Cricket 1896

J o l t 2, 1896. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 251 BETWEEN THE INNINGS. The Cantabs deserve all the more credit for their victory over the M C.C. since Jessop was absent, and two of their other best men, Hemingway and the captain, were simply passengers in this match. To Norman Druce, H. H. Marriott, and Wilson of the many initials the credit belongs. Drace seems to have got back into his splendid form of the early part of 1895. Marriott has made immense strides. Wilson is a first-class player of the steady, reliable type, and distinctly the best all-round man in the te'Jm. I must own that, until this match, I had looked upon the inter- ’ Varsity game as a good thing for Oxford, who have shown really good and consistent form throughout their season, and have only been beaten by the Australians. Now I don’t know what to think. It is difficult to size up a team like the Cantabs. One thing must surely be admitted: that both sides are dis­ tinctly above the average. Cambridge has in Mitchell, Druce, Marriott, Jessop, Heming­ way, Wilson, Burnup and Grace eight men any one of whom is likely to run up a big score. Oxford has sev. n of a like calibre : Foster, Mordaunt, Leveson-Gower, Warner, Bardswell, Waddy, and Pilkington. Between Jessop, Cobbold, Shine, and Wilson on the one side, and Cunliffe, Hartley,Waddy, and Bards­ well on the other, I should be inclined to give slight preference to the Light Blues’ bowling quartet; but it must not be forgotten that on his this year’s form Cunliffe is the most dangerous of the eight. Lewis is a bettor wicket-keeper than Bray, but not nearly as good a bat. Surrey beaten again! I am afraid her chance of retaining the championship has been greviously discounted now. After all, I should not be greatly surprised if Lanca­ shire came out ahead at the finish. Middle­ sex has often of late years, like the Red Rose county, proved a thorn in the side of Surrey. Last year Surrey won at Lord’s by ten wickets, and the match at the Oval was drawn in the Champion County’s favour at the finish, thanks to some really spUndid batting by Abel, Maurice Read, Brockwell, and young Holland. In 1894 Surrey won by five wickets at the Oval, but was beaten in the return a month later by six wickets. The Oval match was the one in which R. S. Lucas and Jem Phil-ips made such a splendid stand for the ninth wicket in the second innings, adding 149 whilst together. (Com­ pare the stand of O’ Brien and Bromley- Davenport at a similar juncture on Friday. But then, it brought victory ; the 1894 stand did not). At Lord’s the burly “ Jem ’’ had eleven wickets for 75, and the Irish baronet, then Mr. T. C. O’Brien, was top scorer with 53. In 1893, Middlesex won both matches, the return after following on in a minority of 179. This was the game in which O’ Brien and Stoddart put on 228 for the first wicket in the second innings. In the first match of that season, at the Oval, A. J. Webbe and Stanley Scott did a very fair bit of batting by scoring 154 runs between them in a hundred minute 4. But 1893 was rather a year of demoralisation for Surrey. In 1892 she won both when she met Middlesex at the Oval— that year Mr. Webbe’s team were making strong running for the championship, having played four matches—against Sussex, Kent, Somerset, and Gloucestershire—and won them all. But Surrey stopped her triumphal progress, winning by eight wickets. In 1891 each side won at home in an innings. In the first innings of Middlesex at the Oval, Sharpe had nine wickets for 47. Thus of the last ten matches Surrey had won five, Middlesex four, and one had been drawn. Previous to that, Middlesex had won only three matches in nine seasons—that is, from 1882 