Cricket 1898

42 8 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. S ept . 22, 1898. The other John—“ Johnny Brown fra’ Halifax,” as someminorbard downunder termed him—was scarcely at his best in the earlypartof theseason. Hemaderuns, indeed, and made them well; but until July the only long score which had been seen opposite his name was 88 v. Hamp­ shire at Huddersfield. In thethirdmonth of the season his one notable innings was a splendid 144 v. Lancashire at Sheffield. At the beginning of August his total was 830, his average under 27. At the end of the same month his aggregate was 1,589, his average 35. Now, as all who have had to do with statistics know well, the average of a man who has already played over thirty innings is not easily raised eight points and more. (Dropping eight points is quite another thing; a very few complete failures will accom­ plish that). Brown’s successes in the latter half of August was quite phenom­ enal. In three consecutive matches, in which he had five innings, he scored no fewer than 685 runs; 300 v. Derby­ shire at Chesterfield, 150 and 28 v. Sussex at Brighton, 100 and 7 v. M.C.O. at Scarborough. Let it be noted to his honour, too, that he did not allow any thought of self to interfere with the welfare of his side, as he proved at Chesterfield, where he got out directly he had reached 300 in order that Yorkshire might have time to win. Altogether, though Brown’s average was seven runs per innings belowthat of last year, and his total over 200 runs less than in 1896, his reputation as a batsmen did not suffer fromhis 1898 play, while his reputation as a good sportsman stands higher than ever. His bowling was more than once useful. In the first fifteenmatches of the season he was never once put on. His first chance came in the second innings of Sussex at Bradford, early in July, and his performance in taking six wickets for 52 was quite the turning point of the game. He bowled in some twelve or thirteen other innings after that, but never took more than a couple of wickets. Lord Hawke, like good wine, seems to improve with age. He was, doubtless, nearly as good a batsman about a dozen years ago (in 1886-87) as he is now; but there have been seasons sincewhenhe has been very much below his level of the last year or two. One of his great characteristics—Mr. Key has it, and Mr. Murdoch, and Mr. Grace, and Mr. Harry Trott, and, in short, every really great captain — is that, like William of Deloraine, he is “ good at need.” His lordship’s average in 1898 was over 30; his aggregate was only 50 short of four figures (if he had “ nursed ” himself ever so little he might easily have achieved the thousand); and his runs were nearly always made when most wanted. Twice he exceeded the 100; fourteen of his other scores ranged from such as 62, 57, 52, and 50, down to 20; and only twice was he out for a duck. Davie Denton, on the other hand, was scarcely himself. One cannot terma man who scored over 900 runs, with an average of 21, a failure ; nor would it be fair to accuse a man who was frequently scoring 30’s and 40’s of being a passenger on a side; but the fact remains that in August Denton only just retained his place in the team, and would probably have had to stand down but for Wainwright’s illness. His highest score was 99 v. Leicestershire at Leicester ; but much more valuable innings were his 64 v. Kent at Maidstone, his 57 v. Sussex at Bradford, and his 46 and 40 v. Essex at Leyton. Even in his form of this last season Denton would be a very welcome addition to most county teams; but it is no injustice to him to say that his 1898 formwas not his best. As a fieldsman he was as good as ever, which, beinginterpreted, is about as good as they are made. Schofield Haigh was as much above his past form as Denton was belowhis. Always a good bowler, he bowled in 1898 with a steadi­ ness that he had never shown before, and stuck to his work in a way thatmust have surprised those who had refused to credit him with the amount of stamina that we have learned to expect in a Yorkshireman. His great performanceof the season, according to figures, was his fourteen wickets for 43, v Hants, at Southampton, when he was almost un­ playable; but one should also mention his six for 31 in the first innings of the Cantabs at Fenner’s, his seven for 60 in the first of Middlesex at Lord’s, and his five for 50 in the first