Cricket 1899

M ay 4, 1899. CRICKET ; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 101 JUNE. 3. East Molesey, v. Oriel 10. East Molesey, v. Marlborough 17. East Molesey, v. Oriel 24. East Molesey, v. University College Hospital JULY. 1. Acton, v. Pallingswick 8. M eiton, v. Merton 15. East Molesey, v Crouch End 17. East Molesey, v. Hampton W ick 'j 18. East Molesey, v. Teddington rrio W 1!». East Molesey, v. Sutton r 20. East Molesey, v. l’allingswick 22. East Molesey, v. Surbiton J AUGUST. 5. East Molesey, v. Malden Wanderers 7. Hampton W ick, v. Hampton W ick 12. East Molesey, v. Brixton Wanderers 1!>. East Molesey, v. Heathfield 22. East Molesey, v. Surrey Club and Ground 26. East Molesey, v. Waldegrave Park SEPTEMBER. 2. Teddington, v. Teddington 5. East Molesey, v. Young Amateurs, Surrey. “ A ” T eam .— M AY . 6. Ea6t Molesey, v. Malden Wanderers 13. Merton, v. Merton 20. East Molesey, v. Thames Ditton 27. East Moleeey, v. Uueen Elizabeth School JUNE. 17. Thames Ditton, v. Thames Ditton 24. Kingston Hill, v. Kingston Hill JU LY. 1. East Molesey, v. Hampton 8. East Molesey, v. Merton 15. Kingston, v. Queen Elizabeth School AUGUST. 5. Malden, v. Malden Wanderers 7. East Molesey, v. Hampton W ick 19. Walton, v. Walton 26. Hampton, v. Hampton SEPTEMBER. 2. East Molesey, v. Kingston Hill Though it necessitates an extension of the programme, the H o n o r O a k C.C. is fortunate in having so many promising young players to be able to provide a good card for its second eleven, All the old players will be available, so that there is every hope of a successful season. Twenty-two matches for the first and thirty for the second eleven represent the extent of the work to be done by the two teams in the com ing season. H . L . Holford, 115, The Gardens, Peckham Bye, S.E., retains the position of hon. sec. The value of his seven years’ services to the club was recently fittingly recognised at a smoking concert by the presentation of a handsome gold watch, as a souvenir of esteem and respect from the members. M A Y . 13, Honor Oak, v. Leyton 20. Honor Oak, v. Townley Park 22. Honor Oak, v. Old Citizens 24. Oval, v. Surrey Colts 27. Honor Oak, v. Clapton JUNE. 10. Battersea, v. Battersea 17. Honor Oak, v. Old Charlton 21. Honor Oak, v. Surrey Club and Ground 24. Catford, v. Catford JULY. 1. East Dulwich, v. Brixton Wanderers 8. Honor Oak, v. Catford 15. Leyton, v. Leylon 19. Honor Oak, v. Bees 22. Honor Oak, v. Goldsmiths’ Institute 29. Charlton Park, v. Old Charlton AUGUST. <F>. Honor Oak, v. Battersea 7. Honor Oak, v. Crouch End 12. Dulwich, v. Townley Park 19. Honor Oak, v. Brixton Wanderers 26. New Cross, v. Goldsmiths’ Institute SEPTEMBER. 2. Honor Oak, v. W est Kent Wanderers S econd E leven .— MAY. 6. Honor Oak, v. Marlboro’ 6. Honor Oak, v. Eclectic 13. Leyton, v. Leyton 20. Dulwich, v. Townley Park 27. Clapton, v. Clapton JUNE. i 3. Honor Oak, v. St. German’s 3. Dulwich, v. Camber 6. Honor Oak, v. Pearl Insurance 10. Honor Oak, v. Battersea 17. Dulwich, v. Consolidated Gold Fields j 17. Charlton Park, v. Old Charlton 24. Honor Oak, v. Linden JU LY. 1. Honor Oak, v. Brixton Wanderers 4. Honor Oak, v. Pearl Assurance | 8. Priory Farm, v. Linden 12. Honor Oak, v. Aquarius 15. Honor Oak, v. Leyton 22. Brockley, v. St. German’s 29. Honor Oak, v. Camber AUGUST. 5. Battersea, v. Battersea 12. Honor Oak, v. Townley Park 16. Honor Oak, v. Stanley 19. East Dulwich, v. Brixton Wanderers 26. Honor Oak, v. Consolidated Gold Fields SEPTEMBER. 2. Honor Oak, v. Marlboro’ 9. Honor Oak, v. Chelsea 9. Dulwich, v. Townley Park 16. East Didwich, v. Stanley 23. Honor Oak, v. Elmsdale 30. Honor Oak, v. Eclectic E . B. Sandilands (32, Bessborough Street, S.W .) has this year D. H . Butcher to share the secretarial work of the U ppe r T o o t in g Club. The cricket week, which begins on July 31st, should be particularly attractive, with the Incogniti (two days), Blue Mantles, Surrey Club and Ground, M.C.C. and Ground, and Beckenham as the club’s guests. There j will also be a three days’ tour in the j South, commencing on July 3rd. The [ ground men are the same as last year, W . B. Sides, of Notts, and F. Worger, of Sussex. MAY. 6. v. Beckenham 13. v. Crystal Palace 13. v. Wimbledon 20. v. Wimbledon 20. v. Surbiton 22. v. Streatham 22. v. Streatham 23. v. Kenley 27. v. Kensington Park 27. v. Beckenham JUNE. 3. v. Hornsey 3. v. Highgate School 10. v. <>atlands Park 10. v. Kensington Park 17. v. Middlesex County Asylum 17. v. Keoley 21. v. Merchant Taylors’ School 24. v. Surbiton 24. v. Surbiton JULY. 1. v. Wanderers 3. v. Blue Mantles* 4. v. Eastbourne* 5. v. Bastings and St. Leonards* 8. v. Bicbmond 8. v. Wimbledon 15. v, Beckenham 15. v. Middlesex County Asylum 15. v. Gryphons 22. v. Wimbledon 22. v. Hornsey 29. v. Bicbmond 29. v. Southgate 31. v. Incognitit AUGUST. 