Cricket 1895

356 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. A ug . 22, 1895. grief were they ousted at last from the chief seat. County cricket sadly wants a change in the order. Calmly reviewing the week’s disasters, I am of opinion that Yorkshire beat them by vastly superior all-round cricket, whilst Lancashire certainly owed their victory, if not to luck, at any rate to lack of foresight on the part of their opponents It is so desperately easy to be wise after an event, but surely when Richardson was bowling all over the shop against Yorkshire, more use ought to have b^en made of Hayward ; he got two wickets, for 21, as it was, whilst Eichardson’s two cost 83. I can’t help wondering at the prolonged absence of Holland, who is in my j udgment, perhaps, the second best batsman in Surrey at the present time. Of course he may be on the sick list [He has been unfor­ tunately for Surrey.—E d .] ; if he can play he should,* his season’s average being 39. Wednesday’s wicket was all in favour of the bowlers, granted, but Monday’s bat­ ting was a pitiable show. The only evening paper that gets up into the Lake district revealed the gratifying fact that Surrey had won the toss and had scored 65 runs for no wicket: yet the lot were polished off for 136 ! Yorkshire promised no better at the start, when Tunnicliffe and Mitchell were both cyphered ; Jackson (35) and Brown’s (83) partnership of 89 runs turned the fortunes of the game, and Yorkshire never once looked back. Peel (51) and Moorhouse (38) caught the infection, and 244 was a splendid total on a rocky wicket, at any rate it was 30 in advance of Surrey’s double venture. Peel (6 for 65) was himself, as usual; Wainwright nipped in useful—4 for 36 ; but Hirst bowled with extraordinary effect, taking 4 for 7 in the second hands, and 9 for 53 in the match. Coupled with his next effort at Harrogate— 7 for 16—it may be questioned whether he ever had a more triumphant week. Lohmann —6 for 82—kept up an average which places him well in advance of all other bowlers. Mind you, I do not say that he is our greatest bowler, or great as he once was—he may or may not be—all one need do is offer both him and his county our warmest congratulations that in every succeeding match he does one man’s share with unmistakable success. Brown’s innings, which oddly enough con­ tained only three singles, has been extolled by all the critics, the Surrey ring, which has been abused for its partiality, calling him out on the first evening, and cheering him as enthusiastically as if he had been the “ Gruv’nor” himself. Which is more than Yorkshire did to Hayward when he scored 112 at Bradford. For Abel’s sake it was a pity that Tuesday was a blank; I hope all the “ passes” were torn up or left at home the next day. Still, a gate of more than 25,000 represents good business for the little man, who may lay the flattering unction to his soul that he is one of the trinity of great bats­ men Surrey have produced since 1815. Walter Read, Jupp, and Abel stand on an elevation apart. Thanks to Surrey’s patience and his plod, Abel has played himself into the front rank of professional batsmen of all time. May he long retain his wonderful knack, and when the joints become too stiff for active cricket, may his years of retirement be made easy by the well-invested proceeds of last week’ s match. Why did Lancashire beat Surrey ? Largely for the same reason that Sussex beat Hamp­ shire. In each case the side which won the toss put their opponents in. I did not thiuk you would be guilty of such indiscretion, K. J. K . Was it W .G .’s example the previous day ? But there was only that one day for the whole match, and consequently W.G. ran no risk. In the closing paragraph of an inter- j view with him in the current number of the | Strand , W. G. says, “ I may safely say that only about once in thirty or forty times does the experiment of putting your opponents in first prove successful.” By which he means, I suppose that only once out of the very few matches in which this policy is adopted does it turn out prosperously. Well then, as a captain ; only resorts to it once in a blue moon, we may j conclude that such action meets with satis­ factory reward about once in every ten years of County cricket. This average will have to be extended after last week’s double failure. It was a curious match at the Oval; in three of the four completed innings the first seven wickets foil for 37, 35, and 20 runs respec­ tively. Maclaren (52) and Smith (36) gave Lancashire the useful lead they never after lost, though Brockwell and Wood very nearly rivalled the northern partnership. Out-and- away the greatest innings of the match came from the Surrey captain’ s bat in the closing stage. When he first appealed for Surrey he won this identical match with the help of— who was it ? Henderson ? I am not certain. That was in the Oxford days. Could he have found a worthy mate last week, his 50 (not out) would have landed Surrey’ s second total far beyond 85. The pair of bowlers on either side were at their very best, there was not a pin to choose between them. Lohmann is the first Surrey batsman to claim the spectacles during the present season May he be the last. Sussex had a great week, making a gallant fight with Lancashire after they seemed to be hopelessly in arrears, and then putting on a grand spurt when neck and neck with Hamp­ shire. Rarely has the county of Lillywhite played up so pluckily at the pinch. It has been their almost invariable habit to shoot the bolt early on. Sussex. 