Cricket 1897

O ct . 28 , 1897. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 441 themselves in the season’s tournament. Little was there, indeed, in the west- countrymen’s record upon which they could look back with pleasure. Of course, the double victory over Surrey was a brilliant achievement, but then one has learned to expect at least one or two brilliant achievements from Mr. Woods’s men during the season, and the way in which the side curled up at times was very disappointing. It was natural enough though, for not one of the three men who may be spoken of as the representative players of the side—L. C. H. Palairet, S. M. J. Woods and Tyler— was in his best form. The captain played his own resolute dashing, game in three or four matches—notably, against York­ shire, at Leeds, Surrey, at the Oval, Kent, at Beckenham, and Sussex, at Brighton—but on the whole was far less successful with the bat than in either 1895 or 1896; while he never looked like regaining his old form with the ball. The elder Palairet was absent from a third of the matches, and, though the old grace and charm of style were still there, we looked in vain throughout the season for the long scores which one has learned to associate with his name. He began in something like his old form, it is true, with innings of 79 v. Yorkshire and 92 v. Middlesex; but these and a 72 in the return with Middlesex were his only scores of over 50 in the course of 21 innings, and his average of 29J was by no means satisfactory for so really great a player. Richard Palairet, though he did not once reach 70, had been batting more consistently than any other man on the side, when a cycling accident late in July spoiled his chance of cricket for the rest of the season, preventing his appear­ ance in even one of the August matches. In his 22 innings he had a 66, 58, 56, 60, 41, 35, and seven other scores of between 19 and 35, while he was only once out for a duck. Nichols has never batted so well since Somerset had a first-class pro­ gramme. Up to the end of June no one on the side did better than h e ; and in three successive matches he scored innings of 51, 10, 74*, 50, 53, and 8. Towards the end of the season, however, he fell off altogether, his last four innings only realising 12 runs. As a bowler he was very little utilised, and the few wickets he took were expensive. Tyler was, in his own merry, plucky fashion, of great use with the bat on several occasions ; while, expensive as his wickets were, he was far and away the best of the regular bowlers of the side. Against Surrey he did quite his best performances; but he also bowled very finely against Lancashire, both at Taunton and Manchester, against Hants at Portsmouth and Kent at Taunton. Perhaps it was scarcely to be wondered at that a bowler of his type, with so much work to do in a season that did not often provide him with a wicket to his liking should have been pretty costly. Robson, the other regular professional of the side, played such fine cricket in the first match of the season, against York­ shire, that his somewhat poor perform­ ances for a long time after that were very disappointing. Just as there was talk of leaving him out, however, he came again, with a good all round performance against Surrey; and I still think that he will prove of great value to the side in seasons yet to come. Douglas Smith, who did very well last year, was so entire a failure this that he does not even reach a double figure average. He is so good a field, however, that he may yet get further chances, and justify his early promise and the big scores that, even in 1897 he ran up even in club cricket. Two other professionals were tried—Gill and Cran­ field; and, without doing anything sensational (unless one accepts his three wickets for 21 v. Yorkshire at Taunton, which came near to proving the turning point of thematch) the former showed con­ siderable promise. Cranfield only bowled in one innings, and then had five wickets for 113, so that one would think he might have been given another trial, but I b lieve he is a bowler of Tyler’s type, so that he may have to wait for a place as Peel did years ago when Peate and Bates were both in the Yorkshire team. Captain Hedley, as usual, was very useful with the ball, and no one else on the side got wickets as cheaply as h e ; but he could not play regularly. Nowadays he seldom makes runs in first-class cricket. Gerald Fowler did well in several matches when help was sorely needed; and as a player who is at his best at a critical time, he is worth more to his side than his average shows. His fast bowling was given more show than it has had at any time since it gained him his Blue at Oxford, but with no very striking success. A. E. Newton was able to play in almost every match, besides wicket-keeping in fine style, and generally made a few runs. W. N. Roe, Yernon Hill, C. E. Dunlop, and F. A. Phillips, the old Oxonian, a newcomer in the team, were all worth their places when they could play; but the only remarkable innings played by any of them were Hill’s 61 v. Surrey at Taunton, and Phillips’ 92 v. Gloucestershire at Clifton, both hard-hit, dashing displays. All of them averaged over or about 20, and all would be useful men on any side if they could play regularly; but as Roe only appeared in seven matches, Hill in six, Phillips in five, and Dunlop in four, it was hardly to be expected that they should exert any very considerable influence upon the fortunes of the side. R. B. Porch and H. T. Stanley, who played somewhat oftener and were both useful on occasion, are scarcely the bats­ men whom the Somerset team evidently needs, and M. H. Toller, who had a good trial, proved an entire failure. I hear that the old Carthusian, G. O. Smith, will play for Somerset in 1898. The county could do with three or four such resolute, plucky players. 9 [Kent’s record was even more disap­ pointing than that of Somerset, inasmuch as that with more bowling and a side that suffered fewer changes, the county did not a whit better than her Western rivals, worse, indeed, if county matches alone be considered. The distinguishing characteristic of Kent’s performances in 1897 was mediocrity. The side seldom or never collapsed altogether; but just as seldom did it rise above itself and accomplish great performances at unexpected times, as other sides far weaker have been known to do. But in this one thing Kent was'jnore fortunate than Somerset; that her greatest player did not share in the degeneracy of the side. The fine form shown by young J. R. Mason in match after match was the more noticeable in that it was shown for an unsuccessful side. Seldom has any player done more to win a match single-handed, than he did at Blackheath against Somerset, when he scored 31 and 183 and in the second innings of the Westerners took five wickets for only 20 runs. The improvement in his bowling was really remarkable. I was surprised to see how difficult the Notts men found him to play at Gravesend (the first match in which he met with much success); but his after performances showed that his success then was no mere flash in the pan, but due to an improvement in length and judgment. Mason only scored one century during the season, the 183 already alluded t o ; but he averaged 35 per innings, and his aggregate of 1,377, included scores of 92, 86, 70, 65, 63, 62, 57,55, 51 and 41, seven of between 30 and 40, eight of 20, but under 30, and only eight of single figures. This in 39 innings, in not one of which did he fail to score. Next to Mason, H. C. Stewart, who was for the first time able to play regularly, did most for the side with the bat. His 142 v. the M.C.C. and 114 v. Sussex at Brighton were fine innings, and he had fifteen other scores of over 20, including a 64, a 62 and a 56, but he was a long way below Mason, when all is said. In two or three matches the captain played cricket that reminded oneof hisbestdays, his 144*, v, Warwickshire, at Tonbridge, being one of the hardest-hit innings of the year, but, although his record is not below those of the last few years, one cannot help thinking that he hits out seldomer than he used to do, and wishing that he would hit out oftener. Alec. Hearne had a bad year, but he was greatly handicapped by injuries, and there is no reason to suppose that he has really lost any of his ability. I hope he will be found at his best next year, for there are few players whose success gives me more pleasure, and I do not want to see him dropped iong before his usefulness has ceased, as I have always thought his brother George was. His best batting performance of the season was against the Warwickshire bowling at Birming­ ham, where he scored 53 and 69. Two 55’s, a 51 and a 50 were among his other scores, but just upon half of his innings were of under double figures, which is certainly not his usual form. He was in splendid bowling form againt Middlesex at Lord’s, but, taking the season through, his bowling was as much below par as his batting. Martin had a very busy season, and made more runs than ever before, but did not bowl as well as he has often done. He began the season well, and came back to form again towards the end, but for nearly two months he was very ineffective with the N E X T ISSUE, THURSDAY , NO V EM B E R 25.