peel from the match at Oxford to help England at the Oval. But why should they ? England doesn’t need them, but Yorkshire may. Besides, aren’t Oxford to be considered? This is, perhaps, the most popular match the Dark Blues w'ill play at home, and in consequence Brown, not to mention Peel, is a sort of trump card. It is sc easy to be generous with other folk’s property, which in this case happens to be first-class cricketers. Cambridge University did not have a great week, unless they have a penchant for fielding. The Gentlemen waltzed round them, whilst Surrey literally jumped on them. Roberts, of Gloucestershire, was the only pro. engaged by the amateurs, and scores of 199 and 179 were not even respectable. Oxford later on, piled up an innings of 404 against Mold and Sam Woods, being stimulated no doubt by their narrow, but sufficient, margin of one wicket against Somersetshire. Hewett, who either can’t, or won’t, play for Somersetshire —a pity whatever is the cause of his absence— served both the Universities pretty much alike, just notching a century in either match. Stoddart (84) played his best of the season so far, whilst W.G. did nothing for him, stopping short at 52. Looking at the rival Blues, one is certainly safe in saying that whatever their batting skill, in bowling neither is worth mentioning. Arkwright, the dark blue, came off against Somersetshire, taking 7 for 32 ; and Gray, of the rival eleven, can point to half the wickets in the matches against England and Surrey, but at an average for the ten of 27 runs a wicket. The batting shows up far better. For Cambridge, Mitchell is not keeping up his earlier form, but the brothers Druce seldom fail. It was a pity the younger Druce got damaged at the Oval, although his absence made no difference in the final result. It takes a W . G. to convert a defeat by an innings and 148 runs into a glorious victory. For Oxford, the old Rugby boy—Warner — is going remarkably strong, witness his last week’s work, 52, 36, 99, 17 ; Bardswell made 80 against Somersetshire ; whilst Mordaunt played three innings of 71, 14, and 41, Phillips (73) and Phillips (59) lending a hand in Oxford’s big total of 404 v. the Gentlemen. But where are the bowlers ? Oh, for a suc­ cessor to EvansandA. G., Cobden and Butler, Francis and Powys, C. T. Studd and Sam Woods ! The elder Druce scored 146 in three completed innings last week, and honorable mention should be made of young W. G.’s double (38 and 32) against Surrey. His chances of a blue are decidedly rosier. But Cambridge were out-classed by Surrey. Surrey’s scoring is moving on the up-line in arithmetical progression, their last three innings yielding 448, 520, and 543. Will their next effort be an “ Irishman’s rise” ? Abel (165) and Holland (171) stayed together for nearly 3J hours, and helped on the score by 306 runs, just 50 more than there partner­ ship against Essex. Abel’s sustained ability is very refreshing. All who can appreciate high-class batting will rejoice in Hayward’s latest success—81 notout. It was delightful to notice to-day that the Surrey bowlers hit the sticks every time in the Cantab’s second hands. Some of us do relish that kind of bowling. Richardson’s 7 wickets compare unfavorably with his 12 in the corresponding match of 189 1, and Lockwood—with 6—has yet to do himself complete justice. Still, so long as your side wins, it ought not to bother a genuine sportsman what his individual part in the success may be. Averages andanalysis on the part of isolated men count for little or nothing against a win or a loss. “ My average ” ought to be merged in “ my side.” The battle of bowlers has produced, as it has so repeatedly done, some of the very best cricket possible, though it was the bat that triumphed, not the ball. ‘4Ar ybody’smatch ’ ’ was the final state of the poll. For many reasons this match was memorable. First of all, it proved that Notts’ innings against Sussex was no flash in the pan ; and secondly, it tested the loyalty of the Notts’ partisans, who were not found wanting. I am not of the number who clamor for monster gates, but still cricket, like everything else, requires the sinews of war. We don’t play cricket for money, but we can’t play county cricket without it. Had the Nottingham public not supported this match, the county’s doom might have been sealed. It is more than pleasant to learn that there has not been such an attendance^ at Trent Bridge for years, barring the Whitsuntide match. After their tussle with Yorkshire, the Surrey match next week should be a big draw. 1,027 runs were scored for the loss of 32 wickets, and the honors were widely distributed. For York­ shire Wainwright (63 and 81) proved that he can score runs if he cannot keep them down, whilst Moorhouse (67 and 26 not out) once more was a particular bright star. The