John and James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1882

103 \ * l 'o r nearly twenty years Jupp ’ s name has been a household word onU' r\ Tieketers,’ and time after time the records o f the season have borne anU," ; i \ o his consistent exeellenee . Surrey, with nil her long list o f tine " lI1K>s never had a better man. The benefit was successful enough , but r a-v0‘ 7 oome uj) to expectation , a ll interest in the game being at an end i ,r ' time was ca lled on the second day. M r. H o rnby got together a l ndid Northern team, but M r. I. 1). W a lker , who selected the South, was S] , ,..uullv fortunate, his side be ing sadly deficien t in bowlers. On a good m->ket y [r\ C. T . Studd, Mr. Robertson , and P o tter proved quite harmless. The North went in first, and were batting nearly all day. U ly c t t ’s 92 was , llv one o f his best innings, but Selby played very fine cricket for 80, 1 p ates hit brilliantly fo r 93. M r . I lo rn by made 47, Barnes 29, and loekw ood 28. T e r r ib ly hot weather, and the certainty o f defeat seemed seriously to affect the Southern batsmen, who ought certa in ly to have made more runs. Mr. Frank Penn played a capital (not out) innings o f 08, but the next best score was on ly 27. Peate and Shaw were unchanged in the second innings, the latter tak ing 5 wickets fo r 01 runs, and P ea te 4 for 53 runs. A scratch match was got up on the Saturday afternoon, but like most affairs o f the same kind it proved unattractive. t r i . * W. OXFORD v. CAMBRIDGE. A FTER SUSTAINING DEFEAT a t LORD’S in three successive seasons the Oxon ians at last turned the tables, beating Cambridge by the handsome m a jority o f 135 runs. W ith perfect con fidence it maybe said that the decisive nature o f the result took everyone by surprise. The trial matches had conclusively proved that the Hark B lues were stronger in batting tliau they had been for several years, but even those who thought most highly o f their chance did not look forward to anything like an easy victory. W e w ill not s c.j that the in ferior t but that the luck o f the game went decided ly in O x fo r d ’ s favour, we w ill presently attempt to show. O x ford played 6 “ Old B lues ,’ ' and Cambridge 7 . On the former side Messrs. A . H. Greene, E . T . Hirst, E . L. C o lebrooke , H. Fowler, and F . L . Evelyn were rep laced by Mr. C. F . II. Leslie (the 18S0 Bugby captain), M r. A . 0 . W h it ing (a freshman from Sherborne), Mr. E . Peake (a senior from M arlborough ), Mr. M . C. Kemp (a freshman from Harrow), and M r. G. E . Robinson. T h e presence o f Mr. Les lie was, o f course, an immense gain, and though M r. Kemp did not show the hitting powers o f Mr. Fow ler , he proved him self a far better w icket-keeper. F o r Cambridge, Messrs. R . S. Jones, O. P . Lancashire, C. W . F o ley , and P . II. Morton gave way to Mr. J . E . K . Studd (the eldest o f the three brothers, but ouly in his first year o f residence), M r. F . C. C. Rowe (a senior from Harrow), Mr. N. Hone (from Rugby , and since deceased), and Mr. R. Spencer (another Harrow senior). Mr. B ligh , after the last o f the trial matches, gave M r .F . C. C .R ow e his “ B lue ” to the exclusion o f M r. Lancash ire , and, to our thinking, committed an error o f judgm en t . Certainly M r. L an ca ­ shire had been playing indifferently, but he had experience on his side, and there was no strong reason to consider Mr. Row e the better batsman. Bu t