Cricket 1896

268 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OE THE GAME. J u l y 9 , 1896 OXFORD v. CAMBRIDGE. Played at Lord’s on July 2, 3, and 4. Oxford won by four wickets. Favoured by fine weather and a full Ihree day’s cricket the ’Varsity match was watched by even a greater crowd than usual, although with a few ex­ ceptions the enthusiasm was not very m arked; possibly it was too hot to become excited over any play which was not quite out of the ordinary. Before the game began the chances o f the two teams seemed to be remarkably evenly balanced ; if Oxford had slightly the better bowling Cambridge were certainly a little stronger in batting, while both sides were known to be able to field well. It must be said that the greater part of the cricket was tame to a degree ; indeed if Barlow and Alec Bannerman and Louis H all had appeared in the places of three of the Uni­ versity players, and had scored at their slowest rate, they would hardly have attracted any particular attention. University cricket has generally the great merit of being attractive on account of the briskness of the scoring as well as for the brilliant fielding, but a very great many of those who took part in the match of 1896 departed from the traditions of the gam e; added to this few of the hitters on either side came off to any great extent. Cambridge were in nearly the whole of the first day for 319 runs—a very slow rate of scoring for a ’ Varsity ma*ch. which as usual ended at seven o’clock. Nevertheless the time was not wasted, for it is a big task for any team to haye to go in against a total of over 300, and a ’Varsity team which is placed in such a position is generally defeated. There were nine double figures in the Cambridge innings, and the only men who com­ pletely failed were decidedly two of the best bats in the team—W . G. Grace ana Jessop. Grace is one of the safest of men. and ran nearly always be relied on to secure a moderately large score, so that his dis­ missal was a great blow to his side. Jessop has been greatly blamed for having a hit so soon after he got in, but as he is essentially a hitter, and was never in­ tended by nature to be anything else, it is difficult to see why he should be condemned; as it was, the hit was very nearly a fourer. The most attractive batting on the side was shown by Bray, who hit hard and fearlessly at a time when the total was by no means big enough to boa t of. Hemingway was j ust getting nicely set when he was out; some of his cuts were marvellously good, and but for superb fielding his score would have been fifty instead of 26. But the chief honour of the day fell to Burnup and Wilson (who each made 80) in about equal proportions. Burnup easily kept up his wicket while Grace, Marriott, and Druce were obviously ill at ease, and although he hardly scored as rapidly as usual, his batting was safe, and his all-round hitting well timed. On the other hand Wilson wore the bowlers’ hearts ou t; he was a veiy long time before he scored, and frequently during his innings he had a long, long re*st. He was the only man except Burnup and Bray who ever got the mastery i f Hartley, who tied up the batsmen far more than any other Oxford bowler. The first innings of Oxford was not of paiticular interest. Most of the batsmen seemed quite at home with the bowling, but nobody made a big score, and the cricket was generally tedious. Hartley, who like Bray was the ninth player on the list, entirely altered the state of affairs, which until his arrival looked Very bad indeed for Oxford, and by very pretty and bold cricket he made 43. Towards the end of the innings it bpcame a very interesting question whether Oxford would save the follow on. In about seven cases out of ten a side which just fails to save the follow on, when the wicket is good, makes a much better score in the second innings, and may in the end put its op­ ponents in to make moi e runs than they care about. It was evident that the Cambridge captain took all things into consideration, including the heavy clouds which promised rain in the night, and that he preferred if possible to allow Oxford to make the necessary runs. Thereupon Shine, who was bowling, sent down a no­ ball, which went to the boundary, without attracting the attention of the spectators. A second no-ball which went to the boundary caused a shout of “ Play the game,’ ’ and when a third ball, which the wicket-keeper did not attempt to stop, went to the boundary about half the spectators were very % igorous indeed in their expressions of disgU't, and after Cunliffe