|
|
CRICKET MAGAZINETHE 1882 SEASON
A Review by John Ward
Volume I, Number 4: Thursday, June 1, 1882
CORRESPONDENCE
THE CRICKET SCANDAL
TO THE EDITOR OF "CRICKET"
SIR,. In answer to Lord Harris, and for the satisfaction of the cricket-loving public of this country, I, as Secretary and Manager, and knowing the opinions of Alfred Shaw and the rest of the team, beg on behalf of the whole of them to deny that anything detrimental to the honour of them took place in Australia.
A rumour was spread in Melbourne that Ulyett and Selby had been offered one hundred pounds to sell the match . this particular match was the first against Victoria, in which the Victorians failed to get ninety-four runs required to win, and were beaten by eighteen runs. I, as umpire in this match, remember every particular, and never for a moment dreamt of such a thing, as all the men were very anxious and eager to win; and this evil report must have been circulated by the party offering the bribe in a moment of chagrin at losing his money.
In all the other first-class matches (I mean those against New South Wales, the return with Victoria, and the four matches against the Australian combined Elevens) I also stood umpire, and consequently could form a pretty good opinion of what was going on; and I can confidently state that the whole of the side on every occasion appeared to strain every nerve for victory, and that nothing whatever took place to cause such a report as what is called 'The Cricket Scandal in Australia' to be circulated.
I write this, as I said before, knowing the opinions of the whole Eleven, and trust it will be a satisfactory explanation of the matter to Lord Harris and the legion of other gentlemen who love and so liberally support our national game in this country, as well as the cricket-loving public, that nothing whatever took place in the cricket field in Australia to tarnish the honour of professional cricketers.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant
JAMES LILLYWHITE
10 Seymour-street, Easton-square,
London, N.W., May 26.
SIR,. My attention has been called to a letter in The Times of the 24th on the above subject, bearing the well-known name of Lord Harris. In it the writer asks for a public refutation of the scandal and a statement by the men under oath that no member of the team 'did not do his best'. I, like his lordship, think that some 'authoritative' contradiction should be given, and not only to the accusation of bribery, but to the other items of the rumour, which, in my opinion, are equally disgraceful.
Lord Harris's requisition, if complied with, will certainly dispose of the simple question of bribery, but, I venture to suggest to his lordship, and the members of the team (who are all implicated), that any statement they may make should embody answers to certain questions bearing on the whole scandal, and not only the bribery question. The purport of such questions will be better understood when I mention that the rumour as it prevailed here and at Nottingham was as follows:.
"Ulyett and Selby were each to receive £500, and were authorised to offer Scotton £250, to be non-triers. The latter declined the offer, and told Shaw. Selby and Scotton afterwards fought and Scotton was victorious, but was then tackled, with a different result, by Ulyett."
The questions I would ask the members of the team (or any one else in a position to do so) to answer, are the following:.
1. Was there not a fight between Selby and Scotton at Cootamundra (or elsewhere), and were not the stakes £3-a-side?
2. What was the cause of the fight?
3. Did not Scotton write home to his father at Nottingham giving particulars of the fight, and also mentioning 'bribery'?
4. Has now Shaw admitted since his arrival in England, that 'something unpleasant' did take place, and have not other members of the team stated that there was more 'carrying on' (I use their own expression) in Shaw's team than any one not present would believe?
5. Was not the 'scandal' one of the principal themes of conversation among the passengers on board the Assam?
6. Is it not a fact that (contrary to the statement made in the local papers) Ulyett and Selby were aware of the rumour before reaching their respective homes, and was not the subject mentioned to them in the Criterion by a gentleman connected with the Sportsman and by another hailing from this district?
I may mention that in framing the above questions I have touched only on matters concerning which I have reliable information, and that I have not brought the matter before the public earlier in the hope that some more competent judge and able writer would have done so. If I have erred in the course I have now adopted, the interest which I now take, and always have taken in our noble game must be my excuse.
I remain, Sir, yours truly
W R WAKE
Sheffield, May 26
As president of the Cricketers' Fund, may I be permitted to endorse the suggestion of Lord Harris, that Shaw's Eleven should at once meet the allegations which have been brought against some members of that team with an emphatic and indignant denial. Having known many of them for some years, I have been both astonished and distressed at the publication of such a scandal, which I do not for a moment believe.
