Cricket 1895

372 CRICKET A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. A ug . 29, 1895. indeed. Here is his analysed work with the b a ll: against Somersetshire, 2 for 94 : York­ shire, 6 for 71; Warwickshire, 10 for 129 ; Sussex, 12 for 87; Middlesex, 13 for 173 ; Notts, 16 for 122; Kent, 7 for 80 ; Lanca­ shire, 6 for 111 ; Notts, 13 for 110 ; York­ shire, 15 for 187. He is easily first in any test. My favourite test is wickets taken as against overs bowled, my contention being that he is the best and usefullest bowler who gets most wickets ;in the shortest time. Yorkshire’ s defeat admits only of one ex­ planation. What luck there was fell to them, for they won the toss. The wicket played well to the finish. Yorkshire were fairly and squarely beaten. T o a frien'd who will read this column, I remarked on Saturday after­ noon— “ either the match at Cheltenham will be drawn or Gloucester win.” For no sensi­ ble captain would have risked the closure when only 2 runs separated the combatants on the first hands, and when the other side boasts such a smiter as Jessop. Everybody has read and chatted to his neighbour about his 63 runs in half an hour, 51 of which came in half that time. I saw Ernest Smith help to win the Yorkshire v. M.C.C. match at Scarborough in 1893 by slamming up 40 runs in twenty minutes ; but that was snail’s work to Jo 8 Sop. One can compare this innings with the famous long innings by Massie—Austra­ lia v. Oxford in 1882, or Lyons, v. M.C.C. in 1893, or Sam Woods’ 215 in two and a half hours against Sussex this summer. I saw Thornton after ; one innings at the Oval, for the South v. Surrey, occurs to me. I know he scored 61, but I fancy he took nearly forty minutes over it. After Brown and Tunnicliffe’ s start of 66 on Saturday, Yorkshire’ s play was wretched. They didn’ t like to hit Townsend for fear they should be caught on the boundary ; so they pottered and the ball found a safe resting place nearer the wicket. Moorhouse (70), Denton (39), and others in the first innings of 221 ought to have played up in the second. As W . G. and his mates did. He might play on to Peel the first time, the second time he had the warpaint on ; some­ thing big had to be done, and he’ s still our man. Fifty for one in a little over an hour — slowish, but the bowling wanted breaking; had W . G. stayed another hour instead of shutting up at 38, the requisite number (147) would have easily been gotten. Sewell (50) and Townsend (42) played splendidly at the first time of asking, but I should be inclined to rank Ferris’ second (40 not out) far higher than any other batting display throughout the match. The Australian has not filfilled expectations since becoming naturalized, so one is glad beyond measure that he had so important a share in this seven-Avickets’ victory. The Yorkshire bowling we will not reproduce, beyond recording, as a curiosity, Brown’s three wickets for 11 runs. The appearance of Middlesex in these parts gave Yorkshire another point. Half-way through there was nothing in it—123 to 103 — although a lead of 25 is something on a soft wicket at Headingley. Jackson (76) and Tunnicliffe (58) then got together, and spite of an occasional chance, played uncommonly “ classy” cricket during their partnership of 130. It was a good job they stuck, for nobody else did long enough to put more than 107 on to their contribution. When did Jackson score so many runs with only one boundary hit in the lot ? W ide boundaries and heavy ground, however, require lofty smiting. I have rarely seen a finer catch than that which ensured his dismissal. Douglas’ piece of work must have reminded the Middlesex skipper of his own citch on the boundary just 20 years ago, in his first ’ Varsity match, which he helped to win by dismissing the present head master of Hailey­ bury, by perhaps the most extraordinary one- hand catch ever witnessed. Oxford won that match—Ridley’ s match—by 6 runs. What a procession Middlesex formed in the second hands —7 down for 31 when play ceased on the Tuesday, the other three added 26. Stoddart was never less like his old self tha-i when he faced Hirst. Isn’ t it strange that he rarely scores off Yorkshire bowiing ? Sir Timothy likes it, at least he generally chaffs Peel when he goes on, and his doings do not belie his jestings. I have seen it stated that Middlesex have only once beaten Yorkshire since 1890; they won a match in 1891, and another in 1892. Hirst carried off all the honors of this match, scoring 29 (not out) in the first when runs were at a discount, bagging a dozen wickets, and fielding brilliantly. His throw-out of Lucas, which was one of the reasons why that batsman got a brace of ducks, was worth travelling a mile to see. A batsman should never grumble at being out to an exceptional bit of fielding. It’s that “ beastly” run out which raises one’s gorge. And there were three of that ilk in Surrey’s second innings at Taunton. Didn’t they deserve to lose? Abel’s may have been an accident, but in the other two cases no apology can be accepted. A run was of no account at that crisis, but every wicket had a price beyond rubies. Surrey badly wauted their captain, just the man to show a stout heart and a big, broad face of the bat when soma- thing out-of-the-way had to be done. I won’ t admit that Surrey can’ t play an up-hill game. Remember the finish to the Middlesex fight at the Oval. But then