Cricket 1896

J une 11, 1896. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 199 BETWEEN THE INNINGS. Mr. Newham’s recent successes must be very pleasing to those who have had sympathy for Sussex through all those disastrous years when the County figured at or very, very near the bottom of the list. If ever a gallant vic­ tory was gained by the struggling County during that time, if ever a splendid fight was made against overwhelming odds, the old Ardingly man was almost certain to have had a great share in it. For years he was the mainstay of the teamwith the bat. There were times when he had good help from others. Just for a year or two Walter Quaife was a really fine batsman, with promise of eventual greatness to which he has never quite attained. Newham’s old schoolfellow, Mr. George Brann, did well at times, though his best achievements belong to later days of Sussex cricket. Mr. Aubrey Smith, of little account as a batsman at first, trained on into a good man ; and, of course, these were always the hard-working pros, of the team, the erratic Bean, the veteran Humphreys, and Jesse Hide. But Newham was facile princeps. Now he is no longer so. Since then, perhaps the greatest batsman of the younger generation, and certainly one of the top-sawyers of the oldsters—the Indian prince and the old Aus­ tralian captain—besides such men as Marlow and Mr. C. B. Fry, have come to strengthen the team; and, though the old captain and present secretary is as good as ever, he can­ not now claim supremacy over all his comrades. There are in the Sussex team, when playing full strength, seven batsmen, any one of whom is likely to score three figures. The same might be said of Surrey and Yorkshire, but scarcely of any other county team. That little check at Oxford apparently did Surrey good; and, as I suppose it is too much to expect that the Oval men should get through the season absolutely undefeated, I can only feel glad that it did not come in a match which counted for the Championship. Yorkshire, too, has twice met with reverses in extraneous engagements. I have not had time during the past week to look at as many papers as usual; but, so far as I have seen, no writer has remarked upon the peculiar resemblance of the Surrey v. Somerset match to that played last year between the same counties on the same ground. Here are some of the coincidences : 1895. Somerset went in first. Five wickets were down for 16. Mr. Woods and D. L. Evans stopped the rot, and Nichols assisted later. Brockwell was highest scorer for Surrey. Somerset scored 297 in their two innings. Surrey won by nine wickets. 1896. Somerset went in first. Five wickets were down for seven. Mr. Woods and V. T. Hill stopped the rot, and Nichols again played up manfully, he and his captain mak­ ing the stand of the innings. Brockwell highest scorer for Surrey. Somerset’s two inn­ ings totalled 279. Surrey won by ten wickets. I have often wondered why Nichols does not make more runs. I have seen him bat really well more than once; ar.d though he is too apt to play the stonewall game un­ necessarily, he can hit when he chooses. Perhaps, the uncertainty as to whether he is or not looked upon as a batsman has not had a very good effect upon his play. He has been shifted about from second or third wicket down to No. 11 on the list. If he were consistently to be sent in No. 6 or 7, I fancy he would do better. It seems somewhat inconsistent that on one day Mr. Woods should insist upon a runner for a batsman who had been hurt wearing pads, and on another allow an injured player to be replaced by an entirely fresh man. The latter was a very sportsmanlike action, and I most cordially agree with it. But there is no law which could have been brought forward to force Mr.Woods to let J. Bean take Marlow’ s place at Brighton, while there is certainly no law which says that a runner shall wear pads. Of course, the batsman himself need not do so. Attewell is another player of Nichols’ sort —one, I mean, who, from his good style and real batting ability, ought to make more runs. One does not expect a great bowler to score consistently; but one is surprised that so really good a batsman as Attewell has often proved himself, should fail in match after match, and then suddenly chip in with such an innings as his really great 96 against Yorkshire. He has never managed to reach the century yet in a first-class match, although he has four or five times, at least, got well into the eighties. Lack of decision is, I fancy, Attewell’s fault as a batsman. He would be a greater bowler as well as a greater batsman if he were prepared to risk a little more. Not but that he is, as he has been for years, one of the best and most reliable bowlers in the country. What Notts would have done without him in these last few unfortunate years of her history one does not care to think. But I have always thought that he would be of more use to his side if he bowled fewer maidens and used more of the arts practised by such bowlers as