Cricket 1898

S e pt . 22 , 1898. CRICKET ; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. but, as a matter of fact, lie was seen in the Yorkshire team only once during the season. He played for the M.C.C. against it at Scarborough, and scored a very good 57, that andhis 115, v. Oxford, beinghis only notable batting perform­ ances during the season. He was kept out of cricket a good deal by a strain, owing to which he could bowl very little —a serious matter for Cambridge, as he was probably their best trundler. The nine wickets he took cost only 158 runs. I hear- that he goes into the Church, so that it is very improbable that his aid will ever be regularly given to Yorkshire (one may fairly doubt, too, whether he is of a physique calculated to stand the strain of continuous first-class cricket), but it is to be hoped that he will some­ times play for the old county iu the days to come. Ernest Smith only took part in four matches, and never once got set for one of those famous hitting innings of his, but he took thirteen wickets at a rate so cheap, as to land him (nominally) at the very head of the first-class bowling averages. Frank Mitchell did not once appear for Yorkshire, but he played in three or four other first-class games early in the season, scoring a brace of 35’s for Mr. Webbe’s team against Oxford, and a fiuely-hit 161 for the premier club against Cambridge. I have heard rumours that he will be seen in the near future iu the ranks of Keut. Had Middlesex played a full pro­ grammeandbeenableto puther strongest team in the field throughout the season, it is quite probable that Yorkshire would have had to be satisfiedwith secondplace, With A. E. Stoddart, P. F. Warner, the brothers Douglas, C. M. Wells, F. H. E. Cunliffe, F. G. j . Ford, G. MacGregor, Hearne, Trott, and Rawlin, as a regular eleven, and Sir T. C. O’Brien, A. J. Webbe, C. P. Foley, E. H. Bray, H. B. Hayman, and others to render occasional aid, the Metropolitan county would be stronger than ever before in the course of her history. The Middlesex record of 1898 is, as it stands, a great one; one can scarcely doubt that it would have been greater hadDerbyshire, Hampshire, Warwickshire and Essex (thoughfixturos with the last-named might not have yielded a balance on the credit side) also been encountered. Where so many did well, it would be unfair and misleading to lay too much stress upon the per­ formances of one or two men ; but I take it that none will refuse to admit that Jack Hearne, Albert Trott, A. E. Stod­ dart and Francis Ford were the main­ stays of the Middlesex eleven in 1898. It was delightful to see Stoddart in such fine form again. He played (for him) comparatively little first-class cricket, partlyowing to a damaged leg. He only appeared in fifteen matches during the season (thirteen for Middlesex, and the two that might fairly be considered the representative matches of the year, the great Jubilee game at Lord’s, and the match between his own team and the Best of England at Hastings); yet he scored over 1,000 runs, and had the splendid average of 47'18, his best so far, which placed him sixth in the batting averages. In his first two innings he made but three runs; in his last three (two of them not out), but 14; but of his other 21 innings, 19 were of double figures, including 157, 138, 70 not out, 70, 69, 62, 60, 54, 51, 45, and 42. More pleasing than even his improved average was his return to something like his old free, fearless style. He is still abatsman whom it is worth while going a hundred miles to see. As he was captain in most of the matches in which he played, one need scarcely say that he bowled very little. There was no sign whatever that J»ckHearne haddeteriorated through the hard work he had had to do in Aus­ tralia. On the contrary, he was a dis­ tinctly improvedbowler. To his splendid length he added a new subtlety of resource that placed him nearer to George Lohmann at his best (which is the highest bowling standard I know of) than he had ever been before. His 222 wickets for 3,120 runs was, all things considered, one of the best performances done by any cricketer in 1898. For him to take more than half the wickets in an innings became a thing so common that it scarcely aroused remark. His crown­ ing triumph was in the Lancashirema’ch at Manchester, when he had 9 for 68 and 7 for 46. Three times he tcok 12 wickets in a match, four times 11, twice 10; once he had 9 wickets in an innings, once 8, five times 7, seven