Cricket 1897

J an . 28, 1897. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OE THE GAME. 5 think that the system I have used in the averages which follow, is a truer, if slightly more cumbrous test, than the ordinary system. I do not believe that Sharpe was a greater bowler than Pee), or that Captain Hedley is better than Attewell; but I do think that the value to a side of Sharpe, as compared with Peel, is better appreciated when one sees that the ex-Surrey man took his wickets considerably faster than the Yorkshireman, and I think, too, that Captain Hedley’s 7£ overs per wicket, as against Attewell’s almost 11, is some­ thing of a set-off to the difference between the respective cost of their wickets in runs. In this connection it is interesting to observe that absolutely the best record for taking wickets in short time is possessed by young Bull, of Essex. If he can continue to get out the batsmen as quickly, he will do more than anyone else to help Essex to retain the high place she secured last year. Next to him in this respect comes Tom Richardson. Bull takes nearly five overs to get a wicket, the Surrey fast-bowler nearly six. The only others underJseven are McKibbin, Lockwood, Kortright, Townsend, and that “ ancient lobster,” Humphreys. (Who will dispute that the quick downfall of the wickets when Humphreys was bowling, helped to compensate for the fact that he was scored from pretty freely) ? I am afraid Lockwood’s average is determined by his great deeds of three or four years a g o ; he has been very disappointing in every way since that Australian trip. Between seven and eight overs per wicket come Mold, Lohmann, Turner, Jones, Hayward, Capt. Hedley, C. M. Wells, Mead, Giffen, Sam Woods, Trott and some others. It will be noticed that the great Australian bowers are all pretty high up in the list in this way. Trum- ble’s average is 8'10 per wicket; Ferris’s is spoiled by his unsuccessful trundling for Gloucestershire, but is, nevertheless, by no means bad. Bean, whose wickets were more costly in respect of runs than anyone’s but Guttridge, took longest to get his victims out—13j overs. Jesse Hide was but little better; and the Sussex bowlers, bar Humphreys, were in general slow, C. A. Smith’s figures being 11*14, Parris’s, 10-63, Tate’s, 10 64, Arthur Hide’s, 11*13. Hartley does the trick quicker, but, like his comrades and pre­ decessors in the eleven, allows too many runs to be scored off him. The Notts men, as might be expected, also take some considerable time to get a man out. H. Richardson needed 10-77 overs, Flowers, 9-51, Barnes, 9 06, Mee, 10-41; while Attewell, the one great bowler Notts has had in recent years, needs 10-70 overs for every wicket. Turner’ s position at the top of the list is not altogether undeserved, but in two of the three seasons in which he got his wickets—1888 and 1890—the wickets were in general exactly suited to his bowling. Richardson, Mold, Lohmann, Briggs and Jack Hearne all show up splendidly, as they deserve to do. Peel and Attewell are lower than their undoubted ability would lead one to expect, but there are many really