had been bowled with the addition of two to the total the Cambridge team came in for an unflattering reception as they went to the pavilion. B ud as they had gained their end, and had done nothing whatever contrary to the laws of the frame or to sportsmanlike conduct they could rest satisfied. \\ liether they experienced the same feeling at the end of the match is another question, lo r after they had enjoyed an unhappy period of batting in a wretched light, seven of their wickets were down for 84. Nobody, except Druce, had been able to make anything of Hartley and Cunliffe, and Cambridge were despondent. But once more Bray came to the rescue of his side. While lie was in partnership with Druce the batting was delightful to watch It was one of Druce’s days, which have been toj few this year, and there is no more attractive batsman in England than Druce when he gets the upper hand of the bowling. Bray laid on to the bowlers with impartiality, and when at last Druce was out for a splendid 72, the total had been taken to 154. Cobbold came in. but then the rain came down heavily and stopped play. Bray was not out, 24. It rained a great deal during the night, and as Cambridge had now a lead of 271 runs, the match looked over, for under ordinary circum­ stances the wicket would have played badly. But one never knows what the wicket at Lord’s will do this year. At times it has played extremely badly, at others, when so much rain has fallen, that an ordinary wicket would be ruined, it has played extremely well. On Saturday it was nothing short of perfect, and Jessop’s bowling was quite harmless. Cambridge added 58 runs, Bray bringing his own score up to 41. Oxford were thus left with 330 to win. Up to this year, a total of 300 had never been made in the fourth innings of a ’Varsity match, so that whatever might be the state of the wicket, Oxford looked like losing. For the second time in the match, Warner was run out without doing any­ thing brilliant, and Mordaunt only made 9. So far everything pointed to the success of Cambridge. But for the rest of the game, Oxford gradually made things look more and more in their favour, until, at last they won. Every man (except Waddy, who went in when only two runs were wanted) played good cricket and scored well, and each wicket put on about 70 or 80. Foster, Pilkington, Leveson-Gower, and Bardswell made over 30, and G. O. Smith obtained the highest honour possible in a ’ Varsity match, by making a hundred. It was to him—the last man of the team chosen by the captain - that the success of Oxford was due, and his innings was worthy to be ranked with those of the other men who had made a hundred in the ’Varsity match. He went in when Oxford had hardly any chance of winning the match t he was out when only two runs were required. The Cambridge fielding was good all through, although it was not of marked excellence, but the Oxford fielding was quite up to the standard of 1he best Univer.-ity teams. In fact, in ordinary years, Burnup, W ilson and Druce would all have easily made their hundred, but so many hits, which were well worth four, were made into singles by extraordinary cleverness on the part of the field. Too bowling was not remarkabR. Hartley on the Oxford side, and Cobbold for Cambridge, gave the batsmen more difficulty than anybody else. Grace was not put on at all, and Burnup, who has very frt quently broken up a long partnership, only bowled two overs for 3 runs during the match. C a m b r id g e . First innings. C. J. Burnup, c Mordaunt, b Hartley ..........................80 W .G .Grace, jun.,b Hartley 0 H. H. Marriott, c Warner, b Hartley ......................... 16 b Cunliffe N. F. Druce, c Smith, b Cunliffe ..........................14 Second innings. c and b Hartley 11 b Cunliffe ........... o C. E. M. Wilson, c Cunliffe, b Hartley ..........................J W . McG. Hemingway, c and b Hartley ..............................26 F. Mitchell (capt.), c L.- Gower, b Hartley ...............26 G. L. Jessop, c Mordaunt, b Hartley .......................... 0 E. H. Bray, c Pilkington, b Cunliffe ..........................49 P. W . Co^bold, b Hartley .. 10 E. B. Shine, not out ...........10 B 4, lb 1, w 2, nb 1 ... 8 Total ....................319 O xford . First innings. P. F. Warner, run out ... 10 G. J. Mordaunt, b Jessop ... 26 H. K. Foster, b Wilson ... 11 G. O. Smith, c Bray, b Wilson ..........................37 C. C. Pilkington, b Jessop .. 4 H. 1). G. Leveson-Gower (capt.), b Jessop ...........26 G. R. Bardswell, c and b Cobbold .......................... 