Cricket 1895

228 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. Jut-E 27, 1895. he will give himself entirely to cricket. Jackson (50 and 46) played in his fine3t style; I have not witnessed any batting of his since 1893 so finished and masterly ; his leg-glances oil Richardson’s fastest were the perfection of cricket. Tunnicliffe also (64) was at his best, which'is leagues behind Jackson’s best. Now if F. S. and Sellers had turned up at Leeds, instead of playing truant to Lord’s, there might have been less heartburning in their county. For everybody shares in the present humiliation. Beaten by Derbyshire, forsooth! And to regret, there has followed abuse. We must do this, that, and the other thing, ransack England for a fast bowler, unearth new batsmen. All moonshine. Yorkshire were simply off colour! Can’t that happen to a team as well as to an individual? Our boys could neither bowl, bat, nor field. And they have made a big name in the field; and deservedly so. But at Leeds there was no go in any of them, barring Lord Hawke, whose batting (54 and 30) was worthy of close imitation, if his fielding could scarcely be held up as a model. Denton (47) was in form; but the less said about the others, the better. And Derbyshire were terribly, short-handed. With Saturday’s club matches in view, several of the regulars did not turn up. This kind of thing makes me savage. It is all owing to these wretched leagues and their competitive matches, Depend upon it, they are killing cricket as a sport. Although they select neutral umpires, it is a fact that, owing to local feeling, not for sport but for betting, these umpires dare not be uniformly impartial. Chatterton (67) and his captain (60) played well in the first innings; so did Porter to the surprise of everybody, himself included. Storer (42 and 33) brought off a useful double, but it was unworthy of such a stumper to appeal so frequently. I don’t say he wished to bustle the umpires, but it is not good sport. Nor is it any better sport, my Derbyshire brethren, to lose your temper when you are ruled out. Altogether this must have proved as uninteresting and profitless a match as one could attend. If Sunday had not intervened, I am certain Sheffieldwould not have seen me to-day. Lancashire’s defeat of Notts was a facer. I am glad the old Red Rose skipper turned Up, for there wasn’t a Lancashire-bom man in the team that had just before opposed Surrey. When did A. N. miss a benefit ? And it was Flowers’ turn, one of our sturdiest all-rounders, good at every point, and not unhandy even with the gloves (stumper’s, not boxer’s). It is a far cry to 1877: but even at this distance Wilfred is as good as ever he was. Only two batsmen this year have bagged a century off Yorkshire bowling, and he’s one of them. A thousand pities the match ended so abruptly. Ought not every benefit to be arranged for a ground where three full days’ cricket may be confidently expected. ? But the wicket was not at fault. Lancashire can testify to that, after their single innings of 345, in which Ward (116), Sugg (91), andTinsley (65)—each of the latter helping Ward to add more than a hundred to the score sheet—monopolized the run getting. Ward, like Abel and ~W.Gr., can’t fail in any match. (See his next effort at Tonbridge). Whilst Sugg had the best batting week of the present season, running as far as 125 against Kent.