Cricket 1901

A p r i l 18, 1901. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 77 the future of the club. Last year Ewell played 19 matches, of which 8 were won, 7 lost, and 4 drawn. We notice that among its members the du b includes several working men —a wise plan in a village. M AY. 11. Ewell, v. Beddiogton 19. Ewell, v. Barnes 25. Ewell, v. M.C.C. 27. Ewell, v. Nondescripts JUNE. 1. Ewell, v. Wimbledon 8. Leatherhead, v. Leatherhead 15. Ewell, v. East Molesey 22. Wimbledon, v. Wimbledon 29. Epsom, y . Epsom JULY. 10. Parkside, v. T. Hill’s X I. 13. Oatlands Park, v. Oatlands Park 20. Ewell, v. Leatherhead 27. Ewell, v. Epsom AUGUST. 3. Esher, v. Esher 5. Ewell, v. Surbiton 17. Ewell, v. Malden Wanderers 24. Ewell, y . Roehampton 31. Beddington, v. Beddington The playing resources of the F o r e s t H il l C.C. can be gauged from the fact that four teams will be going throughout the season, pretty well all of them even up to the fourth. The principal day matches to be undertaken by the first team are against Northbrook, Old Fram- linghams, Wanstead, Granville (Lee), Wanderers, M.C.C. and Ground, Sidcup, Sutton, Kent C.C. and G ., Northbrook, Sheffield Wednesday, and London County. The F orest H ill week opens July, and the six matches are against the Wanderers, Grauville (Lee), M .C.C. and Ground, Wanstead, Sidcup, and Sutton. MAY. 4. Home, v. Dulwich 11. Home, v. Heathfleld 18. Norbury, L. & W . Bank 25. Wormwood Scrubbs, v. Belgrave 27. Home, v. Northbrook 29. Home, v. Old Framlinghams JUNE. 1. Home, v. Old Charlton 5. Snaresbrook, v. Wanstead 8. Sidcup, v. Sidcup 15. Home, v. Private Banks 20. Lee, v. Granville (Lee) 22. Home, v. Croydon 29. East Dulwich, v. Brixton Wanderers JULY. 1. Home, v. Wanderers 2. Home, v. Granville (Lee) 3. Home, v. M.C.C. ; 4. Home, v. Wanstead ^5. Home, v. Sidcup 6. Home, v. Button 10. Home, v. Kent County Club and Ground 13. Cutford, v. Private Banks 20. Home, v. Addiscombe 27. Norwood, v. Norwood AUGUST. 3. Dulwich, v. Dulwich 6. Lee, v. Northbrook 9. Home, v. Sheffield Wednesday 10. Sutton, v. Sutton 17. Bromley, v. Bromley 21. Home, v. London County 24. Home, v. Brixton Wanderers 31. Addiscombe, v. Addiscombe SEPTEMBER. 4. Palace, v. London County 7. Home, v. Norwood 14. Home, Catford Bridge F.C. H a m pto n W ic k opens the campaign on the 27th of this month with a match at Hampton Wick against the London County Council. As the last fixture is on September 14th the season will be long enough. The match list includes a fixture with M .C.C. and Ground. Sheffield Wednesday, who are touring in the South early in August, are to visit Hampton Wick on the 8th of that month. APRIL. 27. Hampton Wick, v. London County Council MAY. Hampton W ick, v. Walton Hampton Wick, v. Erratics 8t. Margaret’s, v. S. Margaret’s Hampton Wick, v. Wanderers Hampton Wick, v. Northbrook Hampton Wick, v. 8toics Malden, v. Malden Wanderers Hampton W ick, v. Waldegrave Park Bampton Wick, v. M.C C. JUNE. Walton, v. Walton Hampton Wick, v. Brixton Wanderers Hampton Wick, v. Old Cranleighans Hampton Wick, v. Norhury Hampton Wick, v. University Coll.ge School (Old Boys) Cranleigh, v. Cranleigh School (H. L .’s X I.) Brookwood, v. Brookwood Virginia Water, v. St. Ann’s C.C. Norbury, v. Norbury Hampton Wick, v. Heathfleld JULY. Hampton W ick, v. Cranleigh School Byfleet, v. Byfleet Hampton Wick, v. Erratics Hampton W ick, v. Old Cranleighans East Dulwich, v. Brixton Wanderers Hampton W ick, v. London County Council Han pton Wick, v. Pallingswick Thames Ditton, v. Thames Ditton Lee, v. Northbrook Hampstead, v. Hampstead AUGUST. Hampton Wick, v. East Molesey Waldegrave Park, v. Waldegrave Park Hampton W ick, v. Sheffield Wednesday Hampton Wick, v. Malden Wanderers Sutton, v. Sutton Croydon, v. Croydon Hampton Wick, v. Hampstead Hampton W ick, v. St. Margaret’s Ea-jt Molesey, v. East Molesey Hampton Wick, v. Thames Ditton SEPTEMBER. Hampton W ick, v. Croydon