CRICKET NOTES.

Evening Star, Issue 10400, 23 August 1897, Page 4

CRICKET NOTES.

Surrey put together the fine total of 568 (Chinnery 149, Abel 113, Brockwell 83) against Warwickshire (163 and 211), which left them victorious by an innings and 194 runs.

The remarkable batting display given by Middlesex in their first innings against Kent will, as in dozens of other instances, remain unexplained. On a capital wicket Kent on the first day scored 293 in their first venture, but on the second day, in the absence of anything to affect the turf, Middlesex were disposed of for the paltry total of 132. On going in a second time in a minority of 161 they did much better, and eventually wound up with 75 runs to the good. Though it looked a comparatively easy task for Kent to get the 76 to win, they lost six of their bast wickets before the winning hit was made. The first of this season’s encounters I between Notts and Yorkshire ended in a draw. When play started on the third morning the anticipation of an unfinished match seemed entirely,justified, but coming events in cricket rarely have their shadows cist before, and when Yorkshire, who had a balance of 126 against them, went in after lunch and lost five wickets by half-past four they were in a somewhat precarious position. Lord Hawke and Peel then came to the rescue of their side acd played with the care for an hour and a-half, both men being not out when slumps were drawn, by which time Yorkshire were 107 runs to the good with half their wickets in hand. Attewell had a curious analysis, bowling forty-nine overs, thirty-oae of which were maidens, for 56 runs, without getting a wicket. Notts 490 (Gunn 110, Shrewsbury 83, Attewell 86, Dench 75, Dixon 64), Yorkshire 364 (Brown 119, Moorhouse 53, Hawke 64) and five for 233 (Hawke 91 nob out, Peel 56 not out). The first day’s play in the match between Cambridge University and M.C.C. and Ground proved of a most even nature, as only two runs divided the totals when, at the close of the proceedings, cither side had completed an innings. On the second day, however, the game went all in favor of the Light Blues, who, showing superiority in almost every department, gained an easy victory to the extent of 102 runs. N. F. Druce played sterling cricket for 74 and 52, his first innings saving his side from cutting a rather inglorious figure. He was batting an hour and a-half, and his resolute hitting accounted for one 5, nine 4’s, two 3’s, and seven 2’s. Despite all this the venture only realised 158. When the Club wentia to bat a second time the sun had affected the wicket somewhat. The ground, however, was at no time difficult enough to account for the poor display given by several members of the team, who appeared to lack confidence when meeting the slows of Fernie. C. W. Wright (33) played exceptionally good cricket, but none of the others, excepting Attewell (20) and Trott (15), showed anything like good form, and the side was dismissed in a little over two hours for 125. Trott’s five wickets cost 91 runs. The two Australians, O’Halloran and Roche, wore very much in evidence in the M.C.C. v. Hampshire contest. The firstnamed scored 52 out of a total of 165, and in the second innings of the county Roche took five wickets for 14 runs.

To the list of exciting finishes must be added that in the Middlesex-Surrey match, which terminated in a victory for Surrey by the narrow margin of 9 runs. From first to last during the fourth and final innings every stroke was carefully watched, every run eagerly noted as likely to turn tbs scale in favor of one side or the other, and when at the close the Surrey men had pulled the match out of the fire there was a scone of wiid enthusiasm in front of the pavilion. With the useful lead of 07 on the first innings, the balance on paper certainly rested with Middlesex, especially as more rain fell after stumps were drawn and daring the early morning. It cannot be said, however, that the wicket had been really seriously affected ; but the work the bowlers were able to get on the ball they were enabled to do very quickly, and this proved fatal in several instances. Eearne and Rawliu, for Middlesex, bowled admirably, but their efforts were pat- in the shade when the Surrey team took the field, and the losers ascribed their defeat in no small measure to the magnificent bowling of these opposed to them, scarcely a bad ball being sent down ; while. Richardson in particular was absolutely in such form as to preclude any liberties being taken. Hayward’s 77 in the second innings proved Surrey’s salvation. Surrey, 112 and 164; Middlesex, 179 and S3. Richardson in the fip-3t innings took six wickets for S6, and in the second five for 38.

