Cricket 1899

3S0 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. A u g . 10, 1899. LANCASHIRE v. YORKSHIRE. Played at Old Trafford on August 3, 4 and 6. Drawn. This was a match in which the batsmen had a great advantage over the bowlers, and the only one of the latter who came out with a good analysis was Mr. Ernest Smith, who, now that the school holidays have begun, was able again to take his place in the York­ shire team. As he also made 48 runs, he can con­ gratulate himself on his three days’ cricket. After the first day’s play there was very little chance that the game would be finished. Most of the famous Yorkshire batsmen distinguished themselves, Mr. Jackson, Denton and Mr. Mitchell all being in great form ; while Lancashire, having to go in against a sufficiently large total, considerably exceeded it. Mr. MacLaren played one of his most effective innings, while Tyldesley, Ward, Cuttell, Sharp and W ebb all gave an excellent account of themselves. There was just a possibility when Yorkshire went in again that they might lose the match, for they were 106 runs behind, and if they had collapsed there might have been time for them to be beaten. But Denton and Mr. Jackson again played admirable cricket, and long before play ended it was a certainty that the game would be drawn. Y o r k s h ir e . First innings. Second innings. F. S. Jackson, b Sharpe ... 68 c Smith,b Cuttell 43 Tunnicliffe, b W ebb ............ 0 b M old..................36 Denton, b W e b b ...................... 64 not out................ 101 F. Mitchell, b Lancaster ...8 4 b W ebb .......... 8 Wainwright, b Sharp...............12 c MacLaren, b Webb .......... 0 Hirst, b W ard ......................48 c Smith,b Cuttell 6 Haigh, b Mold .................... 4 not o u t ................ 23 E. Smith, b Cuttell .............. 48 Lord Hawke, c Smith, b Cuttell.................................... 1 Rhodes, b Lancaster............ 4 Hunter, not out .................... 0 B 6, lb 4, w 1 ...................11 Lb 3, nb 2 ... 5 Total ...344 Total (5wkts)222 L a n c a s h ir e Lancaster, c Hunter, b Rhodes ... ... ... 4 Smith, c Tunnicliffe, b Rhodes ................... 1 Tyldesley, b Rhodes ... 65 A. C. MacLaren, c Tunnicliffe, b Smith 116 W ard, b Jackson ... 78 A . Eccles, c Tunni­ cliffe, b Smith.......... 7 Cuttell, c Wainwright, b Smith ...................50 Y o r k s h ir e . C. R. Hartley, c Tun­ nicliffe, b Hirst ... 24 Sharp, c Hunter, b Smith ...................50 W ebb, not o u t ...........38 Mold, c Jackson, b Smith ................... 0 B 8, lb7, w l,n b l 17 Total .450 O. M. II. W . O. M. R. W . W ebb ... 33 11 70 2 ... ... 18 8 50 2 Mold ... .. 24 4 76 1 ... ... 14 6 88 1 Lancaster ... 27 4 8 58 2 ... ... 17 9 23 0 Sharp Ward ... 25 12 53 2 ... ... 13 4 34 0 ... 12 2 31 1 ... ... 4 0 20 0 Cuttell ... ... 13 2 42 2 ... ... 31 13 45 2 MacLaren 1 0 12 0 Webb and Cuttell each delivered a no-ball. L a n c a s h ir e . O. M. R .W .' O. M. R. W . Jackson ...46 18 99 1 ! Smith ...39*2 32 90 5 Rhodes ...52 22 98 3 W ’ wrightl4 2 45 0 Hirst......... 26 13 49 1 Haigh ...20 5 52 0 Rhodes bowled a wide and Smith a no-ball. ESSEX v. GLOUCESTERSHIRE. Played at Leyton on August 3, 4 and 5. Gloucestershire wonby an innings and 3runs. Mr. Troup may be congratulated on the perform­ ances of his team in recent matches, and it is very obvious that the county is very far from being played out. The success of Gloucestershire was chiefly due to a very sound and accurately played innings by Mr. Townsend, which lasted for flve hours and three- quarters—his sixth hundred of the season; a really good innings by Mr. Jessop, who, taking half an hour to make his first six runs, made 78 more in another forty minutes; a sound and most useful 54 by the captain him self; and some excellent bowling by Paish, Roberts and Mr. Townsend. The Essex men were not seen at their best, for although in both innings Mr. Fane, Carpenter and Mr. Perrin gave promise of becoming very dangerous, the fortune of war was against them. G l o u c e s t e r s h ir e . R .W . Rice, st Russell, b Bull ............. 6 Wrathall, c Street, b Young .............34 C.L.Townsend,notoutl81 F. H. B. Champain, c Russell, b Mead ... 13 C. O. H. Sewell, c Perrin, b Bull........23 W . Troup,b Young . 54 G.L.Jessop,bMcGahey 84 W . S. A. Brown, c Russell, b Perrin ... 14 Paish, c Russell, b Young ................... 0 Boroughs, b Mead ... 25 Roberts,cPerrin,bMead 3 B 3, w 1 ........... 