EDMOND WILDER
THE SCORE BOOK
AUSTRALIANS v SURREY
Great preparations had been made by the Surrey Committee for this match, fixed for May 25 and two following days at Kennington Oval. The sensational scoring of Massie and Murdoch in the three previous contests had helped to give additional interest to the first appearance of the Australians on a London ground, and every provision had been made for a large gathering. The old stand on the south side of the Pavilion had been roofed in to furnish a permanent protection from wet . a desideratum long wished for by the habitues of The Oval . and a new uncovered stand, capable of holding eight hundred, erected in front of the racquet-court.
With fine weather an immense crowd might have been counted on for the first afternoon, as the 25th was the off day at Epsom between the Derby and the Oaks. Unfortunately, though, the bad luck which has recently attended the Surrey management in most of their principal matches was again conspicuous, and the heavy rain of the first morning ruined the match in every way.
Until luncheon time it was doubtful whether there would be any play, but the rain cleared off about two o'clock, and soon after three a start was made. Objection was taken by the Australian captain to the action of the authorities in covering the wicket, of course before the toss took place, and a new one had to be improvised. Murdoch was quite within his right in doing this, but as the only object of the tarpaulin is to reduce the advantage given to the side winning the toss on a bad wicket, and the Australians would have had just the same chance of profiting by the protection as their opponents, it is difficult to understand the precise nature of the objection, more especially as there is nothing against such a procedure. The change may fairly be said to have had a most prejudicial effect on the game, and the cricket throughout suffered very materially.
Surrey went in first, and made the best use of the advantage they had in the ground, scoring a very respectable total of 170. The ill luck which attends Mr Lucas in Surrey cricket followed him again, but Messrs W W Read, Shuter and Roller all played very fair cricket, and Jones again proved himself a useful bat, though he was favoured a little by fortune. Spofforth's bowling was again very expensive, to the extent of 63 runs for one wicket. And Boyle was the one who did the mischief, taking seven wickets for 52.
It was generally considered that Surrey had hardly got enough runs, but the wicket as it dried played very queerly, and the ball required most careful watching. More than one chance was missed by Jones in the slips, and had a chance Horan gave to that fieldsman only been accepted, in all probability the Australians would have had to follow on. As it was the opportunity was lost, and the follow-on was saved by 10 runs, a failure which, perhaps, entirely altered the result of the game.
Jones's bowling was exceptionally fine; he had the satisfaction of clean bowling Murdoch, and throughout his precision was remarkable. In all he delivered 201 balls for 31 runs and five wickets, and four of these were bowled.
With an advantage of 70 runs on the first innings, Surrey had a good chance of a win, but they threw it away entirely, and their bowling on the second afternoon was a very poor display. A splendid catch off his own bowling by Boyle dismissed Mr Lucas, and then came the collapse. Maurice Read, who went in first wicket down, played steadily and well, but there was no one to stop with him, and he was the last man out, the innings only lasting an hour and ten minutes.
The wicket, though still a little treacherous, was improving, and there was small excuse for the very moderate exhibition of batting by the county. Boyle and Garrett were unchanged, and the latter took six wickets for 30 runs. The Australians had 119 runs to win, and as the ground was getting easier, the prospects were entirely in their favour.
At the end of the second day they had got 98 for the loss of two of their best bats, Murdoch and Bannerman. It seemed then that about twenty minutes would suffice to settle the matter, but Jones bowled so well again that it took them forty-five minutes and cost them two more good wickets before the 21 runs were got to enable them to win by six wickets.
Surrey made a good fight, but their chances were spoiled by their bad fielding on the second day, and the general looseness in this department towards the finish on Friday was inexcusable. Jones's bowling was the feature of the game, and his performances at the end of last year and in this match stamp him as the best professional fast bowler in the South.
M.C.C. AND GROUND v KENT
A treacherous wicket, consequent on the heavy rain of the first morning, caused the scoring on both sides in this match at Lord's on Thursday and Friday last to be low. Marylebone had quite a second-rate team, but the Kentish batsmen could do little with the bowling of the two left-handers, Woof and Rylott, who equally divided the twenty wickets. On the first innings Kent had an advantage of eleven runs, but in the second they were all dismissed for 33. When they went in to win, M.C.C. made 47 runs from 74 balls, and won easily with nine wickets to spare.