Lohmann and Giffen, in order to get out the batsmen more quickly. The mention of Lohmann reminds me of his big score at Reigate the other day—by far the largest he has ever hit up. It is not often I have space in these columns to speak of per­ formances in matches other than first-class; but I must spare a line to congratulate “ our George” upon such a fine score, wThich, followed up by his capital innings against Somerset, and his fine bowling against Derby­ shire, affords indubitable proof that he has come back from the Cape fit and well. He should certainly again secure a place in the England team against the Australians. I have received several suggestions as to the be3t eleven for this match, which I regret I cannot afford space to quote. Most of them harmonise fairly well with my own selection, which is : W . G. Grace, K. S. Ranjitsinhji, A. E Stoddart, F. S. Jackson, Brown, Peel, Abel, Hayward, Richardson, Lohmann, Lilley. Reserves: Gunn, J. T. Hearne, according as to whether it is batsman or bowler of the original selection who cannot play. Yes, I know that there are four Surrey and three Yorkshire men in the team ; but I don’t think anyone can dispute their claims— if not their absolute rights—to places. There is, of course, no reason why the same teim should be played in all three matches. Long stands for a wicket (100 rune and over), fortnight ended June 6 :— Date. Rs.Wkts. Batsmen. Match. At. May. 248...7...Grace and Thomas Gloa. v. Sx. B’ ton 25 113...2...W. Susrg & Ever­ shed ..................D’by v. H’ ts S’ton 26 211...1...Bean and Marlow S’x v. Glos. B’ton 26-27 107...*...Newhan& Ranjit­ sinhji S’x v. Glos. B’ton 27 126...6. ..V.T. Hill & Woods Smt, v. fe’x B’ton 28 145...6...W . G. Quaife & W elford .......... 118 10...Lord Hawke and Hunter ........... 171...2...M u r d o c h a n d Ranjitsinhji ... 216...3.. Murdoch & New­ ham .................. 115...5...Foster & Leveson- Gower.................. 100.. .8.. nirst and Peel 107. .6 . Giffen and Grearory 131...7...Attewell andC.W . W right ......... 115...1...Clayton & Warner 121...3...Abeland Hayward Wwk.v.Leic. Leic. 28 Yks. v. Kent Leeds 29 S’x v. Smt. B’ton 29 S’x v. Smt. B’ ton 29-30 June. O.U.v.Au8t. Oxford 1 Yks. v. Notts N’ham 1-2 Aust.v.O.U. Oxford 2 Notts v.Yks. N’ham 3 O.U.v.M.C.C.Oxford 4 S’y v. Derby Oval 4-5 The ten first-class matches played during the week realised 6,516 runs for 313 wickets— an average of 20 8 per wicket, the lowest recorded for any week this season as yet, though still quite up to the average taken throughout most seasons. Yorkshire’ s 450 at Trent Bridge easily secures pride of place in the week’s totals; and there were but two centuries, against no fewer than sixteen during the last week in May. J.N.P. HONOR OAK v. CLAPTON—Played at Honor Oak on June 6. C la pto n . P. Waterer, st Jones, b Dickason .......... 24 W . Thorogood, st Jones, b Dickason .. 32 H. E. V. Chichester, b Dickason .......... 0 J. L. Tate, lbw, b " 0 4 C. H. Nelson, b Dicka­ son .......................... A. Dodson, st Jones, b R. H. Walbanclie, not out .................. F. Adams, c Chapman, b Haves .................. S. Genders, b H ayes.. F. M. H a r d in g , b D ickason.................. W . Cooper, b Dicka­ son .......................... Byes ................... Total 64 E.G.Hayes, c Genders, b Thorogood .......... 0 J. Johnson, b Thoro­ good ..........................16 H. Burton, c Cooper, b Waterer .......... 31 G. S. Harrison, b Thorogood ........... 3 T. R. Dickason, c Nelson, b Waterer 9 E.Chapman.c Chiches­ ter, b Thorogood ... 9 H oxor Oak. A. Jones, run out ... 0 W . Tapp,b Thorogood 19 F.Belleni, cWalbanke, b Chichester ........... 9 G. Hayman, notout .. 6 F. A. Wilkie, c and b Thorogood ........... 6 B 1,1b 3 ........... 4 Total . 112 HAMTSTEAD v. CHISW ICK PARK.—Played at Hampstead on June 6. C h isw ick P a r k . A. W . Watson, b Paw­ ling .......................... 1 Hutchins, b Spofforth 0 L. Clarke, b Thornton 23 P. Bodington, lbw, b Pawling .................. 0 H. Turner, c and b Spofforth..................17 A. A. Surtees, notout 29 J. W all, b Spofforth... W .Verle, b Spofforth W . Turner, c Alexan­ der, b Spofforth ... C. Birt, b Spofforth ... H .W orslev (absent)... B 2 ,lb 5 Total 85 Second Innings: A. W . Watson, b Selfe, 17; L. Clarke, c sub., b Pawling, 42 ; b 6, lb 2. Total, 68. H am p stead . G. Maryon-Wilson, b Bodington ........... 0 H. R. Lipscombe, c Hutchins, b Boding­ ton .......................... 6 H .W oodall, c Surtees, b Bodington ...........41 Dr. G. Thornton, b Clarke ..................21 F. R. Spofforth, c Hutchins, bWorsley 15 W . S. Hale, not o u t... 98 E. Whinney, b Clarke 23 G.B. Bell, b Bodington 28 F. H. Alexander, b Worsley .................. 0 S. S Pawling, cVerle, b Bodington .......... 2 F. V. Selfe, c and b Bodington ........... 7 B 36, lb 11, nb 2 ... 49 Total .290 C RICKET Report Sheets, lOd. per dozen, post free. Order of 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, 1G8, Upper Thames Street, London, E.C.