Cricket 1895

276 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. J u l y 18, 1895. Fifteen in all in this match, and against the finest professional howling of the day. Shrewsbury comes next with three centuries. W. Gr. has scored a century on every ground where this match has been played, viz., seven at Lord’s, four at the Oval, and one each at Brighton, Scarborough, Hastings and Prince’s. His aggregate is 4,991. Now take the three next largest scorers : Shrewsbury, Ulyett, and Jupp—between them they have amassed just 400 runs less than W . G. has scored off his own bat. A friend writes that certain of the players declared he was given in twice last week, being caught at the wicket and at slip. Granted. That 118 notwithstanding stands out as the finest innings of the year. It was his first century against Richardson, who did not play at Hastings last year, when his bat yielded 131 off Mold and others. I was at the Lord’s match of 1865—W. G.’s first appearance, and shall ever remember it from the fact that E. M. hit a ball through the old tavern first-floor window, on the bal­ cony of which we were sitting. And did not Cooper and Mitchell bat as only master hands can. Well, here’s 1895, thirty years later. And a record match, in that 1,156 runs were scored, 11 more than the same match yielded at the Oval in 1889. A wonderful affair all through. A rough wicket to start with, which was either brushed smooth or wore smooth, so that the second innings on both sides ran into the fourth hundred. W. G. and Stoddart’s partnership of 151 out of 259 was the feature, although the last partnership of all (Fry and Smith), 72 runs in thirty-five minutes, wrought up the excitement, getting, as it did, within 32 of the mark. The younger hands did well, Hayward coming off in both the matches, thus amply justifying his selection. Ward scored 100 at Lord’s. Peel’ s 71 (not out) was his largest of the season. Whilst our greatest stumpers both had a look in, Storer (93) at Lord’s, and Lilley (74 and 20) at the Oval. The latter’s innings against Leicestershire— 158 not out—was the chief factor inWarwick­ shire’ s single innings triumph over their dear neighbours. Was there ever such a company —gate, if you prefer that word—up at Lord’s for this match ? The fast bowlers for once played on the same side, and their respective snpporters had an opportunity Of measuring the one against the other. They could both of them have taken a rest the week through for the sake of their averages. At Lord’ s, Richaxdson had 7 for 177, Mold 1 for 117. At the Oval the Surrey man claimed 9 for 192, his rival from Lancashire, missing here, sending back the same number of Gloucester­ shire batsmen at a cost of 170 runs. So there was not much in it. A week or so ago I wa3 of opinion that this second match might have to be abandoned, provided the county pro­ gramme should be as heavy in the coming years. I am of another mind now. It is a pity that from some cause or other the Middlesex amateurs did not turn up on the Surrey ground; they had no county match on. But can’t we muster to-day four first- class teams? Of coure we can. There are so many able cricketers to select from that it is only right and proper that the same men should not be picked twice over. For instance, everybody must admit that any batsman who notches an innings of 100 runs is good enough for this or any other match ; yet would Marlow have stood a chance of being played but for the accident of circum­ stances. It was somewhat of an experiment giving Lohmann a place. That he was worth playing all now admit. He had the best bowlinganalysis of all the bowlers—4 for 66, whilst his batting—58 for once out—was as effective as in the old days. And has his fielding lost any of its startling brilliancy ? His reappearance almost rose to a triumph; it has refreshed all our spirits, and, provided he does not overdo it in his gluttony for work, Surrey may find his right hand as cunning as ever. The debut of the Irish amateur (80 and 0) was more than satisfactory. Cannot some English county snap him up— Middlesex or Lancashire ? Fry had a great week in both the matches, with innings of 60 and 77, and eight wickets in the second match. But the catches that were missed ! I have had an eye on this feature of the game lately, and could draw up a table which would be instructive, if not stimulating. But charity deters me. It is, nevertheless, a solemn fact that scarcely an innings of late has reached 50 that has not been marred by one or more chances. At random, out of all the big scores made last week, the following occur to me as the only chanceless innings—W. G.’s 118 at Lord’s, A. P. Lucas’ 135 at Taunton. York­ shire fielding has sadly degenerated. For the past season or two it has been justly com­ mended, being both dashing and safe. It is no longer. If you had been at Dewsbury with me last week you would have seen balls dropped that might have been caught in the mouth. The softest things were missed —on both sides—and by men who have made a name for themselves in the field. In such a season of hard wickets fielding ought to be up to the mark, for bowlers can’t hit the sticks. A famous left-hand bowler—not a Yorkshire- man—was only the other day—where I will not mention—lamenting this fact to me ; he frankly stated that it was no good trying to get batsmen out. Perhaps the phenomenal scoring of 1895 may be explained in this way. It ought not to be possible for 1,000 runs to be scored in match after match. We had it at Lord’s—1,156; at Derby, v. Yorkshire, 1,103 ; at Brighton, v. Hampshire, 1,187 ; at the Oval, 1,062 ; at Taunton, v. Essex, 1,067 ; and we should have had it at Nottingham, v. Derbyshire, had time permitted. And all in last week ! Derbyshire, after being thrashed by York­ shire, made a capital