10 2; Lancashire, 2.65 ; was the state of the poll half way through. Sussex in for it again. Bat Bean (49) the uncertain, Brann (>6) ditto to Bean, Ranjit­ sinhji (11) the evergreen, and Parris (38 not out) the “ poming K—,” were not to be daunted by Mold and Lancaster Indeed Mold could d) nothing—3 for 120—and, Briggs being crippled, Lancaster got a chance of distinguishing himself, and utilized it with splendid effect—three for 11 and six for 59. Lancashire lost six men in notching 82, and if somebody—name suppressed—had not missed Ward (28 not out) at point, there might have bsen a different story to tell. As at the Oval, Smith (67 not out) astonished the natives after McLaren (44) and Ward (41) had opened the ball in merry fashion. Parris (51) and the Indian Prince (41) were in evidence at Southampton later on, when Sussex, after being in a minority of 2 i on the first hands—85 to 108—galloped away as soon as their leaders were disposed of (eight for 115), the tail piling on no less than 146, Butt (48) and late (47 not out) ably backing up Parris. And Tate did great thing* with the ball, following up his good work against Lancashire—four for 32 in the last innings, with ten for 71 against Hants, whose second total (89 only) enabled Sussex to finish up with 148 runs in hand. And this after Hampshire had a week earlier on proved one too many for Yorkshire. As did Essex. Once more, bravo ! Not for Surrey or Lancashire’s sake—that I care not in the* least about - but for Esuex’s own sake. They and Derbyshire and Hants can now boast of a victory over the county which only Lancashire and Surrey of the older hands have been able to defeat. Yorkshire are having Surrey’s luck in choice of inning*, Moorhouse and Jackson were away, and they are the Northerners’ best men with the bat. But then the latter cannot play iii any but the best matches, so when the new comers have to be met, Jackson cannot be spoken of as a Yorkshireman. A bare margin of 16 runs, thanks largely to Johnstone (63) and McGahey (55 not out) in the second total of 165. I fancy the old Hampstead man has never done so well in a county engagement. Denton (45 and 23) batted with much of the skill that secured him a place in the county team, but which he has lost lately. Peel, like Hirst, was in evidence with the ball, but Mead (twelve for 121) was the hero of the match, and now stands fifth among the bowlers, Richardson and Mold alone passing him in the number of wickets taken the season through. The Essex man had a big week, eight Middlesex wickets falling to his skill at a cost of only seven runs apiece. A curious match that. No Middlesex batsman scored an innings of 20 runs, nor a batsman of Essex one of 30. MacGahey ('26 and 21 not out) was the best of the bunch. Fancy Essex closing their second innings after the fall of the second wicket, and Middlesex having to fight for all they knew to stave off defeat. Really the pluck of the youngsters is pro­ digious. And then Middlesex beat Notts by eight wickets. I fancy it is a good job all the veteran counties did not take on all the novices; there would have been a panic in the camps of the former. Notts made but indifferent use of the first knock, although Shrewsbury (67) and Jones (44) set a praise­ worthy example, and in the second innings repeated their success, 32 and 35 representing their respective contributions. Gunn was absent, and Dixon got never a run either time. Flowers is going very slowly since his accident. I wish I could prevail upon inv good friend, the Notts captain, to bowl more frequently. Really he is one of our best amateur bowlers, and he rarely gives himself a trial without happy results. I know all about the danger there is in some captains never going off, but the danger is no less serious to an eleven if other captains hold back through modesty. One recalls Dixon’s success in the jubilee match of the I Zingari, when nobody else could make any impression, and here, against Middlesex, his record was 3 for 34 in an innings of 271. A line all to himself for the Irish Baronet— 123 NOT OUT. A triton among minnows. And free from chances, too. Douglas (50) takes second place ; the rest were nowhere. Albert Wells —once of Surrey—was responsible for twelve wickets at the cheap cost of 71 runs, Hearne’s solitary wicket costing 83 runs. And Somersetshire have notche'd their third victory. They may escape the wooden spoon after all. A splendid victory over Kent, 176 being got in the fourth innings for the loss of only three wickets. Lionel Palairet, with an aggregate of 103, left all others behind, though Dunlop (65) played an innings that was of infinitely greater value than a hatful of ordinary centuries. Easby (44 and 42) sustained his reputation, Mason putting in a useful 50. Only one bowler in the entire match made his mark, Hedley (6 for 30) rearing up when Tyler and his skipper grace­ fully retired. We have not had a more memorable finish to any match for some time past. Play up, Someroetshire ! C RICKET Report Sheets, lOd. per dozen,post free. Cricket 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,