Cricket 1898

THE FINEST BAT THE WORLD PRODUCES J u l y 7, 1898. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 251 BUSSEY’S BUSSEY’S BETWEEN THE INNINGS. Leicestershire is the county which at present lies under the ban of the critics as being weak, incapable, and generally unfit for a place in first-class cricket. Three or four weeks ago it was Hampshire that was being similarly j umped on ; a few weeks hence it may be Derbyshire, Somerset, or Sussex. Yet any man who looks beyond the bare result, must surely be able to see that the four heavy defeats which Mr. de Trafford’s team has recently undergone have been largely brought about by ill-fortune. That they have been heavy, there is no denying; 145 runs, an innings and 266, an innings and 31, an innings and 24. But I propose to show that the aphorism that “ Providence is on the side which has the strongest battalions ” is—if one may read for Providence, Fortune—very applicable to poor Leicestershire just now. Setting aside the fact that in all four of these games the county has been minus the help of Mr. H. H. Marriott, one of the best of her bats, and Mr. F. W . Stocks, one of her best bowlers, let us see what farther excuse may be made for her. Take, first, the Hamp­ shire match, lost by 145 runs. The county was without Pougher, the greatest player she has ever had ; Mr. De Trafford lost the toss ; and in the last innings of the match he and Coe were run out when fairly well set. The match with Yorkshire at Leicester: toss again lost; Yorkshire made 449 on a splendid wicket; then came rain, and the Leicester­ shire men had to face the tremendously strong Yorkshire bowling on a ruined pitch. Is there a side in England which would not have lost by an innings under these circumstances ? Derbyshire match at Derby : toss again lost; wicket not very good when Derbyshire batted, quite ruined when Leicestershire went in. Yorkshire match at Dewsbury: toss won, but wicket very difficult, arid j ust suited to Rhodes and Wainwright, whereas Leicester­ shire had no bowler who could take advantage of it to quite the sime extent; besides which, one need hardly make excuses for any team beaten by Yorkshire this season. It is true one had hoped better things of Leicestershire from the promising beginning the team made this season. They had none the worse of the game with Warwick at Bir­ mingham ; they had all the best of that with Lancashire at Manchester; they beat the M.C.C. at Lord’s ; they held their own in the one day’s play with Essex at Leyton ; they had, at the end of an innings each, little the worse of the Surrey match at Leicester. Then came the four games of which I have spoken. Is it fair to judge them on these four games and disregard what went before ? Tomlin’s figures this year are, so far, curiously like those of 1897. In his first match then he played a splendid innings of 70 v. Surrey at the Oval, and in nine innings in the five matches that followed could only make 64, while a couple of 31 ’s and a 27 were his best scores during the rest of the season. This year he ran up a fine score of 106 in his second match, and has since been to the wickets eleven times for a total of 58. But that she has youngsters of considerable promise, Leicestershire’s prospects would in­ deed be gloomy; for Pougher, Tomlin, and the captain are not the batsmen they were at their best, and Woodcock’s deadliness with the ball is very intermittent. In Mr. Wood, Mr. Stocks, Mr. Marriott, Mr. Joyce,.Knight, Coe, and Brown the county has, however, young players who may yet raise her well out of the Slough of Despond. The list of long partnerships between July. 15th and 30th is longer than that for the first six weeks of the season. I append it here­ with :— THE LONG PARTNERSHIPS OF 1893. (June 16-29, inclusive.) 