Cricket 1897

456 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. Nov. 25, 1897. Bradford, Davidson was in deadly form; and with better bicking-up lie might perhaps have done more such perform­ ances as these. Of Hancock I am inclined to hope a good deal. In his first match or two he did not find favour with the critics, but it had to be admitted by all before the end of the season that he was at least a useful man. Apart from these two, Cross, a somewhat mature colt, met with some success in two or three matches; Chatterton did more bowling than for j ears past, and was always useful; Storer got Wickets on more than one occasion ; Steeples, who also played for Monmouth­ shire (whence arose ructions in the second-class county camp), showed some promise ; G. G. Walker proved that he is still a better bowler than Eeveral of the youngsters; Gould, the Burton pro., met with sufficient success to make it some­ what strange that he was not better tiied; Warren, a colt who was at first thought to show better form than Hancock, was terribly expensive, and is still a long way off first-class form ; and Walter Sugg practically could not bowl at all owing to a strained tbigh. In the county matches Davidson and Hancock took between them as many wickets as all the other bowlers on the side together. Both in 1895 and 1896, Chatterton, Davidson, and Storer all three reached four-figure totals. This year the first- •named failed to do so, although his two comrades both again accomplished the feat. But William Cbatterton’s cricket was brighter in 1897 than for years past. He made his ruts in much livelier fashion, and one or two of his innings were regular eye-openers in this respect. His total of 897 included innings of 120, 90, 79, 77, 59. and 57 ; and probably only the accident which kept him out of two or three matches was responsible for his falling short of the thousard. Storer was scarcely the great batsman of 1896, but he is still a man “ good at need,” as he well proved in the Yorkshire match as Derby, the Essex match at Leyton, in both games with Leicestershire, and in the Notts match at Derby. His biggest score of the season (160*) was made for the M.C.C., but all his other btst innings were played for his county, and they in­ cluded 104*, 68, 59, 59, 56*, and 50. To say that he kept wicket well is almost supej fluous. In the early part of the season he was given a rest in several matches, and his place behind the stumps was taken by Wilmott, who acquitted himself very fairly. But curiously enough these were the very matches in which Storer showed to least advantage with the bat. David­ son played a good inDings as often as anyone on the side; but, like the rest of the Derbyshire batsmen in 1897, he could scarcely be classified as a really consistent scorer. His 121 v. Notts, 97 v. Essex, 90 not out v. Yorkshire, and 72 not out v. Surrey were the best innings he played during the season. Bagshaw had one very bad spell, when in six innings he made only 21 runs ; apart from this he was the most consistent batsman on the side. Three times he scored over a hundred ; and his performance ia carry­ ing his bat through the innings at the Oval against Surrey’s strong attack, was a really fine one. L. G. Wright, like Bagshaw, had one run of bad scores— 20 runs in six innings—but ap irt from this he, too, generally scored well. Among his best achievements were 133 (his first strictly first-class century), 93, 82, 55 and 68 in one match, 58, 47, and 43 twice. S. H. Evershed began very badly ; but with the season half over, his luck turned. Against Notts he made 98 at Derby and 90 at Nottingham ; and he scored 112 v. Essex and 62 and 40 v. Surrey at Derby. Walter Sugg was not at his best. His 84 v. Essex at Derby was his only innings of over 50; but one may easily believe that the injury from which he suffered throughout the season handicapped him a good deal. These seven were the only regular members of the side whose batting calls for comment; indeed, the Derbyshire tail was a weak one all through the season. Of those who played in only a few matches E. M. Ashcroft showed really fine form against Warwickshire at Derby and Notts at Nottingham, and Bostock displayed some promise. Apart from those who played for the counties, the only first-class players of the season who were really prominent were Albert Trott anl the Oxonian, G. E. Bromley-Martin. The young Australian seems to be in a fair way to j ustify the great things that were predicted of him when he displayed such sensational form three j ears or so ago against Stoddart’s Team at Adelaide. His opportunities in Srst-claes cricket