Cricket 1904

406 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. S e pt . 15, 1904 county to a position of which it may be proud. Even as things stand, the position held by Surrey this seasonisnot hopelessly bad, although it is very far fromgood. To beat Hampshire, Essex, Worcestershire, Derbyshire, Gloucestershire and Leices­ tershire once each is not a brilliant per­ formance, and it cannot be said that many of the drawn games were in favour of Surrey. The losses were against Derbyshire, Notts (twice), Lancashire (twice), Yorkshire, Essex, Middlesex (twice), Somerset (twice) and Kent. But this poor record might easily have been better, for Middlesex and Notts eachwon by only two wickets, and a very little luck might have turned these victories into defeats. Altogether the past season has not been quite as bad for Surrey as it might have been with so many great men having to be left out. Hayward has been the mainstay of the side nearly all through the season, and his fine record is all the more noticeable because time after time so much depended on him. Hayes has done very well indeed, and Raphael, when he came into the team in the later part of the season, played such fine cricket that much may be hoped of him in the future. Davis has also proved to be a most useful batsman who may in a year or two be in the front iank, and Nice has developed iuto quite a good batsman. There are a dozen young batsmen who may yet make a name for themselves, and perhaps if there were not so m»ny of them it would be better for the county, since it is so difficult to know which of themto choose. Abel sometimes played in quite his old form, but his days seem to be over. As to the bowling one hardly knows what to say of it. But it seems to be generally recognised that J. N. Crawford is the b3st youngster who has played for the county for many years, and that Lees is a greatly improved bowler, who has most remarkably bad luck. Every now and then Nice, Smith, McDonell, Gooder and Hayes have done quite brilliant things, but they have dropped off again in a remarkable way. Smith has met with considerable suc- c 368 on soft wickets, and perhaps the county would have been none the worse off if he had played all through the season. Last year Richardson took 115 wickets for the county, and Lockwood 94; this year Richardson has only 7 to his credit and Lockwood 18. Such a startling difference would of itself account for any falling off in Surrey cricket this season. But for the absence of Knight for a month after the injury to his hand in the match between the Gentlemenand Players at Lord’s, Leicestershire would most likely have held a higher position than that of seventh in the championship table. But as compared with the results of previous years, the position at present held by the county is eminently satisfac­ tory. It has been recognised for some years that Leicestershire had so many good men coming on that sooner or later they were bound to place their county in a much better position, and although the improvement in play was slower than had been anticipated, the county may now be said to have “ arrived.” In the first half of the season Leicestershire was sur­ prisingly successful, but only a single match was won after the end of June. C. J. B. Wood, Knight, King andCoe have all done great things, and once or twice Y. F. S. Crawford was seen at his best. In bowliDg Gill heads the list, and Odell, Allsopp and King have all been very useful. R. T. Crawford has been some­ what disappointing this year, but he is young enough to have a fine future before him. With a record of five wins, five defeats and six drawn games, Warwickshire holds the same position as last year in the middle of the championship table. The great achievement of the season was the victory over Yorkshire at Hudders­ field by 6 runs. Quaife has had a splen­ did season, and easily heads the batting averages with 63'54, while Kinneir, T. S. Fishwick, Lilley, and Santall have all done well. Field was not able to play much owing to an injured arm, and Santall and Hargreave have borne the brunt of the work with the ball. Derby­ shire has had a fairly successful season, and has been a hard side to beat. Their victory over Essex at Chesterfield was quite one of the events of the season, for after making 548 they saw Essex put on 697, and yet Derbyshire managed to win by nine wickets. L. G. Wright and C. A. Ollivierre had some fine first wicket part­ nerships, and their averages hardly repre­ sent their value to the side. E. M. Ash­ croft, G. Curgenven and Storer have all done