Cricket 1897

9 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. J an . 28, 1897. BETWEEN THE INNINGS. The meeting of County Secretaries at Lord’s is over, and the programme of another season’s cricket lies before me as I write. It seems queer to be talking and thinking of cricket on such a day as this, with the slush of half-thawed snow underfoot in the streets, and in the air a chill suggestive of “ another frost to­ night.” Yet “ Cricket on the Hearth” hasits charms, as real in their way as cricket on the good greensward. When one sits back in an easy-chair, with a pipe or cigar in one’s mouth, and a good stiff glass of (no, I won't plagiarise that story about Rudyard Kipling and say “ Mellin’s Fond ” ) one’s favourite tipple by one’s sirle, one cm recall to mind and revive in talk with a kindred soul all the pleasant things of the cricket of bygone years, while the things unpleasant remain in the background. Are you a very staunch Surreyite? You may talk of “ Bobby’s ” 231, and “ George’s ” re- covered fine form and good health; of the splendid bowling of Tom o’ Byfleet and the grand all-round form of Tom o’ Cambridge; yet say never a word of that disaster at Leyton, or those miserable days at the Oval, when no one could hold catches and Sussex piled up a goodly score, and then, though the Sussex bowling was weak and the Sussex field­ ing shocking, the cracks could not make the runs. Albeit Brockwell, with as many lives as a cat, achieved the century, and “ our Walter” and “ our George,” idols of the Surrey crowd, hit out like the well-plucked ones they are—hit out, alas! in vain. What’s that someone says ?—that I am reminding him of the very things that I have counselled him not to think of. Well, there’s reason in that objection, and, anyway, it was not about the cricket of 1896 I wanted to talk but about that of 1897. Next season will scarcely be as busy as was last, since the Philadelphian pro­ gramme is not quite half as long as was that of the Australians, and the increase in the number of county matches will not make up the difference. The new matches, as far as the county programme is concerned, are: Essex v. Sussex, Essex v. Lancashire, and Hampshire v. Lancashire. All three of these should give interesting results, for Essex has been more than once a thorn in the side of the leading teams, and Hampshire, strengthened by the return of the wan­ derer, A. J. L. Hill, will be stronger next year. Two of the three, however, are not new matches in the sense that the counties have never met before, for Lancashire played Hampshire as far back as 1870, and Essex in 1885, 1886 and (I thiuk) 1890. Both Leicestershire andWar­ wickshire had hopes of getting on one or two more matches; but the poor records of both counties in 1896 may have prejudiced their chances. It was said that Middlesex would arrange with another county, and I had quite expected to see either Essex or Derbyshire down to oppose Mr. Webbe’s men. It is strange that the Peak County, which has, I believe, for some years past, issued challenges to all other first-class shires, and which at the present time has undoubtedly a very formidable side, should be unable to extend its programme. Middlesex, Somerset, Kent, Sussex, and Gloucestershire would all find dm Derby men worthy opponents, and there is little doubt but that they would “ draw,” at least, as well as most of the other counties. With fourteen first class counties the possible number of different matches is 91. Those who are weak at mathematics may need a moment or two to think this out. It may be stated thus : Each country can play 13 other counties 14x13=182. But it takes two counties to make a match ; and Notts v. Sussex is the same match as Sussex v. Notts .•. 182-^2=91, the possible number of combinations of the counties. Well, 66 of these 91 possible combina­ tions areonnextyear’sprogramme,leaving 25 unarranged. These 25 may be be thus shewn. Somerset does not meet Notts.—1 Hampshire does not meet Notts, Middlesex, Kent or Gloucestershire.—4 Essex does not meet Middlesex, Kent, Somerset, Gloucestershire or Notts.—5 Derbyshire does not meet Middlesex, Kent, Somerset, Gloucestershire or Sussex.—5 Warwickshire does not meet Middlesex, Somerset, Notts or Sussex.—4 Leicestershire does not meet Middlesex, Somerset, Notts, Sussex, Gloucestershire or Kent.