Cricket 1895

388 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. S ept . 5, 1895. light all the missed chances in the Yorkshire match ; both sides were defaulters, and to such an extent that both deserved to lose. No match on the Somersetshire programme was more eagerly anticipated than that with their dear neighbours. They were thirsting to wipe out the memory of W .G .’ s smashing defeat of them in May. There was no repetition of the 288 innings this time, in its place modest scores of 31 and 4. But a very plucky fight, when it was all over but shouting, on the part of Ferris (52), Town­ send (62), and Painter (47) in the second hands l erris, like A . O. Jones of Notts, has been holding himself in reserve till the close of the season. I cannot remember either of the n doing so consistently well with the bat. It was no mean achievement to face a deficit of 310, and fail only by 57. Palairet ( 68 ) as usual, showed the way, though Roe (71) just passed him. Townsend kept up his wonder­ ful skill with the ball, taking twelve wickets for 225 runs, Tyler securing one wicket less for just three runs less. Painter’s four for 53 makes me wonder that he has not been tried oftener, especially after his phenomenal success against Kent in May. Lancashire, by putting two more wins to their total, have made certain of second place. One innings on their part proved more than sufficient for both Middlesex and Leicester­ shire. What a host of parallels these matches furnished ! First of all, Lancashire were led to victory by their famous old captain, whom his comrades must have been glad to see him in his old place. Three catches fell to him in one of the four innings, so it looks as if he had lost none of his brilliance in the field. L^flica- shire won each match by exactly the same margin, an innings and 100 runs. Coincidence No. 2. For No. 3, take Mac- Laren’ s century in both matches. And lastly, Briggs and Mold bowled unchanged in each game. It is worth mentioning in this con­ nection that Lancashire’s two scores differed by only 10 runs. Middlesex got precisely the same number of runs in their double effort as they did the week before against Yorkshire, viz., 160; whilst in the same two matches — successive so far as Middlesex are concerned —Lucas scored no runs in the four innings. Let us pause a moment here. MacLaren, by scoring three centuries in County matches within a week or thereabouts, established a record in the County Championship, Hamp­ shire not being in the Competition when Wynyard last year scored a similar triple success. The Lancashireman’s performance was the more noteworthy in that he played on different grounds in each case - Old Traf­ ford, Lord’ s and Leicester—and that each wicket was entirely unlike the others. And yet neither of the secretaries of M .C.C. and Surrey deem him worthy of representing England; nor Palairet either ; nor young Townsend. If space permit, I may next week present my “ Best Eleven.” Again, Briggs and Mold may also claim a unique performance. They have often bowled all through a match, no pair of bowlers so often; they did so against Notts at Trent Bridge this year. But never before have they, or any other couple, kept up their ends a week through. And when did a batsman bring off the double specs ? Well, Fowler, of Somersetshire, did in 1892, against Sussex ar.d Lancashire; and Peel’ s reduplicated failure we remember in the third and fourth tegt matches in the last Australian tour. Altogether, a crowd of curiosities are to be found in Lancashire’s last matches, in which Briggs’ share was twenty wickets for 127 runs, Mold’s seventeen for 169. The little man has been slowly, but surely, working his way up in the bowling column, though his batting is still much below the mark. Middlesex have been very disappointing of late in batting. On paper one of our strongest teams, they go to pieces in the most unac­ countable fashion. The review of the season will yield but small satisfaction to their many supporters. Surrey’s matches demand attention. The draw with Gloucestershire was excellent from Surrey’s standpoint,andscarcely disheartening to the Weiterner’s partizans-. Had there been more time left W .G. would certainly have gone in again, and in his old place, and Jessop would not have been held so long in reserve. It was, however, a big thing for Richardson and Lohmann to bag eight wickets for only 37 runs in the short space of one hour. A deficit of 61 on the first hands did not augur that Surrey would ever be in a position to apply the closure. Maurice Read (88 and 38) has once more proved beyond a doubt that he is not done for, whilst Abel (38 and 39) was the same sterling bats­ man he has been for many years. Ferris (38 and 22 not out) saved his side, and deserves their warmest thanks ; Wrathall (59)and Rice (46) coming next. Once more both counties were well served by their chief .bowler, Townsend and Richardson each nobbling a dozen wickets, the fast bowler getting his at a cost per wicket of j ust five runs less than his younger rival. Surrey played a great game at Brighton, one of the genuine old sort. Once again they proved as formidable as ever on a hard wicket. The critics have been recently holding them cheap, as a team that requires the most favor­ able conditions to show off to advantage. What county does not ? Batter-pudding wickets bring all batsmen down to pretty much the same level, with the exception of the select fearless crowd, among whom Jessop is the high priest. Surrey have plenty of men who can hit hard, but perhaps not one who can force the game as MacDonnell and Billy Bates used to. Walter Read’s short rest seemed to do him no end of good, and he actually endorsed a remark in my last “ Notches ” on the sudden rejuvenescence of our veterans. His partner­ ship of 159 with Abel was the second best accomplished for Surrey this year. No one looked for a century from W .W .’ s bat, we all did from Abel’s. It was a happy thought to let Leveson-Gower take a rest, though 18 runs in six innings scarcely represent a herculean labor. Sussex had no chance against a total of 443. It was a good job that Abel was run out so early on the Friday, else the match would never have been finished. In their scores of 178 and 211 — 44 short of Surrey’ s—Murdoch and Newham figure best with 50 and 28, 50 and 34 respectively, whilst George Bean was equally conspicuous with “ a pair of them.” Richardson bowled nearly as well as ever, taking 12 wickets at just under 15 runs a-piece. Surrey and Yorkshire cricketers may be stale from overwork, if there is such a complaint in cricket; it is sur­ prising, however, that the man who has worked harder than almost any two others, seems as fresh as new paint, and might be only just starting the season, instead of wind­ ing it up with more wickets against his name than any English bowler ever bagged in any previous season. Middlesex made mincemeat of Kent, thanks to Stoddart (131), Webbe (89 not out), and Hearne (65). Stoddart’s innings we had been long waiting for, but he never was a soft- wicket batsman. Unlike his captain in this respect, who, though far from being a forcing bat, has done some of his best things on a bowler’s wTicket. His partnership with TI<arno of 138 runs for practically the last wicket was quite out of the common. Since he got it into his head that it would be to the advantage of his side if he put himself in seventh or eighth wicket. W ebbe has done great things, and his average of 30 is a feather in the cap of a man who is just completing his twenty-first season in first-class cricket. Kent are certainly deserving of a happier lot than they at present enjoy. Mason, Hearne, Stewart, and Rashleigh are always good for runs, but more bowlers must be unearthed somewhere. Phillips — 8 for 69—did well, so well, that one is surprised he -has not had more worfc put on him during the summer, whilst Hearne 6 for 41 —showed up better on a hard wicket than usual. Kent were beaten by an innings and 14 runs, and take the wooden spoon, having just previously made a very even draw with Notts, the next above them ; in which match Jones (52 and 59) and Shrews­ bury (73 and 31) bore off all the honours, both being unconquered in the second innings, when Notts had got as far as 96 without loss. Rashleigh and Stewart both got beyond 50 in Kent’s declared innings of 308. Scarborough and its festival must stand over until they have become a part of history, and then the curtain will fall on the present season. NORTHBROOK (2). v. ADDISCOMBE (2).—Played at Addiscombe on August 31. N orthbrook . W. D. Butler, b H. Moore ............... 5 C A. Hooper, b H. Moore ............... 1 H. Plumer, run out ... 1 H. Murphy, b Purser 35 P.Westley,bWiltshire 3 A. East, b M. Moore 36 H. C. Cooper, bPurser 1 F. Mote, b H. Moore 6 S. O. Woolmer, not out .....................20 A. Wiltshire, b M. Moore .............. 1 F. R. Gilespy, not out 0 B 13, lb 8w 1 ...22 Total ( 9 wkts) *131 * Innings declared closed. A ddiscombe . In the First Innings M. M. Moore scored, not out, 80; B.C. Purser, c Westley, b East, 8; H. G. Roberts, not out, 33. Leg-bye 1.—Total (1 wkt), 122. C. 8. Deprez, H. M. Roberts, A. Pulford, S. Wiltshire, H. Docking, G. G. Myall, H. P. Moore, and C. M. Paxall did not bat. LONDON AND COUNTY BANK v. BUTTON.— Played at Sutton on August 31. B utton . J. Bell, c Home, b Bishop ............... 3 A. Hyslop, c Sargent, b Bishop............... 4 R. Bell, b P. Wells ... 5 A R. Dagg, bP,Wells 12 E. C. Steward,runout 0 W. S. Holford, cBien- venu, b P. Wells .. 10 i J. Illington, bP.Wells 6 j L ondon : and C ounty B ank . IW. A. Hunt, lbw, b I Bishop .............. j F. Nightingale, lbw, b Bishop .............. I P. Shelley, b Bishop... B. Appleton, not out B 2,lb 2 ........ Total ........ P. Wells, not out ... 19 F.J.Finlinson,notout 8 B 4, lb 2 ........ 6 Total (3wkts)145 W. R. Pattinson, lbw, b J. Bell.............. 27 S. H. Sargent,b Stew­ ard ..................... 0 J. A. Bienvenu, c R. Bell, b Steward ... 85 | G. F. Wells, T. Bishop, B. M. Waldock, C. R. Trowell, A. A. Yeoman andE. R. Hornedid not bat. CLAPTON v. HORNSEY. August 31. -Played at Clapton on H ornsey . H. Collingridge, c Renals, b Asser ... 22 C. W. Talbot, not out 7 G.M. Giblett,bBishop 12 C. J. Ives, c Robinson, b Bishop.............. 2 B 12, lb 10, w 1, nb 1 24 E. H. Bacmeister, b Renals .............. 32 F. Orton, c Bishop, b Waterer .............. 9 B. A. Clarke, b Bishop 13 W.H. Davis, b Boyton 96 B.F. Furniss, c Renals, b Boyton.............. 35 F. O. Tubby, b Renals 0 Total ...........270 E.J. Ramsey, b Bishop 18 C lapton . P. Waterer, not out... 26 I B 1, nb 1 ........ 2 S. A. Asser, b Fumiss 26 — F. A. Bishop, not out 20 I Total .............74 H. ‘Boyton, J. H. Robinson, F. A. Boys, J. H. Renals, W. R. Hood, J. H. Douglas, J. A. Abbott and R. Walbancke did not bat. I