to 1890, inclusive. This was during the period of Surrey’s upward progress. Before that, Middlesex had for some years generally been victorious. The forty matches played during the years 1876-95 (inclusive) resulted in 21 wins for Surrey, 14 for Middlesex, and 5 were drawn. The match was an annual one long before 1876, but that is quite as f tr as I have time to pursue the records back just now. There have been many notable happenings in these matches. Indeed, Surrey v. Middle­ sex has almost invariably produced good cricket, on one side or both. In 1890 little Abel carried his bat through the innings at Lord’s for 151, and in the earlier match at the Oval, George Lohmann had twelve wickets for 69. In 1889, Walter Read scored 113 at the Oval, and Key a splendid 121 (not out) at Lord’s. In 1888, Burton had all ten wickets (for 59 runs) in Surrey’s first at the Oval. In 1887, Middlesex beat Surrey, up to then undefeated in champion­ ship matches, by nine wickets. But the best innings of that match was not by a member of the winning side, though Stanley Scott made 99, for in the second innings of Surrey, when the game was all against his side, Mr. John Shuter played a grand innings of 100—an attempt almost heroic to pull the game out of the fire. Never, I think, did the old Surrey captain, great-hearted batsman as he was, play a finer innings than that. The week’s records: 10matches, 8,785 runs for 327 wickets, average 26-7 per wicket. Fifteen centuries, three thousand - runs matches, two totals over 500 (both by Cambridge), four more over 400. Long stands for awicket (100 runs or more), week ended June 27 .— June 105...2...Abel & Grace ... Eng. v. Aus. Lord’s 22 102 ..5.. Hemingway and Marriott .......... C.U. v. S’x. B’ ton 22 221...4.. Gregory and Trott Aus. v. En*. Lord’s 23 142...8...Jessop & Mitchell C.U. v. S’x . B’ton 23 110 ... 4 ...Holland & Street S’y. v. Ox’fd Oval 23 125...6... Bardswell and Leveson-Gower Oxfd. v. S’sx B ton 25 168 . 3 . Carpenter and Phillips ...........M.C.C.v.C.U.Lord’s 25-26 106.. 9.. B-Davenport and O’ Brien ...........M ’dx.v. S’y. Oval 2< 128 . 6 ..Baker and Sugg .. Lcs. v. Glos. Bristol 26 237 . 3 .Druce & W ilson... C.U.v.M.C.C.Lord's 2"-27 119...*...Bray & Marriott... „ ,» >, 27 192...2.. Bagshaw & Ever- shed ..................Dbyv.Yorks Derby .27 47...2...Bean & Ranjit’nii S’x.v.O xf’ rd B’ton *27 127...*...iiillick& R’njitnji „ „ » 27 J.N.P. HAMPSTEAD v. PALLIN G SW ICK .-Played at Hampstead on June 27. IJAMP8TF.AD. H. B. Hayman, _ Clay, b Bute ..........11 W .R. Moon, st Heyne­ mann, b Bowstead 66 C.H.Gray, b Bowstead 10 J. Gibbon, c Clay, b Bate .......................... 2 R. Griffiths, b Bate 1 G. B. Bell, b Bowstead 5 R. Leigh Ibbs, c Clay, b Bate ..................13 T. W. Mackintosh, c Clay, b Bowstead ... 23 C. W . Armett, b Bowstead... ... 6 C. Nuding, not out ... 4 N. F. Stallard, c Hebden, b Bow- stend ................... 0 ... 10 B 6, lb 4 Total ...151 P a l l in g s w ic k . F. S. Heynemann, b Stallard .................. E. M. Hamilton, c Griffiths, b Mackin­ tosh .......................... B.A.Carter, b Stallard F. H. Tyacke, b Stal­ lard .......................... J. Bowstead, b Stal­ lard ....................... H . V . Bate, b Stallard C. H. Campbell, c Leigh Ibbs, b Mack­ intosh ... #........... 6 R. A. Melhuisb, b Stallard .................. 2 F. R. Hebden, notout 15 J .C . Cl y, b Stallard 1 W .A.W atson, runout 6 B 1, lb 1 .......... 2 Total ... 82 HAMPSTEAD v. WOODFORD W ELLS.-Played at Hampstead on June 20. W oodfori* W e lls M .A. Fossetti. cReid, t-Selfe I b R e id ................ 1 H. H Davies,cFiggis,bGray 9 b Fiffgis ..........13 G. Foss- tti, b Gray ......... 14 b R eid ................. 0 F. H. Cbamen. b Gray ... 