Cricket 1899

M arch 23, 1899. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 35 m m HOCKEY. F IN E S T C LU B M AD E 13 THE « c ^ /IS USED BY THE BEST PLAYERS, REGULAT ION CANE HANDLE HOCKEYS, 6 / 6 , 5 / 6 , 3 / 6 . B E S T M ARK . A P P L Y F O R C A T A LO G U E TO Geo. G. BUSSEY & Co., 38 £ 38 , Queen Victoria Street , L O N D O N ; OB DEALERS ALL OVER THE WORLD. MANUFACTORY— PECKHAM, LONDON. BETWEEN THE INNINGS. FIRST-CLASS CRICKETERS o f 1898. ( Continued from page 20.) Very pleasant was it to see W . H . Patterson once more bearing so b ig a share in the battles of bis county, and breaking out with forties, fifties, nineties, and even two consecutive centuries, like a colt of the very first water. Veteran as he is, and little practice as he generally gets, the old Harrovian, whose earliest appearance in a first-class match (he went in last then, I believe, and scored 0 and 0 not out) dates back to 1878, is still one of the best batsmen in England. He played in more matches this season than for many years past, and did rare good work, scoring 117 v. Warwick, and 111 v. Somerset during the Tonbridge week ; 91 v. Gloucestershire, at Gravesend ; 58 and 40 v. Somerset, at Taunton; 52 v. Lancashire, at Canterbury; 49 and 31 v. Essex, at Tonbridge; and 47 v. Surrey, at Blackheath. A fair roll of successes this, for a man whose fortieth birthday is within easy hail, and who played no first-class cricket at all in the preceding season! The Rev. W . Rashleigh was not so successful. Though he nearly always contributed usefully to the total, he only played tw o really long innings in the balf-score matches in which he took part— 105 v. Sussex, at Hastings, and 74 v. Notts, at Nottingham. The old captain, F. Marchant, playel in thirteen of the twenty-one matches, and his hitting was several fflmes very useful, notably v. Surrey, at Blackheath, when his 48 and 49 repre­ sented the best aggregate on the Kentish side. A brace of 43’s, one with the M .C.C., the other v. Notts, were the biggest of his other scores. G. J. V. Weigall was somewhat disappointing. His 86 v. Warwickshire, at Tonbridge, was his only score of any note. Y oung S. H . Day came near to realising the hopes raised b y his sensational first appearance in 1897, his 47 and 79 v. Somerset, at Taunton, being innings worthy of a veteran first-rater, while he also made 47 and 16 at Lord’s, v. Middle­ sex, when many of his comrades failed. Malvern, with Burnup, the Fosters, Latham, and others, has been well represented in first-class cricket just of late years, and it looks as though Day would sustain, if not enhance, the renown of his school both at Cambridge and in county cricket. TIM BER M ILLS— E L M S W E L L , S U F F O L K . tershire, at Cheltenham, he had seven for 3 6 ; in the first of Warwick, at Birmingham, five for 34, and against the same side (first innings), at Tonbridge, three for nine; against the M.C.C., at Lord’s, seven for 59; and in Kent’s greatest victory of the season, that over Yorkshire, at Maidstone, six for 75. On the whole he bowled quite as well as he has done in any year since 1894, and far better than he did in 1897. Walter W right’s form is somewhat more difficult to reckon up. Just at the beginning of the season he was very unsuccessful indeed, and, bearing in mind his age, one was inclined to think him little better than a passenger on the side. But he did very good work (seven for 76 in all) in the two matches of the Tonbridge week, and a few weeks afterwards bowled splendidly v. Yorkshire, at Miidstone, taking eight wickets for only 69 runs. He followed this up with five for 55, v. Essex, at Leyton, and just about this time he was in as good form as ever he had been. During the remainder of the season, however, though he got a wicket or tw o in nearly every match, he did nothing very notable, and his final aver­ age of nearly 28 per wicket was a poor one. It would be a mistake for Kent to drop him just yet, though, for a man who can do what he did in the matches mentioned is far from done with. His old penchant for making a decent score just when it was needed cropped up several times during the season, and his 28 v. Yorkshire, at Maidstone, 44 v. Surrey, at Blackheath, and 36, not out, v. Essex, at Tonbridge, were all very useful innings. “ N u tty ” Martin was scarcely as successful with the bat as he has generally been in recent years, his only good scores being 56 and 34, not out, v. Surrey, at Blackheath (though these were innings for which he deserves any amount of credit), and 48 v. Gloucestershire, at Gravesend, where last year he played the highest innings of his first-class career. His bow ling average was the best of the five Kentish bowlers (just under twenty), and some of his performances with the ball were distinctly good. Again,stSussex, at Catford Bridge, he had nine wickets for 67; in the second innings of Glouces­ I hear that it is very likely that W. M. Bradley, the “ express delivery ” man of the side, will be able to play regularly next season. I f so. care should be taken not to overwork him. He was showing some signs of staleness when this season ended, although he had only taken part in eleven matches. In fact, distinctly his best work was done in the first two matches in which he played—v. Somerset, at Tonbridge, in June (nine for 107), and v. Surrey, at Blackheath, iu July (ten for 171)—and he was by no means so t-ffactive when he took his place as a regular member of the team in August, though even then he was well worth a place on the side. B. D. Bannon, the the old Tonbridge boy, who got his blue at Oxford in this, his third year, was a very useful man both to his ’Varsity and his county. No very long score was credited to him (78 v. Lancashire, at Canterbury, was his highest), but he was always making runs, and his 69 v. Somerset and 45 v. Surrey, for Oxford, and his 50, v. Sussex, 42 v. Yorkshire, and 38 v. Somerset, for Kent, all deserve passing mention. He got double figure! in 23 innings out of 34 during the season, and was only twice out scoreless. Easby batted well in the earlier matches, making 50, not out, v. Gloucestershire, at Graves­ end ; 59, not out, v. Sussex, at Catford; and 58 v. Warwick, at Tonbridge ; but fell off later on, and was dropped when