times 6, aud seven times 5. Only in two innings in which he bowled did he fail to take a wicket, and in one of those two he had but three overs. As a batsman, he made his highest score against the bowling of the Gentlemen at the Oval. It was 60 this time; ia 1896, at Lord’s, it was 71. Though only one of his other scores iu 1898 topped 30, he was more than once useful with the bat. His partner in the attack, Albert Trott (already, as 1 pre­ dicted months ago, one has come to couple the names of Hearne and Trott, as naturally as one did those of Shawand Morley, Peate and Emmett, Mold and Briggs, Wright and Martin, Turner and Ferris), was unfortunately kept out of some of the earlier matches by a cut hand. When he came back into the teamhe had not fully recovered the use of the injured member; in consequence, his bowling suffered, and the wiseacres who had doubted his ability chuckled at their extreme discernment. But when once his handwas all right again, he set to work to scatter all their theories. Eleven wickets for 108, v. Sussex, at Lord’s ; 11 for 160, v. Somerset, at Taunton ; 9 for 153, v. Surrey, at Lord’s ; 11 for 153, v. Leicestershire, at Lord’s; 11 for 83 (7 for 13 in the second) v. Yorkshire, at Leeds; 13 for 178, v. Notts, at Nottingham; and a total of 130 for 2,333 runs. These were not so bad for a man who, according to some of his critics, was a very second-ratebowler. His hitting, too, was very fine. Perhaps he will never be as good a batsman as he is a bowler; but as a hurricane hitter he would be worth a place on most sides, if he never bowled a ball, and the memory of that 77 at Trent Bridge, and that 76, v. Leicestershire, at headquarters, will linger long in the minds of those who were lucky enough to see them. Note, too, that these scores were made in matches in which he did some of his best bowling. This I take to be some criterion of the real all-round player. Francis Forddid not repeathis wonder­ ful record of 1897, when he was at the very head of the averages; but he did splendid service for his side, and more regularly available than ever before, reached four figures for the first time, scored four centuries, and had an average only fractionally below 40. In the face of such figures, it seems difficult to believe that he was not in the best of health; yet I have heard on good authority that such was the case. Most of his best work was done in August; but before thatmonth came hehad scored 127 (in two hours) against the splendid bowling of Yorkshire, 78 (in 95 minutes) v. Sussex, and four or five 30’s. In August he made 115 (in 105 minutes) v. Leicestershire at Lord’s, 102 (in 125 minutes) v. Notts at Nottingham, 76 (in 75 minutes) v. Lancashire at Lord’s, and 135 (in 105 minutes) v. Kent at Lord’s. The statement of time occupied over each innings is in itself eloquent. In these six biggest innings of his he scored 633 runs in 625 minutes—fully a run a minute! No such sensational achieve­ ments were credited to PelhamWarner; but throughout the season the old Rugbeian played fine, steady cricket. Never once was he dismissed without scoring; his average was over 31, and his total of 848 included innings of 88, 79 and 70 (twice). A batsman of such con­ sistency as is he is more useful to a side than is many a man who makes bigger scores occasionally. H. B. Hayman, who stood down throughout August except in the very last match, was not ingreat form in the early part of the season; and, though he alwaysmade runs, his total up to the end of June did not include a single innings reaching 50. Against Sussex at Lord’s he then made 59; inthe return at Brighton he followed this up with 66; and against Kent at Catford, after a long absence from the team, he carried his bat right through the innings for 104, not without chances, it is true, yet a most invaluable score. Altogether, one is fain to admit, his record would be considered a very good one if he had not done much better before. Rawlin, relieved of a great share of the bowling work by the inclusion of Albert Trott, had a good chance of proving his undoubted ability as a bats­ man ; but it cannot be said that he made the most of his chance. Up to the end of June he was very disappointing, having only made 169 runs in seventeen innings. Then came a turn in the tide of his fortunes; and thereafter he was never out under double figures till the very last match of the season. Though he had to stand down from three matches on accountof an injuryj he played succes