in 1897 were very lio-ited, but he made splendid use of them. His batting average was the respectable one of 23, but it was his bowling that won highest praise. He headed the first-class bowling averages with 50 wickets at less than 14 runs each ; and although it is idle to compare his record with those of men like Richardson and Briggs, who did such an immenseamountmorework, it can scarcely be denied that he deserved his place. If he keeps up his form, Middlesex should make a bold bid for the championship next year. His record of work for the M.C.C. in all matches is a record worthy of Spofforth in his prime. The other two Australians who had places on the M.C.C. ground staff did nothing very extraordinary ; but Rocheis undoubtedly a good bowler, and O’Halloran would appear to be a very fair bat who can bowl a bit. G. E. Bromley-Martin, who may yet help to raise Worcestershire to the first-class ranks, played very finely for Oxford, though he failed at Lord’s. His 137 v. Sussex was a fine, quickly-got innings; and he also showed extremely good cricket in his first match for Oxford against Mr. Webbe’s team. A. Eccles began in very fine form for the same team, but fell off later; and G. B. Bards­ well was never at his best, perhaps partly owing to the cares of captaincy. Bath these gentlemen have qualifications for Lancashire, but neither on this year’s form was quite worth a place in the county team. R. E. Foster (another Worcestershire man, and a brother of H. K .) showed considerable promise, and will make a lot of runs when he gets rid of his weak strokes in the slips. T. B. Henderson, though he just failed to get his Blue, is a very useful man, who bats well and bowls fairly. P. S. Waddy by no means equalled his 1896 form, and either Stocks or Henderson might have been substituted for him against Cam­ bridge without detriment to the team. Of the Cambridge players the only three not already spoken of who need bo mentioned, are A. E. Fernie, a useful bowler with a queer delivery; J. H. Stogdon, a batsman of some ability; and L. J. Moon, a younger brother of the famous goal-keeper, who scored doubles in each of his six innings, and would have stood a very good chance of his Blue but for bad fielding. T h e fo llo w in g ta b le show s th e n um ber o f m atches p la y ed b y each first-class side d u rin g th e season, th e n u m b er o f p layers w h o appeared fo r it, an d th e nam es o f th e m en w h o to o k p a rt in every m atch . Total No. of Men played in every Side. Mtclis.players. match. Yorkshire .......... 30 ... 20 Denton Lancashire......... 28 ... 20-j Brigga- Cultl11' Surrev 20 *Abel» Baldwin, Frock- fturrey......... - 20 I well, K. J. Key. Sussex..................25 ... 16 j W ' L ' Murdoch’ Hampshire.......... 20 ... 26 j Bald" in- Barton' D ' A Kent .................. Steele. n7 i F. Merchant. Martin, ' J. R. Maf-on, Wright. Gloucestershire... 19 ... 24 j Warwickshire ... 19 ... 20 I Diver, A. C. S. Glover, \ Lilley, W . Quaife. Notts ..................18 ... 23 Dench. A. O. Jones. Somerset ...........18 ... 23 Robsou. T>prl,vshirp 17 92 ! G’ Da'idson. Ilanrock, Derbyshire.......... 17 ... II j storer, L. G. Wright. ( Carpenter, C. J. Kort- E s s e x ..................17 ... 16 ! right,C. McGahey,Mead, ( H. G. Owen, P. Pen in. M iddlesex...........17 ... 21 J. T. Hearne, Rawlin. f"Geeson, Knight, White- Leicesterrhire ... 15 ... 20-! side, C. J. B. W ood, ( Woodcock. Philadelphians ... 15 ... 15 | A ' ^ M.C.C....................14 ... 71 ( C. J. Buinup, A. E. Cambridge Univ. 10 ... 20- Fernie, G. L, Jessop, E. ( B. Shine. ( F. H, B. Champaia, F. Oxford Uoiversity 8 ... 15 <H. E. Cunliffe, A . Eccles, ( E. C. Wright. A FEW STATISTICS OF THE SEASON 1897. Following my comments on the doings of first- class cricketers in the season which ended two or three months ago, I am going to give a few statistics relating to the season’s play. In doing this I shall endeavour to be somewhat briefer than I was last year, since I want space in future numbers to talk of things other than those of the year which will soon be dead. And first I will give a list of the scorers of 1000 runs. Of course, a glance at the averages will show anyone who these were, so that my table may seem to some unnecessary; but I gather from letters received that several readers are glad to have the information given in the table, in complete and compact form, for purposes of reference. The number of batsmen who reached four figures in 1897 was 29, against 39 in 1896. But the bigger total of that year included seven of the Australian team ; and the fixtures N E X T ISSUE, THURSDAY , DECEM BE R 30.