GENTLEMEN OF ENGLAND v CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY
This annual match, which last year was productive of some heavy scoring, was played at Cambridge on Thursday last and two following days. The eleven which this time did duty for the Gentlemen of England was, as will be seen, very far from representative, weaker, indeed, than in the same match for the last two years, particularly in batting. Rain prevented a commencement until five o'clock on the first afternoon, and when play ceased the University, who had won the toss, had lost two good wickets, those of Messrs G B Studd and Maynard, both to Mr Morton's bowling.
On the second morning things went badly for a time with the Cantabs. The first stand was made by C T Studd and Henery, who between them added 53 runs. Mr Paravicini, who had not come off in any of the previous trials, also added very useful assistance to Mr Studd, and over 100 runs were put on during their partnership. The Eton Captain of 1881 played good cricket, but the feature of the day's cricket was the brilliant batting of Mr C T Studd. He went in third wicket down, and carried out his bat for 126, made without a mistake.
The Cambridge bowling was begun by the two Old Etonians, Messrs C T Studd and Paravicini, and so well did they acquit themselves that before the end of the day six wickets had fallen for 114. Mr Steel's 41 was an excellent innings.
The feature of Saturday's play was the brilliant cricket shown by Mr A G Steel, and it was entirely owing to him that the match was saved. He went in second wicket down at 24, and was the last man out at 350, having thus been in while 326 runs were scored. His innings of 171, the highest he has ever made in a first-class match, was perfect throughout and was altogether free from a mistake. His hits were 13 fours, 11 threes, 22 twos and 42 singles.
The wicketkeeping of Mr Wright, of last year's Charterhouse eleven, for the University, was well worthy of praise. He caught three batsmen and stumped three. In all 747 runs were scored in the match for 30 wickets.
ENGLISH AND AUSTRALIAN CRICKET
In the first number of CRICKET we reproduced an article under the above title from the South Australian Register. It was interesting from the fact that it embodied the views of an Australian critic on the probable chances of the team now over her against the best of our English elevens.
"Unless the English wickets are most favourable to the Australian bowling, the best eleven of England will probably inflict a similar defeat on the Australian eleven to that recently administered by the Australians to Shaw's eleven in Sydney." This was the conclusion at which 'Point', after a very interesting comparison of the merits of English and Australian cricket, as seen in the colonies last season, arrived.
As far as we can judge from the show made by Murdoch and his men up to the present time in England, this is a very fair estimate of the situation. The sensational scores made by Murdoch, Horan, M'Donnell and Jones in Australia created something of a scare, it must be admitted, among the more superficial of English critics, and at one time there were some few who went so far as to predict that the representative elevens of England would be unable to cope with this third Australian team.
Recent events have served to show that such conclusions were too hastily formed to be reliable. The two first victories over Oxford and Sussex were brilliant in their way, no doubt; but, despite the extraordinary scoring in the latter match, the bowling in both cases was so weak that the importance of the triumph was greatly discounted.
The large total made by the Oxford eleven, too, in each innings cast doubts on the strength of the Australian bowling, and these have been confirmed by the experience of the three subsequent contests. The small total of Surrey in the second innings was the result of bad cricket, rather than any superiority of bowling, and as Oxford, Sussex, the Orleans Club and Surrey have all got runs against them, there is every evidence that our original estimate that their bowling is not over-strong will prove to be correct.
From what we ourselves have seen, there is really nothing to justify the idea that they are certain to beat the best of our county teams. That they are a fine eleven no one will dispute, but they have certainly up to the present rather disappointed the high expectations created by reports of their play from abroad.
We had been led to anticipate a great improvement in their style of batting; but no great development in this way has as yet been exhibited. On the contrary, Murdoch of course excepted, their play is as cramped as it was with both the two previous elevens, and it is all formed in much the same mould. It may be that they have not yet settled down into their proper form, but it is certain that their style is not generally attractive.
In Murdoch they have a batsman now without a superior, and the better the bowling the more he will play. In the face of Massie's performance at Oxford it is a little dangerous to say anything in disparagement of his play, but in his two London matches he disappointed up altogether. He hits very hard, never leaving his ground, and he has a very telling stroke between cover-point and mid-off. Making allowance even for the fact that the wicket helped the bowler, his play at The Oval against Barratt and Jones was by no means what we had been led to expect, and he not only was twice nearly bowled by the latter, but made two very bad strokes from him.