first-class men below them. Seven bowlers took over 1,000 wickets, Briggs easily first with 1429. He was also first in number of runs scored off him. Attewell did the most work, how­ ever, bowling over 4,000 balls more than anyone else. BOWLING AVERAGES (1887-96 inclusive). Bowler. C. T. B. Turner Richardson (T.) T. R. McKibbin 3 1 ...24140 8341 ..27558 13491 3236 1441 KO I « s a 678 12-30 935 14*42 101 14-26 O O •S'£ M > Si .2PS g 7-12 1942 5-89 20-31 6-40 20-66 Lohmann (G. A ) . 48343 17193 1270 13*53 7 61 21*14 Mold (A.) F. G. Bull Briggs (J.) E. Jones ... Hearne (J. T.) ...43217 17788 1214 14*65 ... 2443 1764 100 17*64 ...59533 20660 1429 14*45 ... 4343 1910 121 16 03 ...45906 17321 1134 15*27 650 16-51 7-11 21*76 4-88 22 52 8-33 22-78 7‘17 23-20 8*09 23-36 6 93 23-44 8-23 23-56 751 23-58 8-10 23-77 Lockwood (W . H.) 22533 10737 Sharpe (J. W .) ...13211 4922 32115 33 Preston (J. M.) ...5107 2186 13616-07 Heame (W .) . ...10968 4279 27315-67 Richardson (H.) ... 9909 2497 18413 57 10*77 2434 Beaumont (J.) ...10088 3784 23815*89 8'47 24 36 Wainwright (E.) ...31635 12941 78916-40 8-01 24-41 Peel (R.)..................62548 20082 133415*05 9*37 24’42 Capt.W.C.Hedley 10531 4704 27816*92 7'57 24*49 Attewell (W .) Mead (W .) ... C. M. Wells ... H. Trumble ... Hayward (T.) C. L. Townsend J. J. Ferris ... Watson (A.) ... G. Giffen.......... Burton (G.) ... S. M. J. Woods ...29832 14914 Hirst (G .H .).......... 21327 8410 Martin (F.) ... Barnes (W .) ... O. J. Kortright ... 6434 Pougher (A. D.) .. 20550 Barlow (R. G.) ... 7291 Flowers (W .).......... 24603 W oof (W. A.) .. 13265 E. C. Streatfeild ... 5739 6194 2961 ..13006 5483 .. 5697 2732 ...10681 5800 .31170 11742 6455 4839 ...11886 4159 Humphreys(W.A.) 15383 10042 .17044 10984 6846 17324 . 7182 10773 ...29051 10610 ...32900 11824 ... 8667 2987 ...22284 7760 ...24038 11237 2370 Shacklock (F. Phillips (J.) ... Smith (F.) F. S. Jackson Brockwell (W .) E. A. Nepean .. Rawlin (J. T. W right (W .)... Bowley (T.) ... Davidson (G.) Tyler (E. J.) ... G. F. H. Berkeley 5584 Hearne ( A .) ...........26558 Woodcock (A.) Soar (T.)........... Pallett (H. J.) G. H. S. Trott G. L. Jessop ... Hide (A.) Hallam (A.) ... Baldwin (N .).. G. W . Hillyard Hulme (J.) ... Whitehead (J.) Abel (R.) ... Wade (S.) ... W ootton (T.)... F. G. J. Ford E, Smith.......... H. W . Forster Porter (G.) ... Roberts (F. G.) W . G. Grace .. 67089 18659 1253 14*09 10'70 24’79 ..15871 7264 418 17*37 7*59 24*96 168 17'62 7*37 24*99 321 17-08 8 10 25-18 153 17-85 7-51 25*36 308 18-83 6-93 25*76 692 16 96 9 00 25*96 432 14 94 11-03 25 97 259 18.68 7-33 26*01 250 16*63 9 50 26*13 794 18-78 7 51 26*29 480 17-52 8 88 26*40 ...54377 17596 1072 16*41 10 14 26 55 14872 5746 328 17*51 9 06 26*57 186 19-83 6-91 26*74 432 17*56 951 27*07 145 17*13 10-05 27*18 517 17*72 9*51 27*23 270 17*62 123 18'14 475 21*14 7261 386 18 81 5022 261 19*24 2537 141 17*99 7371 389 18*94 3263 166 19 65 5271 262 20*11 577 18*; 7590 2484 9163 4731 2232 8495 ... 6511 ...13466 ... 6615 ... 6476 ...10684 ... 5373 ...10285 ... 6585 ...10C94 ... 6405 ... 6736 ... 5126 ...11958 ... 8912 ... 