Cricket 1906

S ept . 20, 1906. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 421 ® orreS po nB en cc, Thg Editor does not hold himself responsible for the opinions o f his correspondents. THE COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP. To the Editor o f C r ic k e t . Sir,—The enclosed table deals with the first and second counties in the First Class Championship, and shows in the fourth column the results of the matches between them. This reveals the fact that in thirteen out of thirty-four years the champion county failed to beat the the runner-up. The table is divided into four sections, according to the methods adopted for deciding the order of merit. From 1873 to 1886 the absurd system was employed of deciding by the smallest number of losses. Anyone who cares to work out the proportions of wins and defeats in those years will see that on many occasions the first county, and still more often the second, did not merit its place. The results in column 4 are lettered from the point of view of the champion county. The year 1873 is chosen as being the year when the rules of county qualifica­ tion were systematised. Lancashire’s record is peculiar. Ten times they ran second; twice they divided the championship; but only three times did they win it outright. Notts, Surrey, Lancashire, and York­ shire stand out a long way ahead of the rest. Essex, Leicestershire, North­ amptonshire, Somerset, Warwickshire, and Worcestershire do not appear at all. Yours faithfully, A. H. L. H a s t l in g . Wednesbury, Sep1. 14th, 1906. Year. 1873 .. 1874 .. 1875 .. 1876 .. 1877 .. 1878 1879 .. 1880 .. 1881 1882 . 1883 . 1884 .. 1885 . 1886 . 1887 . Champion County. . Notts* . Derby . Notts . Gloucester . Gloucester . Middlesex .. Notts .. Notts . Lancashire . Notts* ... . Notts . Notts .. Notts . Notts Surrey ... 1888 ... Surrey ... i *Notts 1889 ] ^Lancashire (*Surrey* ... 1890 ... Surrey ... 1891 ... Surrey ... 1892 ... Surrey ... 1893 ... Yorkshire 1894 ... Surrey ... 1895 ... Surrey ... 1896 ... Yorkshire .. Lancashire . Yorkshire . Surrey ... .. Yorkshire . Yorkshire . Yorkshire . Middlesex .. Lancashire .. Yorkshire Kent 1897 . 1898 1899 1900 . 1901 ., 1902 .. 1903 . 1904 . 1905 .. 1906 . Second County. ... Gloucester* ... Gloucester ... Lancashire ... Hants ... Derby ... Notts......... ... Lancashire ... Gloucester ... Gloucester ... Lancashire* ... Yorkshire ... Middlesex ... Yorkshire ... Surrey ... Lancashire I Kent.......... t Yorkshire ... Lancashire ... Surrey ... ... Notts ... Lancashire ... Lancashire ... Notts ... Lancashire ... Yorkshire ... Lancashire ... Lancashire ... Surrey ... ... Middlesex ... Middlesex ... Lancashire ... Middlesex ... Sussex ... Sussex ... Yorkshire ... Lancashire ... Yorkshire * Bracketed equal. Results. Did not meet D D D D D D W D W D W D W W L D W D W L W W ) W W j W D) w w [ L W ) W W W D L L L L W W W L W W L L W L D W D D D L W L D THE “ W. G,” OF IRELAND. That Mr. Robert James Hamilton Lambert, M.K.C.V.S., is fully deserving of being regarded as the finest all-round cricketer the Emerald Isle has ever pro­ duced, a perusal of his great feats will readily convince anybody who has doubt upon the matter. During the season just concluded he averaged 124-6 for 26 innings for the Leinster Club, and took 142 wickets at a cost of 11'6 runs each. In all matches his record was 2,160 runs with an average of 113'65 for 28 innings, and 155 wickets for 20 runs each. He made nine scores of over 100, twice passing the 200. Mr. Lambert was born at Eathmines, Dublin, on July 18th, 1874, and was educated at Rathmines School and St. John’s College, Preston. He learnt his cricket with the Leinster Club, and at the early age of seventeen played for the Gentlemen of Ireland. As a batsman he is an effective rather than a pretty player. Of late years he has deserted to some extent his old dashing methods, with the result that his defence has greatly improved; but when he has played himself in he hits with tremend­ ous vigour all round the wicket. He has plenty of strokes, one of the best being a drive past extra-cover. Some of his best feats are:—256 not out, Leinster v. Co. Kildare, in Dublin, in 1904, made in 155 minutes; 248 not out, Leinster v. Fitz- william, in Dublin, in 1895, made in 125 minutes; and 226 not out, Leinster v. Co. Wicklow, in Dublin, in 1902, made in135 minutes. During his career hehas played fifty-eight three-figure innings, the first beingin 1893. In 1896, and again in 1899, he made three hundreds in con­ secutive innings. When scoring his 248 not out, in 1895, he obtained 58 off five overs, and in 1898, when playing for Scotland v. Dublin University, inCollege Park, Dublin, he hit a ball into Nassau Street—an almost unprecedented per­ formance. In Scotland in 1896 he had an average of 108 for thirteen innings, and also took sixty wickets. He bowls medium pace with an easy delivery and a good off-break which comes from the pitch with considerable sting. For Stedalt v. Lord Louth’s XL, at Stedalt, in 1895, he took five wickets in six balls, and in a Leinster Club tour obtained forty-one wickets in a week for 377 runs. In three consecutive years he performed as follows:— Year. Runs.Aver. Wkts. Aver. 1895 2040 ... 