Cricket 1896

A u g . 27, 1896. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 379 BETWEEN THE INNINGS. A week of intermittent rain and sunshine— a condition of affairs which generally means small scores and a big harvest for the bowlers— has furnished, for once in a way, more runs than some of the finer weeks of the season, the 8,082 runs for 327 wickets scored in first- class matches between Sunday, August 16th, and Sunda)r, August 23rd, giving an average of 24*71 per w'icket. Seven weeks of the present season have had a higher average; nine, a lower one. The number of centuries has been the same as that of the week before— nine; and there have been some prolific partnerships. Here is the list: — Long stands for a wicket (week ending August 22) :— Aug. 106 . 2.. Abel &Hayward... Sy. v. Aus. Oval 17 117.. 2...Grace & Heming­ way .................Glos. v. Kt. C’ham 17 178 ..1 ..Douglas&Stoddart Mdx. v. Yks. B'ford 17 145.. 2...Brown & Jackson Yks. v. Mdx. B’ford 17-18 100 . 6... L ucas & O’Brien Mdx.v.Yks. B’lord 19 127...1.. Jackson & Tunni­ cliffe .................Yks.v.Mdx. B’ford 19 14 1... 1.. Jackson & Tunni­ cliffe .................Yks. v. Sx. B’ton 20 158...1...Douglas&Stoddart Mdx. v.Nts. N’ham 20 22 J .. 4.. LordHarris &Pat­ terson................Kt. v. Smt. T’ton 20 109.. 2...Hedley&R.Palairet Smt. v. Kt. 'l’ton 22 108 . 9 ..Nichols & Woods Smt. v. Kt. T’ton 22 132 . 4...Newham & Ran­ jitsinhji ......... Sx. v. Yks. B’ton 22 1 2 7 . Killick & Ranjit­ sinhji ................ Sx. v. Yks. B’ton 2i A singular feature of this list is the fact that two pairs of batsmen—Mr. Jackson and Tunnicliffe, Messrs. Stoddart and Douglas— should each twice within the week send up well over a hundred for the first wicket. It is a great pity that the old Dulwich boy cannot play regularly for his county, for the association of him and Stoddirt as “ first men in ” has already proved an exceptionally suc­ cessful one. Mr. Stoddart had the hard luck to fail by very little to score a century on two occasions during the w’eek, playing innings of 94 and 93. At Taunton, R. C. N, Palairet and his captain had still rougher luck—although they had the satisfaction of knowing that they had saved the game for their side—their respective scores being 99 and 98. It was very unfortunate for the old Oxonian, who has onco before this season stopped short in the 90’s. Perhaps Knight and Tunnicliffe, who during the week played innings of 96 and 99, are still more to be commiserated, however; for the young Leicestershire man has never yet scored a three-figure innings in first-class cricket; and Tunnicliffe cannot claim even one of the many centuries of this season. They have plenty of comrades in misfortune, however. Ninety and under 100 has been scored in an innings this season by Abel and C. J. Burnup thrice each, by Brown, W . Newham, Walter Quaife and Storer twice each, and once each by F. A. Iredale, C. Hill, II. Graham, L. G. Wright, A. J. Webbe, C. L. Townsend, Frank Sugg, Attewell, Baker, G. R. Bards- well, C. B. Fry, Hirst, F. S. Jackson, Alec llearne, G. L. Jessop, A. O. Jones, C. McGahey, H. D. Leveson-Gower, SirT. C. O'Brien, and W . G. Quaife. I ought to have included Mr. C. J. Burnup’s name last week among those who had reached the 1000 runs; and, perhaps, there has been no more notable performance of the sort in 1896 than that of the young Cantab and man of Kent, whose first season in important cricket this practically is. The little International footballer is possessed of pluck enough for a man twice his fighting weight and of coolness that would do credit to a veteran of twenty seasons. It is to be hoped that he will not, like so many fine ’ Varsity cricketers, practically drop out of big matches when his career at Cambridge is ended. It does not appear probable that we shall see much of Mr. Frank Mitchell and Mr. G. J. Mordaunt after this season; and the names of those whom business has partly or wholly prevented from playing big cricket after they had made their name as undergraduates is Legion. A. G. Steel, C. T. Studd, R. N. Douglas, E. C. Streatfeild, W. Rashleigh, VV. H. Patterson, C. M. Wells, J. Douglas, M. C. Kemp, F. Thomas, E. Smith - but it is un­ profitable to extend the list. The work of the world has to be done, no doubt; but somehow we don’t like to spare a bright attractive batsman, a good bowler, or a smart wicket­ keeper to do it. It is fortunate indeed, that there are men like S. M. J. Woods, F. Marchant, the Palairets, Jackson, Lord Hawke, Webbe, Sir T. C. O’Brien, A. O. Jones, K. S. Ranjitsinhji, Key and H. W. Bainbridge, who can and will play county cricket regularly after Alma Mater knows them no more. For—there are such notable exceptions as W. G., Hornby, Mason, Town­ send, Walter Read, Newham, Brann—it is chiefly to the Universities we must look to keep up our supply of brilliant amateurs. Which is rather a digression from Burnup and his 1,000 runs. Those who have followed in his wake during the w’eek just ended are Peel, Sir T. C. O’Brien, Hirst, A. O. Jones, Baker, and