everything depends on the men you are playing. Surrey’s new amateurs have not added to the county’s strength. Druce in several efforts got as far as 30 twice; Leveson-Gower in four innings has managed to pile up 17 . Where is Street ? Don’t think I am tilting against amateurs, far permit. I want every County eleven to be ballasted by this element, although I am pretty certain that fewer and fewer amateurs will be able to play regularly should every county arrange to play every other. It is for that reason I would urge upon Gloucestershire :—Look out for yemng professionals, and when found, encourage them, train them. Did one not remember that our veterans are in the habit of renewing their youth j ust when we were thinking of consigning them to the shelf. I should be disposed to believe that after a lengthened service of 23 years W . W . will have to make room for a younger man. The great feature of this match was Tyler’ s “ all the 10 wickets.” Burton—also against Surrey, in 1888--is the only other bowler to accomplish this in a county match since the competition began in 1872. [N ote . —Mr. Holmes is referring to Surrey here. Of course ha remembers Richardson and Pickett have taken all the wickets in an innings.—Ed.] Now, without in the least detracting from the genius of two most worthy men, it is nevertheless very strange that bowlers, infinitely their superior, cannot make this boast. Surely in this feat there is a large streak of luck. Could a bowler ever expect to sweep the board when there are two or three more bowlers o f equal calibre on his side ? The elder Palairet with an aggregate of 90 was the premier scorer of the match, Fowler (64) a good second. So Surrey took a back seat throughout, though Richardson— 13 for 152—would have shone but for Tyler’ s brilliance. And Derbyshire served Lancashire as they did Yorkshire, and would probably have served Surrey—and by sheer good cricket. Like Somersetshire above, they claimed first honors with bat and ball, Storer’s 105 being the only century, though Ward’s aggregate exceeded that of the Midland stumper’s. What a splendid week’ s work came from W ard’s bat, or rather from Ward, the bat being only a passive instrument, useless in your hands and mine. 'three innings, and each of imposing proportions— 83, 77, and 82. The last of the batch coming later on, against Notts, and was all-but one iialf of the 174 runs put on by Ward and his captain (152), said captain crying small when Derbyshire were on the trail. The other batsmen who bulked fairly big in Derbyshire’s totals of 144 and 325 must be contented with remaining incog, here, in order that Davidson and Porter may find standing room. The former’ srecord was eight for 25 in Lancashire’ s first, and there was the hat trick in it. Now Mold bagged four Nott’s batsmen in four consecutive balls at Trent Bridge, but of all bowlers this season Davidson alone claims three in three. It was Porter who won the match after all said ; for j ust when Lanca­ shire had got round the corner and were in the straight for the goal, he got a new idea in his head and it worked its wa) into his hand— six overs, four runs, five wickets, A smashing onset, which extinguished Lancashire when their opponents led by 63. Truly a glorious victory. Though scarcely more glorious than that gained by Sussex over Kent. The latter had j ust gone great guns at the Oval, being beaten by only 77 runs in the heaviest scoring busi­ ness we have had for many a week— 1,151 runs in all, Surrey’s share being 363 and 251, Kent’s 311 and 216. A lot of good cricket, and a lot more of pluck, stands written in Kent’s first innings ; to face such a total, and Richardson and Lohmann ready to whop creation if required, was a herculean effort. Surrey were saved by Brockwell ( 8 6 ) and Key (77) in the second, when things had taken an ugly turn. Marchant (82) only wanted a suitable partner to have turned defeat into victory. Abel (106) scored his third century, and his association with Hayward (76) resulted in a faultless exhibition of stylish cricket, and the heaviest partnership (144) of the match. The bowling shall not be dragged to the light again. And then Sussex waltz round K en t; and to the tune of nine wickets. Capital ! Parson Rashleigh was the only man of Kent to pass the halt-hundred; but Fry (5l), Bean (50 not out), and the Indian Prince (51 and 53 not out) were all in that street, Marlow (40) being hand}” in the second total of 110 for the loss of Newham’s wicket only. As to the bowling, Tate wras first—nine for 128—the rest nowhere. So it was Sussex’ match from start to finish. And we all say, “ W ell played.” GOLDSMITHS’ INSTITUTE (2) v. TOOTING GRAVENEY.—Played at NewCross on August 24. T ooting G ravkney . Rhodes, b Murrell ... 11 J. Foster, b S. Holmes 0 T. Devereux,cCozens, b Murrell.............. 3 M. Jackson, b Holmes 42 Sawyer, c Baldwin, b Holmes ...............48 Buckley, bHolmes ... 0 * Innings declared closed. G oldsmiths ’ I nstitute (2) W.H.Joanes,b Sawyer 8 B. Scully,b Buckley... 15 H. Murrell, b Rhodes 4 A. Wroe, not out .. 17 S. Cozeus, b Sawyer... 4 Bonner, b Holmes ... 1 C. Devereux, not out 10 Cook, b Wroe ........ 0 S. Buck, b Holmes ... 0 W. H. Buck, not out 0 B 3, lb 3, nb 2 ... 8 Total (9 wkts.)*123 F. J. Buck, b Sawyer 0 S. J. Holmes, not out 0 Byes .............. 10 Total (5 wkts.) 53 W. O. Thorpe, A. J. Adams, A. J. Buck, and A. Baldwindid not bat.