Cricket 1896

460 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. Nov. 26, 1896. II.— S om e E x c e p t io n a l W ic k e t - k e e p in g P e r f o r m a n c e s . David Hunter took the first three wickets in the first county match of the season, Lancashire v. Yorkshire, Manchester, May 4, catching Mr. Hornby and Albert Ward, and stumping Paul. Lilley only allowed onebye in an innings of 362 by Surrey v. Warwickshire, Oval, May 4 and 5. Lilley caught 5, stumped 1 in two innings of Aus­ tralians v. Lord Sheffield’s Eleven, Sheffield Park, May 12, 13, 14, and did not allow a bye in second innings. Wood only allowed one bye in two innings of Essex v. Surrey, Oval, May 11 and 13. C. Smith caught 5 Australians in their one innings v. Crystal Palace X I. at Sydenham. May 18 and 19. Butt did not allow a bye in Gloucestershire’s first innings of 463 v. Sussex, Brighton, May 25. Storer caught 6 batsmen in the two innings of Hants v. Derbyshire, Southampton, May 25, 26, 27, and did not allow a bye in first innings. Huish caught .3, stumped 1, and only allowed 4byes in Yorkshire’s innings of 459 v. Kent, Leeds, May 28, 29. Storer caught 6 in two innings M.C.C. v. Derbyshire, Lord’s, May 28, 29. A. E. Johns caught 4, stumped 2 in two innings Oxford University v. Australians, Oxford, June I,2, 3. Lilley caught 3 in first, stumped 3 in second innings of Lancashire v. Warwick, Birmingham, June II,12. 13. C. Smith caught 3, stumped 1, and did not allow an extra, two innings Warwick v. Lancashire, Bir­ mingham. Lilley caught 8 in two innings M.C.C. v. Warwick, Lord’s, June 15, 16. Whiteside caught 5 of 16 Surrey wickets which fell, and only allowed 3 byes, v. Leicestershire, Leicester, June 15,16, 17. A. E Johns caught 4 and did not allow a bye in two innings, Notts v. Australians, Nottingham, June 15. 26. 27. Butt caught 3, stumped 1, and only allowed one bye, first innings, Oxford University v. Sussex, Brighton, June 25. Board caught 6 and only allowed 4 byes in two innings, Somerset v. Gloucestershire, Taunton, June 29, 30. Board caught 5, first innings, Gentlemen v Players, Lord’s, July 6. Lilley caught 5 in Yorkshire’s innings v. Warwick, Leeds, July 6, 7. Wood caught 2, stumped 1. and only allowed 1 bye in two innings (116 and 391), Sussex v. Surrey, Oval, July 9 ,10, 11. G. MacGregor caught 4, stumped 1, and only allowed 2 byes in two innings (116 and 373), Players v. Gentlemen, Lords, July 13, 14, 15. Lilley caught 5 and only allowed 6 byes in two innings of Australia v. England, Manchester, July 16, 17, 18. J. J. Kelly, caught 2, stumped 3, and only allowed 3 bye* for Australia in same match. Storer caught 2 and only allowed 4 byes in Aus­ tralia’* innings of 625 v. Derbyshire, Derby, July 20, 21. C. Smith caught 6 in two innings, Somerset v. Lancashire, Manchester, July 27, 28, 29. E. H. Bray caught 4 in second innings of Somerset v. Middlesex, Taunton, August 4, 5. Whiteside caught 5 in Lancashire’s innings v. Leicestershire, Leicester, August 7, 8, and did not allow a bye (385). Boa»d caught 3, stumped 1, second innings of Kent v. Gloucestershire, Cheltenham, August 18, 19. Storer caupht 3, stumped 1, innings of Warwick v. Derbyshire, Birmingham. August 24, 25. J. J. Kelly caught 3, stumped 4, in two innings of Lancashire v. Australians, Liverpool, August 27, 28, 29. G. n . A. Arlington caught 3, stumped 2, innings of Surrey v. Sussex, Brighton, August 31. (rf) FIELDING. As matters stand at present it is quite impossible to give by figures any accurate notion of a man’s value in the field. Perhaps the day may come when dropped catches and fumbled ground-balls are debited against the man who is responsible for them ; and then, if a player’s actual value to his side be repre­ sented by his batting average and his bowling average, dropped catches and misfieldings, some few players I wot of will have a very small “ figure of merit” indeed. I don’t mean to fay I am hoping for the time when everything will go down in the averages, though. There are very nearly enough figures to deal with at present. The most that can be done in the way of a synopsis of fielding is to give the number of catches made by the various fieldsmen. Even this is impracticable in full; I give only thoso who made fifteen or more. It will be seen that the lengthy York- shireman, Tunnicliffe, is an easy first, while the next three or four places are all filled by men above the average height. C a t c h e s . Tunnicliffe (J. W.) ... 