—6 How many of these matches, if arranged would be absolutely new ? Somerset and Notts met from 1892 to 1895, so that does not count. Hampshire has never met Middlesex, Notts or Gloucestershire, but has several times played Kent—in 1876, 1878, 1884, if in no other years. Essex met Middlesex in 1895, Kent in 1887, Somerset in 1895 and in several years when both counties were second-class, but has never played either Notts or Gloucestershire. Derbyshire used to meet Kent and Sussex regularly ; she played Middlesex once (in 1889) and Gloucestershire once (in 1886), but has never met Somerset. Warwickshire has played both Somerset and Notts, but not Middlesex or Sussex; Leicestershire has played Somerset (in second class days), Notts (in 1895 last) and Sussex (as far back as 1879), but not Middlesex, Kent or Gloucestershire. If in a future season then, any of the old first-class counties should want an absolute novelty: Kent might play Leicestershire. Middlesex—Leicestershire, Warwick or Hants. Somerset—Derbyshire. Sussex—Warwick. Gloucestershire—Leicestershire, Essex or Hants Notts—Essex or Hants. Of course it is impossible that each county should play all the others; but one would like to see some of these matches arranged, and I am glad to see that Lancashire, a county which can well afford to play a full programme, has followed the good example set by Surrey and Yorkshire. ThePhiladelphians’ programme, though not ambitious in point of length, is of unexceptionable quality ; and no possible objection can be urged against its being considered first class. It is a pity they do not stay long enough to play all the first-class counties a game each though. As it is, Essex, Derbyshire, and Leicester­ shire are absent from the programme as given at the meeting at Lord’s. Perhaps it is too much to expect that they should be found equal to beating the pick of England’s professionals ; but they have already shown that they are quite capable of holding their own with very strong amateur teams, and there can be no doubt that the conditions are more even in matches in which they meet such sides. The American team will be a bona fide amateur one ; and if all the best men are able to come it ought also to be an exceptionally strong one for an amateur side. The bowling will, no doubt, be the weakest point; but the Australians seem to have found it difficult to play the Philadelphian trundling in two of the three matches they played in the City of Homes, though in the other they ran up a big score. G. S. Patterson, the chosen captain, and by far the best all-round man in the team, H. P. Baily and E. W. Clark, all of whom have been here before, will probably be the principal bowlers. Baily is the best of the three; but probably we have at least twenty or thirty bowlers in England better thanBaily. The batting ought to be very strong. Patter­ son is a really great player; and Bohlen, Noble and others should all be good fora lot of runs. I fancy the team will win as many matches as it loses, and, without considering myself -unpatriotic, I may say I should be glad to see it win more. The Australians did not score particu­ larly largely in their New Zealand matches, though they came through that part of their tour without a defeat. Kelly had the best batting average, scoring 143 runs iu five completed inn­ ings ; and Giffen, who did better than anyone else in America, was second, by virtue of consistent play rather than of any big innings. Hill, Darling, Trott, and Iredale also had averages of 20 or more. All six of the bowlers—Eady, Trumble, McKibbin, Jones, Trott, and Giffen—had averages of under ten per wicket, Trumble’s (34 for 214) being the best record, though Eady was nominally first. The one match in Tasmania was a triumph for the tourists, though they were without Darling and Donnan. They ran up the fine score of 415, Giffen making 104, Graham (one is pleased to see the young Victorian scoring well again) 88, Iredale 52, Hill 48, and Kelly 32. And the team against them was no weak one, being (bar the absence of Eady, who was of course in the opposition) fully representative of the best cricket of the island-colOny. Perhaps the islanders were wise to play fifteen men (as New Zealand had done before them) against the redoubtable travellers; even with N E X T ISSUE, THUR SDAY , F E B R U A R Y 25.