9566 4587 3008 5228 3824 2910 3643 2084 3723 3051 4160 2736 2931 2186 4479 4093 4917 2730 2851 9 82 27*34 9 33 27*47 6*47 27 61 8 82 27*63 8*41 27 65 9*71 27-70 8*90 27 84 8 65 28 30 8*22 28*33 10*06 28*44 641 18-41 10 26 28 67 164 18-21 10*57 28*78 423 18*34 10 53 28*87 559 20*10 8 77 28*87 120 19*75 9 30 29 05 506 18*59 10*49 29*08 216 21*23 7*86 29 09 148 20*32 8 79 29*11 270 19*36 9*97 29*33 175 21*85 140 20*71 7*56 5*9*41 9*25 29*96 Nichols (G. B.) Pickett (H.) ... Tate (F. W .)... Parris ........... Murch (H. W .) J. C. Hartley... Mee (R. J.) ... C. A. Smitn ... Ulyett (G.) ... Santall (S.) ... A. E. Stoddart C. B. Fry........... Hide (J.).......... Guttridge (F.) Bean (G.) ... 7330 ...29*205 11171 ...26217 11259 ...15115 5958 2504 9671 4309 4682 2856 3207 4622 3361 4198 4831 ..22270 ...10103 ... 93*27 ... 5044 ... 6929 ...10868 ... 6887 ...10460 ...10577 ... 6349 ...11369 ... 7155 ...14724 4232 3512 6117 192 18*97 11 13 30*10 103 20*23 10*43 30 66 187 19*91 11 00 30*90 139 21*94 9 47 31*41 200 20*80 10*69 31*49 127 21*54 10*08 31*62 135 21*71 9*97 31 68 101 21*64 10*15 31*79 216 20*73 11 07 31*80 184 22*24 9*68 31*92 213 23*08 8 96 32 04 125 21*84 10 70 32*54 132 21*59 11*10 3*2*69 520 21*48 11*23 32*71 503 22*38 10*42 32*80 273 21*82 11*07 3*2*89 110 22*76 10*34 33*10 427 22*64 10 64 33 28 190 22*67 10*63 33 30 196 23*88 9*51 33 39 114 25*05 8*84 33*89 133 24*11 10*41 34*52 195 23*70 11*14 34*84 134 25*08 10*27 35*35 171 24*54 12*23 36*77 186 25 97 11*37 37 34 123 27*08 10*32 37*40 170 24*89 13*37 38*26 124 28*32 11*54 39*86 217 28*18 13*57 41*75 I have left out the “ maiden ” column, as I always do. I have called the com­ bination of “ average runs per wicket ” and “ average overs per wicket” the “ figure of merit,” for want of a better title ; but I should be glad if any of my readers can suggest a better one, and I should much like to have the opinions of any of them who are interested in the proposed change of the system in working out bowling averages. P.S.—I have been told of the following omissions from my 1896 statistics :— (i) The 48 of Surrey v. Kent at Catford Bridge on July 23, which should have been included in the table of low scoring. ( ii ) The 159 for the first wicket of Abel and Brockwell, Surrey v. Sussex, at Brighton, August 31, which should have been included among the long partner­ ships. (iii) The 47 overs, 68 runs, 11 wickets of Captain E. R. Bradford for Hamp­ shire v. Essex at Southampton on August 25 and 26, to which a place in the good bowling performances is certainly due. Let me thank the correspondents who pointed out these to me, assuring them that I shall always look upon such corrections as a genuine favour done me. J.N.P. HAMPSTEAD. Matches played 54. won 23, lost 19, drawn 12. BATTING AVERAGES. No. Times Most of not in an Total inns. out. inns. runs. Aver. T. M. Farmiloe .......... 19 ... 5 101* .. 450 ... 32*14 W . F. H ancock........... 11 ... 0 ...143 ... 331 ... 30*99 R. Leigh-Ibbs .......... 11 ... 4 ... 66*... 216 ... 30*85 Dr. G. Thornton......... 12 ... 0 ... 93 ... 356 ... 29 66 W. S. Hale .................. 36 ... 4 ...122 ... 842 ... 26*31 A. E. Jeaffreson.......... 