62 Paul (A.) ... ......... 20 H. Trumble......... ... 38 K. S. Ranjitsinhji ... 20 J. R. Mason........ ... 36 G. H. S. Trott .......... 20 A. E. Stoddart ... ... 35 Capt. E. G. Wynyard 20 F. A. Iredale ... 34 F. S. Jackson .......... 19 G. R. Bardswell... ... 32 Lohmann (G. A.) 19 Wainwright (E.) ... 29 Richardson (T.).......... 19 Attewell (W.) ... ... 26 Bean (G.) ................. 18 Brockwell (W.) ... ... 26 C. J. E a d y................. 18 Brown (J. T.) ... ... 25 Holland (F. C .).......... 18 Hearne (J. T.) ... ... 23 E. Jones ................. 18 E. B. Shine.......... ... 23 D. A. Steele .......... 18 Hayward (T.) ... ... 22 Tyldesley (J. T.) 18 Hirst (G.H.) ... ... 22 W. G. Grace .......... 17 Tate (F. W.) ... ... 22 C. L. Townsend......... 17 Davidson (G.) ... ... 21 C. J. Burnup .......... 16 A. O. Jones.......... ... 21 Chatterton (W.) 16 A. C. MacLaren .. ... 21 G. L. Jes3op ........ 16 L. C. H. Palairet ... 21 G. J. Mordaunt........ 16 Bakpr (G. R.) ... 20 Pougher (A. D.) 15 G. Giffen ......... ... 20 Tyler (E. J.) ......... 15 Hearne (A.).......... ... 23 (e) THE FIRST-CLASS TEAMS. The following tables give the results of all first-class matches played by the eighteen first-class sides of 1896—viz., the fourteen counties, the Australians, the M.C.C. and Ground, and the two Universities—together with the highest and lowest scores, the number of centuries made, and the average per wicket for and against each. I give the sides in their alphabetical order; but after the two tables you will find another in which the order as determined by the figure of merit and by the percentage of wins methods is compared. These two systems may need a word or two of explanation. The figure of merit is the difference between the average per wicket for and the average per wicket against a team, a very fair test of a side’s real ability, but not perhaps of its proper place in a competition, because the object of a side in a com­ petition is to win matches ; and an inferior side which, no matter by what luck, wins more and loses fewer matches than a aide admittedly its superior, must in all fairness be placed before the superior side in that competition. But in my table of results I am not dealing with a competition, but with the general first-class cricket of the year ; and for that I honestly think the figure of merit test the best. But it is the percentage of wins system that I would apply to the County Championship. To give an example of how I would work this, let me take the record of the Australians: 34 matches, 19 won, 6 lost, 9 drawn. Disregarding the drawn matches altogether, 19 of the 25 finished games were won. The Australian percentage of wins — 19 in 25—is, therefore, 76. (i.) SYNOPSIS OF RESULTS. Highest Lowest No. of score. score, centuries , — ■ , — Side. P. W . L. D. For. Agst. For. Agst.For. A. Aust. . .34 ..19... 6 . 9 ..6*25 ..367 .. 18 . 17 . 18... 3 C. U. . . 9 . 4... 3 ..2 , 514 .483 .. 98. . 68 .. 4 .. 5 Derby . 18 .. 5 .. 6...7...577 .625 .. 79. .110...10...11 Essex . .14 .. 6 .. 5 ..3 ..327 ..430 .. 55. . 80... 2... 4 Glos. . .20... 5 12. 3 ..551 . 45) .. 17. . 52... 7... 9 Hants.. .17 .. 5... 9...3...515 .519 .. 58. . 71... 6 .. 9 Kent .20 .. 6...10...4...450 ..459 . 94. . 52...10... 5 Lanes.. .25 ..11... 7 . 7...893a . 577 .. 28. . 49... 6... 9 Leic. . .16 2... 9..5 . 399 .660 .. 55 . 73 .. 3...12 M.C.C.. .15... 6... 6...3...5836 ..507c .. 41. . 18... 4... 3 Mdsx. ..16 8 .. 3...5...450 . 331 .. 83. . 45... 7... 4 Notts. ..19... 6 .. 7 ..6,..466 .450 .. 52. .. 90... 6... 6 O. U. . . 9 .. 6 .. 2.. 1.. 406 ..583d ..129 .. 96... 2... 2 Soust.. .19 .. 3 .. 9 .7 . 519 ..559 .. 61. 69... 8... 9 Surrey .30 ..17...10 . 3 ..512 ..406 .. 45... 55...16 .. 5 Sussex ..22 .. 2 ..12 . 8 . 559 ...551 .. 71 .. 94 ..14 ..20 Wrwk. ..20... 4... 0...7...342 ..887 .. 49 .159... 7 ..I3 Yorks. . 32 ..17 .. 