—then came the surprise—Notts all out for 35 ! Frame that score along of their 726 against Sussex in May, and you will have a very pretty combination or contrast. Beaten by Mold, who twice hit the stumps ouf Shrews­ bury, Gunn, Dixon and Jones, though one of them did get his leg in front of astraight one. He and Briggs bowled unchanged through the match, which is what they did twice against Sussex in 1891, and once against Kent in 1892. But Mold bore off all the honours :—8 for 20, and 7 for 65. One was right glad to see Shrewsbury strip once more. I hope we shall hear no more nonsense jibout his qualifying for Sussex. With a little more practice he may be as great as ever. It is worth mentioning that this 35 is the smallest score save one Notts have ever compiled ; the exception was their innings of 24 against Yorkshire in 1888. But they have often got rid of their opponents more cheaply : thus, Cambridgeshire scored 23 against them in 1834; Sussex, 19 in 1873; Surrey, 16 in 1880 ; Middlesex, 34 in 1882 ; Derbyshire, 16 in 1879. Still in so prolific a scoring season as the present, such an innings is a prodigy. The Tonbridge week, judged by the delightfully varied programme which lies before me, must have been a treat for all present, not even excepting the Kentish cricketers. Glorious weather favored their sixth celebration of the week, which will, I trust, never minish the glory of Canterbury. Kent-went down pitiably before Middlesex, 103 and 213 to 350; the best feature of the Metropolitan’s batting was the stand towards the finish of 135 by Douglas (77 not out) and Thornton (59). The Yorkshire doctor is having a high time of it this year. Marchant (51) and Easby (73) were the only men of Kent who did much, Rawlins’ bowling—9 for 71—proving too deadly for the rest. Easby (25 and 52) was also in evidence against Lancashire, and had he found mates like- minded, the defeat by 75 runs might easily have worked round the other way. Ward kept up his season’s average—48 and 79. So did Mold (or nearly so) with 11 for 185, thus bringing up his total for the week to 26 wickets at a cost of 270 runs, Richardson taking 25 for 299. There is not a pin to choose between them. Somebody asked me which of them, in my opinion, would be chosen for the Players? My answer was, both. Why not ? You choose a couple of medium bowlers for the match, why not two fast bowlers ? They are no more alike than Briggs and Peel. You can’t have too many bowlers of the same fctyle, provided, like Mold and Richardson, they are deadly on the best wicket. It is many years sincewe had two very fast bowlers at the top of the averages. Surrey’s victory over Leicestershire was largely Richardson’swork, but not exclusively so. What of the batsmen ? Well, the leaders failed with the exception of Abel (69), and there were seven dead men at a cost of 123 only. Then came the turn of the innings ; Wood (56) and Smith (45) rendered Street (161 not out) such timely help that the Surrey total fell short of 400 by only 15 runs. And here’s the difference between Surrey and Lancashire. Already six Surreyites have notched a century this year, whereas the Lancastrians depend too much on Ward’s batting. Can room be found for Lohmann, whose return, and in apparently the best of health, we all hail with shouts of delight? At any rate there is at least one batsman in Surrey’s present team—nameless—who could be better left out than Street. Warwickshire, sated with drawn matches, have made their first point. And I take it that the win will do them far more good than the loss will damage Gloucestershire, who have already three victories to their credit. Lilley (136, his second century) ought to be certain of a place in the Players’ team. HONOR OAK v. BATRERSEA.—Played at Honor Oak on June 15. B attersea . H. Carver, c G. Harri­ son, b W ilkie........... 0 C. H. Stevens, not out 57 R. E. North, b W ilkie 7 H. A. White, c Jones, b Ridge ...................32 W . May, run out ... 20 A . J. Wilson, b Bidge 5 T. B. Blain, b Ridge... 1 H onor O ak . A . E. Broom, b Ridge O' R. Hunt, b W ilkie .. 