draw against Notts. I hope you are following young Denton’s con­ tinued successes—65, 15, 55 and 44 not out last week. I am certain he has a great future; he is not a batsman of immense power, but he plays the game perfectly, and has no end of strokes. I place him next to F. S. Jackson in the Northern County team. The latter’s second innings against Kent, when he had recovered from a couple of chances early on, wasmost enjoyable ; indeed, his 81 was about the only bright bit of cricket in one of the very dullest matches I have ever watched. And one does want something enlivening on a ground surrounded by factory chimneys. Peel, who did so well up at Lord’s for the players—7 for 90—took but a couple of Kent wickets for 127 runs. Shrewsbury’s second appearance was a delightful success, although the Derbyshire bowling has not much sting in it. I did not notice that he gave a chance in his 143. One of the old sort, and was there ever a better ? I hope we shall see him regularly now. How Attewell and Co. managed to let Porter get 93, baffles me. Chatterton (91 and 57), Evershed (80), Davidson (53), can bat. But Porter we know in the West Riding League, and is he dubbed a third-rater even in club cricket. The Derbyshire amateur had a very great week, for did not he (112) and Bagshaw (127 not out) put on 190 runs in 105 minutes against Yorkshire? In this match Mitchell (38 and 63] played as he had never done previously for Yorkshire. As Notts were left with 177 runs to get, the drawwas not wholly in their favor, unless Gunn had woke up from his somewhat protracted doze. I wish Gloucestershire had made 13 more runs and so have got ahead of Lancashire. As Paddy would say, I did not want Lanca­ shire to lose, but I wanted the Westerners to win. And they deserved to, see that they lost the toss, and W.G. unluckily played on, and many of their best men were off. For once the Champion takes second place, Luard (71 and 8) just beating him on the post (39 and 31), and Board (53 and 10) and Rice (24 and 42) did uncommonly well, whilst Ferris in the second hands—4 for 33—at least gave us a taste of the old 1888 quality. Baker (66) was the only Northern batsman to distinguish himself, Briggs, who can’t get runs, taking 7 wickets for 82 runs—his best for a long while. And last, but not least, Essex’ marvellous scoring at Taunton. Carpenter (153), McGahey (147), A. P. Lucas (135) and Russell (99), all but made history. Oh, for that other run. 692 is a good third to Notts’ 726 v. Sussex, and Surrey’s 698 v. the same county seven years ago. Carpenter, who is almost, if not quite, the only batsman of the year to score a century off Surrey, is quickly playing up to the famous name he bears. Lucas is one of our veterans—this must be his twentieth season. I have not had the pleasure of seeing him bat for some few years, but at his best we had no greater batsman. Sharp enough contrast to his old chum, the Hon. Alfred, but for hard, back play, block­ ing balls that often touched the boundary, combined with a perfect style, one will have to live many more years to see his peer. This match produced a bowling record. Tyler’s 5 wickets cost 215 runs, Sam Wood’s 2, 171 ! Never before in English first-class cricket have so many runs been scored off one bowler in a single innings; indeed, Wood’s 3 for 201 against the Players at Hastings in 1892, is the only other instance when 200 runs have been knocked. Giffen’s 5 for 309 in the recent Australian tour—South Australia v. Stoddart’s X I.—is not likely to be put in the shade yet. An innings and 316 runs is a margin to be proud of. M r. J . C. L O V E L L ’ S X I . v. R IC K M A N S W O R T H — Played a t R ickm an sw orth on J u ly 13. J . C. L o v e l l ’ s X I . F irs t Innings. C. H . M ou n ta in , b ttc u lly ... 45 Second In n ing s b G riffin ........... 0 W . M . Y etts, b G riffin 9 c an d b S cu llv ... 2 T . D . Fudge, c and b Cole­ m an ................................... 7 ru n out ........... 15 J . W . Roberts, c M org an , b Colem an ........................... 6 c an d b S cu llv ... 1 J . Spen L o v e ll, c and b S c u lly .................................. 0 lbw , b G riffin ... 8 S. Lloyd-Jon es, b Colem an 5 cN u n n ,b M o rtra u 18 C. W e lls, b G riffin ........... 9 c and b S cu lly ... 1 A . M eller, lbw , b G riffin ... 0 not o u t................... 2 S. H . F lin d t, not o u t ........... 8 c an d b S cully .. 2 J . P . Candler, b S cu lly 0 c an d b S cu lly ... 4 J . C. L o v e ll, c W ilk in so n , b S c u lly ................................... o c G riffin , b S cu lly 0 B 5, lb 2 ........................... 7 Byes ........... 2 T o ta l.......................... 96 T o ta l ........... 65 R ic k m a n s w o r t h . J. Scully, b F lin d t ........... 1 b C and ler ............ 0 C. L . H ill, b F lin d t ...........15 b Cand ler ............ 0 W . W ilk in so n , b Candler ... 14 not o u t.................. 9 C. M organ, b C a n d le r......... 3 lbw , b F lin d t ... 4 L . Bonnett, b C and ler ... 0 b Fudge .......... 3 J . Lew is, c and b F lin d t . . . O b C and ler ... ... 0 H . O dell, b Cand ler .......... 0 c and b Candler... 1 G . Colem an, n ot o u t ...........15 b C and ler .............28 A . H ill, b F lin d t ................ 0 cY e tts, b C andler 2 W . N u nn , lbw , b F lin d t ... 4 b C andler ........ 11 H . G riffin , st Roberts, b Candler ........................ 0 b C and ler .......... 2 B y e s .................................. 2 B 4, lb 2 ... 6 T o ta l .......................54 T o ta l ............ 66 C R I C K E T R e p ort Sheets, lOd. per dozen, post free. O rder o f G oin g-In Cards, 7d. per dozen, post free. W est’s Pocket S corin g B ook, 1/2 each, post free.— To be obtained a t the Office of Cricket. 168, U pper Tham es Street, Lon don , E .C .