Cricket 1899

4 CRICKET A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. J an . 26, 1899. thirteen times for a total of 52. The turning point came in the great match at Lord’s, when he scored IV, not out, and 46, and by his fine stand with W .G . for the last wicket of the game, almost snatched victory out of the Players’ grasp. Thereafter he always made runs, his best efforts being 112 (in tw o and a-quarter hours) v. Leicestershire, at Leicester; 42 and 23 v. Kent, at Ton­ bridge ; and 34 v. Surrey, at the Oval. Altogether he made exactly 500 runs in twenty-nine completed innings. I fear, however, that a repetition of his century feat will scarcely gratify his captain and comrades much. A great fast bow ler is much more difficult to unearth than a good batsman, and centuries b y fast bowlers are regarded as somewhat ominous. Kortright had very hard lines in not putting a hundred wickets to his credit for the first time. Had he played in one more match he would probably have reached that number, as his total was ninety-six. H is comrade, F. G. Bull, so great a contrast to him in style, just managed the feat, but his 101 wickets cost over two runs each more than K ort- lig h t’s. Bull is a very valuable bowler, however, for he always gels wickets. In no one match during the season did he entirely fail. Twice he had six in an innings, six times five, five times four, and six times 1hree. Y et when one looks over his figures, one does not find a single phenomenal performance credited to him. Four for 21 in the second innings of Hampshire, at Leyton, is about the best on paper, but his splendidly steady bow l­ ing v. Yorkshire, at Leyton (262 balls, 106 runs, nine wickets, in the match), was perhaps the best thing he did during the season. Five for 53 in the first c f Warwickshire, at L eyton ; five for 90 in a total of 278 by Yorkshire, at Bradford ; six for 109 in a total of 260 by Gloucester­ shire, at Clifton ; and seven for 107 in the two innings of Sussex, at Brighton, were also markedly good performances. Bull is b y no means a bad batsman either. H is average for the season works out at over 15, and although he only once scored over 30 (38 v. Leicestershire, at Leicester), he got double figures in 17 of 27 innings. Walter Mead was in really fine form , far better than in 1897, but hardly as good as in his great year, 1895, when he had 179 wickets for about fourteen and a-half runs each. His 117 in 1898 cost about three per wicket more than this, yet his record was among the best seven-or eight o f the season. Only in two matches did he fail to get wickets, and in one of these he sent down only twenty balls. Thirteen for 135 v. the Oxonians, and twelve for 161 v. Hampshire, at Leyton, were per­ formances of great eg e rit; but his analysis of five for 46 in the first innings of Surrey, at Leyton, and five for 51 in the first of Yorkshire, at Leyton, were secured against stronger batting and in more important games, and really counted for as much as thebiggerfeats. By the way, he was exceptionally rough on Hamp­ shire, for at Southampton he took eight of their wickets for 63— twenty for 224 during the season. H e often made runs when they were wanted, too. Nine Essex wickets had gone down for 202 v. Surrey, at Leyton, when he came in ; he scored 34, and helped Mr. Turner to add 87 to the total. His 28, not out, in the second innings at Bradford, his 34 v. Gloucestershire and 36 v. Lancashire, at Leyton, were all distinctly useful inn­ ings, too. Bussell is, on the whole, a greatly im­ proved wicket-keeper. Of course, he has tn advantage in having to “ k eep” to a slow, accurate bowler like Bull, but on the other hand he has the fiery Kortright to take; and, anyway, his record of 46 caught and 27 stumped in the course of only nineteen matches is a distinctly fine one. H e is really a good batsman, too, ar.dbe sides his one b ig score of the season, that 122, not out, v. Hants, at Leyton, which had more than a little to do with his side’s victory, he made some half-score of other very useful contributions, though, strangely enough, only one of them (39 v. Kent, at Leyton) was over 30. A. J. Turner was somewhat disappointing; but, perhaps, too much was expected of him after so markedly successful a first season as he had. If 1898 had been his first year his 473 runs, with an average of over twenty-six, would have been looked upon as exceptionally good. He scored a splendid 102, not out, v. Surrey in the first match of the season, but, though always makiDg runs, he did nothing very notable afterwards, only one of his other scores (69 v. Hants, at Leyton, when he helped McGahey to add 128 for the fourth wicket) topping 40, while at times his batting was scarcely marked by the ease and decision that, young as he still is, one has come to expect of him. F. L. Fane was somewhat disappointing, too. He began the season well at Oxford, scoring successive innings of 26, 30, 30, 41, 36, 16 and 25 in the home matches for his ’Varsity, and was at that time decidedly the most reliable batsman on the Dark Blue side. But in the out matches his best score was 35 v. Sussex, and he was a failure in the big game at Lord’s. His first few appearances for Essex were not very successful, but at the end of July and beginning of August he seemed to run into form again, and made successive scores of 31, 38, and 42, not out, v. Surrey, Leicestershire, and Lancashire, respectively. His last seven innings, however, only realised 31 runs, and for a batsman of his undeniable promise, an average of 18 per innings and a highest score of 42 is not at all good. From the fact that he so often got out for scores of 20 or 30, when he should have been well set, one judges that there must be some markedly weak spot in his defence which the bowlers have discovered. H . W . D eZ oete was kept out of the earlier Cambridge matches by illness; he bow led fairly well in one or tw o of the later <5nes, but did not appear at all for his county. Possibly his devotion to g o lf may account for this. F. E. Street, the Old Westminster foot­ baller, who is a master at Forest School, appeared in a few matches, and is thought to have considerable ability, which he will probably have further chances of showing. Another young amateur, G. Tossetti, was also highly spoken of, but did little when tried, and found little favour in the eyes of the critics. J. W . Bonnor played in three matches, but did nothing. Two young professionals, Beeves and Y oung, the latter of whom was bought out of the Navy b y the club, did some very fair bowling, and both she uld be useful next year. Y oun g had the better trial, probably because he came off well in his first match, taking five for 32 v. Derbyshire, at Leyton. H e did nothing equal to this afterwards, but his bow ling against Kent, at Leyton (five for 63), and Surrey, at the Oval (six for 112), was distinctly gocd. Beeves took four for 12 in the first innin gs of Leicester­ shire, at Leicester, and also bowled effectively v. Warwickshire, at Birm ing­ ham. He makes a tremendous lot of runs in Club and Ground matches, but has not yet run up a long score for the county. A younger brother of Tom Bussell played as an emergency man at Clifton, and showed very fair batting form . Harry Pickett’s long and honoura­ ble career as a county raicketer stems to have come to an end, ss he did not once play for Essex in 1898. The Lancashire record, by no means a bad one in itself, seems poor b y compari­ son with that achieved by the County Palatine in 1897. Seldom this year did the wearers of the Bed Bose shape like the thoroughly great team they were then. And yet, bar the absence of Hallam, the personnel was in no wav changed for the worse. Indeed, most capable recruits were introduced in the persons of Messrs. A. E cdes and W . B. Stoddart and Hallows, while Mr. C. B. Hartley, who played a few times in 1897, did well enough to make for himself a regular position in the team. Hallam was a good deal missed ; his length bow l­ ing would have been invaluable to a side which, with Briggs almost a failure and Mold scarcely the stalwart of other days, was somewhat weak in the attack—anew failing for the side which has in past time included such great 1ow ’ers as 'William McIntyre, Alt c Watson, B. G. Barlow. Arthur Appleby and A. G. Steel. Tyldesley was certainly the bright, particular star of the Lancashire team of 1898. There was no more consistent player in the country than the lit L man — only a colt two years ago—whcse spirited, atti active batting delighted spectators on nearly every gieat ground in England. The only side against which he failed to render a good account of himself in one match or other of the season was Yorkshire. He had altogether six innings (once not out) against the Champions, and made only 44 runs in them. But against Derbyshire (weakened, it is true, by the loss of her best bowler’s invaluable services), at Manchester, he ran up 200 in barely four hours ; against Kent, at Canterbury, he made 66 and 127 (the latter score in under three hours) ; against Surrey his scores were 79, 21 and 4 4 ; against Sussex, 16, 83, 25 and 44; against Somerset he scored 175 in four