S. M. J. Woods, and the total number is now 34. Bar accidents, at least a dozen more should qualify before the end of the season, as there are quite that number wanting less than 150 runs, almost any man of whom might make that number in one innings without astonishing anyone. Peel and C. L. Townsend have each taken their 100th wicket, the former, like Davidson last year, doing so in the same match in which he brought his total of runs to four figures, there are some eight or ten bowlers who may possibly join the list before it closes, but Wainwright, Hirst, and Mead are the only three who can be looked upon as absolute certainties for a place in it. Veterans to the fore at Taunton ! Who would have thought it possible that Patterson after eighteen seasons (or rather half-seasons) of first-class cricket should beat his previous best on record by 38, and that Lord Harris, the hero of a hundred fights, the man who in the old days did more than anyone else to keep Kent cricket alive, the finest batsman, take him for all in all, that the good old cricketing county ever had, should, coming back to his old place in the team after nearly seven years’ absence, score a three figure innings. It is a quarter of a century ago since he first reached three figures in first-class cricket. In 1871 he made 107 for the M.C.C. against Oxford University at Cowley Marsh—a per­ formancewhich won him immediate promotion to the Oxford eleven. Lord Harris is not many years the junior of W .G ., his comrade and opponent in many a well-fought field. He had turned thirty-eight when he went to Bombay in 1889 ; and he said then that he did not think it likely that he would ever be seen in first-class cricket again. But he has been, and that to good effect. Here are some particulars of innings of under 20 runs which 1 can recall just now, in addition to the 17 made by Gloucestershire against the Australians :— Oxford University’s 12, v. M.C.C. and Ground, at Cowley Marsh in May, 1877.— A. J. Webbe was absent, so that only nine wickets fell. E. W . Wallington was not out, 7 ; H. Fowler, 4 ; II. R. Webbe, 1 ; the rest failed to score, and there were no extras. Poor Fred Morley took seven wickets for 6 runs; Arnold Rylott had two for 6. The first, second and third wickets fell at 1 ; the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh at 8; the eighth and ninth at 12. M.C.C. and Ground’s 16, v. Surrey, at Lord’s in May, 1872.—Captain Beecher scored 8, Rylott 6 (not out), and Howitt 2. The rest (including W .G., John Smith of Cambs., Alfred Shaw, and Tom Hearne) 4id not make a run among them. Southerton had four wickets for 5, W. Marten six for 11. The first seven wickets fell before a run was scored. M.C.C. and Ground’s 19, v. Australians, at Lord’s in May, 1878.—Flowers made 11, Wyld 5, Shaw 2, and Hornby 1, W .G ., A. W. Ridley, A. J. Webbe, G. F. Vernon, and George Hearne being among those credited with ducks. Spofforth had four wickets for 16 ; Boyle six wicketsfor 3. (In most printed scores of the match Wyld is shown “ b. Spofforth,’ ?but this should be “ b. Boyle.” ) Nine of the ten were clean bowled. The Australians’ 18, v. M.C.C. and Ground, at Lord’s, will be fresh in everyone’s memory ; but for the sake of record it may be mentioned here that the first wicket fell at 8, the second at 14, and the rest at 18, Giffen being absent; that Kelly (8), Graham (4), and Trott (6) made the runs ; and that Atte­ well had 14 runs scored off him without taking a wicket, Jack Hearne took four for 4, and Pougher fivefor 0 ! Two such scores are quite enough for one season ; but it is certainly curious that they should have occurred in one of the most pro­ lific run-getting years ever experienced. I was in error in stating that Frank Sugg’s 220 was the highest score made on the Bristol ground till W.G. made his 301. My good friend, the Rev. H. A. Tate, kindly calls my attention to the fact that W.G. made 288 v. Somerset there last year. So “ Ranji ” has tied W. G.’s ten centuries in one season, has placed himself among those famous few who have scored two centuries in a first-class match, and has within a week thrice scored three-figure innings! What he can do to add to his fame now I really do not know, unless he can beat Maclaren’s 424, and I don’t think he is physically capable of that. As he has scored 171 not out, I think it only reasonable to suppose that the 200 is well within his reach ; but between 200 and 400 there is a wide gulf. Beyond 200, the making of more runs becomes less a question of ability than of muscular strength and imperviousness to fatigue. It can scarcely be claimed that the Indian Prince’s feat of ten centuries in 1896 quite equals W . G’s ten in 1871 for several reasons. Ranjitsinhji has played in many more innings this year than W . G. did in 1871, and he has not made a 200 score, while the master made two in that season. Here are the figures for purposes of comparison:— “ W. G.” in 1871— 268, 217, 189*, 181, 178, 162, 146, 118, 117, 116 “ Ranji” in 1896— 171*, 163, 154*, 146, 138, 125*, 114*, 107, 1(0*, 100 J. N . P,