2. v. Blue Mantles 3. v. Surrey Club and Ground 4. v. M.C.C. 5. v. Beckenham 5. v. Caterham 7. v. 8treatbam 7. v. Streatham 12. v. Kensington Park 19. v. Surbiton 26. v. Kensington Fark * Tour. +Two-day Match. T1IE FIRST-CLASS SEASON OF 1898-9 IN AUSTRALIA. By “ Short-Slip ” in the Adelaide Observer. At the time the first-class cricket season of 1898-9 was ushered in the principal topics among cricketers were the proposed Ttnth Australian Eleven and the constitution of the Australasian Cricket Council. The general public took up the former subject warmly ; they left the Council to fight its own battle for existence. It did live, and still breathes the breath of life with abroader base on which to found its right to govern the cricket world of Australasia. Equal representation for those who play the game in the ruling body was conceded by two colonies, only the con­ servative Association of New South Wales brooking no interference on behalf of the players. The question of the formation and completion of the tenth band of Australians to visit the playing fields of England over­ shadowed every other consideration with the great body of followers of the manly sport. After the grand victories over Stoddart’s team, people were anxious that the men who had done so wondrously well against the pick of England should maintain their form and repeat their glorious deeds on British soil. Even the winning of the Sheffield Shield was to a certain extent made subsidiary to the individual performances which had a bearing on the composition of the Australian Eleven. In the light of after events it is easy to see that a mistake was made in picking the team in piecemeal fashion. The Cricket Council in its wisdom appointed three men to select a certain proportion of the players before the end of December, and the erroneous impression was obtained that this proportion should decide on the rest of the membership. Two mistakes were made. The fourteen should have been chosen at the end of the inter­ colonial cricket season, and the three so-called “ test” matches should not have been arranged. The experience resulting from these errors of judgment has been not all sweet; as in every other walk of life the price of learning by experience is bitter. More satisfaction would have been expressed, fewer heartburnings caused, and recriminations avoided had the selectors completed their task after the New South Wales and Victoria match at the end of January, or at the latest when the first game between the Eleven and the Rest of Australia was brought to a con­ clusion. Never before has the feeling been so keen, and it has practicallysurrounded one man for the time being with a halo of martyrdom. But public opinion is ephemeral, and it is extremely doubtful if the clamour of which so much has been heard during the past few days is as genuine as the disappointment in this colony at the exclusion of Lyons, another of South Australia’s champions, from the team of 18i)6. At the conclusion of the 1897-8 season the public regarded it as a foregone conclusion that the eleven who had the greatest haud in winning the rubber in the test matches would, bar accidents, be included in the thirteen or fourteen tourists. The intercolonial form dis­ played by the men thoroughly justified the selectors in their first choice of nine ; in fact, thirteen players could with equal ease have been settled upon at that time. The only player now in the fourteen who did not do himself justice in the Sheffield Shield contests was young Trumper. The return to form of McKibbin, the slow bowler, was anxiously looked for to complete the attack of the eleven, for from whichever standpoint the doings of the cricketers were watched the governing thought was the representative character of the Cricket Week.