4 Total .441 E s s e x . First innings. F. L. Fane, c& b Townsend 48 Carpenter,cJessop.bRoberts 34 P. Perrin, c Brown, b Town­ send ...................................37 C. McGahey, b Roberts .. 9 A . P. Lucas, not o u t ...........39 F. Street, c and b Townsend 14 H. G. Owen, b Townsend... 3 Russell, run o u t ................... 2 Young, c Townsend, b Roberts ........... ........... 0 F. G. Bull, c and b Paish ... 19 Mead, c Jessop, b Paish ... 0 B 10, w 1, nb 4 ...........15 .. 220 Bull Young ... Mead ... McGahey Total ... G lo u c e s t e r s h i r e . O. M. R. W . Second innings, c Townsend, b Paish ...........65 c Brown, b Paish 26 c Sewell, b Paish 23 lbw, b Paish ... 13 b Brown ........... 1 b Brown ........... 0 not out.................. 24 absent................... 0 st Boroughs, b Townsend ... 39 c Champain, b Paish ........... 0 st Boroughs, b Paish ........... 7 B Il,lb6,w2,nbl 20 Total ...........218 61 16 168 2 48 9 126 3 30 3 10 59 3 9 1 42 1 Carpenter . Street... . Owen ... . Perrin .. O. M . R. W . Street bowled a wide. E s s e x . First innings. Second innings. O. M. R. W . O. M. R. W . Jessop ........... 29 4 68 0 ........... 22 5 53 0 Paish...................16 3 4 40 2 ............ 31*2 10 67 6 Roberts ........... 20 9 33 3 ............ 20 11 31 0 Townsend........... 24 2 64 4 ............ 12 3 30 1 Brown ... 15 9 17 2 Jes8op bowled one no-ball, Roberts three no-balls, and Townsend one wide. SURREY v. MIDDLESEX. Played at the Oval on August 3, 4, and 5. Drawn. The irony of i t ! Surrey, with a severe defeat to avenge, entirely outplayed Middlesex on the first innings, and then, thanks to the follow-on rule, were deprived of an easy victory for want of another hour. For once the Australian contingent of Middlesex had very little to do with the success of their side in avoiding defeat. They only took a couple of wickets between them, and did not make many runs. Until Saturday at lunch time Surrey seemed to have the match in hand, for Middlesex had then lost seven wickets in their second innings for 266, and were thus only 42 runs on, but after this a stand was made by MacGregor and Ford, which reminded one of another famous stand at the Oval a few years ago by R. 8. Lucas and Rawlin, with the difference that in the latter instance Surrey were not deprived of victory. Surrey put up nearly 93 runs in an hour and a half before the first wicket fell, and another long stand was made for the second wicket by Abel and Hayes, both of whom played the bowling with ease. It is hardly necessary to say that Hearne and Trott had plenty of opportunities given them to separate the two men, and it was not until they had got so thoroughly at home that anything might happen in the way of big scoring that C. M. Wells was tried. This was the turning point of the innings, for Wells met with such considerable success that after he had disposed of Hayes, who with Abel had put on 117 runs, Abel and Lockwood also fell victims to him. Abel had been seen at his best for three hours and a half. Then for a short period Heame did so well as to remind one of his hat trick in the England v. Australia match at Manchester. In ten minutes he disposed of Hayward, Jephson, and H. B. Richardson for three runs—absolutely the only suc­ cess he met with during the match. There were now seven wickets down for 286, so that Surrey were not in a very good position, for on such a good wicket as had been prepared by Apted it was reasonable to suppose that Middlesex, with all their crack batsmen at their disposal—including their holiday batsmen— would make a larger score. As things turned out, however, it would have been just as well if the next three wickets had fallen for nothing instead of adding nearly 150 runs, for Surrey would then most likely have won, instead of being deprived of victory for want of time. The Middlesex bowlers met with no further success on Thursday afternoon, for Key and Lees knocked the bowling all over the field. They continued to play very attractive cricket on Friday morning until they had put on 120 runs during their partnership of less than an hour and a ha f, and it was a formidab]^ total that Middlesex had to go in ' against. W ells bowled very finely, and but for the stand by Lees and Key he would have had a remark­ able analysis. It cannot be said that Middlesex distinguished themselves in batting in their first innings. A good stand was made for the second wicket by J . Douglas and Moon, but while the latter played with confidence and skill, the former, who has not