Cricket 1896

S e p t . 3, 1896. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 395 BETWEEN THE INNINGS. In a season of general fine weather and good wickets, the last week in August stands out unpleasantly conspicuous for dark skies and treacherous grounds. I suppose we ought not to grumble, for, with the exception of the second week in June, batsmen have suffered but little from the vagaries of the weather, and bowlers have had but little help from the combined influences of rain and sun. That week the average per wicket fell as low as 13*19; last week it was higher, 16 81 ; but, whereas only two matches of twelve played were drawn then, last week five out of twelve had to be left unfinished, and in two of the30 only one side had an innings. It must be a record for five out of seven first-class matches played in the same days to be drawn, for, until lately, it was quite impossible for seven first-class matches to be begun on the same day, though six times this season have seven been set for commencement on one day, and once eight. Only three centuries were scored dui ing the week, and several bowlers improved their averages appreciably—most notably of all little Mac, of the Australian Team, who is having a fine try to reach 100 wickets after all, and who should just about manage to do so, Donnan, too, is trying hard for the 1000 runs, and may have reached that number ere this is printed. Quaife the younger, Killick, Denton and Arthur Shrewsbury have each scored their thousandth run since I wrote last—three youngsters and a veteran; and Wainwright and Martin have joined the hundred wicket takers. Another veteran was to the fore in the match at Nottingham in which Arthur the Great made his total for the season into four figures, Wilfred Flowers, to wit. The Calverton pro., who has been for the last few years a much better man with the bat than he was between 1886 and 1892, has shown un­ accountably poor form this season, and has been left out of the Notts team in a good proportion of the matches. But that 107 shows that there is life in the old dog yet. It is Flowers* ninth century in first class cricket, five of its predecessors having been made for his county, and three for the M. C. C. Singularly enough, Flowers has never before scored three figures against Sussex, though his three famous comrades in the team— Barnes, Gunn, and Shrewsbury—have among them been credited with *20 centuries against the weak bowling of the Southern county, Gunn claiming nine, Shrewsbury seven, Barnes four. This is Flowers’ twentieth season in first class cricket, his debut having been made in 1877. Not many men reach the full twenty seasons. Among those who have done so, some of them having passed the score of seasons by years, others having only just reached it, are: W . G. Grace, A. N. Hornby, A. J. Webbe, W . W . Read, Shrewsbury, Ulyett, Emmett, Barlow, Alfred Shaw, Lord Harris. E. M. Grace, F. Town­ send, Jim Lillywhite and George Hearne. This is not a full list, mind ; but I have not time to look up the records, and can only give those I happen to remember. In two cases among the above there was a break. “ E.M .” played no first class cricket in 1885 (I rather fancy he had completed 20 years before that); and Shrewsbury was absent in Australia in 1888, besides which, illness kept him out of the field in 1894. As he ju.-t appeared in 1875, however, the season just ending is his twentieth. So the Australians’ County record is untarnished after all, though at one time they looked like succumbing to Somerset. But when they had got down six of the Westerners’ wickets for 49 in the second innings, they had come near retrieving their early deficit of 90, and, remembering their capacity for an uphill game, one can scarcely say that the draw was against them. It may be of interest here to give the records of each of the Australian teams in their matches with counties: — T he A ustralian s ’ C ountv M atch es . Team. Year. Played. Won. Lost. Drawn. First........ 1878 ... 9 ... 6 ... 2 ... 1 Second ... 1880 ... 7 ... 3 ... 1 .. 3 Third.......... 1882 .. 19 ... 15 ... 0 ... 4 Fourth ... 1884 ... li ... 7 ... 1 ... 4 Fifth .......... 1883 ... 14 ... 5 ... 3 ... 6 Sixth.......... 1888 ... 17 ... 7 ... 7 ... 3 Seventh ... 1890 ... 17 ... 8 ... 5 ... 4 Eighth ... 1893 ... 18 ... 11 ... 4 ... 3 Niuth......... 1896 ... 18 ... 13 ... 0 ... 5 Notts was the one county which beat the 1880 team, and Kent alone defeated the men of 1884. In 1882 several very weak counties were met, Northumberland and Northampton­ shire among them; and the 1890 team played Staffordshire. Save Notts, no county can now boast of a majority of victories ov<.r defeats in their matches with the Australians, the principal records being : Notts, won 6, lost 4 ; Surrey, won 4, lost 7 ; Kent, won 4, lost 6 ; Yorkshire, won 4, lost 11. No other county has won more than two ; and Middle­ sex, Warwickshire and Derbyshire, among the more frequent opponents of tho Colonists have never won a game against them. I h ive been favoured with an advance copy of the new edition of the Rev. Harold A. Tate’s book on W . G., and I have never seen a better shillingsworth of cricket matter. Since its former issue in sixpenny form, a