Horan's style is by no means attractive, but he is sure to get runs. Bannerman is much about the same as he was on his last visit, and M'Donnell, when he thoroughly recovers his health, will get runs fast. Giffen and Jones play in the Australian style, and will both get runs, but after them the form is a little uncertain. Garrett, Boyle, Blackham, Bonnor, Spofforth and Palmer are hardly as good as those who will form the tail of any of our representative elevens, so that on the whole the batting average ought to be in our favour.
In bowling they have certainly not as yet proved to be very formidable. Spofforth, whatever improvement he may make, has up to the present time been remarkably unsuccessful, and his four wickets have been rather expensive at an aggregate of 240 runs. Palmer has done well, and is certain to come off, but if the wickets are fast and true, there is no reason why he should be dangerous against good batsmen.
Garrett and Boyle, if the ground help them, are sure to be useful, but if the wickets are fast there is no reason why long scores should not be made against all the Australian bowling. As far as one can judge from their displays here, there is no ground for the belief that in their three representative matches in England they will have the best of the game in any department.
PAVILION GOSSIP
***No Shakespearian mottoes this week! My readers will possibly be inclined to pay me back in my coin with another quotation from the melancholy Prince of Denmark . "For this relief much thanks." Well, my most noble and approved good masters, perhaps you are right.
***"Approbation from Sir Hubert Stanley." It is pleasant to reproduce a kindly notice of CRICKET sent by no less important a personage in the newspaper world than the Manager of the Daily Chronicle. The extract is from that journal of Thursday last .
"The worldwide interest which now attaches to the noble game affords ample warrant for the issue of a weekly journal devoted to records of the principal matches. A copy of the second number has been sent us, and it appears well got up, while the editorial notes and comments display good taste linked with sound judgement. CRICKET deserves success."
I need hardly say how grateful I am for encouraging words from the head of an enterprise which has played such an important part in journalism as the management of Lloyd's and the Daily Chronicle. It will be gratifying to them, as it is, I am proud to think, to the many hundreds who have shown such cordial approval of the work I really undertook with no small feeling of anxiety, to know that CRICKET has far . very far . surpassed the most sanguine expectations the could have been formed of its progress.
***The Echo critic . . gives us a graphic account of the 'peculiar yorkers' of Palmer and other little eccentricities of the play on the first day which is most interesting and entertaining reading. But on Friday he takes a much higher flight, and this is where he lands .
"A C Bannerman took the place of S Jones, and after making 4, tipped the ball bowled by Barratt, and expecting it to travel ran about four yards from his wicket, when Pooley (the wicketkeeper) appeared to stump him, but the umpire gave it as run out."
Cricket reporters generally, it must be admitted, have a mysterious method of reproducing the details of a game which is not always comprehensible to the outside public. But, I must confess, the narration of this particular incident had positively floored me. What does it all mean? If it is a conundrum I give it up. I shall be glad though to publish the answer next week.
***It is rather surprising that none of the many papers which gave full details of the Australian match against Surrey last week have made mention of the marked improvement in the appearance of The Oval since last year. On Friday when the sun was out the scene presented was exceedingly pretty, and I do not know now any ground more attractive to the eye. The terrace, all round give a freshness which has been hitherto wanting, and there is every prospect that in a short time The Oval will be inferior to no cricket enclosure either in its appearance or in it appointments. In its general aspect, so the Australians say, it is now much like the Albert ground at Sydney."
***The Editor of a Sunday paper who does not often comment on so unimportant a subject as 'Cricket' finds a congenial topic in sneering at the action of Lord Harris in asking for a complete refutation of the charges made against two members of Shaw's Australian Eleven. Whether it is only the mention of CRICKET in the matter that has evoked his displeasure is best known to himself; it would certainly seem as if this were the chief cause for his latest departure in the way of 'sporting notions'.
***"I am Sir Oracle, and when I ope my lips let no dog bark." The writer in question says that he "has the right to express an opinion on the subject." No one will dispute that. It is the right common to every paper.
It seems to me, though, that, like James Lillywhite, he ignores the main issue of Lord Harris's letter. It is a fact, whatever may be said to the contrary, that the rumour has been revived since the arrival in England of Shaw's team, and that it has never been officially denied until the publication of James Lillywhite's letter, which appears in another part of this paper.
It is also beyond dispute that the report has been circulated by men whose opinions on any matter in connection with the trip are entitled to considerable weight. That it still gains credence among even a small section of the outside public is certain, and if it only serves to produce a full denial of the charge which has been allowed to remain officially unchallenged until the last few days, the correspondence will have done good.