9 P. S. Waddy, st Bray, b Cobbold .......................... 0 J. C. Hartley, c Marriott, b Wilson ........... ...........43 F. H. E. Cunliffe, b Shine... 12 R. P. Lewis, not out ........... 0 B 12,1b 4,nb8 ...........24 c Pilkington, b Waddy .......... ' st Lewis, b Hart­ ley .................. b Cunliffe ........... b Cunliffe ........... st Lewis, b Hart­ ley .................. c Lewis, b Waddy 41 not out ...........23 c Hartley, b Waddy ......... 16 B 5, w 1, nb 5... 11 Total ...212 Second innings. run out ...........17 b Jessop ........... 9 c and b Cobbold... 34 c Mitchell, b Cob­ bold .................132 c and b Jessop ... 44 Total c Bray, b Shine... 41 not out.................. 33 not out.................. 1 . 4 B 6,1b 6,w 6,nb 1 19 ..202 Total (6 wkts) 330 93 4 78 3 28 3 2 0 C a m b r id g e . First innings. Second innings. O. M. R. W . O. M. R. W . 55 25 87 2 ... ... 33 11 59-3 13 161 8 ........ 30 3 24 10 35 0 ......... 11-3 3 29 19 24 0 .......... 3 1 2 0 4 0 Cunliffe bowled five no-balls, Leveson- Gower and Waddy each one wide, and Hartley one wide and one no-ball. O x f o r d . First innings. Second innings. O. M. R. W . O. M. R. W . . 37 15 75 3 ......... 30 8 98 2 .3 7 19 48 3 ......... 42 20 50 0 . 12-3 4 29 1 .......... 20 9 41 1 .11 2 26 2 ......... 44*4 7 96 2 Burnup ,.i ... 2 0 3 0 Druce ........... 7 2 11 0 Mitchell .......... 2 1 2 0 Cobbold bowled one no-ball, and Shine eight no-balls and three wides, Bumup two, and Mitvhell one. Cunliffe ... Hartley ... Waddy ... 1 ilkington L.-Gower Jessop Wilson Shine Cobbold YORKSHIRE v. DERBYSHIRE. Played at Bramall Lane on July 2, 3, and 4. Yorkshire won by nine wickets. The Derbyshire XE is to be greatly congratulated on the result of its two matches with Yorkshire. It is true that one match ended in a draw and the other in a defeat, but in each Yorkshire had won the toss on a perfect wicket and had made a very large score; so that Derbyshire were always playing an uphill game. The draw in the first matcn was very even, and although the defeat in the second was by nine wickets, it was not so bad as it looked. Storer scored another hundred in the second innings, and it was largely due to him that his side was able to send Yorkshire in a second time. If the first innings of Derbyshire had produced a larger total, as it ought to have done, the Yorkshiremen might have had to work very hard for their victory, but as it was, only Davidson made a good score. For Yorkshire, Browu was in great form in each innings, and Denton sur­ passed himself. Haigh proved himself, by excellent bowling, to be a decided acquisition lo the Yorkshire team, and Peel also did well. Hulme had a good analysis for Derbysl ire in the first innings of Yorkshire. Y o r k s h ir e . First innings. Brown, c Bagshaw, b David­ son ..................................61 Tunnicliffe, b Purdy .......... 8 Hirst, c Porter, b Davidson 6 Denton, b P u rd y...................113 Moorhouse, c Marsden, b H ulm e..................................34 Wainwrjght, b Purdy........... 8 Peel, b Hulme ................... 5 Lord Hawke, ht wkt, b H ulm e.................................. 11 Mounsey, not o u t .................£8 Haigh, ibw, b Hulme.......... 11 Hunter, b Hulme................... 0 Second innings. not out... b Purdy 50 21 not out... Bye ........... Total .......................... 298 Total (1 wkt.)... 1 D e r b y s h ir e . Second innings. 10 b Haigh ........... 17 b Haigh ........... 17 b P e e l.................. 14 b Haigh First innings. S. H. Evershed, b Haigh L. G. Wright, b Haigh Bagshaw, b Haigh Chatterton, b Peel Davidson, b P e e l........... Storer, c Hunter, b Peel Sugg, c Mounsey, b Peel G. A. Marsden, not out ... Hulme, c Denton, b Haigh Purdy, b Haigh .................. Porter, b Haigh .................. 57 Mounsey, Haigh B 6, lb 6 Total 6 9 3 ... 0 b ... 12 .16 c 11awke,b Haigh122 0 c Moorhouse, b Wainwright ... 28 4 b Haigh ........... 0 4 b Wainwiight ... 24 0 not out.................. 10 0 c Moorhouse, b Hirst.................. 6 12 Byes ...........12 First Davidson Hulme ... . Purdy Porter Bagshaw Sugg ... . First Hirst B aigh ... Wainwright P eel........... . ...161 Y o r k s h ir e . innings. O. M . R. W . .. 46 23 68 2 ... .. 34-2 10 80 5 ... .. 20 5 53 3 ... .. 30 9 56 0 ... . . 4 1 15 0 ... ... 4 1 26 0 ... D e r b y s h ir e . innings. O. M . R. W . .. 19 7 43 0 ... .. 22*1 9 45 6 ... ..12 5 19 0 ... ... 15 6 3- 4 ... Total ...232 Second innings. O. M. 11. W . 14-1 8 17 0 20 10 23 0 9 3 20 1 13 4 25 0 Second innings. O. M. R. W. . 9-1 1 33 1 .2 7 7 70 6 . 12 2 49 2 bU y t8 1