Cricket 1897

D ec . 3 0 , 1897. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 473 Jackson, W. L. Murdoch, P. F. Warner, G. S. Patterson and N. F. Druce in five. Twenty of the long stands took place at Lord’s, 16 each at Trent Bridge and the Hove, 13 at the Oval, nine at Derby, and eight each at Southampton and Leyton. Trent Bridge thus takes prac­ tically first place iu this respect, as only nine games were played there, against eleven at the Hove, 16 at the Oval, and 22 at headquarters. As will be seen when we come to the table of scoring on the various grounds, Trent Bridge is also practically first in respect of average and rungetting throughout the season, al­ though the first place is nominally held by the Bramall Lane ground, which had but four matches. There was no such sensational total during 1897 as Yorkshire’s 887, v. War­ wickshire in 1896, but the same side, but for the application of the closure rule, might well have come near to their own record against Sussex, at Sheffield. Surrey is the most conspicuous side in the list of big totals. Twice Mr. Key’s men scored over 600, three times over 500, and four times over 400. Sussex with five, Yoikshire and Notts with four totals of over 400 each stand next. But a glance at the list of scores between 300 and 400 will go to show how seldom the Yorkshire batsmen failed to run up a good, if not a great, score, for the broad- acred county claims eleven such totals, Gloucestershire and Lancashire standing next with seven each. The following is a summary of the total of 300 or more made by each of the first-class sides: Yorkshire, 15; Surrey, 13; Sussex, 10; Lancashire, nine; Essex, Gloucestershire a id Notts, seven each; Middlesex and Warwickshire, six each ; Kent, 5; Derby­ shire and Hampshire, four each; Cam­ bridge and M.O.C., three each ; Somerset and Oxford, two each; the Philadelphians, one; Leicestershire, nil. It is worthy of note that Gloucestershire, Hampshire, Leicestershire and Somerset are all unprecedented in the list of scores of 400 and over. Sussex, as usual, had more big totals run up against her bowling than any other side—seven of over 400. Four were made against both Leicestershire and Notts. Not one such score was made against either Surrey or Somerset. THE BIG TOTALS OF THE SEASON. (5C0 EUNS OR MORE). s 681 617 602 079 670 568 680 a <u . as > o rf* 6 Yorks. , Surrey Derby. , Surrey < Sussex ... . Kent . W rwck... . Hants. ... , Notts. ... . W rwck... . Leices. ... < Sheffield . O val... . I « Jly. 12, 13 Jly. 22, 23 My. 13, 14 Aug. 9, 10 N ’tingham Aug. 9, 10 B’ham. ... June24,25 O val...........May 3, 4 Only three of the small totals of the season were under 50. The Philadelphians on June 17 dismissed Sussex, at Brighton, for 46, and Surrey, on June 10, twice got rid of Leicestershire for 35 in each innings. Leicestershire has more innings of less than three figures than any other two sides together. Only completed innings, it may be mentioned, are taken into account in this table. Of matches in which a four-figure total was reached there were no fewer than 23 in 1897 ; ten in July, six in May, four in June, and three in August. Six of them were fought on the Oval, three each at Trent Bridge and at Lord’s, two at Sheffield, and the other nine all on different grounds, actually only one at Brighton ! Once during the season—on July 29, 30, 31—three games, which resulted in more than 1,000 runs were proceeding simultaneously; and on four other occasions two were in progress at one time. Rns.Wkts 1207 ... 