capital and brightly written account of W .G .’s doings has been added, penned from the standpoint of an enthusiast, of course; but with that I find no fault, for I, too, am a Grace partisan. The summaries are capital. I know as well as most men what really con­ scientious work of that sort means ; and I can understand how many hours Mr. Tate has given to this careful and minute analysis of the Champion’s doings. The only fault I have to find with the book is, that the great man’sbowling analyses are not also included; but this falls rather outside the scope of Mr. Tate’s work, and, after all, some account of W .G .’s best feats with the ball will be found in the Life. Every season has its failures ; but some of them are always inexplicable. How comes it that this year, so favourable to batsmen in general, has seen so little noteworthy done by that capable rungetter, Mr. J. A. Dixon? How is it that since about the middle of the season Mr. Murdoch has seemed quite unable to make a decent score ? Holland, generally one of unfortunate Leicestershiie’s most re­ liable men, has been sadly out of form; Mr. R. S. Lucas has had the worst of luck ; and, among others, Walter Quaife, Easby, young Holland of Surrey (after the first few weeks of the season), Charles Smith (generally a useful rungetter, though his style is all his own), Albert Ward and Harry Wood have by no means done themselves justice. Mr. Gerald Weigall and his captain, Mr. Marchant, have fallen off greatly in the last few weeks of the season ; and the young Australian, Graham, has {scarcely shown a glimpse of his ’93 form. On the other hand, there have been gratifying advances made, and new men of undoubted ability have been unearthed. Killick’s splendid form has been indeed a surprise. Mr. A. O. Jones has made great strides; and he is undoubtedly at the present time very little short of All England form. Cap'.ain Wynyard has improved tremendously on his 1895 form ; we can understand now those great achievements of his in 1894. Brockwell, J. T. Brown, and Mr. C. O. H. Sewell have come out in their true colours; Mr. “ Jimmy ” Douglas and Mr. Richard Palairet are better men on a side than ever before; Mr. Roe, now verging on veteranship, has never before been so success- full ; Mr. Newham is as good as, if not better than, he has ever been; and Tyldesley, Knight, Mr. Charles McGahey (though he was unsuccessful at first), David Denton and little Willie Quaife have enhanced the good opinions formed of them in the last year or two. Of the new men I should feel inclined to give the first place among the batsmen to Mr. C. J. Burnup, and the second to Mr. P. Perrin. Robson, of Somerset, is also a decided acquisition; not great in either batting or bowling as yet, but extremely useful in both departments, and likely to train on. Douglas Smith is a brilliant field and a good bat, and should earn a regular place in the team next year. I hear that Mr. Hewett is likely to return to his old love. Is it true ? I hope so, for he has been sorely missed. Long stands for a wicket (week ended August 29) Aug. 101..1 ..MacLaren& A.Ward T.ncsvNotts M’ch<tr 24 110...9...50.r & H. F. Ward HntsvLeic S’hmptn 21 104 . 3 . Baldwin & Hayward Srry v.Glos Clifton...25 105 . 5 B.-D’port &Warner Mdxv. Knt Lord’s ...27 166...1. Douglas & Stoddnrt ,, „ ‘.8 127...9...Y. T. Hill & Tyler... Sm’stvSry Taunton 28 J. N. P. HORNSEY v. BRENTWOOD.-Played at Brent­ wood on August 29. B ren tw ood . C. H. Scott, b Clarke... 42 J. J. Read, c Orton, b F. Nicholls .......... 5 D. Crossman, stOrton, b Clarke A. Duchesne, lbw, Clarke .............. Cutts, run out ... . C. J. Merrywether, Clarke .............. .110 P. Hartland, c Orto b Clarke .......... R. Q,uen«-l,run out Eley, b Brown ... C. Bean, b Clarke Lewes, not out ... B 4, lb 2, nb 1 Total H ornsey . B. A. Clarke, b Cutts 63 F. J. Nicholls, lbw, b Cutts........................ 4 J. H. Nicholls, c Duchesne, b Cross­ man ........................ 0 N. H. Davis, b Cutts 23 L. Orton, c Merry­ wether, b Duchesne 24 Brown, run o u t........ 4 B. Wilmer, bCutts ... 0 W . P. Hariison, b Duchesne ......... 1 T. W. Sloper, b Cutts 1 H. Collingridge, not out ........................ 8 E. F. Nicholls. cCross­ man, b Duchesne ... 2 B 12, lb 2, w 1 ... 15 Total... .145 PALLINGSWICK v. HORNSEY.—Played at Hornsey on August 29. P a lliso sw ic k . F. S. Heynemann, lbw, b L. H. Bacmeister C. R Forward, bL. H. Bacmeister .......... A. de Vallency, run out ........................ H. Lewin, c Bisiker, b Dempsey................. F. Kieinan, b L. H. Bacmeister .......... W. B. Chalmers, b Dempsey................. H.W. Burnside, not out ........................ G. Read, b L. H. Baemfci»>ter .......... W. A. Watson, b L. H. Bacmeister ... J. C. Clay, run out... W. C. Nimmo, b Dempsey................. B 4, lb 1 .......... 1 Total ... 21 H ornsey . E. H. Bacmeister, c Chalmeis, b Watson 27 S. L. Clarke, bWatson 21 R. J. Hutchinson, b I ewin........................31 L. H. Bacmeistcr, not out ........................65 C. W . Talbot, F. Bisiker, F. V. N iiuiuo, F. Squiic, and J. Dimpsey did not bat. F.T. Church,bWatscn 6 A. E. Turberville, not out ........................33 B 10, lb 8 ..........18 Total (I wkts) 201