Hampton Wick, v. Old Manorians Though they are a wandering team the O l d C it iz e n s are essentually a Metropolitan club, composed as they are of the old boys of the City of London School, and among other engagements they have to meet such clubs as London County, Hornsey, Clapton, and Pallings­ wick. Like most wanderers they suffer from the too spasmodic appearances of some of their most useful members who find the attractions of playing “ at home” very strong. However, a good season is iu anticipation, and it is expected that P. W . Hale, who appeared for Middlesex last season, and F. E . Booker, the Cam­ bridge “ Socker” Blue, will help them. M AY . 4. Hainault Road, Leyton, v. Leyton 11. Old Oak Road, Acton, v. Pallingswick 18. Catford, v. Private Banks 27. Clapton, v. Clapton JUNE. 1. Manor Park, v. Guildhall 8. Norbury, v. London and Westminster Bank 15. Norbury Park, v. Norbury lark 22. Armoury House, v. Hon. Artillery Company 29. Beckenham Hill, v. City of London School JU LY. 6. Catford Bridge, v. Panther 13. Slough, v. Slough 20. Catford Bridge, v. Panther 27. Bexley, v. Bexley AUGUST. 3. Hornsey, v. Hornsey 17. Brondesbury. v. London Scottish 31. Walton-on-Thames, v. Walton-on-Thames SEPTEMBER. 7. Armoury House, v. Hon. Artillery Company 14. Brondesbury, v. South Hampstead 21. Crystal Palace, v. London County The S u r b it o n Club has arranged new matches for the season with Hornsey and Kensington Wanderers, an off-shoot apparently of the old Kensington Park C.C. It will cause cricketers keen regret to learn that the Lambeth Waterworks Company, having purchased the club ground, will soon be requiring it for new filter beds or reservoirs. The committee are endeavouring to arrange for a lease of a field on the hill. In any case this will probably be the last season of a ground deservedly popular, not only locally, but for many old associations as the scene of so many keen contests of cricket and tennis, as well as hockey and football in the winter, and the excellent amateur athletic meeting held soon after Easter every year. The hon. sec., the Rev. A. E. Beavan has held that position since October, 1890. M AY. 4. Weybridge, v. Oatlands Park 11. Surbiton, v. Hampstead 18. Surbiton, v. Guy’s Hospital 25. Surbiton, v. University College Hospital 27. Surbiton, v. Western JUNE. Bushey Park, v. Teddington Bichmond, v. Richmond Virginia Water, v. St. Anne’s Heath Wimbledon, v. Wimbledon Tooting, v. Upper Tooting Hornsey, v. Hornsey JULY. Surbiton, v. Worcestershire Regiment Surbiton, v. Wanderers Hampstead, v. Hampstead Surbiton, v. St. Bartholomew’s Hospital East Molesey, v. East Molesey Surbiton, v. Marlboro’ Blues y. Teddington v. Kensington Wanderers v. Streatham AUGUST. v. Wimbledon y. M.C.C. and Ground v. Hornsey Ewell, v. Ewell Streatham, v. Streatham Surbiton, v. Upper Touting Surbiton, v. East Molesey Surbiton, v. Richmond Cricket Week The W a n d e r e r s , with two keen sports­ men (A. M. Latham and Stanley Colman) in the positions of hon. secretary and captain, are sure to show good cricket. Few of the wandering teams, indeed, play the game more thoroughly. This year they are touring on the South Coast at the end of July, as will be seen from the match list which follows. M AY. 4. v Bickley Park 15. v. Hampton Wick 18. v. Cane Hill Asylum 22. v. Sutton 25. v. Uxbridge 27. v. Beckenham fc9. y . Pallingswick JUNE. 1. v. Chelmsford 7. v. Surrey Club and Ground 8. y . Ealing 12. v. Charlton Park 15. v. Guildford 18. y . Granville (Lee) 22. v. Richmond 26. v. West Herts 29. v. Upper Tooting JULY. 1. v. Forest Hill 3. v. Addiscombe 6. v. Surbiton 10. v. Hampstead 13. ▼. London County Cricket Club 22. v. Tunbridge Wells* 24. v. Tonbiidge* ) 26. v. Eastbourne* >Tour. 29. v. Devonshire Park* j 31. v. Hastings* J AUGUST. 2. y. St. Andrews’ Masters*. (Tour.) 5. y. Epsom 7. v. Ealing 10. v. Reigate Priory 17. v. East Molesey. * Two-day matches.