35 1196 ... 40 1156 . 1150 , 1142 . 1136 . 1127 . 1087 . 32 25 29 1074 ... 25 1067 ... 29 1055 . 1010 . 1035 . 1028 . 1028 . 1027 . 1022 . 1021 , 1021 , 1014 . 1008 ... 21 1002 ... 35 MATCHES OF 1,000 RUNS, dwn. Match ... Surrey v. Sussex ... ... Gents, v. Players ... ... M.C.C. v. Sussex ... ... lancashirev.Suesex ... Yorkshire v. Glos. ... Surrey v. Philadel. ... Middlesex v. Glos. ... Notts, v. Yorkshire ... Surrey v. Kent ... Sussex v. Essex ... ... Kent v. N otts......... ... Yorkshire v. Sussex ... Ox.U.v.Webbe’sXI. ... Notts v. Gloucester. ... Gloucester, v. Yrks. ... Surrey v. Essex ... ... Wrwck. v. Lancs.... ... Surrey v. Somerset ... Surrey v. Notts. ... ... Kent v. Somerset ... ... Yks. v. Middlesex ... Notts v. Derbyshire ... Somerset v. Yks. ... At Date begun Oval ... May 20 Lord’s ... July 12 Lord’s... May 13 M’chster. July 14 H’rogate J uly 29 Oval ... July 29 Lord’s... June 3 N ’ham June 24 Oval ... July 22 Brighton July 29 Gr’vsend June 17 Sheffield July 12 Oxford May 24 N’ham Bristol Oval B ’ham... Oval Oval July 22 May 13 May 10 July 5 June 14 Aug. 2 B’kheath July 15 Sheffield Aug. 16 N ’ham Aug. 9 Taunfon May 17 NOTABLE BOWLING FEATS. Fifteen wickets in a match J. T. Hearne, M.C.C. v. Oxford Univ., Oxford, 110 Richardson, Surrey v. Yorkshire, Leeds, 154 Roberts, Gloucestershire v. Kent, Maidstone, 123 Fourteen wicliets in a match :— Bland, Sussex v. Cambridge Univ., CamhiiJge, 72 F. G. Bull, Essex v. Lancafrhire, Lejton, 176 Hayward, Surrey v. Oxford University, 0xftrd,103 Richardson, Surrey v. Kent, Beckenham, 102 Nine wickets in an innings :— F. G. Bull, Essex v. Surrey. Oval, 93 J. T. Hearne, M.vI.C. v. Oxford Univ., Oxford, 54 Eight wickets in an innings:— Attewell, Notts v. Lancashire, Manchester, 102 Attewell, Notts v. Middlesex, Nottingham, 68 Bland, Sussex v. Kent, Tonbridge, 65 Briggs, Lancashire v. Derbyshire, Liverpool, 70 Briggs, Lancashire v. Hants, Manchester, 39 A. Bearne, Kent v. Middlesex, Lord’s, 36 Martin, Kent v. Sussex, Brighton, 79 Pallett, Warwickshire v. Leicestershire, Leicester, 67 Peel, Yorkshire v. Kent, Halifax, 53 Richardson, Surrey v. Yorkshire, Leeds, 99 Richardson, Surrey v. Yorkshire, Oval, 108 Richardson, Surrey v. Kent, Beckenham, 19 Roberts, Gloucestershiie v. Kent, Maidstone, 40 A. E. Trott, M.C.C. v. Oxford University, Lord’s, 53 Woodcock, M.C.C. v. Kent, Lord’s, 66 Hat T rick:— Haigh, Yorkshire v. Derbyshire, Bradford Lees, Surrey v. Hampshire, Southampton Peel, Yorkehire v. Kent, Halifax 3 Took wickets in every match in which they bowled:— Richardson (30), J. T. Hearne (26), Mead (21). Mold (21), F. G. Bull (18), J. B. King (15), F. H. E. Cun- litfe (13), F. W . Stocks (11), Forester (9), W . M. Bradley (7), Gill (6). Tom Eichardson bowled in 59 inniDgs, and only in two of ihe 59 did his efforts go unrewarded. His name is pretty conspicuous throughout the foregoiDg list. In the table which follows—that of the average of run-getting on the various grounds—there will be found several marked chauges as compared with last . 2785 ..,. 72 .. 37 9 . 7101 ... 232 .. . 30 4 . 8521 .,,. 285 .. . 29 8 .11215 .. . 535 ... 26*5 . 3769 .. . 149 ... 25'2 . 6339 .. . 255 .. . 24-8 . 2160 ..,. 89 ... 24*2 .17850 .. . 747 ..„ 23 8 . 7701 .,,. f 27 .. . 23-5 . 4962 .. 214 .. . 23 1 . 6139 .. 227 .. . 22-6 , 5155 .. . 258 .. . 21 1 . 