It is in the interests of the men themselves to clear away the doubts that do exist outside the cricket circle to the detriment of the game that we have advocated a public and official denial of the report. The rumour may be, and no doubt is, a nonsensical one, but it has been thoroughly public, and the refutation should be as public.
***Some old cricketers . . may be glad to learn that B B Cooper, who was at one time the Griffiths (the safe man) among amateur batsmen, still flourishes among Australian cricketers. I am told that his wicket is still a difficult one to get, and I can quite believe it. When was it that W G and he made 228 for the first wicket of the Gentlemen of the South v the Players of the South at The Oval? Why, in 1869 on July 15.
***That reminds me. A young friend of mine (a walking encyclopaedia of cricket figures) calls me to task for some misstatements last week. W G Grace's score against Kent in 1876 was 344 and not 344 not out, and George Anderson's smite for eight was not for Yorkshire but for the North of England, and in 1862. Apologise? Why, cert'nly.
***I understand that the Australian manager has had innumerable applications for the only vacant dates in their programme . June 15, 16 and 17. At present the feeling is that the team should have a rest on those days, and perhaps that would be really the best thing for them, as there are some who think that they will very probably want their Brighton score before the tour comes to an end.
***I believe there is more than one photograph of the team by this time, but the only group I have seen is not good. A cabinet photograph of Murdoch taken at Oxford lies before me as I write, and as this is not only an excellent portrait but artistic as a photograph, those who wish for a likeness of perhaps the best batsman of the age are not likely to be better suited.
***According to some papers, an official notice has been sent round by the Committee of the Marylebone Club of a statement made by Ulyett before certain members of the governing body of M.C.C. on Monday last at Lord's. This communication has not been sent to us, but the public version accredits Ulyett with the following remarks:.
"As far as I know, neither I nor any of the team know anything about it. It is not true that any offer of money, as far as I am aware, was made to me or to anyone else."
This is so far satisfactory; but to restore the public confidence it is necessary that a similar 'statement' in face of the reports that have been recently circulated should be made by every member of the team.
***Mr George Strachan is to reappear in his original character as a Gloucestershire cricketer at Lord's on Monday next. Like Southerton and, unless I am mistaken, Mr C E Green, he has played for three counties . Gloucestershire (by birth), Middlesex and Surrey . and now, I fancy, can claim to play for a fourth . Hertfordshire. He only touched a bat once last year; but no matter what county he assists, everyone will welcome his reappearance in the field, and hope that he will be successful enough to take to the game again as thoroughly as he did a few years ago.
***Since Monday last the following innings have been made in first-class matches:. F E Lacey 157, W Newham 101 (Sussex v Hants), Bates 144 not out, Ulyett 138 (Over Thirty v Under Thirty), C T Studd 118 (Cambridge v Australians), A J Webbe 108 not out (Gentlemen of England v Oxford University). What next?
***How unlucky the family of Penn is on the cricket field to be sure! The three elder brothers have all been singularly unfortunate, unless I am mistaken, and now Alfred has joined the accidental list, putting his knee out in fielding a ball at Oxford, on Monday. Frank Penn was at The Oval during the Australian match, looking much better than he did a few weeks ago. It is hardly likely that he will play this year at least, but there are hundreds of cricketers who will be glad to hear that he is recovering, if only slowly.
THE SCORE BOOK (continued)
LANCASHIRE v DERBYSHIRE
The heavy rain on Thursday last interfered with this match at Manchester as with many others begun on the same day. Lancashire had not its full strength, but the Derbyshire eleven might also have been improved, and the Bowling of Mr H Evans would have been of considerable use to them. The weather on the first day only allowed Derbyshire time to make nine runs, which they did for the loss of two wickets, and on the second day the wicket had been so materially affected by the wet that high scoring was out of the question.
Until almost the end of their innings it seemed doubtful whether the Lancashire eleven would be able to top the Derbyshire score of 83. When seven wickets were down for 61 there seemed to be little chance, but fortunately Crossland, who is a better bat than might be thought from his place in the order of going in, and Watson made a useful stand, and the second day's play ceased with the completion of the Lancashire innings, giving them an advantage of 42 runs.
Derbyshire in their second innings made even a worse show than in the first, and Lancashire won early on Saturday afternoon by ten wickets. Watson took eight wickets for 63, Barlow seven for 35 runs.
