Cricket 1896

M a y 14, 1896, CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OE TIIE GAME. 137 be pitied for their very long outing in the field. As it is the object of every county to avoid losing points in the County Championship, Warwickshire are rather to be congratulated. Before the match began, they must have felt almost certain to meet with defeat, and to lose a point, whereas b y their draw they have to all intents and purposes gained one. The fact that they were some hundreds in arrear at the end of the match, is nothing whatever to their discredit', for their task was simply to make a draw, and they accomplished it with ease. T o say that Mr. Murdoch’s second innings of 42 was the best in the Sussex v. M.C.C. match, may appear a bold statement, since Gunn made a very much higher score, with hardly any mistakes. But while Gunn’s batting was altogether excellent, the bowlers against him were not able to take advantage of the peculiarities of the wicket as were the M .C.C. bowlers. Mr. Murdoch’s runs were made under the greatest difficulties, but he shewed a fund of resource which was worthy of the days when he was the mainstay of the Australian team. I n the same match, K . S. Ranjitsinhji also shewed that he is likely to be as good as he was last year. But he does not love cold, and is never at his best when he has to wear a sweater for the sake of warmth. He times the ball all right, but it does not go off the bat as cleverly as usual, and he does not look as if he were really enjoying his innings. A lth o u g h the spectators at Lord’s generally seemed to recognise the good points in the play of Ranjitsinhji and Murdoch, they were rather polite than enthusiastic in their applause ; they looked upon the batting as one looks upon a good but unexciting stage play. When Brann came in and made his first big hit, they all roused themselves suddenly, and, thereafter, instead of being only satisfied and happy, they were like men who were out on a holiday, and meant to enjoy every moment to its utmost. T he Surrey executive have received information from George Lohmanu that he was leaving the Cape last Wednesday for England. The few weeks’ rest he had after the heavy work he had to do with Lord Hawke’s team, has, he says, done him any amount of good, and he is particularly cheery with regard to the part he is going to play in Surrey cricket this summer. He is due at Southampton to-m orrow week, and his services are to be at the disposal of the Surrey Club by the first of June. T he chairman of the recently appointed Royal Commission on Agriculture, Vis­ count Cobham, was, some thirty years ago, one of quite the best batsmen in England. As the H on. C. G. Lyttelton, he made a high reputation at Eton, which was more than confirmed at Cam­ bridge University. A t the commence­ ment o f the sixties he did good service for the Gentlemen against the P layers; but only for a few years, as he retired too early from first-class cricket. It was of his younger brother, the present head-master of Haileybury College, that Andrew Lang wrote, describing his batting as the “ Champagne of Cricket.” Still, in point of style and attractiveness, as well as of power, C. G’s play would have borne comparison with that of either of his juniors, Edward or Alfred, at their best. A b e l ’ s remarkable sp rin g in Surrey’s first three matches is without a parallel in first-class county cricket for the com ­ mencement of the season. W . G., as most of us know, got three centuries— two of them scores of three hundred—in August., 1876. A. C. Maclaren finished last summer’s cricket for Lancashire, it will be remembered, with a sequence of three centuries. Another Amateur, cap­ tain E. G. Wynyard, had the distinction of three consecutive hundreds in 1894 for Hampshire, which had not then been promoted to the rank of first-class. But, to the best of my belief, Abel’s 138, 152, and 231 during the last ten days represent the only instance of a batsman making three successive innings of over a hundred for a first-class county in the first three matches of the season. M b . A. E. C o a t is writes the follow ing very interesting letter from Citrus Colony Club, Loomis, California :— ‘ •The game is steadily winning its way in this State, and, up here at any rate, the natives "begin to appreciate it somewhat— anyhow, they put down their dollars, if they don’t play. There are five or six clubs in or near San Francisco, and others at San Jose, Santa Cruz, Lake Port, Burns Valley, Bakersfield, Los Angeles, Loomis, Auburn, Red Bluff, Nevada City, and Grass Valley. If we could only get reduced fares from the railroad—there is practically only one in California, and its minimum fare is 2Jd. per mile—distant clubs could meet more often, and the game would profit