5 B. C. Palmer, b Selfe.........14 c Mackintosh, b Reid . ... 8 W . J J. Oilier, b Selfe ... 10 c Reid, b Figgis . 10 If. Mussett, lbw. b Selfe ... 8 not out................. 6 K. S. Mason, b Selfe ........... 3 • A. D. Chamen.bMackintosli 2 no*; out................. 0 N. Kemsley. b Selfe ........... 0 \V. Woodhouse, not out ... 2 B «, lb I ................. 7 Byes ........... 4 . Total E. Figgis, c W ood- house b Mussett .. 20 A. R. Trimen, lbw, b Mussett.................. 5 O. L. Tudor, b Mus­ sett ' .......................... 7 J. C. Toller, b Mus­ sett ... .................. 0 A . Reid, c Chamen, b Mussett ..................31 A. J. East, b Mussett 9 ...........75 H amphtf . ad . Total (5 wkts) 42 C. Gray,stWoodhou e, b f*osi»etti.................. H. Tewson. b Mussett T. W . Mackintosh, c Giller, b Mu^sett ... F.C. Mutter, st Wood- house. b V!u*sett ... F. V. Rrlfo. not out .. B 6, lb 1 ........... Total ...........1 HAMPSTEAD v. ST. BA R THOr.OMEW’ S HOS­ PITAL.—Played at Winchmore Hill on June 20. St. B a r t iio l o m k w ’ s H o s h t a l . J. C. Sale, b W ilson .. J. G. Ferni ■, b Walker 1 C. F. R we, b Wilson .. 18 J. A. Willett, retired h u r t .................. ... 66 H. E. Scoones, c l.ips- combe, b Wilson ... 33 H. J. Pickering, c Johnstone.bOsmond 7 H. Whitwell, lbw, b Total ...........*28L W illiam s.................. H. Bond did not bat. * Innings declared closed. IfAMPSTKAD. G. O. Marnock, c Williams, b Walker 29 C. G. W a t s o n , c Wbinney, b W il­ liam s... ... 30 W . fl. Randolph, not out .......................... 4 B 15, lb 6, w 4 ... 25 P. F. W ils n. b Fernie 10 A. E Jeaffreson, c Whitwell, b Ran­ dolph ..................81 W. H.Robson, b Fernie 3 H. R. Lipscornbe, not out ..........................75 E. Whinney, E. S. Johnstone, A . B. Osmond, Walker, and A. N. Other •id not bat. S. tf. Williams, c Bond, b Fernie 11 F. W . Andrew, not out ..........................2! B 8. w 1, nb 1 . 10 Total (4 wkts.) 214 ETON RAM BI/ERSv. GREKNJACKETS.—Played at St. Cross, Winchester on June 22 and 23. G beknjackkts . First innings. Second innings. G. V . Hordern, b G. A. F o lja m b e ..........................0 b G. A. Foljambe 11 Major Kitson. st Whatman, b G. A. Folj irabe ........... 0 c and b Ward ... 16 S. F. Mott, b G. A. Fol- ia m b e.................................. 4 c G. S. Foljambe, b Ward ........... 4 H. Foljambe, b Ward...........2t c Whatman, b Ward ........... 2 Freemantle. c G. S. Fol- jaml.e, b W ard..................1^ c sub., b Ward ... 18 Maior Clowes, b Ward ... 3 c Chinnery, b Ward ...........23 Capt. Hon. St. L. Jervis, c and b Foljunbe ...........23 b Ward ............ 8 A. J. Lainson. c and b G. A. Foljambe .................. 47 b Ward ............ 5 Lord Hardinge, b G. A. Fo’ iambe .......................... 0 c J. II. Walker, b Ward ........... 8 A. G. Bather (sub.), not out 16 n oto u t................... 9 Bannister (sub.), b G. A. Foljambe ................. ••• 0 b Ward ........... 1 Extras ................... 7 Extras ... 17 Total... Total.........122 > to n R a m b l e r s . L. D. Gosling, b Bannister 3 c L a in s o n , b Bannister ... 30 H.B.Chinnery.b Fiepmantle 9 b Bannister ...22 A. D. Whatman, c Baunis- ter, b Clowes ................. 3d c nordern, b Bannister ... 3 F. H. Walker, b Bannister 0 b Bannister ... 2 Godfrey Foljambe, b Ban­ nister ..................................50 c and b Bannister 1 A. E. B Ind, c sub., b Banni>tfr ..........................20 notout...............11 George Folj'm be, not out 30 n o to u t............. 11 R.O. Norman, b Fr*emantle 6 A. S. Ward, c and b Clowes 13 J . H. Walker, run out ... 1 E xtras.......................... 8 E-ctras........... 1 Tot*U ...176 Total , . 81