1 W . M. Hellar, c and b D ickason...................15- T. Shrimpton, c Mayo, b Hayes B 3, lb 6... Total ..154 C RICKET Report Sheets, lOd. per dozen, post free Order of Going-In Cards, 7d. per dozen, post free West’s Pocket Scoring Book, 1/2 each, post free.—To be obtained at the Office of Cricket, 168, Upper Thames Street, London, E.C. 13 A. Jones, c Hunt, b Hellar ................... E . Chapman,not out... 35 B 6, lb 6 ...........12 E. G. Hayes,not ou t... 84 T.R.Dickason,runout 18 G.S.Harrison,b W hite 1 F.F. Harrison,cBrown, b White ................... 7 C. H. Mayo, c Carver, b White ................... 2 H. Burton, W . Ridge, J. Johnson, and F. A . Wilkie did not bat. Total (for 5 wkts) 172 B L A C K H E A T H v. R O Y A L M I L I T A R Y ACADEMY.—Played at Woolwich on June 15. R oyal M ilitary A cademy . H. L. Nevill, b J. R. Mason ................... 0 J. B. Grylls, c C. E. Mason, b Heath ... 4 K. J. Campbell, b B.H.Bignell,c Stewart, b J. R. Mason........... G. F. Clayton, c Lind­ ner, b J. R. Mason... H .F.Stopford,b Heath O. Tritton, b H eath... 10 Heath ... ........... 8- G. L. H. Hawell, c A. Hinde, b Heath ... O Hemmant, b J. R. E. B. Wilson, b Heath fr Mason ...................46 B 6, lb 1 ........... 7 J. H. Beasley, b J, R. Mason ...................10 Total ..........107 F. D. Logan, not out B lackheath . H. R. Blaker, b Nerill 11 J. R. Mason, c Bignell, b W ilson ........... ... 5 J. E. Mason, b Hinde 32 S. Castle, c Hinde, b W ilson .................... 4 Capt.Lindner,c Grylls, b W ilson .................... 8 A . W . Stewart, c Clay­ ton, b Nevill ........ 22 T. Hemmant, c Stop­ ford, b Howell ... 8 K . Christopherson, b Howell .................... 1 W.O.Hubbard,not out 34- C. E. S. Mason, c Clay­ ton, b W ilson........... 9 G. O. Jacob, c Tritton, b W ilso n ................... 1 S. Heath, c Bignell, b Hinde ...................22 B 7, lb 2 ........... 9 Total ...166 HAMPSTEAD v. FINCHLEY COLLEGE.—Played at Finchley College on June 15. H ampstead . E. B. Holmes, run out 0 E. Field, b B o x ...........92 E. Oxley, b Fennell... 0 S. H. Williams, b Fen­ nell ..........................58 O.L.Tudor,c Feetham, b B ox.......................... 5 H. Price-Williams, b Box ........................... 1 G.S. Dunn, c Newman, b Mence ................... 7 W . Mackintosh, not out F. S. Alford, b Box , R. L. Ibbs, b Box G. Riley, run out B 11,lb 1 .. . 13 2 0 6 , 12 J. F. Phillipson, c Tudor, b Riley...........43 E. J. Langdon, run out 0 L. A . Fennell, b Riley 6 O. H. Davies, c Field, b Riley ........... .... 7 J. M. Box, b Mackin­ tosh .......................... 7 J. Inns, b Mackintosh 1 H. W . Mence, lbw, b R iley.......................... 1 Total ...........1 F inchley C ollege . A. Feetham, b Riley... A. E. Stevens, b Mac­ intosh ................... S. E. Newman, not out J.B. Goodyear, c Field, b Mackintosh........... B 14, lb 2 Total ...100- CHISW ICK PA RK v. SURBITON.—Played a t Chiswick on June 22. J.F. Newton, b Clarke 0 H.M .Keeling.b Howes 38 H. A . Forsyth, c and b Clarke ...................21 C.Spicer,c and b Clarke 0 C.B.W orsley,b Howes 38 H .M .Trouncer,cWelch, b H o w es................... 0 C.R.Hewett, lbw, b Howes ...................18 Leo Forsyth, b Howes 6 W .H .Perquin,notout 15 F. R. Baxendale, b Clarke ................... 4 J. H. Hardwicke, lbw, b Howes ................... 1 Byes 18, lb 1 ...........19 Total ...160 C hiswick P ark . N. A.Loraine, b Keel­ ing .......................... 0 S. B. Fan-, b Worsley 13 J.J.R.Green,c Hewett, b Keeling ... ... 9 H.D.Howes.b Keeling 0 L. Clarke, b Keeling 44 B.H.Ainslie,bWorsley 5 G. Burrows, b Worsley 2 E. Welch, b Worsley 19 P.P.Aikinstall,not out 9 W . H. Horton, notout 12 R. Dawes did not bat. ^ B 10, lb 2 ...........12 Total ^ ...125