149, for 4th wicket, F. S. Jackson and Wainwright, Yorks v. Middlesex, Lord’s, June 16. lh. 50m. 102,1st, C.Lt.Hartley and Ward, Lancashire v. Surrey, Manchester, Jun8 16, lh. 65m. 126, 1st, A. O. Jones and Shrewsbury, Notts v. Sussex, Nottingham, June 16, 2h. 10m. 134, 2nd, Gunn (W.) and Shrewsbury, Notts v. Sussex, Nottingham, June 16, 2h. 20m. 166 2nd, G. Brann and W . L. Murdoch, Sussex v. Notts, Nottingham, June 17, 2h. 40m. 104, 4th, Lilley and Quaife (W ), Warwickshire v. Derbyshire, Birmingham, June 17, lh. SOm. 110, 6th, A. C. ti. Glover and Lilley, Warwickshire v. Derbyshire, Birmingham, June 17, lh. 30rn. 237, 2nd, Abel and Holland, Surrey v. L ulc shire, Manchester, June 17, 3h. 40m. 112, 2nd, J. A. Dixon and Guttridge, Notts v. Sussex, Nottingham, June 18, lh. 25m. 107, 3rd. F. G. J. Ford and P. F. Warner, Middlesex v. Yorkshire, Lord’s, June 17-18, lh. 123, 8th, Devey and Santall, Warwickshire v. Derby­ shire, Birmingham, June 17-18, lh. 25m. 112,1st, Abel and Brockwell, Surrey v. Oxford Uni­ versity, Oval, June 20, lh. 10m. 143, 4th, V. F. S. Crawford and Lockwood, Surrey v. Oxford University, Oval, June 20, lh. 35m. 169,>1st, Hearne (A.) and J. R. Mason, Kent v. War­ wickshire, Tonbridge, June 20, 2h. 10m. 278, 3rd, Sugg (F. H.) and Ward. Lancashire v. Som-rs t, Taunton, June 21, 3h. 5m. 203, 1st, F. Mitchell and C. W. Wright, M C.C. v. Cambridge University, Lord’s, June 23, 2h. 35m. 118, 3id, C. McGahey and P. PeiriD, Essex v. Hants, Southampton, June 23, Ih. 30m. 125, 6th, G. Fowler and S. M. J. Woods, Somerset v. Kent, Tonbridge, June 23, 50m. 220, 2nd, Hearne (A.) and W. H. Patterson, Kent v. Somerset, Tonbridge, June 23-25, 3h. 50m. 100,1st, Abel and Brockwtll, Surrey v. Middlesex, Oval, June 23, lh SOm. 141, 2nd, Bro^kwell and Holland, Surrey ▼. Middle­ sex, Oval, June 23, 2h. 157, 2nd, F. S. Jackson and Tunnicliffe, Yorkshire v. Leicestershire, Leicester, June 23, 2h. 145, 2nd, Tyldesley and Ward, Lancashire v. Middle*) sex, Manchester, June 27, 2h. 10m. 100,1st, Brown and Lord Hawke, Yorks ire v. Essex1, Bradford, June 28, Ih 20m. 136,4th,L.C. H. Palairet and S. VI.J.Woods, Somerset v. Surrey, Oval, June 29, lh. 10m. 121, 1st, A. O. Jones and Shrewsbury, Notts v. Kent, Nottingham, June 29, 2h. 15m. : Just as it comes to be generally agreed that he has really been overworked this time, and that his bowling has quite lost its old sting! and devil, Jack Hearne generally does some performance which makes such criticisms appear nothing short of ridiculous. Of such; was his 16 wickets for 114 runs at the Old Trafford at the beginning of last week.v J^o other bowler has taken 16 wickets in a firpti- class match this season, though Davidson'and C. L. Townsend have been;credited with 15i each, Haigh and Tyler with 14, Rhodes and Mead with 13. Last year no one had as many as 16 in one match, and only Hearne , himself, Richardson, and Roberts had 1(>. Ih 1896 Richardson, with 15 in the Yorfohire^ match at Leeds, was the only man who ever^ had more than a baker’s dozen to his credit. One has to go back to 1895 for anything to put against Hearne’s figures. In that'seaSCn Mold had taken 16 for 111 in the Kent match at Manchester. Mr. C. E. M. Wilson, though he missed the pleasure of captaining the victorious eleven in the ’Varsity match, had a great personal triumph therein. By scoring 115 and 10 he brought his aggregate in his four ’ Varsity games to 351, which is no fewer than 57 more than the previous best, Mr. Key’s in 1884-5-6-7. Only a score or so of batsmen have succeeded in miking as many as 200 in these games, a fact which makes j\Ir. Wilspn’s