Cricket 1900

418 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. S ept . 20, 1900. Gloucestershire responded w ith 484, Brain and Painter beating the two Surrey m en w ith scores of 143 and 133 respectively. These, however, were not his only useful performances, for he played very w ell in the N otts engagement early in the season, when, w ith a score of 58, he earned his first “ talent m oney.” Unfortunately he could not keep up this high standard, and his figures showed a great falling off the next year, as his aggregate dropped to 351, and his average to 15-95. The follow ing season he was generally more success­ ful, and put his average up a couple of points. Ow ing to an injured hand he was absent from five of the Gloucestershire fixtures in 1887, yet he came out at the end of the year in a highly creditable manner. The follow ing season he was still one of the leading batsmen in the W est, and, aided b y a faultlessly-got score of 150 against M iddlesex— his very best performance— he was third in the county batting tables. In 1889 Painter vacated the position he bad held at Cheltenham College for nearly b alf-a-d czen seasons to become coach at Sherborne School. The change seemed to do him good. A t any rate, his average the follow ing summer— 652 runs in 23 completed innings, equivalent to 28 ’34 runs per innings— was the best he ever obtained for the county. H is highest score was 119 against Sussex, at the County Ground, and went a lon g way to win the game for his side. In 1891 he suffered, in common w ith most of his colleagues, and he g o t nearly a fourth of his runs against N otts, at N ottingham . A s W . G . could only muster an average of 2 0 -95, Painter had every reason to be satisfied with one of 14-78. The next year he was of much more use ; but he gradually fell away after this, and his appointment as coach at Clifton College in 1894 left him w ith fewer opportunities for first-class cricket. Still, he revived all his best form for one great match in 1895. This was at Gravesend, against K en t, when, going in against a total of 470, he and K itcat helped W . G . Grace to secure 443. Then b y taking seven wickets for 25 runs and scoring 31 not out he assisted in securing what was a record victory, for in no other match has a county which made over 400 in the first venture suffered defeat. H is last appear­ ance for Gloucestershire was at Taunton in 1897, when he made 54 against Somerset. Painter was always a bats­ m an of the vigorous order. Possessed of a good eye and considerable strength, he discarded scientific methods for strokes of an effective, if somewhat unorthodox, description. T o this, coupled w ith his bright, cheerful disposition and his endeavour to do thoroughly whatever task was set him , he undoubtedly owed his great popularity— popularity which was not confined to Gloucestershire, but extended to all the places at which he played. H is w idow and children are sure to receive the sym pathy of many who appreciated Painter’s work, both for the county and C lifton College.” GTorrcgpontienc*. The Editordoes not holdhimself responsible for the opinionsof hiscorrespondents . To the Editor of C r ic k e t . D e a r S ir ,— I observe that one of your correspondents objects to a statement in m y article in your last issue as being incorrect. I w ill, therefore, endeavour b y mentioning a case in point, to eluci­ date m y meaning which, perhaps, I had worded somewhat obscurely, and I hope that it w ill prove satisfactory to all interested in the welfare of cricket generally. The matches between the Gentlemen and the Players at the Oval this year and for several years past have been greatly, if not entirely, denuded of their interest m erely b y the non-appearance of some of the best men on both sides. A n d why did they not come and assist in these great annual contests, of which the first took place as far back as the year 1806 ? The sole reason w hy they did not partici­ pate was because they could not possibly be playing in tw o places and matches on the same days, and they were all, or at least most of them , engaged w ith then- respective counties. Therefore, I think that I was quite justified in stating in m y article of September 6th that, “ The quality of the great matches of the day has evidently been swallowed up b y the quantity.” In fact, nothing can be more plain and evident. The continued ab­ sence of certain of the best cricketers of the day on both sides extends even now occasionally to matches between county