Rain curtailed play to such an extent that the Lancashire-Warwickshire match had to bo left drawn. Warwickshire’s totals were 227 and 221 for six wickets, while Lancashire’s first innfijgs closed for 349. Briggs went in fifth, and was last out for a splendid display of 74. Ha registered 74 out of 98 during the time he was batting. He played the forcing game throughout, and did not give a single chance. This is Briggs’s highest score in firat-olasa cricket this season. Keeping up their unbeaten record as far as county championship fixtures are concerned, Essex gained a brilliant victory over Derbyshire by seven wickets. Storer, who will be the first wicket-keeper in Stoddart’s Australian team, played two good innings of 59 and 68 for the losers.

After three full days’ cricket the match between Sussex and Middlesex ended in a draw. In making 129 not out Ranjitsinhji completed his _ 1,000 runs in first-class cricket. His display was masterly throughout and quite in keeping with his great reputation. Soon after the start he hit nine boundaries in succession, and his runs were made in three hours by twenty 4’s, twelve 2’a, and singles, He compiled 50 out of 68, and his 100 from 148.

The victorious career of Essex was stopped on July 3, when Lancashire defeated them by 66 runs.

On July 7 Tyldesley (playing for Lancashire against Derbyshire) accomplished the rare performance of scoring two centuries. There has been considerable discussion in one of the southern shires over the following case :—“ Striker has substitute running for him. He strikes the ball, and both striker and substitute run towards bowler’s wicket. Striker does not complete run, and had nob gob back to his position behind the crease on his way to the umpire standing at short square leg. His substitute, however, bad reached the bowler’s wicket; bowler put down wicket at bowler’s end and claimed that striker was out. Umpire gave him ‘not out.’” Mr Henry Perkins, on being applied to for a ruling, replied that he should five him “out,” but for “obstructing the eld”—possibly because he was interfering when he should be a nonentity—though this strikes one as rather straining a point. The Norwood Club (South Australia), whichhasbeeninexistence siccelß6B, has just been disbanded in consequence of the introduction of electorate cricket there. Giffen (from the seasons 1881 to 1892) has scored seventeen centuries, Lyons (from 1886 to 1896) fourteen.

The New South Wales Association finished up last season with a credit balance oi £1,381 15s lid.

Against a total of 137 in each innings by Gloucester, Lancashire scored 273 at their first attempt, the match ending in a tenwicket victory for the northern shire. The second innings of Gloucester (Grace 56), like the first (Champain 97), was largely the work of one man.

Sussex batted for six hours and a-half against Cambridge University, scoring 412 runs in that time. There was only one single-figure score, while Newham is credited with 107. The Cantab batting collapsed in each innings before the Sussex attack in a manner virtually unaccountable, leaving the county victorious by nine wickets.

The Tasmanian Association are evidently not going to give their guarantee for nothing. In arranging with Major Wardill for a visit of btoddart’s team they have stipulated that the English captain “ must put a first-class team in the field.”

A remarkable point in connection with the Oxford-Cambridge match is the fact that ® urin S the last five years Oxford have been set 330 runs to win on four occasions viz . 1893, 1895. 1896. 1897. Such a formidable task has only once been accomplished, and that last year. Very few Oxonians felt any great confidence in the eleven of this year getting the runs. Still the start was inspiriting enough. With forty up for no Wicket Oxford did seem to have a chance,

but this hope early expired, and the innings closed for 151, the Light Blues winning easily by 179 runs. This year’s match will always be remembered for the number of noballs delivered. The extras on the two sides amounted to 87. Of these 87, 23 were byes, 28 leg-byes, 10 wides, and no fewer than 26 no-balls. Of the sixty-three matches played Cambridge have won thirty-two to Oxford’s twenty-eight, with three unfinished games.