tall professional from Hull scored an innings of 63 in just about as many minutes. For Notts Gunn (82) and Attewell (58) added one more to the formidable list of successful partnerships, but Flowers (119) and his captain (55 not out) added 44 more than their old chums, and by their plucky stand con­ verted a possible defeat into a most creditable draw, Jones having previously put in a capital 67. Notts had ample time —5 hours and more—to get all the runs required, 341, but they wisely preferred to risk nothing. Last year in this match they went under in a single innings. Attewell’s 5 wickets for 61 mns was the only praiseworthy performance with the ball. Truly a great fight from start to finish. Gloucestershire’s memorable, quite historic, triumph over Kent, defies description. They can show no more splendid success since they started in 1871. Yet it was the result very largely of the accident of circumstance. If Murch had not been called away after lunch on Saturday, it is pretty certain that Painter would not have been handed the ball; all last year he did not bowl a ball. Even W. G. as captain, is only mortal, whatever he is as a batsmen, and no captain cares to make an experiment. I am sorry Painter is no longer a colt, he might have a big future as a bowler. Seven wickets for 25 runs is a wonderful feat. Never before in this country did an eleven lose a match after running up a first innings of 470. Their second failure was not the fault of the wicket, as W. G. subsequently showed. Painter was a new bowler to ihem. W. G. and Roberts the men of Kent knew well, but not their colleague. It might be well to put him on firstfor someweeks to come. One has no fitting words to do justice to W. G.’s latest triumph. I marvel in silence; One would scarcely be contradicted if it were deliberately stated that his endurance through three whole days ’ proclaims him to be the greatest wonder the sporting world has ever seen. I feel tempted to say of him what an eminent statesman said of the Ex-Premier: 4 ‘ He has a wonderful mind; but his body is even more wonderful than his mind.” As the Prime Minister omitted to do what would have proved to be the most popular act of his reign - an act that would have tempted me to foregomyUnionistprinciples. Iamof opinion that the cricketers of England might take this opportunity of making a public testimo­ nial to their champion cricketer. Why not start a subscription list, limiting the contri­ bution to half-a-crown, and with it purchase a piece of plate? I am willing to open the list. Who will follow ? Bis dat qui cito dat. THE LONDON AND WESTM INSTER BANK v THE LONDON JOINT STOCK BANK.—Played at Denmark Hill on May 13 and 14. L ondon and W estminster B ank . C. A. Snell, b Harris F. F. Musson, b Harris C. J. Bowman, b Ash- bery .......................... C. S. J. Douglas, c Dubois, b Harris ... H. O. Manfleld, c and b Harris ................... L. Pitt-Brook, bHarris G. Raby, c sub, b Harris ................... A. G. Gough, b Ash- bery ...........................18 A. Podmore,b Ashbery 13 S. Bowman, not ou t... 7 C. C. Simpson, b Ash­ bery .......................... 4 B 2, lb 1 ........... 3 Total , 87 L ondon J oint F. Dicksee, c Snell, b P odm ore.................... 0 W . A . Dubois, b Pod­ more ............... 1 W . Etherington, b S n ell....................... 11 P. G. Reading, st Brook, b Sneli ... 0 J. H. Cummings, lbw, b Snell ............... 0 H. N. Scammell, b Podmore ... ... 1 CHISW ICK PARK v. H ARLEQU IN F.C.- at Chiswick on May 18. C hiswick P ark . S tock B ank . E. M. Harris, not out W . H. Fryer, b Pod­ more ........................... G. Ashbery, c Simp­ son, b Snell ........... A . M. Hughes, b Snell G. D. Finch, c Simp­ son, b Snell ........... B 8 .......................... Total -Played W . J. Johnstone, H amm ant*...............11 N. A. Loraine, b Ham- m ant.......................... 24 A.W .Watson,c Crewse b Hammant ...........40 L.F.Johnstone,bHam- m ant.......................... 31 C.S.Dean,b Hammant 32 S.B. Fair, c Hammant, b Burrows ..........16 H. Fox, c Eiloart,b A . A. Surtees ...........15 H arlequin F.C. L. Clarke, c Eiloart, b A. A . Surtees...........19 H. C. Stuart, c A . A. Surtees, b John­ stone .......................... 27 C. G. Johnstone, not out ...........................10 A . H. W ail, c Scott, b A. A. Surtees........... 0 B 14, 1-b 2, w 1, n-b 2 19 Total ..244 H. N. Gow, lbw, b Stuart ................... D. A. J. Bacon, b J. Fair ........................... W . J. Crewse, b Fox... J. Hammant, b S. Fair A. A Surtees, c Wail, b Fox.......................... H. S. Johnstone, b Stuart ................... 12 Stuart, b Burrows, D ean...........................14 A. Eiloart, b Stuart... 4 A.B.Cipriani, b Stuart 7 W . D. Surtees, run out 1 W . C. Scott, b Stuart B 8 ,1-b 2 . . 10 Total ..103