Cricket 1903

20 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. F eb . 26, 1903. NOTES FROM SCOTLAND . (B y O ur S pecial C orikbpondknt .) A Mid-Lothian County Club is still in nubibus and unlikely for the present to become a re­ ality. That all who have the true interests of Scottish cricket at heart are much disappointed that such a club has not been formed goes without saying. A Mid-Lothian County C.C. would not only have simulated cricket where the game is most in need of a stimulant, but would have induced other Counties, not already competing, to participate in the com­ petition. Lanarkshire would probably have joined, as the two chief clubs in that County, Uddingstone and Drumpellier, favoured the proposal, while Selkirkshire and Roxburg- shire are also anxious to take part in County cricket. But how can the two southern Counties participate when the competition is still confined to the northern Counties ? Thus it will be seen that the Mid-Lothian clubs by pursu’ng the dog-in-the-manger policy, have not only retarded the advancement of the game in Edinburgh, but they have, for the meantime at least, delayed the extension of the County Championship. As the negotia­ tions have been so protracted, it may be well to give a brief resume of the Mid-Lothian matter. The County Championship, which was inaugurated last season, having proved a great success, Mr. A. K. Bell, one of the pro­ moters, issued an appeal for co-operation. Everyone looked to Mid-Lothian, through the medium of the Grange, to make a response. No reply being forthcoming, the Counties Championship Committee invited the Mid-Lothian Clubs to join the competi­ tion. A meeting of Mid-Lothian clubs was held early in December, when, on the motion of the Edinburgh Academicans’ represen­ tative, the matter was remitted to a small committee. The great difficulty in the way, according to the Mid-Lothian clubs at that time, was the playing of mid-week matches. The Counties Championship Committee, being desirous of a Mid-Lothian County being formed, offered to play the majority of Mid- Lothian matches on Saturdays. That was in the beginning of January, and at that time a Mid-Lothian County C.C. seemed a certainty. Towards the end of the month the Edinburgh Committee issued their report, in which they advocated the formation of a Mid-Lothian Club for one season as an experiment. In the course of the report it was stated that pre­ liminary to the formation of such a club, a sum of not less than £40 would have to be subscribed by the Mid - Lothian clubs to meet expenses — chiefly those of “ away ” matches. Another meeting of Mid- Lothian clubs was held on February 6th, when, after considerable discussion, the matter was again remitted, this time to the clubs themselves. This, it may be taken for granted, was only a mild way of shelving the whole matter. The question naturally arises, “ Why was a Mid-Lothian County Club not formed ? ’ ’ The ostensible reason put forward by the Mid-Lothian clubs was their inability to raise the requisite funds. As has been stated, £40 was the minimum sum mentioned by the Edinburgh Committee. I cannot but think that double that amount would have been nearer the mark—but the sixteen Mid- Lothian clubs between them only succeeded in raising £30 15s. in a ll! The Grange gave £5 out of the £230 that went into their coffers after the Australian match, while the Edin­ burgh Academicans subscribed the handsome sum of a “ blob” ! It may be mentioned that one-third of the sum subscribed came from three secondary clubs. The real reason for a Mid-Lothian County not being formed was want of enthusiasm. Indeed, all through the negotiations enthusiasm was conspicuous by its absence—a fact which certainly does not augur well for the future of Mid-Lothian cricket. The attitude of the Grange Club towards the County proposal has given any­ thing but satisfaction throughout Scotland. They have exchanged their usual “ drift” policy for one of “ shuffle.” They sat on the fence until they saw how events would turn out, when they climbed down and allied themselves with the “ apathetic ” and opposed the proposal tooth and nail. The Grange are always announcing that their desire is to “ fostsr” Scottish cricket, but when are they going to give us tangible proof of this desire ? Had they gone into the matter with enthusiasm as they ought to have done, a Mid-Lothian County might have been ours to-day. But as usual they “ played the game ” for their own hands, and thought of their own interests as a club, and ignored those of Scottish cricket. They also entirely over-looked the interests of the Edinburgh public, who will be doomed to follow club cricket, which is in Mid-Lothian dull and meaningless. The public have been con­ demned for not patronising club cricket in Edinburgh, but, personally, I do not blame them. Were I to do so it would be a case of Satan reproving sin. The Mid-Lothian fiasco has proved, and proved conclusively, that, until we have a Scottish Cricket Board, cricket as a game in Scotland will never be wholly prosperous. CR ICK ET IN N EW ZEA LAN D . CANTERBURY v. OTAGO. Played at Dunedin on December 25, 26, and 28, and won by Canterbury by 7 wickets. Otago. First innings. Second innings. J. Baker, b Sims........ ... 8 runout................. 2 W. Johnston, bFranki-h 11 b Eowell .......... 13 G. Mills, c Wigley. b Sims 1at Boxshall b Sims 0 G. G. Austin, c Orchard, b Frankish ........................ 1 b Howell ........... 