6...9 ..887 ...515 .. 80 .. 55...17...I4 (a) Six wickets, (b) seven wickets (c) sevenwickets, ( d ) seven wickets. It will be noticed that O xford University was the only team which was never dismissed for a score of leas than three figu res; while Derbyshire and W arw ickshire failed to dispose of any of their opponents for a like total. (ii.) RUNS SCORED FOR AND AGAINST. Runs Wkts. Runs Wkts. Side. for. down.Aver. against.down.Aver. Australians ...12*246 . 509...24*05 ...10064...577...17'44 C. University... 4081...141...28-94 ... 3953...157...25 07 Derbyshire ... 6978...257...27'15 ... 7169...262...27’36 Essex................ 4941...233...21-20 ... 4710...220...21-40 Glo’stershire ... 7405...350...21-15 ... 7150...292...24'48 Hampshire ... 5951...273...21-79 ... 6901 . 252 ..27-38 Kent................ 7313...349...20-95 ... 7544 ..337 ..22 35 Lancashire ... 8316...358...23‘22 ... 8634...433 .19-93 Leicestershire... 5018...297...1689 ... 6266...216...29-00 M.C.C................ 5083...233...21-81 ... 5105...251...20’33 Middlesex ... 6529 . 259...25-20 ... 6103...265...23-03 Notts................. 6701...307...21-82 ... 6702...293...22*87 O. University... 3953 ..144...27-45 ... 3747...158...23 71 Somerset......... 7022...332...21*15 ... 6963...235...29 62 Surrey .........10374.. 424...24*46 ... 9548.,.530...17*98 Sussex .......... 9505...381...24-94 ... 9524 ..294 . 32’39 Warwickshire... 6696 ..307...2r81 ... 766*2...278...27-56 Yorkshire.........12144...454 ..26*74 ...11230...541...20*75 (iii.) ORDER OF SIDES. By Table (i.). By Table (ii). Percentage Figure of matches of Side won. Side. merit. Australians ... . . 76 Australians .. +6*61 O. University . 75 Surrey.......... .. -|-6*48 Yorkshire ... . . 73 Yorkshire ... ... -f5*99 Middlesex ... . . 72 C. University ... -J-3‘87 Surrey .............. . 62 O. University .. -f3*74 Lancashire ... . . 61 Lancashire ... ... -f 3*29 C. University . 57 Middlesex ... ... -f-2‘17 Essex .............. . 54 M.C.C........... ... +1*48 M.C.C................... . 50 Essex .......... ... —0*20 Notts.................... . 46 Derbyshire ... ... —0*21 Derbyshire ... . . 45 Notts............. ... —1.05 Kent .............. . 37 Kent .......... ... —1*40 Hants................... 35 Gloucestershire .. —3*33 Warwickshire . 30 Hants............ ... —5*59 Gloucestershire . . 29 Warwickshire ... —5*75 Somersetshire 25 Sussex.......... ... —7*45 Leicestershire . 18 Somersetshire ... —8*47 Sussex .............. . 14 Leicestershire ... —i2*ll The one fact which stands out more pro­ minently than any other in connection with this table is the first place secured by the Australians under both systems. That the Colonial team is fairly entitled to first place can scarcely be gainsaid. On the whole, I am disposed to think that Yorkshire is entitled to second place. Further than this I should not care to go. A noticeable fact is the high places occupied by both University teams. In the “ percentage of wins” table Oxford stands second, Cam­ bridge seventh; in the “ figure of merit” Cambridge fourth, Oxford fifth. It is possible that they might have been lower had they played out longer programmes ; and I should not say that they are really entitled to quite such high places, but the Oxford team, at least, was stronger all-round than at least half of the counties. For batting averages alone they stand respectively first and second in the table; but this may be explained by the fact that all their matches were played early in the season, when for the most part skies were fair and wickets were hard and good. But this gives all the more value to their bowling averages. And in this Oxford ranks before Derbyshire, Gloucestershire, Hampshire, Leicestershire, Somerset, Sussex and Warwickshire ; while of these seven only Gloucestershire stands higher than Cam­ bridge. I don’t think I can remember the year when Oxford was represented by a better all­ round team; while if Cambridge was not quite up to the standard reached in the days of A. G. Steel, and again in those of S. M. J. Woods, she was at least well above the average of University teams. J.N P. (To be continued.) N E X T ISSUE, T HUR SDA Y , DECEMBER 31.