This is what two different writers have to say of N. F. Druce and Richardson, two of the players Stoddarb has selected to visit Australia during the coming summer:— “To; turn to the side [Cambridge] individually, we have not tho slightest hesitation in placing Druce as one of the best batsmen of the year; indeed, one of the best six bats ever sent up from Cambridge. Two years ago this young player had an average of 56, but this season he averages nearly 70, which is certainly a record performance. When one remembers the averages of such splendid players as F. S. Jackson, C. T. Studd, A. G. Steel, A. P. Lucas, Hon. A. Lyttelton, and others, none of whom ever attained bo an average of 50, Norman Druce’s record appears more marvellous than ever.. Combined with all the orthodox strokes, he also plays some shots that are not generally found in the repertoire of the hoi j>olloi. A good length ball on .the off-side is hit past coverpoint, and most balls on the leg-stump find their way to the boundary on the leg side. Not even RaDjitsinhji himself or Captain Wynyard is a better player on the onside. A brilliant player anywhere, but especially at cover-slip, and a useful bowler, he has a sound knowledge of the game, aad might almost be called a model skipper. . . . Richardson is a great bowler; in fact, I consider him almost, if not quite, the best I have ever seen during forty years as a spectator of pretty well all the great fixtures played on the London grounds. I watched the match in a direct line behind the wickets, therefore in the best position to judge of the play.” After three full days’ cricket the return encounter between Yorkshire and Surrey terminated on July 3 in a draw, having in the meantime furnished as good cricket as any enthusiast could ever hope to see. The interest was maintained till the final uprootiig of the stump?. Prior to lunch on the last day it seemed extremely probable that Surrey (who had to make 322 to win) were in for another defeat—their fourth of the season, and the second from the hands of the Yorkshiremen—as a smart run out dismissed Abel for a cypher, and Hayward was also got rid of through the instrumentality of Brown at 24. Brockwell and Baldwin, however, set to work in such determined style that, though the one scored faster than the other, hopes of a “ tight” finish entered the breasts of the Surreyit s. Neither had been comfortable at the outset, and with the slightest variation bad strokes might have been captured chances. Cat-like agility was displayed by the champions, and bowling and fielding were alike good, yet the partnership ere it was closed produced 101 runs, and then Brockwell (69) was disposed of, and Chinnery followed before being credited with double figures. With two hours to go Yorkshire had got rid of four wickets for 141, but Jephson and Baldwin “laid on” to such a tune that 77 were added in about an hour, and tho possibilities of Surrey’s success were revived. Despite numerous bowling changes 10 after 10 was posted, and it was not till 218 was reached that a parting was effected, when Jephson, who had made 28 out of the 77 which the pair had subscribed in an hour, was caught at mid-off. With half their wickets down Surrey, with a little under an hour remaining for play, had reduced their task to 104. Baldwin was caught when he had made 103, a grand display, in which he showed both caution end vigor as the occasion warranted. His principal strokes w’ere fourteen 4’s, seven 3’s, and three 2’s. With six wickets down for 225, and threequarters of an hour remaining, Key and W, W. Read very properly resorted to “ stonewalling” tactics. Key was in nearly half an hour before scoring. The two batsmen stayed together till stumps were drawn, Surrey, with four wickets in hand, having then scored 214, or 77 behind. “W.W. ” was in fully fifty minutes for 8, and Key re\rly forty minutes for 7. Yorkshire 197 (Denton 60) and innings declared closed at nine wickets f0r309 (Wainwright 75); Surrey 185 and 214 for six wickets. The match, which was for Henderson’s benefit, was a great financial success. According to the official return 37,424 paid for admission on the three days.

