Cricket 1897

J uly 29, 1897. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 313 In two or three different commentaries upon the Inter-’Varsity match that I saw, there were somewhat slighting references to Jessop’s wonderful hitting-innings. I have been going to speak on this matter for some time past. I think there is a good deal of misuse of the terms “ not cricket” and “ scientific.” It is impossible to lay down a hard and fast rule as to how each stroke should be played ; the batsman of really marked in­ dividuality makes his own strokes, and, though they be not according to the canons of the cricket coach, yet are they still scientific. I would not call a man unscientific for playing with a cross bat on occasion—if he played with it as I have seen the Little Doctor and Bobby Abel and Maurice Read play. That pull-stroke which Walter Head practically invented, though effective, is very ugly; but it is not unscientific. I don’t think anyone now playing first-class cricket ever plays exactly the same stroke between cover-point and mid-off that Mr. 0 . G. Radcliffe and Lockwood had; it was an unusual stroke, but none the less a scientific one. Legging, pitching them down short on a fiery wicket that the batsman may be maimed if he will not get out, appealing without due cause—these things are not cricket. They should be anathema to all true cricketers. But for a born hitter to slog for all he is worth ; this is cricket, true cricket, and the best he can do for his side. Jessop’ s play was half-spoiled in 1896 by an attempt at a caution that did not suit him. William Gunn is a great batsman, truly; but after all it is unreasonable to expect everyone to model himself upon Gunn. Batsmen can­ not all have the sureness and coolness of the great Nottingham player, any more than they can all have the almost poetic grace of Lionel Palairet, the diablerie of Ranjitsinhji, or the epic grandeur of W.G. To each man his manner. First-class cricket would be less bright than it is without such men as Jessop and Sugg, Francis Ford and S. M. J. Woods. Long life to them, and more power to their elbows ! J.N.P. EMERITI v. HENLEY (Return, 12 a side).— Played at Henley on July 24. E m e r it i . First innings. Second innings. C. Y. Fox, c Rundle, b Eustace ... ................. 0 b Smart .......... 0 J. G. O’Brien, c and b Eustace ........................21 b Scott-Murray... 0 H. C. De Wiart, c Eustace, b Aldridge........................ 2 lbw, b Eustace ... 3 T. L. Moore, c Aldridge, b Eustace ........................ 8 c Smart, b Scott- Murray ......... 13 F. M. Murray, c Eustace, b Aldridge ........................14 bScott-Murray... 6 C. Bullen, b Aldridge........ 1 notout................. 0 D.H. Rasbotham, c Eustace, b Aldridge........................ 7 b Stuart ..........20 H. E. Scott-Murray, b Eus­ tace ...................... .• ... 2 b Eustace .......... 0 R. E. Scott-Murray, not out 0 b Eustace .......... 7 R. E. O’Bryan, b Eustace... 2 b Aldridge.......... 0 A. E. O’Bryan, b Aldridge 19 c Smart, b Eus­ tace .................26 E. V. Aston, b Aldridge ... 1 c Finch, b Smart 41 Extras ..........18 Extras Total... 12 Total ...128 H e n l e y . E. Field, b Rasbotham 21 Eustace, b Acton ... 8 T. Rundle, b Acton ... 23 R. H. Brewis, c and b Acton ................. 3 F. Scott-Muiray, not out ........................47 F. Cartwright, b Ras­ botham ................. 1 B. Molloy, c Acton, b Rasbotham ......... 0 C. Holmes, c Fox, b A cton ........................ 9 E. Smart, b J. O’Brien 0 S. Harris, run out ... 4 B.Finch, b Rasbotham 0 Aldridge, b J. O’Brien 23 Extras .......... 