Cricket 1895

340 CRICKET A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. A u g . 15, 1895. times, but very seldom— 1876 is the only year I can recall—the third match got crowded out altogether. In that year neither of the other matches was completed owing to the perfect wickets provided. I may be able to draft a list of matches for next year which would, i' necessary, pe*mit of three matches being played during certain weeks, provided, <-f ■co m w . the weather is not awkward, and that ti»r e is belter economized. It «as a see!bin" multitude at Old Trafford. too big f<>r anybod ’s enjoyment. And I could recall ihe same ground when the best match would draw 500 or 1,000 persons, and you could, if you like*!, loll upon the grass without official or other interf rence. And in Surrey’s 1est years, three decades since, 5,000 was reckoned a monster gate. Now five times that number may be reckoned upon during the Bank Holiday. Nothing succeeds like success down at the Oval. I met a member of Surrey yesterday, and he told me that they had only to open their gates for the crowds to roll in. Notts are a great catch at no other ground, but at the Oval Surrey’s second eleven, or Surrey Club and Ground, can rely on the patronage of the B.P. So be it. Only give me the good old times for downright personal comfort and enjoyment. You musn’t expect me to review the week in detail; you will find it clearly written in the book of the chronicles of the daily press. Occasional tit-bits must suffice. Of the counties, Derbyshire did best, with a double triumph—over Hampshire and Leicestershire. Seeing that Hampshire had just previously licked Yorkshire, one was not prepared to see them crump up before Derbyshire, and with an innings and 50 runs in hand—277 against 135 and 92 There was a lot of good level scoring for the Midlanders, barring Bag- shaw’s innings (87), which was more than double any other on either side. Porter was the hero of the match, taking seven wicke:s in either innings, and at a cost of just seven runs a piece. But, like Tyler, he could not back up this form when facing Leicestershire. In that match G. G. Walker, by bagging nine wickets in one innings, was credited with a performance that has never befere been done by a Derbyshire bowler. Walter Sugg in this last match immortalized himself with the first century (104 not out) that has come from his bat, and it proved to be one out of only three such innings scored during the week. Mason (100 against Warwickshire) and Lionel Palairet (113 not out against Middlesex) were the other heroes with the bat. It may be news to some to learn that Palairet is the first man of Somersetshire to carry his bat through an innings since that county received its promotion in 1891. Leicestershire are doing badly. In the earlier weeks Pougher was as good an all- rounder as we had; what has he done with this batting and bowling skill Y Granted good health, it should surely not be possible for a young cricketer to run to seed in both directions at one and the same time. De Trafford’s palmiest days seem ended. Still, Leicestershire are the only county Surrey have had to knuckle under to this year. When one recalls Woodcock’s bowling in that match, it is beyond my comprehension that he should be shelved in favour of Geeson. Counties must exercise patience with their cricketers. Nobody, I imagine, will quarrel with me in placing young Townsend first among the performers of last week. Twenty-five wickets so seldom have been taken by any bowler in two consecutive county matches that we may offer our heartiest congratulations to the Gloucestershirecolt onhis uniqueperformance whilst still in his teens. Let it be granted that the wickets helped him throughout; it must be remembered on the other hand that the strength of both Sussex and Middlesex lies in their batting. Why I feel confident of his future is that he bowls so well within his strength, and ought consequently to la»t for years, at any rate for as long as either University may require his services. In Hemingway and Jessop, Gloucestershire seem to have discovered the dashing order of bats- nien, of which Baies and MacDonnell were the high priests in the first decade. I hope Jes op will be able to get away from scholastic duties before the va ation in future years, for his bowling is as invaluable as his batting. We want more batsmen who can force the game when careful and scientific play is of no use, men who, like Jessop, can knock up 30 or 40 runs in as many minutes, and perhaps save their side. W. G. required a couple of innings to land him into ‘2000; never mind, he is well above all rivals, the Indian Prince having found that even he must be contented with small contributions on the soddened wickets. Never was there a more sportsman­ like finish than the last stage of the Gloucestershire and Sussex fight. I daresay the “ old hand ” took care that there was no unseemly waste of time, but Muidoch is far too fine a sportsman to condescend to tricks of this sort. We have known him since 1878, and speak what we do know. I wish it were possible to give Sussex a couple of points for this match. As that is out of the question, they may comfort themselves with the con­ gratulations of all admirers of the genuine sport. Take my word for it, both with individuals and communities, such acts never fail to briny: their own reward. Generous deeds, like kind words, never