Cricket 1897

376 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. A ug . 26 , 1897. BUSSEY’S BATS. H IGHEST GRADE . BUSSEY’S BALLS. H IGHEST GRADE . BUSSEY’S < C G B ^ GUARDS. HIGHEST GRADE . BUSSEY’S < C G B « GLOVES. H IGHEST GRADE BUSSEY’S < G G *H ( BAGS. H IGHEST GRADE. CRICKETERS’ DIARY IS A GEM FOR 6d. CATALOGUES ON APPLICATION TO CITY D E P O T - 36 & 38, QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, LONDON, OR DEALERS ALL OVER THE WORLD. MANUFACTORY— PECKHAM, LONDON. TIM BER M ILLS— ELMSWELL , SUFFOLK. BETWEEN THE INNINGS. It looks as though, after all, neither Lan­ cashire nor Essex is to win the championship, hut that Surrey, as so often of late years, will be found at the head of the list. Personally, though myself somewhat of a Surrey partisan, I shall not be particularly pleased should this prove to be the outcome of the contest. Lancashire has experienced a lot of hard luck; and one would like to see Mr. Hornby’s team at the top, if only by way of a change. It is sixteen years ago since Lancashire last headed the list; and the County Championship then was scarcely the serious thing that it is now. It was very rough on the northern team, after having to take the field without Mold (whose presence on the Saturday morning, when the ground was faster, might have made a lot of difference), to lose Frank Sugg just when thoroughly well set and looking good for a long score. Sugg may well be missed in the two remaining matches, too, for neither Middlesex nor Notts are opponents to be des­ pised, and it is in batting that Lancashire is least strong j ust now, in spite of the possession of such men as MacLaren, Ward, Baker and Tyldesley. The last-named, by the way, has scarcely been at his best since his accident; but he has managed to reach four figures, as (fortunately) had Sugg before that ball from Richardson disabled him. Five more names in all have to be added to the 1,000 runs list as the outcome of last week’s cricket, making the total thereon to date twenty-five. The five are :—21, Mr. K. J. Key, August 16; 22, W. Storer, August 18 ; 23, J. T. Tyldesley, August 19 ; 24, Mr, P. F. Warner, August 19 ; 25, F. H. Sugg, August 20. There are two additions to be made to the 100 wickets list:—T. Hay­ ward, August 17 ; Mr. G. L. Jessop, August 21. These are both new names, Hayward’s previous largest number being 91, and Mr. Jessop’s 74, both last year. Each has now accomplished the big feat of making 1,000 runs and taking 100 wickets in first-class cricket in the same season. Hirst and Wain­ wright should join them before the season is over; but both are adding wickets very slowly, Hirst, indeed, only taking one in two matches last week. Mr. McGahey, Mr. Bainbridge, Willie Quaife, Shrewsbury, Mr. Newham and Davidson will, bar accidents, reach four figures; and several others, including Mr. MacLaren, Chatterton and Bean have a fairly good chance of doing so ; but among those in the noble company of four-figurists last year who will scarcely be found there this are Mr. A. E. Stoddart, Mr. S. M. J. Woods, Mr. L. C. H. Palairet, Sir T. C. O’Brien, Peel, Pougher, Killick, Mr. A. (J. Jones, Mr. C. J. Bumup and Captain Wyn­ yard. It will be a great pity if Mold cannot play in at least one more match. He only requires two wickets to complete his hundred ; and up to now he has never in any season since he came into first-class company failed to secure a hundred wickets—a recoid which, it is scarcely necessary to say, is quite unique. In his first season (1889) he took 102, 118 in 1890, 138 in 1891, 120 in 1892, 166 in 1893, 207 in 1894, 213 in 1895, and 150 last year. By the way, is it not somewhat singular that not one of the quartet of Lancastrian bowlers was born in the county ? Mold is from Northamptonshire, Briggs from Nottingham­ shire, Cuttell from ^Yorkshire, and Hallam from Leicestershire. But the same may be said of the leading bowlers of at least two other counties, Middlesex and Somerset. Jack Hearne is fromBuckinghamshire,Rawlin from Yorkshire, Mr. C. M. Wells from Surrey ; while Mr. Woods, Captain Hedley, Hobson, Tyler and Nichols all play for Somerset under either the family home or the residential qualification. The objections that are being raised in some quarters to Mr. Stoddart’s right to call his team ‘ ‘ England* ’ strike me as very frivolous indeed. I agree with those who think that at least fourteen men should be taken, especially as the programme of the tour is more largely than ever before made up of first-class matches ; and certainly either Brown or Johnny Briggs (whose day is evi­ dently by no means over yet) would strengthen the side. But no English side for Australia ever yet has been chosen in any other way than that in which this team has been made up; and I cannot call to mind any previous objections to the manner of the choosing. Of course the fine form shown by the last Aus­ tralian team has influenced the objectors ; and it is only natural that we should all want to see as strong a team as possible taken out, and should all ftfel that a mistake has been made in the omission of some of our special favourites fin my own case, Brown) from the side ; but everyone’s special favourites cannot be taken out, and there is not a man in the list who is not a splendid player and agenuine tryer. The dissentients appear to forget, too, that Mr. F. S. Jackson and Abel both had invitations; and it is not Mr. Stoddart’s fault that these two fine players are not going. Of course there is a lot of new blood in the team ; but I don’t think this by any means so great a source of possible weakness in an English team for Australia as in an Austra­ lian team for England, because most batsmen can accommodate themselves more readily to a change to faster wickets than to a change to slower. And that new blooi can hold its own in Australian teams the records of Graham in 1893, and of Darling, Iredale and Hill in 1896 are ample proof. Rawlin is one of the comparatively few batsmen who have done much in first-class cricket who have never made a century therein. One recalls this in noting his fine performances at Sheffield and Nottingham last week. The ex-Yorkshireman is quite a veteran now; but, remembering Attewell and that 102 at Gravesend, he may still take hope. On at least five or six occasions he has scored over 80, his highest being 88, not out, in 1890—hard lines that his last partner could not have stayed a little longer then. The distinction of not having been all out for less than 100 this season is shared so far by Gloucestershire, Warwickshire and Notts. If county matches alone be considered, Essex and Sussex also come in ; but the Leyton men were all out against M.C.C. at Lord’s for 86, and Murdoch’s men did badly against the Philadelphians and Oxford. Poor Leicestershire has eight times totalled less than 100—with two 35’s, a 54, a 78, a 79, a 91, 92 and 93. Lancashire, Middlesex, and Kent have only one such score each, Lancashire’s being 53, v. Derbyshire, at Liverpool, Middlesex’s 88, v. Surrey, at the Oval, and Kent’s 73, v. Yorkshire, at Halifax. But, of course, the season is not quite over yet, though the end is near upon us. It is very difficult to account for Derby­ shire’s extremely unsatisfactory position in