yet got into his stride, was often very uncom­ fortable. The Surrey bowlers worked splendidly, and as they received no assistance from the wicket, it was a good feat to dispose of Middlesex for 191. In the follow-on it was only natural that Middlesex should do better, and when stumps were drawn they had put on 97 for the loss of two wickets. Warner played good cricket, Moon once more showed what a useful batsman he is. while R. N. Douglas played himself into form. But on Saturday there did not seem much chance that Surrey would be deprived of a victory which they had so well deserved, for, although Moon and Trott did fairly well, no one seemed to be at ease with the bowling until MacGregor joined Ford, who, after a more or less unsuccessful season, had, unfortunately for Surrey, chosen this match for his return to his old form. For a long time Surrey still seemed to have a good chance of winning, but changes in the bowling had no effect on the two batsmen. Ford made his pretty cuts and his big drives along the ground in his very best form, and made the bowling look perfectly simple, while MacGregor sturdily kept up his wicket. It was a time to try the mettle of a batsman, for when Ford and MacGregor came together their side seemed doomed to a very severe defeat. When at last they were separated the total was 374 for eight wickets, Middlesex thus being 150 runs on. The partnership had produced 108 in an hour and thirty-five minutes. Ford having been at the wickets for three hours and a half. There was even now a bare chance that Surrey might win, for when the partnership came to an end it was not quite half-past four, and if the last two wickets had fallen at once some resolute hitting might have brought about the desired result. But after Ford went MacGregor commenced to hit, and Hearne followed his example, twice driving Brockwell into the pavilion, so that when the innings closed Surrey’s chance had gone. S u r r e y . Abel, c Warner, b W ells............................112 Brockwell, c Trott, b Roche... .. ......... 49 Hayes, c and b W ei’s 56 Lockwood, c Roche, b W ells..............................12 Hayward, c Trott, b Hearne ......................24 D. L. A . Jephson, b Hearne ......................10 H .B.Richardson,c and b H eam e................... 0 K . J. Key, c Trott, b Wells ...................50 Lees, c J. Douglas, b Wells...........................77 Stedman,stMacGregor, b Wells ................... 2 T. Richardson, not out 0 B 15, lb 1, w 7 ... 23 Total ...........415 Second innings: Abel, not out, 29; Brorkwell, c and b Roche, 29 ; Hayts, not out, 22: byes 2—Total (1 wkt.) 82. M id d l e s e x . First innings. Second innings. P. F. Warner, c Hayward, b T. Richardson .................. 3 lbw, b T.Richard- son ...................31 J. Douglas, c Stedman, b Brockwell ..............................31 b T. Richardson 4 L. J. Moon, c Stedman, b Brockwell ..............................57 b Lockwood ... 36 R. N . Douglas, c Brockwell, b Lockwood ......................14 c Stedman, b „ Lockwood ... 51 Rawlin,cAbel,b T.Richard- 8°n ........................................... 9 b T. Richardson 9 F. G. Ford, b Lockwood ... 0 c Stedman, b Brockwell ...147 Trott, b Lockwood ............ 4 c Hayes, b Brock­ well ... ... 24 C. M. Wells, not o u t ..............19 b Lees......................19 G. MacGregor, b T. Richard- so*1............................................ 0 c Hayes b Lees ... 75 Roche,c Lockwood, b Brock­ well ......................................34 c H. Richardson, b Brockwell .. 3 Heame, b Lockw ood............ 9 not out ............12 B 3, lb 1, w 1, nb 6 ...1 1 B 5, lb 9, w 2, nb 1 17 Total ,..191 T o ta l...........428 S u r r e y . First innings. Second innings. O. M . R. W . O. M. R. W . Rawlin ......... 19 7 35 0 .......... 10 5 36 0 T rott............... 66 24 313 0 ............ Hearne ......... 44 14 112 3 ........... Roche ........ 15 5 48 1 ........... 12 1 34 1 Wells ........ 29*3 4 81 6 ........... 3 1 10 0 F o id .................. 1 0 3 0 ....... Warner 4 1 10 0 Douglas (J.) 4 0 10 0 Roche bowled seven wides. M id d l e s e x . First innings. Second innings. O. M. R. W . O. M. R. W. Brockwell ... v4 8 57 3 ............ 37 9 112 3 Richardson ... 38 7 57 3 .......... 3 I 6 100 3 Lockwood ... 24 4 ?4 4 ....... 2) 3 68 2 keea.................. 4 2 12 0 ... ... 191 7 38 2 Abel... 8 4 18 0 Haywaid 10 3 38 0 Jej hson 4 0 16 0 Stedman 4 1 21 0 Richardson and Brockwell bowled one wide each, and Lockwood one no-ball.