of Sussex at Brad­ ford. He finished up with a total of 102 wickets, at an average cost of 18’43 ; and Lockwood was the only distinctly fast bowler who had better figures. As a batsman, Haigh came on wonderfully. His 85 at Bradford, against the Surrey bowling, was a revelation; and his 60, not out, v. Derbyshire, at Harrogate, and 45 v. Sussex, at Brighton, were really capital innings. His average for the season was nearly 16. In him and Rhodes, Yorkshire has two more players who may, in days to come, rival the “ double records ” of Mr. Jackson, Peel, Hirst, andWainwright. Thelast-namedhad, comparedwith1897, avary quiet season. His scores werenever sensational; and, with Rhodes, Haigh and Mr. Jackson in such form, he was not givennearly as much of the work of the attack as usual, yet he was of great use to his side. His nerve was as good as ever; and he was always likely to make runs when they were wanted. It was only the illness which kept himout of several matches in August, that pre­ vented his name from figuring among the scorers of athousandruns. He made 92 runs v. Warwick at Birmingham, 76v. Middlesex at Lord’s, 75 forMr. Stoddart’s XI. at Hastings, and 63 v. M.C.C. at Lord’s, besides some half-score of other innings between 30 and 50. I doubt whether he has ever bowled better, and feel quite sure that he will always do his best work in the attack rather as a change than as a principal bowler. His averagewas under sixteenperwicket, a splendid record for a slow bowler in a big scoring season like 1898; and his analyses v. Surrey at Bradford (eight for 53 in the match), Hants at Huddersfield (nine for 41), and Leicester at Dewsbury (twelve for 85), will bear a lot of looking into. His comrade of the Australian trip, George Hirst, was sadly below par. When one has mentioned that wonderful 130, not out, v. Surrey at Bradford, one has almost exhausted the tale of Hirst’s successes in 1898. From the 9th of June to the end of August he played twenty- three innings (three not outs) for 207 runs. He was just getting back into form when the season ended, though; and it would not be fair to omit mention of the fact that he was handicapped by a nasty strain. This prevented his doing himself justice with the ball, and his thirty-six wickets cost over 25 runs each. Like Denton, however, he wasamong the best of the run-savers; and some degree of failure with both bat and ball may be compensated by such work in the field as these two did. Up to almost the middle of August it seemed likely that F. W. Milligan would have a better season’s record—at any rate, in batting—than ever before. In his last ten innings, however, he scored only 29 runs, and finished up with an average of 16-67 per innings. These figures, though, scarcely represent his value to a side. He is not a great bats­ man ; he is not a consistent rungetter; but he is a man who is likely enough at any time to “ turn the tide of a losing game” by a hard-hit, resolute innings; and he is by no means a man to be influenced by the ill-success of those who have gone before him. His 63 v. Surrey at the Oval, his 62 v. Lancashire at Shef­ field, and his 74 v. Notts at Nottingham, were all extremely valuable innings. He also scored 65 v. Middlesex at Lord’s and 60 v. Somerset at Scarborough, with two 38’s and two 24’s. In 1897 he did more bowling than in the season just ended; but his wickets this year were taken at a cheaper rate. His best per­ formances were four for 33 v. Cambridge, three for 20 v. Derbyshire at Harrogate, and seven for 61, Gentlemen v. Players at Scarborough. David Hunter was as good a wicket-keeper as ever, which means that he was one of the three or four best in the country. Against Surrey at Bradford he almost surpassed himself, catching two batsmen and stumping six in the match. As a batsman, he did more than ever before. He may not be scientific, but he has a big heart and a very fair notion of the “ howto play” a bad ball—or, for that matter, a good one—-and he is beyond all doubt a good man at a pinch. Scores of 47, 29, not out, 28 and 22, not out, and an average of 13 per innings are not bad for a man who is generally set down as “ no batsman.” When he was unable to play, Bairstow made an excellent understudy. Of the players who appeared in the team only occasionally, C. E. M. Wilson, by virtue of his fine century in the ’Varsity match, easily claims first place,