well. In bowling Warren was very effective, and Bestwick was generally to be relied on to take wickets, but another good bowler is much needed. Worces­ tershire has had a disappointing season, but in bothmatches against Yorkshire the county did well. The inability of R. E. Foster to play was most unfortunate for the side. H. K. Foster and Bowley played finely all through the season, but Arnold was not at his best with the bat, although he did fairly well with the ball. With only a couple of victories Hampshire has had a most unfortunate season, and as in 1901,1902 and 1903 is at the bottom of the championship list. There has always been a great difficulty in getting an eleven together, and a large number of players assisted at various times. Llewellyn was not as successful either with the bat or the ball as in previous years, while Major Poore, who reappeared in the team towards the end of the season, could not regain the form which made him so famous some years ago. But E. M. Sprot has greatly distinguished himself, and A. C. John­ ston made a good impression on the critics. A. J.L. Hill has bitted exceed­ ingly well, but could not play regularly. Hesketh-Prichard has done most of the work with the ball, and if it had been his fortune to play for a county which had plenty of change bowlers he would hare had a very fine record. Gloucestershire has been the surprise county of the season, for after a disas­ trous two months, during which they werevictoriousbut once,theypulled them­ selves together and accomplished great things. They beat Notts by an innings, Sussex by 168 runs, Middlesex by 60 runs, and Worcestershire by 67 runs, while they had the best of the drawn game with Yorkshire at Dewsbury. Jessop was not in his usual form; the only innings of over a hundred which he played for the county was 206 against Notts at Trent Bridge. C. O. H. Sewell, Brown, Thomas,Wrathall, Brown­ lee and Barrett were all very useful to the side. Dannett has come on wonder­ fully, and was of immense service to the side, while Huggins took sixty-eight wickets. The Essex record is better than it looks, for on many occasions the county distinguished itself. But the absence of Mead from the team was irreparable, and although Beeves did exceedingly well with the ball, and Buckenham not at all badly, there was not sufficient bowling strength in the county to win matches. The batting was at times remarkably good, and at times very poor indeed. Perrin was, as usual, the mainstay of the side, and it is a pity that Gillingham cannot play regularly, for he has greatly distinguished himself. McGahey, A. J. Turner, Sewell, Carpenter and Fane were all very good at times. Sewell strikes one as being capable of great things, but so far he has to some extent disappointed expectations. He is a very much better bowler than his analysis would seem to show. With seven victories, four defeats, and nine drawn games Notts has had a fairly satisfactory season. The first-wicket partnerships between A. O. Jones and Iremonger were as frequent and prolific as those between Fry and Vine, and the two men have fine averages. Unfor­ tunately it often happened that after they had made a large score for the first wicket, the rest of the team failed to do anything of note ; otherwise there would have been more victories. J. Gunn, G. Gunn, and J. A. Dixon played several good innings, but there was a long tail. The Notts captain had few good bowlers at his command, and was obliged to rely almost entirely on J. Gunn, Wass, and Hallam. SOUTHGATE ADELAIDE v. SOUTHGATE READING ROOM.—Played at Old Southgate on September 10. S o u th g ate A d e la id e . A.Minns, c F. W. Can­ ham, b W ale..........13 F.H.H.8tokes,st Mul­ ler, b G. E. Canham 11 H.WilBon,c F. W .Can­ ham,bG. E. Canham 0 W, Wood, b Wale ... 0 A .R Hawes, c Walby, b G. E. Canham ... 6 H. 8. Hooke, not out. 61 W. G. Watts, b Wale. 6 F. E. Hooke, b Ft W. Canhum .......... ... 7 S. H. Elliott, b F. W . Canham .................10 A. Myford, not out ... 36 Extras.......... ... 18 Total (8 wkts)...*167 B.Snow and E. Scott did not bat. •Innings declared closed. S o u th gate R ead in g R oom . G.E. Canham, b Watts 3 E. Jiggina, c Stokes, b Watts ................. 0 C.F.Miiller,cH.Hooke, b W ilson.................28 C.F. Wale, cH . Hooke, b Watts .................30 F. W.Canham,c Wood, b W iUoa................. 6 H. Armitage, bWilson 0 E. Matthews, run out. C. J. Newby, b Watts — Hyett, not out S. Clare, c Minns, b Wilson ................. B. Walby, not out .. Extras... .......... Total (9 wkts) ... 86 H. Atwood did not bat.