die. May I venture to say that Jackson played the greatest cricket of the week, without laying myself open to the charge of partiality. I occasionally get letters beseeching me not to lose my head over Yorkshire. These letters are never reproduced in this column, although they would make most enjoyable ‘ ‘ copy.” But if you all had been at Old Traft'ord last Monday, right through Lanca­ shire’s respectable show—103—and had then lingered on whilst Jackson and Mitchell notched within seven runs of that total before the first wicket fell, I am certain you would admit that the ordinary terms of eulogy fail to express your admiration of Jackson’s superb batting. It was a magnificent effort, which only a master hand could have accom­ plished. I was not at Canterbury, where he scored 35 and 12, but the reports tell me that at the latter ground he claimed twelve wickets for 91 runs, whilst at Manchester five for 58 was his share. By your leave, a very memorable week’ s work. Nothing better thau the partnership between his lordship (61, not out) and Moorhouse (50) was seen during the week ; 120 runs in ninety minutes was certainly good business, as was Lanca­ shire’s subsequent innings—227 for eight wickets —when they had nothing to play for but a draw. Mold and Briggs looked very harmless to Jackson. Again, at Canterbury, Lord Hawke and Moorhouse played up splendidly for the seventh wicket, and added one more to the consistent triumphs they have respectively scored all through the season. Neither has played long innings, but I question whether any county can show two more regular, reliable batsmen on all sorts of wickets. Tyler failed and then conquered. One wicket for 92 was not great against Middle­ sex, but 15 for 95 against Sussex was very great. OiiCd before—against Notts in 1892— the same number of wickets fell to his left hand. I may be wrong, but his bowling has always seemed to me to be too slow, especially as he never puts in a fast ball. He won the Sussex match—he and L. C. Palairet, whose 91 was a worthy sequel to his 113 (not out) against Middlesex. Fry’s 90 bulks very big in Sussex’ second total of 113. Need we sing the praises of Canterbury ? A name ever dear to myself. It is a source of rej >icmg that after more than fifty years of o idly-assorted experiences, and with a crowdot rival “ weeks ” ou the card, Canter­ bury more than holds her own. Imitation is the sincerest flattery. Spite of the changeful weather, the “ Ladies' D ay” was more brilliant than ever before, a crowd of more than 12,000 helping to give eclat to the glorious festival. Not that numbers with me prove anything ; but I am thankful with genuine conservative pride that the present generation can appreciate something old and well established. Nothing would give me keener delight than to pass a portion of my holiday at Canterbury every year, but August and the South are not happily mated in my judgment. Else had I been at the Oval all through the present week, when Surrey have to face the redoubtable champions of the north. With what results ? They would have slaughtered Notts, and Essex nearly reached the vanishing point. Druce played the only decent innings since he has figured for Surrey, and though they were not prodigious, they were useful. Gunn is failing. I write the words with painful regret, for he is one of my prime favourites. Shrewsbury was batting grandly until an expresser from Richardson hit him on the shoulder; no wonder he funked, and hit at anything. I have often thought that under such circumstances I should have followed the example of a worthy of old, who, after being hit, coolly walked to the pavilion, answering the assurance of the fielders that he was not out, “ perhaps not, but I ’m going.” I amanxious tosee whether Richardson will have profited by his rest when he faces Yorkshire to day. Lockwood should be dropped, now that Lohman does all that is ■required of him in every match. Smith, by his bowling against Essex—10 for 59—proved that he must not be left too long on the shelf. If I had the selection of the Surrey team I could with advantage make room for Street, and for Holland too. Abel’s 88 was one of the old sort. Kortright, like all amateur fast bowlers—I am thinking of Butler and Powys in the past—had a great day on Thursday, when he tumbled down six Surrey wickets in less than 20 balls. But it’s the pace that kills him. And lastly. Warwickshire v. Hampshire, perhaps the biggest thing of the week, 207 tor 5 wickets in the second hands, and on a soft wicket, was a capital set-off to many previous failures. It was Lilley (87) and Law’s (51 not out) partnership of 126, that did the trick. It is a rash statement to fling out as a parting shot this week, that Lilly is the finest batsman of any professional stumper within my memory ? P UBLICATIONS issued at Cricket office, 168, Upper Thames Street, London, E.C.—West’s Pocket Scoring Book, 1/2, post free. “ Cricket” Report Sheets, lOd. per doz., post free. Order of Going In Cards, 7d. per doz., post free. Cricket Calendar, 1895. 7d., post free. Famous Cricketers and Cricket Grounds. Part X IV . (ready), price 6d. (post free 8d ) or subscription for the e ghteen parts, 12/- (post free), payable in advance. Cl®th Cases for binding the Volumes of Cricket , 2/- each. Title and Index for Vol. X III. 2d. All communications to be addressed, The Manager, Cricket, 168, Upper Thames Street, London, E.C.j