and county, to the great detriment of cricket generally. The number of matches now arranged for each season is enormous, and several must clash as far as the date is concerned — as often is the case, the only cause being the quantity, nothing else, I believe. M y interest in cricket dates from 1842 (or fifty-eight years back, alas!) and I still think that the alterations in the laws and arrangements of cricket have been far too numerous during that long period, though of course I do not pretend to be positive on that head. Each cricketer, of course, m ay have his own opinion, and there is no doubt that m y statement can easily be disputed by all cavilling persons if so inclined. I write as far as I am able for the good of cricket, and have no other object in view in the slightest degree. Yours truly, “ A N O L D H A K B O V IA N .” To the Editor oj C r ic k e t. D e a r S ir ,— W e hear so much now of D r. W . G . Grace’s “ record” .of ten centuries in 1871 being beaten b y two batsmen this season that the follow ing list of all those made in the earlier year m ay interest your readers, and enable them to compare the values of the respective performances. I have not counted up the centuries made during the season just closed, but certainly no one player has made half of them ! I am not sure that all the matches in the sub­ joined table would be considered first- class, although all those are in which D r. Grace’s name figures. It w ill be noticed that his centuries always stand alone, no other player m aking one in the same match. W G. Grace, M.C.C. v. Surrey ......................181 W . G. Grace, Gentlemen of South v. Gentlemen of North .............................................................u s Lord Harris (Hon. G .), M.C.C. y Oxford ..... 10? W. G. Grace, South v. North ... ......................178 W .G.Grace,Genllem enof England v Cambridge 162 F. E. Fry«r, Cambridge v. Gentlemen of Lanca­ shire ..................................................................... 102 A . N. Hornby, Gentlemen of Lancashire v. Cambridge........................................................... ... 112 W . H. Hadow, Middlesex v. M.C.C........................ 217 Pooley, Playeis of South v. Gentlemen oi South. 125 W . G. Grace, Single v. Married .........................189 W . G. Grace, M.C.C. v. 8urrey .........................146 W. O. Grace, South v. N orth .................................268 W . G. Grace, M.C.C. v. K en t................................. 117 W . G. Grace, Gentlemen v. Players .................217 T. G. Matthews, Gloucestershire v. Surrey ... 201 W . G. Grace, Gloucestershire v. Notts..............116 Bichard Humphreys, Surrey v. Kent ................... 116 * C. J. Thornton, Kent v. Surrey ... ............. . I l l W. Yardley, Kent y. W . G. Grace’s Eleven ... 126* It will also be noticed that o f the nine other players who each made one century, only two were professionals, both Surrey m en ; also that of the nineteen centuries all told, four were over two hundred— a large proportion. M r. M atthew s’ 201 was the first such score ever made against Surrey, and stood alone until two years ago. Yours faithfully, A L B E K T C. C O X H E A D . To the Editor o f C r ic k e t. S ir ,— A lth ou gh a great deal has been said about drawn games and the great amount of such results in the County Championship tables, nevertheless, I should like to suggest that in unfinished matches the total number of runs scored b y each side be divided b y the respective number of wickets fallen, and that the team which has obtained the highest average per wicket should be considered the winner of that particular match. If, however, only one side has com ­ pleted its innings—-an innings declared closed being counted as completed— then, in such cases, I propose that the game should be left drawn. During the last few years the number of such results has gradually been in­ creasing, ow ing to the modern “ billiard- table ” wickets and the high perfection to which batsmen have attained. It w ill be seen from the follow ing table that over a third of the County Championship matches played during the past five seasons have had no definite result, a state of affairs which anyone can see is far from satisfactory :— Matches Played. Finished. Dravn. 1896 ........... 126 ... ... 91 ... ... 35 1897 ........... 182 ... ... 83 ... ... 49 1898 ........... 136 ... .. 82 ... ... 54 1899 ........... 162 ... ... 89 ... ... 63 1900 ........... 166 ... ... 96 ... ... 70 Y ouib etc., “ X . Y . Z .”