accordingly ; but alas ! the motto of the Southern Pacific is ‘ Charge all the traffic will bear, ’ and they have a monopoly, worse luck for the State. We opened the season here on the 12th inst. with a match between the Citrus Colony and Auburn, and we sball have a county match v. Pacific C.C. on May 30th and 31st; in October we hope to go on tour, and to play Nevada, Lake, Santa Clara, and Alameda Counties.” M b . G. L a c y writes as follows :— Dear Sir,—I am not going to enter for your competition, as I should be sorry to carry of the prize from more deserving aspirants. I only wish to refer to question 7. The direct answer to it, so far as modern cricket is concerned, is, I believe, only W. and J. Lillywhite, W . and A. Clarke, R. and H. B. Daft, and the two W . G.’s. But the question covers the whole interesting subject of hereditaiy cricket. A year or two ago, some of those amiable Surrey phobists, whom for our sins we have always with us, objected to Hayward playing for the county, on the ground that he was Cambridge born. And yet Hayward occupies a position absolutely unique as a Surrey man, for not only his father, but his grandfather as well, played for Surrey. I believe there is no similar case, either among professionals or amateurs, unless it occurred with the Oscroft family. It is very curious that the fathers of two other members of the Surrey eleven also played for the county, vix., Street and Brockwell—that is if Brockwell is a son of old George, a point, on which, curiously enough, I never enquired. Other instance's of father and son playing for Surrey, are two Sewells, Shermans, Caesars, and Martingals, while Caffyn’s uncle was also a member of the eleven. Several instances, besides those mentioned, have also occurred among Nottingham pros., and three, I think, among those of Kent. I wish you would print your list of W .W . ’s centuries. I cannot understand how you arrive at the number 37. That is the exact number ho has made for Surrey, but twelve Of these belong to the arbitrary list of “ not first-class,” unless you admit three made against Derby, during the year or two when the funny men of the Press allowed that county a place on the list. Really, it is very absurd to recognise these destinctions, when we remember that during the years they were called second class, Leicester beat Surrey six- times, Derby twice, and Warwick and Essex once each. In my humble judgment, W .W . has made more centuries than Shrewsbury. The following comparison between the county play of Grace and Shrewsbury may prove interesting, and will, perhaps, surprise some. S h rew sbu ry . ICO’s. v. Surrey..................................47 . . 1473 . . 31*3 . 2 v. Lancashire......................... 46 . . 1833 .. 30 . . 4 v. Yorkshire .......................... 51 . . 1387 .. 27*1 . . a v. S ussex..................................26 . . 1669 . . 64-1 . . 7 v. M id d lesex.......................... 47 . . 1803 . . 38-3 . 4 v. Kent ..................................‘27 . 1414 . . 52 3 .. 4 Gloucestershire v. Notts. ... 42 .. 1705 . . 40-5 . 4 286 . .10834 . . 37 2 27 G rack . v. Surrey..................................79 . . 2593 . . 42-8 .. 4 v. I.ancashire.......................... 69 . . 1828 . 30-9 .. 3 v. Yorkshire ...........................75 . . 3567 . . 47 5 .. 9 v. S u ssex..................................59 .. 2276 . . 38 5 .. 8 v. Middlesex .......................... 51 .. 2490 . . 48*8 .. 5 v. Kent ..................................23 .. 1268 . . 551 .. 4 Gloucestershire v. Notts. ...70 .. 2631 . . 37*5 .. 7 — ------ ------ — 416 .16653 . . 40 ..34 I do not guarantee these tables, but if there are any errors, they are those of omission in transcribing. I should like to 3ee how W .W . compares with them. Against Notts, his figures are 56, 1518, 27*1, but I have no material here to compile the rest. I suppose you are aware that two G. Yates have taken part in county cricket. Yours faithfully, Eastbourne, 25/5/96. G. LACY. I n a match between Town and Country at Oaklands, Victoria, the Town, with four wickets to go down, required 4 runs to win. One man was out for 0. A t this stage of the game a new bowler was put on for the first time during the game. He promptly did the hat trick. Ik describing the match at Melbourne, between the Army and the Bar, which seems to have been very amusing, “ F elix,” in the Australasian, says “ Once when the Bar umpire gave an Army man the benefit of the doubt the sub-skipper of the Bar said, “ This will never do. You are simply endeavouring to maintain your reputation at our expense.” One of the Army was a shade particular in removing two small boys who were behind the bowler’s arm. One of his opponents remarked, “ Perhaps you would like the ground shifted round or the fence put back a bit.”