4 Total ...143 SURREY v. KENT. A SC OR E OF 234 BY BALDWIN. Played at the Oval on July 22, 23 and 24. Surrey won by an innings and 148 runs. This was a remarkable match. In their first innings, Mr. Mason and Alec Hearne began so well for Kent, that they put up 90 in a few minutes over the hour before they were parted. But then an alarming rot set in, which was only stayed by a pretty and boldly played innings of 8 1 by Mr. Mordaunt, who was eighth on the list of batsmen. Thanks to him, the total was not bad, although as the wicket was good, it seemed pretty evident that Surrey would have no difficulty in bearing it. Eight of the Kent eleven made 16 between them. The collapse was chiefly due to the bowling of Richardson, who had an excellent analysis. Surrey, after losing Abel, who has been a little off colour lately, went ahead, and before another wicket fell the hundred was up, thanks to fine cricket by Brockwell and Hayward, but at the close of the days’ play both batsmen were out, and Holland as well, with the total at 118 for four wickets, so that there did notseemmuch in favourof either side. But on the morrow. Baldwin and Mr. Jephson soon got an absolute mastery over the Kent bowling. By cricket which was sometimes very lively they brought the score to two hundred, then to three hun­ dred, and were not parted at lunch time when 342 was up for four wickets. Almost immediately after lunch, with the total at 318, Mr. Jephson was out for an invaluable innings of 104, the flrat hundred he has made for his county. He had been batting for two hours and a half, and the partnership had pro­ duced 230 runs. After his dismissal all the rest of the Surrey team made runs, generally pretty quickly, while Baldwin steadily kept up his end until he was last to go for a very well played 234, which had taken him six hours to put together. It is unfortunate for Kent that he was badly missed two or three times. The total was so large that Kent’s only chance of get' ing out of the game with much credit was to play for a draw, but as they had half an hour’s batting ou Friday night and the whole of Saturday before them, there was a strong probability that they would be disposed of, more particularly as they are not good hands at playing slow cricket. They lost a wicket for 43 on Friday evening. On Saturday, Mr. Livesay, Martin, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Mordaunt and Wright played good cricket, but the game was over soon after half-past three. K ent . First innings. Second innings. J. R. Mason, c Baldwin, b Richardson........................65 c Wood, b Lees... 7 Hearne(Alec),c& b Jephson 50 absent (ill)......... 0 F. Marchant, b Richardson 0 lbw, b Lees..........23 J. N. Tonge, b Lees .......... 1 c Wood, b Rich­ ardson .......... 11 R. O’H. Livesay, c Hayes, b Lees ............................... 0 c Wood, b Brock­ well .................35 Martin, c Baldwin, b Rich­ ardson ............................... 1 not out.................57 H.C.Stewart,cWood, b Lees 5 c Baldwin, b Brockwell ... 37 G. J. Mordaunt, not out ... 81 b Richardson ... 25 Wright (W.), c Brockwell, b Jephson........................ 7 b Hayward......... 38 E. B. Shine, c Holland, b Richardson....................... 0 c Holland,b Hay­ ward................ 0 Huish, c Lees, b Richardson 2 b Richardson ... 8 B 2, nb 3 ................. 5 B 6 , lb 5..........11 Total ..........217 S u r r e y . Total... ..252 Brockwell, c Huish, b Shine..........................62 Abel, b W right.......... 5 Hayward, c Wright, b Hearne ................... 47 Baldwin, c Martin, b Wright ..................234 Holland, b Shine ... 0 D.L.A.Jephson,cMor- daunt, b Shine ...102 Hayes,c Huish,b Shine 34 K. J. Key, c Huish, b Wright .................46 Lees, c Mason, b Shine 31 Wood,c Mason,b Shine 19 Richardson, not out... 28 B 3,lb 4 , w 1,nb 1... 9 Total ...617 K e n t , First innings. Second innings. O. M. R. W . O. M. R. W. Richardson......... 29 12 69 5 ........... 35 9 98 3 Lees ................. 25 10 60 3 .......... 14 4 33 2 Hayward .......... 11 1 42 0 ........... 9 5 10 2 Brockwell.......... 3 0 20 0 ........... 14 4 39 2 Jephson .......... 7 0 21 2 ........... 