Gloucester (294) beat Somerset (255—57) on June 29 in a veiy decisive manner. When Gloucester finished their first innings with a lead of only 39 runs it was about the last thing in the world to be anticipated that so strong a batting side as Somerset would have given such a miserable display that in less than a couple of hours later Gloucestershire would have beon leaving the field in possession c.f a handsome victory by ten wickets. Yet such was the case, to illustrate once again the remarkable vicissitudes of cricket. _ With a little lees than three hours remaining for play on the second day the match looked like running well into the third, but then came a most sensational and unlooked-for collapse, for before the balance of 39 runs against them had been wiped off Somerset had lost seven wickets, bad cricket on the one side and wonderfully good bowling on the other completing their downfall. Smith left at 8, and Robson 4 later. Palairet was caught at the wicket at the same total, and at 20 Nichols, having hit a couple of 4’s, was caught by Wrathall in the country. Woods had to retrace his steps to the pavilion 7 later, and when Roberts followed up his success by clean bowling Fowler and Newton with successive balls seven of the side were out for a paltry 35. Somerset were but 5 runs on when their eighth wicket fell. There was no stopping the rot, however, for when a neat one-handed catch by Grace at point dismissed Stanley the whole side had been got rid of within an hour for a paltry 57. Roberts had played such havoc with the Somerset wickets that he dismissed six of the side at the remarkably low cost of only 21 runs, w-hile the remaining four wickets fell to Townsend for 30.

Whereas on June 20 Richardson claimed but seventy-two wickets to J, T. Hearne’s ninety, he had on the Ist of July actually got six ahead. In his four engagements for Surrey immediately preceding that date his share of the spoil was fifteen eleven, eleven, and twelve wickets respectively, or forty-nine in all, the full figures being as under :

Up to July 3 the averages of the members of Stoddart’s team in first-class cricket were;—

'Signifies not out. Druco had scored 685 in ten innings (once not out), average 76.11.

During the progress of a match between Warwickshire Club and Ground and Coventry, an incident occurred which materially affected the result of the game. One of the Coventry players. drove the ball apparently to the boundary, and the umpire calling four the batsmen stopped when they had run two, although they could easily have run more. The umpire was then understood to have changed his decision, and allowed only the two runs. It was maintained that the umpire could not change his decision on the point, and the Coventry scorer kept the four on his book, but.by the other side it was entered as two. With the four allowed the total was 90, and that number was put on the board. On the Club and Ground batting there was a most exciting finish, the last wicket falling at 89, Coventry claimed the victory by 1 run, but

so did the other aide'on the ground that the disputed boundary hit should only be counted two, making the home total 88.

v. Yorkshire (1st inn) 0. 21,3 M. 5 R. 55 W 7 v. Yorkshire (2nd inn) 42 13 99 8 v. Warwickshire (1st inn) .. 32 8 80 0 v. Warwickshire (2nd inn).. 36.3 12 74 5 v. Middlesex (1st inn) 25.4 8 85 0 v. Middlesex (2nd inn) 20.4 5 38 5 v. Yorkshire (1st inn) 40.4 9 108 § v. Yorkshire (2nd inn) 46 12 115 4 Total 265.3 72 635 49

BATTING AVER AGES. No. Not Total Most in Av’rRanjitsinhji . Ins. . 23 Out. 3 Huns. 1,107 Ins. 260 aqc. 55.35 Hayward 22 1 737 130 35.01) Waimvrigkt .. 23 1 721) 171 34 71 •Storcr 23 2 701 160' 33.38 Hast 21 3 5 5 131 31.38 Mason 18 0 610 70 28.33 Board l(i 1 3S3 302 126 25 53 Stoddart 16 0 57 21.50

BOWLING AVERAGES. Overs. Mdns. Huns. Wlcts. Aver Richardson... . 753.4 223 1,813 121 15.23 Hcarne 955.1 366 1,847 115 16.06 Hayward ... , 53U 160 1,234 72 17.13 Hirst 558.1 219 1,076 51 21.09 Wainwright 567.1 194 1,190 55 21.63 Mason . , 266 89 612 22 27.81