10 ... 0 ... 84 .. 249 ... 24*90 H .G. Price-Williams .. 10 ... 5 ... 32 ... 117 ... 23*40 A. R. Trimen ........... 15 ... 1 ...102*... 322 ... 23*C0 H. W oodall.................. 12 ... 1 ... 78*... 245 ... 22 27 E. Whinney.................. 10 ... 2 ... 57*... 166 ... 20*75 II. R. Lipscombe ... 19 ... 2 ... 75* . 337 ... 19*88 A. Reid .................. 11 ... 1 ... 42*... 180 ... 18*00 A. O. D unn.................. 13 ... 4 ... 28*... 158 ... 17*55 J G. Q. Besch ........... 24 ... 1 .. 101 ... 393 ... 17*( 8 J. C. T oller.................. 13 ... 1 ... 54 ... 200 ... 16*66 E. L. Marsden ........... 10 ... 0 ... 46 ... 208 ... 14*85 F. R. Spofforth ........... 10 .. 0 ... 45 ... 137 ... 13 70 C. D.McMillin .......... 16 ... I ... 65 ... 192 ... 12*80 S. Howard-Williams .. 29 ... 5 ... 58 ... 3 0 ... 12 50 P. F. Wilson ...........17 ... 2 ... 26*... 16=) ... 11*00 A. A. Carter..................13 ... 1 ... 43 ... 118 ... 9*83 S. S. Pawling ...........10 ... 1 ... 29 ... 81 ... 9*00 G. B. Bell .................. 25 ... 4 ... 30 . 176 ... 8*38 G. M. Maryon-Wilson 10 ... 0 ... 23 ... 72 ... 7*20 The following batted in 5 innings or over H. B. Hayman ........... 6 ... 0 ... 83 ... 203 ... 33*50 A. C. Robertson.......... 9 ... 0 ... 61 ... 265 ... 29 40 W . W . A ’D ean e......... 8 ... 2 ... 52 ... 152 ... 25*33 F. Rowley .................. 5 ... 0 ... 52 ... 122 ... 21*40 A W . Sharp ........... 5 ... 2 ... 27 ... 73 ... 24*31 H. Greig .................. 6 ... 1 ... 68*... 107 ... 21*40 O. L. Tudor.................. 7 ... 0 ... 77 ... 139 ... 19 60 C. Nuding .................. 8 ... 2 ... 42 ... 85 ... 17*00 A. J. East .................. 6 ... 0 ... 52 ... 90 ... 15*00 J. Gibbon .................. 7 ... 2 ... 53 ... 103 ... 14 71 E. Figgis .................. 8 ... 0 ... 28 ... 115 ... 14*37 C. D. H am ilton........... 6 ... 2 ... 18 ... 52 ... 13 00 F. Andrew .................. 7 ... 2 ... 21*... 60 ... 12*00 T. W . Mackintosh ... 8 ... 1 ... 23 ... 67 ... 9*57 E. E. Briggs.................. 7 ... 2 15 ... 42 ... 8*40 W . H. Robson ........... 8 ... 0 ... 28 ... 67 ... 8*37 E. S. Johnson ........... 5 ... 2 ... 7*... 25 ... 8*33 F. V. Selfe .................. 6 ... 2 ... 16 ... 3 3 ... 8.10 R.Matthews.................. 5 ... 2 ... 9*... 14 ... 4*66 F. H. Alexander........... 5 ... 1 ... 8 ... 12 ... 3*00 * Signifies not out. BOWLING ANALYSIS. Overs. Runs. Mdns. Wkts. Aver. F .R . Spofforth ... 193*2 ... 295 ... 76 ... 58 ... 5*08 N. F. Stallard ... 68*4 ... 127 ... 22 ... 16 ... 7*93 E. L.Marsden ... 294*1 ... 670 ... 14 ... 67 ... 10*00 J. Gibbon .......... 72 ... 152 ... 33 ... 14 ... 10*85 A. B. Osmond ... 129 ... 320 ... 33 ... 24 ... 13*3* W . S. Hale ......... 594*4 ...1414 ...189 ...101 ... 14 0» F. V. Selfe ......... 66 ... 217 ... 14 ... 13 ... 16*69 S. S. Pawling ... 158 ... 488 ... 33 ... 28 ... 17*07 T. W . Mackintosh 94 ... 260 ... 16 ... 15 ... 17*33 E. E. Briggs......... 88 ... 315 .. 12 ... 18 ... 17*50 Dr. G. Thornton... 177*1 ... 431 ... 53 ... 22 ... 19*59 P. F. Wilson......... 127*2 ... 446 ... 18 ... 17 ... 26'23 N E X T ISSUE, THURSDAY , F E B R U A R Y 25.