Cricket 1897

312 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. J uly 29, 1897 BUSSEY’S <CCfrft BATS. H IGHEST GRADE . BUSSEY’S BALLS. H IGHEST GRADE. BUSSEY’S <CCB « GUARDS. H IGHEST GRADE . BUSSEY’S < C C B « GLOVES. H IGHEST GRADE BUSSEY’S < C C B « BAGS. H IGHEST GRADE . CRICKETERS’ < C G B ^ DIARY I S A G E M FO B . 6 d . CATALOGUES ON APPLICATION TO CITY DEPOT— 36 & 38, QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, LONDON, OR DEALERS ALL OVER THE WORLD. MANUFACTORY— PECKHAM, LONDON. TIMBER MILLS— ELMSWELL, SUFFOLK. BETWEEN THE INNINGS. Still another week of sensational cricket! This season and the two preceding it have been full of exciting matches; but not one among them all can outvie Essex’s one-run victory at Huddersfield. Whatever one may have thought before, one can hardly avoid looking upon Essex as a great team afcer this. The East Saxons are well in the running for championship honours. But never before, I think, at this time in the season has the des­ tination of the championship been quite so open a matter. Lancashire, Yorkshire, Essex, Surrey, Notts, and even Gloucestershire are all in the running. What manful, plucky fellows they are, those Yorkshiremen ! It thrills one even to read of the efforts of Wainwright and Moor­ house, Hirst and Milligan. And besides these four the noble captain himself was by no means found wanting at the crucial moment. Oh, Bairstow, why did you get your leg where your bat should have been ? Three years ago I remember writing of “ Moorhouse and Mounsey, of pros, most plucky, And Wainwright, man of the iron nerve.” Mounsey has not had much of a show of late ; but how often since then have Moorhouse and Wainwright justified the eulogium ! Then the defeat of Notts by Gloucestershire, thehitherto invincible (though not all-conquer­ ing) teambeaten by the Grand Old Man and his youthful band ! A century from the bat of him who has made many a score of centuries, though not one at Trent Bridge for near a score of years, grand all-round play by the son of his old chum, Frank Townsend, and fine plucky batting by Richardson, the rejected of Cambridge. Young Gunn had no terrors for the men from the West Countree, and his famous uncle, for once in a way, bailed entirely. Leicestershire’s first win in county cricket this year ! Mr. De Trafford, though still without unlucky Dick Pougher, had the strongest team he has commanded this year ; Derbyshire, minus William Chatterton and Walter Sugg, played weak, although that good old war-horse, G. G. Walker, turned out again for them. Still, the unlucky Leicestershire men deserve all credit for their victory ; and one is pleased to note the success of the two ’Varsity representatives, Stocks and Marriott, whose presence undoubtedly greatly strengthens the team. Surrey’s score of 617 v. Kent is consider­ ably the highest ever scored by them against the Hop County, the previous best having been 441 at Beckenham in 1886, when Mr. W. E. Roller and George Lohmann, batting in widely different styles, each ran up three figures. Baldwin is the fifth man to score an innings of over 200 for Surrey, his predecessors having been Mr. W . W. Read (with 338, 247 and 244*), Abel (250, 231 and 217), Hayward (229*; and Mr. W . E. Roller (204). Mr. Jeph- son’s 102 is his highest in first-class cricket; and it was certainly strange that it should come at a time when a fierce attack had been made on his claim to a place on the side. Here areSurrey’s highest scores against each of the first-class teams they haveplayed of of late years . — Surrey v. Australians......... 501 ... Oval......... 1886 Surrey v. Cambridge Univ. 543 ... Oval.......... J Surrey v. Derbyshire..........512 ... Derby ... 1896 Surrey v. Essex ................. 448 ... Oval......... 1895 Surrey v. Gloucestershire... 464 j Oval°n 1890 Surrey v. Hampshire.......... 650 .!. Oval........... 1883 Surrey v. Kent .................617 ... Oval.......... 1897 Surrey v. Lancashire......... 557 ... Manchester 1887 Surrey v. Leicestershire ... 563 ... Oval.......... 1897 Surrey v. Middlesex ....... 507 ... Oval......... 1889 Surrey v. Notts ............... 424 ... Oval.......... 1896 Surrey v. Oxford Univ. ... 650 ... Oval......... 1888 Surrey v. Somerset .......... 635 ... Oval.......... 1885 Surrey v. Sussex................ 698 ... O v a l......... 1888 Surrey v. Warwickshire ... 6 >2 ... Oval.......... 1897 Surrey v. Yorkshire .......... 455 ... Bradford... 1888 A wonderful record, truly ! That terrible whaling at Sheffield does not by any means appear to have taken the heart out of the Sussex men. Killick has had to stand down ; but with the exception of Killick every batsman on the side appears to be now in form, and if this fine weather continues Mr. Murdoch’smen may themselves be having a cut at the record. See what the leading batsmen have done in their last two matches. v. Lancs. v. Hants at M’chstr. at B’ton. Inns. Runs K. S. Ranjitsinhji 87 and 0 .. , 149 . . 3 ... 23-i G. Brann ... ... 69 and 107 ... 77 .... 3 ... 253 W . L. Murdoch .. 77 . 70 ... 2 .... 147 W . Newham 61 and 27 ... 61 ... 3 ... 149 Marlow................. 4 and 61 ... 4-J .. . 3 ... 113 That is to say, of fourteen innings played by these five men only two have been failures ; and their collective average per innings for the two matches is over 64 ! Nor does this exhaust the Sussex batting. Bean and Parris each made a good score at Manchester ; Mr. Hartley is by no means a batsman to be des­ pised ; and Butt, Bland and Tate can all hit a bit. Bland, by the way, will almost certainly be the next (third) bowler to secure the hundred wickets—a very great achieve­ ment for a first-year man. The following is the present (July 24) state of the race for the 1,000 runs :— SCORERS OF 1,000 RUNS. Place. Batsman. When reached. 1 ......... R. Abel ........................ June 24 2 ......... K. S. Ranjitsinhji.......... July 3 3 ......... J. T. Brown ................. July 13 4 ......... E. Wainwright .......... July 13 5 ......... G. R. Baker ... .......... July 21 6 ......... G. Brann.......... .......... July 22 7 ......... T. Hayward ................. July 22 Mr. Brann was two or three hours in advance of Hayward. Mr. J. A. Dixon, Mr. F. S. Jackson, Tunnicliffe, Tyldesley and Baldwin are all over 900. Three of these will be absolutely new to the list; but of course the two Yorkshiremen have been there before. Mr. F. S. Ashley-Cooper, who has a keen eye for the detection of mistakes both of omission and commission, is good enough to furnish me with two instances of 200 runs for the first wicket which I overlooked when Viaking out my list last week. They are :— 2.3, A. O. Jones and Shrewsbury, Notts v. Kent, at Nottingham, 1896 2 1 1, Bean and Marlow, Sussex v. Gloucestershire, at Brighton, 1896. Some weeks ago I received from an Austra­ lian correspondent particulars of a notable performance by a well-known intercolonial player (J. H. Savigny, of Tasmania, to wit), which has not yet, 1 fancy, been alluded to in this paper. On the 6th of February Savigny, playing for Launceston v. Cornwall, took nine wickets of his opponents for 79 runs, the tenth man being run out. G. E. Palmer, the famous bowler of the 1880, 1882, 1884 and 1886 Anglo-Australian teams was on the same side as Savigny, which renders the latter’ s performance all the more meritorious. Palmer was top scorer in the match with 51 not out.