51 209 ... 7 1896 2231 ... 67 202 ... 10 1897 1889 ... 51 216 ... 11 In 1897 his record for Leinster alone was 1,582 runs and 195 wickets ! OnSeptem­ ber 3rd, 1904, forLeinster v. Co. Kildare, in Dublin, he took six wickets for 105 runs in the first innings, scored 256 not out in 155 minutes, and obtained six wickets for 29 in second innings, winning the match against a very strong side five minutes before time. A younger brother, Mr. S. D. Lambert, is a good batsmanand finewicket-keeper, and an uncle, Col. J. D. Lambert, C.B., D.S.O., was a good all-round player forty years ago. Could the subject of these few remarks appear regularly and frequently in great matches he would assuredly very quickly take a high posi­ tion among the leading players of the day. F. S. A.-C. LONDON SCOTTISH C.C. Season 1906. Matches arranged, 41; played, 3f drawn, 10. ; won, 17; lost, 11; BATTING AVERAGES. No. Times Most of not Total in an inns. out. runs. inns. Aver. E. A. Homer ... 18 ... 2 .. . 660 .. 153*... 41-25 E. A. Bennett ... ... 15 ...i z. . 460 .,.. 78.. . 32-85 A. K inross.......... ... 12 ... 3 ... 267 ... 86 ... 29 66 A. H. Read......... ... 21 ... 3 ... 460 ... 71 .. . 25'55 E. Hogg .......... ... 13 ... 3 .. . 253 ... 84*.. . 25-30 P. Child .......... ... 22 ... 1 ... 431- ..; 57 .. . 20-52 O.W . Trench ... ... ... 2 .. . 138 ... 50 .. . 19-71 F. H. Robins ... 11 ... 1 ... 179 ... 54 ... 17-90 H. J. R. Pope ... ... 9 ... 0 ... 161 ..-. 40 ... 17-88 G. I. Neal .......... ... 6 ... 1 ... 89 ... 34 ... 17-80 E. Lacey .......... ... 13 ... 3 ... 171 ... 52 ... 17-10 T. B. Porter.......... ... 4 ... 1 ... 51 ... 19 ... 17-00 O. Koe Child ... ... 12 ... 5 ... 117 ... 34 .. . 16-71 R. St. A. Angrove ... 12 ... 4 ... 131 ... 35 ... 16-37 H. G. V. Homer... ... 19 ... 5 .... 222 ... 39 .. . 15-85 O. O. Tollit.......... ... 12 ... 3 .... 142 .,,. 47 ... 15 77 L. J. B u sh .......... ... 16 ... 1 ... 194 ... 38 ... 12.93 R. A. Bennett ... ... 13 ... 3 . 120 ... 35*.. . 12.00 H. a Hodgson ... ... 13 ... 2 ... 127 ... 36*.... 11.54 8. J. T. Artaud ... ... 14 ... 1 ... 144 ... 62 .. . 11.07 R. H. H. Stanger 3 ... 1 ... 21 ... 12 .. . 10.50 J. Lam ont.......... ... 21 ... 0 ... 218 ... 39 ... 10.38 R. A. Low e.......... ... 14 ... 0 ... 137 ... 39 ... 9.78 H. E aston.......... ... 9 ... 2 ... 63 ... 19 ... 9(K) G. Trench .......... ... 5 .. 1 ..,. 36 ... 17 ... 9.00 J. S. Ohown ... 15 ... 1 ... 123 ... 32 ... 8.78 F. R. Oonnell ... ... 21 ... 0 ... 164 ... 33 ... 7.80 A. P. Morris ... 9 ... 1 .... 60 ,... 22 ... 7.50 T. S. Taylor ... ... 1 ... 0 .... 7 ... 7 ... 700 H. Ohown ......... ... 16 ... 2 ... 82 ... 18*. .. 5'85 J. O. Sewell.......... ... 5 ... 0 .... 29 ... 14 ... 5-80 R. Price-Williams 2 ... 0 ... 9 . 7 ... 4'50 E. A. Macdonald 8 ... 2 ... 21 ..." 7 ... 3-50 J. H. Adamson ... ... 1 ... 0 . 1 ... 1 ... 100 * Signifies not out BOWLING AVERAGES. Overs. Mdns. Runs. Wkts. Aver L. J. Bush.......... ... 95 ... 16 . . 263 .. 25 . . 1013 F. R. Connell ... ... 287 .. 43 . . 975 .. 89 . . 10-85 R. A. Lowe ... 117 ... 18 . . 349 27 . 1225 E. A. Homer .. ... 19 ... 3 . . 82 " 6 ’. . 13i J. Lamont... ... ... 77 ... 0 . . 433 .. 30 . . 1413 A. H. Read.......... ... 89 ... 8 . . 337 .. 23 . . U il G. Y. Homer ... ... 182 ... 26 . . 580 .. 34 . . 174 E. Lacey ........ ... 237 ... 41 . . 769 .. 44 . . 1721 P. Child .......... ... 54 ... 7 . . 231 .. 12 . . 193 H. Chown........ ... 38 ... 4 . . 11)3 .. 9 . . 21*1 E. A. Bennett .. ... 153 ... 19 . . 156. .. 20 . . 2216 E. Hogg ......... ... 115 ... 12 . . 455 .. 19 . . 23*18 H. J. R. Pope ... ... 69 ... 8 . . 278 .. 7 . . 39*5 MARRIED OR SINGLE. At a recent cricket match, “ Married v. Single,” the former took first innings, and chiefly by the aid of some blind hits by one of the players, namedJones, made a score of 84. Just as thebachelors were about to commence their innings news of a local railway accident, in which some of the passengers had beenkilled, reached the field. “ I’min abit of aquandary,” saidJones to the curate who had organised the match ; “ my missus was in that train.” “ Dear me. I’m sorry to hear it,” was the reply. “ You are anxious to get away, of course ? ” “ Well, no, sir; it ain’t that. I waa only thinking if anything has happened to my Mary I ought to be playing for the single chaps.” —Tit Bits.