11 2 43 0 Hayes 6 1 18 0 Hayward delivered two no-balls and Lees one. Wright . Shine Mason S u r r e y . O. M. R. W. 462 14 117 3 59 11 226 6 ,23 10 50 0 Hearne(A) 15 7 24 1 . Marchant delivered one wide and Mason one no-ball. Martin Tonge Marchant O. M. R. W, 45 9 101 0 20 3 70 0 4 0 20 0 LANCASHIRE v. SOMERSETSHIRE. Played at Old Trafford on July 22, 23 and 24 Lancashire won by an innings and 75 runs. fitVery disappointing was the play of Somerset in this match. They won the toss but only scored 140, Mr. Woods and Mr. Nicholls alone making any show against Hallam, Mold and Cuttell. The weakness of the Somerset bowling was exposed very soon after Lancashire went in, and nobody except Tyler could make any impression whatever on the batsmen. Mr. MacLaren was agaJn in splendid form, and with Ward as a partner, put on 95 for the first wicket. Paul did nothing, but Frank Sugg and Tyldesley collared the bowling and brought the score to 239 at the end of the day without being separated. Sugg was at last out when within seveu runs of his hun­ dred; his fine innings lasted for an hour and 40 minutes and included 16 fours. Tyldesleyonly added 18 to his t»tal of the previous evening. Afterwards Baker and Briggs made runs, and the innings close! for 374, Tyler having takennearly all the wickets. In a deficiency of 234 Somerset began their second innings very badly, and, although at the end of it a good stand was made by Air. Newton and Mr. Porch, there was never any probability that the innings defeat could be saved. Hallam and Mold again bowled well. S o m er set . First innings. Second innings. S. M. J. Woods, c Tyldesley, b Hallam ..................... 29 c Mold,b Hallam I R. (J. N. Palairet, c Paul, b Hallam ......................... 6 b Hallam .......... 15 H. T. Stanley, b Mold ... 3 b M old.................13 Nichols, c MacLiren, b Mold 36 Robson, b Cuttell... G. Fowler, b Cuttell Tyler, c Smith, b Hallam . 6 A. E. Newton, c Smith, b Mold ...............................16 R. B. Porch, c Smith, b Mold 4 M. H. Toller, st Smith, b Hallam ........................11 Smith (D.), not out ..........14 Byes............................... 4 Total........................140 l b M old c MacLaren, M old........ b Hallam ... c MacLaren, Mold......... b Mold......... 1 12 , 12 5 c Biker, b Hallam 32 c MacLaren, b Hallam ..........48 not out.................15 c Ward, b Cuttell 4 Wide .......... 1 Total ..159 L a n c a s h ir e . A. C. MacLaren, c Stanley, b Nicholls 70 Ward (A.), c Woods, b Tyler........................40 Paul, b Tyler .......... 9 Sugg (F.), c Nichols, b Tyler .................93 Tyldesley, c Nichols, b Tyler........................ 68 S o m erset . First innings. O. M. R. W. .. 26-4 10 62 4 .. ... 24 8 53 4 .. . . 7 3 10 2 . . 5 1 11 0 .. Briggs bowled a wide. L a n c a s h ir e . O. M.R. W. 47 6 171 7 1Robson .. 29 11 67 0 Fowler .. 29 10 58 1 Baker,cWoods, bTyler 37 Briggs, lbw, b Fowler 28 Smith,cWoods, bTyler 3 Cuttell, not out..........17 Hallam, c and b Tyler 2 Mold,cPorch, bFowler 4 W 2, lb 1 .......... 3 Total ..374 Hallam... Mold ... Cuttell ... Briggs ... Tyler... Woods Nicholls Second innings. O. M. R. W. 28 15 48 5 29 8 70 4 18-4 10 27 1 2 0 13 0 O. M. R. W. 11 4 37 0 15 6 38 2 Woods and Nicholls each bowled a wide. CLAPTON v. ISLINGTON ALBION (Diamond Jubilee match).—Played at Clapton on July 26. C lapto n . J. H. Douglas, lbw, Chalders ......... H. E. V. Chichester, and b Williams F. A. Boys, lbw, Collett...................... 97 H. Boyton, b Brown... 20 H.E.Trafford,b Brown 9 P. P. Lincoln, b Collett 16 J. J. Wiggett, b Chal­ decott ...................... 2 11 W. H. Nolloth, not out ........................45 Dr. Ijadell, b Chalde­ cott ........................ 0 Cooper, c Sharp, b Brown .................16 Dr Jones, b Brown ... 2 F. A. Bishop, b Brown 0 B 12, lb 4, nb 1 ... 17 Total ..241 I slin g to n A ldio n . A. W . Sharp, b Cooper 14 A.E.Nicholls.b Cooper 24 L. Tubbs, b Cooper ... 27 R. F. Chaldecot, b Chichester ......... 1 W. Williams, c Cooper, b Chichester ......... 1 L. Orton, b Cooper ... 15 J. H. Beaunont, b Cooper .................14 F. Dent, c Douglas, b Cooper........................14 H. Collett, b Cooper... 15 A. Wheeler, not out... 3 B 23, lb 7 ... ... 30 Total (9 wkts) 158 T. Brown and M. Van Boolen did not bat.