4289 ..,. 203 .. . 211 . 2987 .... 142 ., . 210 . 3978 ..,. 195 . 20*4 . 2023 ... 100 .... 20 2 . 7158 ... 358 ... 19 9 . 1680 .... 85 ,. 19*7 . 1854 ... 94 ... 197 . 1972 ... 104 ... 18 9 and other earlier years. The high average afforded by the Bramall Lane wicket should not be allowed to pass unnoticed, and it is also worthy of remark that the Hove and Cambridge University Ground (Fenner’s of old) occupy much lower places than usual in the list. AVERAGES TER W ICKET3 OF RUNGETTING ON THE VARIOUS GROUNDS. Those on which three or more matches were played in order of average, rest alphabetically. No. of Runs Wickets Ground. Matches. Scored, down. Aver. Bramall Lane, Sheffield... 4 Trent Bridge, Nottingham 9 Edgbaston, Birmingham 10 KenniDgton Oval ...........16 Ashley Down, Bristol ... 5 County Ground, Derby ... 8 Angel Ground, Tonbridge 3 Lord’s ..................................22 Hove, Brighton..................11 County Gr’nd, S’lhampton 7 Leyton.................................. 8 County Ground, Taunton 8 Univ. Ground, Cambridge 7 Parks, Oxford .................. 4 AyJestone Road, Leicester 7 Headingly, Leeds .......... 3 Old Trafford, Manchester 12 Marine Ground, Scarboro’ 3 Park Avenue, Bradford ... 3 Central Ground, Hastings 3 In the next table I have arranged the sides in the order given by the figure of merit, i.e., average of runs per wicket for, minus average of runs per wicket against. The figures are not confined to county matches, but include all first-class g*mes. EUNS FOB AND AGAINST THE FIRST-CLASS TEAMS. Fig. Knns Runs of Side. for. W. Av. agnst. W. Av.merit. Surrey ........ 10913 377 28'9... 9835 633 18’4+10’5 Cam. Univ. ... 3562 141 25’2... 3057 171 17‘8+ 7’4 Lancashire ... 9192 365 25’1... 8712 481 180+ 7’1 Yorkshire........ 12220 425 28’7...10778 478 225+ 62 Essex.............. 6f69 237 26'8... 6576 287 229+ 3'9 M.C.C.............. 6227 240 21-7... 4856 254 19'1+ 26 Oxford Univ. ... 2771 128 21’6... 2697 133 20-2+ VI Middlesex........ £683 269 25’5... 6629 271 24 4+ 11 Gloucestershire 6808 284 23’9... 7308 310 235+ 0'4 Sussex ........ 1C054 406 24 7... 9510 352 27 0—23 Notts.............. 7079 271 26 1... 7178 251 28 5— 2'4 Kent.............. 7397 310 SIT... 7714 289 26 6— 49 Warwickshire... 7354 261 28‘1... 7920 210 33'0— 4'9 Derbyshire ... 6128 286 21’4... 6203 231 26'8— 6'4 Somerset........ 6083 309 19'6... 65(8 259 25 1— 5 5 Philadelphians.. £010 238 21'9... 6792 201 28'8—6'9 Leicestershire ... 4029 258 15-6... 5323 182 29 2—13’6 Leicestershire’s figures are terribly b a d ; her batting, four runs per wicket worse than that of any other side; her wickets costlier than those of any team save her neighbour , Warwick. Some­ thing may be said in favour of the Philadelphians, in spite of the low ly position they occupy. In batting they stand before Leicestershire, Somerset, Derbyshire, Kent, Oxford and the M .O .C .; in bow ling they are better than Leicestershire and Warwickshire, and but a trifle more than Notts. It is a surprise to find one of the University sides standing absolutely first in bow lirg ; but with Jessop, Shine, Wilson, De Zoete and Fem ie, Cambridge had a really fine attack in 1897. Surrey, Lancashire and M.C.C. were the only other sides which took wickets at less than 20 runs each. Figures tend to show that the four strongest batting teams were Surrey, Yorkshire, Warwickshire and Essex. J.N .P. N E X T ISSUE, THU R SD A Y J A N U A R Y 27.