5 H. G. Siedeberg, c Reese, b c Garrard, b Sims ................................ 0 Orchard.......... 9 A. Downes, c Kinvig, b Sims ...............................10 b Frankish........... 7 A. H. Fisher, c Wigley, b Sims ............................... 12 lbw, b Frankish 8 C. H jwden, lbw, b Howell Id c Lawrence, b Howell ......... 7 G. Cummings, b Howell ... 14 not o u t............26 H. Gunthorp, b Frankish... 6 b Frankish....... 6 F. Williams, not o u t......... 5 c Orchard, b Frankish........ 3 Extras..........5 Extras...........12 Total.........89 C an te r b u r y . Total..........! A. Kinvig, c Baker, b Downes................ 2 C. Boxshall, c Mills, b Fisher ................. 2 T. W. Reese, not out 3 — Howell, b Downes 2 Extras.......... Total......... 133 S. Orchard, b Fisher J. D. Lawrence, b Fisher ................. 2 C.W.Garrard, b Austin 29 A. Sims, run out ... 1 — Strange, c Austin, b Fisher .................42 F. S.Fr±nkish, st Williams, b Austin 9 W. C. H. Wigley, lbw, b Fisher ................. 6 Second innings.—Orchard, c Gunthorp, b Fisher, 4; Sims, not out, 27; Strange, b Fisher, 0; Frankish, c Downes, b Fi-her, 6; Reese, not out, 16; extras, 2; total (for 3 wickets), 65 O tago . First innings. Second innings. O. M. R. W. O. M. K. W. Frankish.......... 12 2 30 3 .......... 23*1 11 31 4 Sims ................ 10 0 36 5 ........... 6 0 27 1 Howell ......... 3 3 0 16 2 ........... 16 2 28 3 Lawrence......... 2 03 0 ............... 2 2 0 0 Orchard.......... 1 0 1 1 C antebbury . First innicgs. Second innings. O. M. R. W. O. M. K. W. Fisher .......... 17 6 33 5 ........... 13 5 6 21 3 Downes .......... 12*1 2 62 2 .......... 7 1 28 0 I Siedeberg... ... 4 0 25 0 J Gunthorp ... 3 0 13 0 ........... 1 1 0 0 1Austin .......... 4 1 7 2 ........... 6 2 4 0 E N G L A N D v. A U S T R A L I A . Complete Batting and Bowling Averages of the Counties representing England in the Test matches, with the year of each appearance and performances of every individual player who has taken part in one or more of the sixty-six matches played in England and Australia from 1877 to 1902, compiled by Mr. R. H. Campbell. In forwarding the tables which appear below, Mr. R. H. Campbell writes from East Melbourne as follows : — 29th October, 1902. “ Herewith I am sending you my last compilation re Test Matches. It is one that has not been done before in this form, and may prove an acceptable and useful record. Permit me to call your attention to the fact that, in many cricket publications, it has become the custom to omit from the computa­ tions such of the extras as are rightly chargeable to bowlers, but the averages now presented debit each trundler with his share of wides and no-balls. It may be well to note that the greatest care has been taken to ensure accuracy. The figures now presented have been made to ‘ prove’ each other in every possible way. You will observe the all-round position obtained by Lancashire ; seven of their representatives (only equalled by Yorkshire) have obtained an average of twenty and over, five of their number have scored a century, no other county having more than three individual century scorers. They have the greatest aggregate as an individual and a county, and they are second on the bowling averages. The late J. Briggs, it will be noted, has represented England on more occasions than any other player, eleven seasons in all, of which six were in Australia (no other Englishman has visited Australia six times). Dr. W . G. Grace has played eight seasons in England, this being the record number for an Englishman in England, the late W . Barnes being next with six seasons. Mr. A. P. Lucas, Surrey and Middlesex, is the only player who has, during the Test matches, represented two counties; accordingly the county he was actually playing for at the time has been credited with his perfor­ mance. I remain, Yours faithfully, R. H. C ampbell .” YORKSHIRE (14). Armitage, T. (Aust.), 1876-7; Brown, J. T. (Aust.), 1894-5, (Bog.) 1896, 1899; Bates, W. (Aust.), 1881-2, 1832-3, 1881-5, 1886-7; Emmett, T. (Aust.), 1886-7, 1878-9,1881-2 ; Greenwood, A. (Aust.), 1876-7 ; Hill, A. (Aust.), 1876-7; Hirst, G. H. (Aust.), 1897-8, (EngO 1899,1902; Hunter, J. (Aust). 1884-6 ; Jack­ son, Hon. F. 8. (Eng.), 1893, 1896, 1899, 1902 ; Peel, R. (Aust ), 1884-5, 1887-8, 1891-2, 1894-5, (Eng ) 1888 189J, 1893, 1896; Peate, E. (Aust.), 1831-2, (Eng) lt82, 1884, 1886; Rhodes, W . (Eng.), 1899, 1902 Ulyett, G. (Aust.), 1876-7, 1878-9, 1881-2, 1884-5, 1887-8, (Eng.) 1882, 1884, 1886, 1888, 1890 ; Wainwrlght, E. (Eng.), 1893, (Aunt.) 1897-8. BATTING AVERAGES. No. Times Most of not Total in an Mtchs. inns. out. runs. inns. Aver. Hill, A ................. 2 ... 4 .. 2 ... 101 ... 49 ... 60'30 Jackson,Hon.F.8. 15 ...24 ... 2 ... 923 ...128 ... 41 95 Brown, J. T. ... 8 ...16 ... 3 .. 470 ...140 ... 36-15 Birst, G. H. ... 8 ...13 ... 1 ... 370 ... 85 ... 30 83 Bates, W ............. 15 ...26 ... 2 ... 666 .. 64 ... 27-3J Ulyett,G............. 23 ..36 ... 0 ... 901 ..149 ... 25 02 Rhodes, W. .. 7 ...lt ... 7 ... 85 .. 38*... 2125 Greenwood, A .... 2 ... 4 ... 0 ... 77 ... 49 .. 19*25 Hunter, J............ 6 .. 7 ... 2 ... 93 ... 39*... 18'tO Peel, R................. 20 ..33 .. 4 ... 426 ... 83 .. 14-68 Wainwright, E. 5 ... 9 ., 0 .. 132 ... 49 ... 1466 Emmett, T. ... 7 ...13 ... 1 ... 160 ... 48 ... 13-33 Peate, E.............. 9 ...14 ... 8 ... 70 .. 13 .. 11-66 Armitage,T. .. 2 ... 3 ... 0 ... 83 ... 21 ... 11-00 * Signifies not out.