OVER THIRTY v UNDER THIRTY
The Whitsuntide match this year at Lord's was that between the above sides, first instituted on the occasion of the testimonial to Mr W G Grace in 1878. Owing to matches elsewhere, neither side was well represented, but the game was throughout productive of some extraordinary cricket, and as on both Monday and Tuesday the weather was glorious, there was a very large attendance on the first day, little, if at all, short of ten thousand.
The Seniors made a bad start, losing Mr Grace at 19. Mr Hornby and Ulyett, however, punished the bowling severely, the former, who had not been very successful hitherto this year, having not quite recovered from the effects of his boating accident, hitting very freely. He was badly missed by Mr Ridley in front of the Pavilion off Midwinter when he had got 60, and each batsman out to have been stumped. Three successive balls of Mr Gilbert Ulyett landed into the Pavilion, and his hitting after the first few overs was very powerful. Out of the total of 267, these two batsmen contributed as many as 229.
When the Juniors went in, Mr Patterson, the hero of last year's University match, played very fine cricket, the soundest of the day, and play ceased with the Juniors 136 for four wickets.
On Tuesday the game again presented some sensational features. Bates hit with the greatest vigour for the Juniors, and with the advantage of three lives topped Ulyett's score for the Seniors. Nine wickets were down for 238 when Peate, the eleventh man, came in, but he too was missed, and the last wicket added 121 runs. The innings ended in a rather peculiar fashion, Peate being stumped, owing to the ball rebounding off the wicketkeeper's pads. Bates carried out his bat for 144.
When the Seniors went in a second time, eight wickets were down for 70, and it seemed doubtful whether they would save the innings. Some useful play by Wild, Hill and Mycroft enabled them to put on 31 runs, and the Juniors only won in the end by ten wickets.
The match was a great triumph for the Yorkshiremen, as will be seen. Between them Ulyett, Bates and Peate contributed 330 runs, and for the Juniors Peate took ten wickets for 159 runs.
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE v SURREY
Jones in this match, finished at Nottingham yesterday, confirmed the reputation he gained as a bowler by his very fine performance against the Australians last week, and Surrey, considering that Mr A P Lucas was away, made a very creditable show. In the first innings of Notts Jones bowled 219 balls for 32 runs and seven wickets (five bowled), and against such batsmen as those of Notts this must be accounted a great feat.
Abel, the colt, played good cricket, as did Maurice Read in Surrey's first innings, and in the second Messrs W W Read and Shuter made most of the runs, though the latter ought to have been caught not long after his arrival. At the close of the second day Notts had made 36 out of 140 wanted to win for the loss of one wicket, and yesterday, after a good finish, Surrey were defeated by four wickets.
AUSTRALIANS v CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY
In this match, finished at Cambridge yesterday, the Australians showed again in a marked degree their capacity for playing an uphill game. When they had won the toss, with such a splendid wicket as is provided at Cambridge, everyone predicted a long score, more especially as the University bowling is not very highly estimated.
Their play throughout the opening day was disappointing, and Messrs C T Studd and Ramsay dismissed them all for 139, of which Bannerman and Massie contributed 87. The two bowlers equally divided the wickets at an average cost of just over 12 runs, and Wright again kept wicket well, catching Murdoch, Horan and Garrett. Another fine score was made by Mr C T Studd; his second innings of three figures in a first-class match within the week enabled Cambridge to have an advantage of 127 on the first 'hands'.
Things even later looked all in favour of the University, when Bannerman, Murdoch, Massie and McDonnell, four of the finest batsmen on the side, were all out for 72 runs. Six wickets were then left with 55 to save the innings, but the Cambridge fielding fell off materially when Horan and Giffen got set, and at the end of the second day the Australians were 85 on, with four wickets still to fall.
Yesterday, the Cantabs had to go in with 165 to win, and got them for the loss of four batsmen, thus securing a very creditable victory . the first over the Australian team by six wickets.
SUSSEX v HAMPSHIRE
Some high individual scoring marked the first match of the season between these counties, finished at Brighton yesterday. Hampshire on the first day made light of the Sussex bowling, and were not out till they had got 360. Mr F E Lacey, of Caius College, Cambridge, who has been more than once tried for the University, singularly without success, again played very fine cricket for his county, scoring 157 out of 333 during his stay, and in the very best style.
Mr Lacey and Young succeeded in dismissing Sussex for 94, and when half the wickets were down in the second they still wanted 197 runs to save the innings. Then Mr Newham and James Phillips made an extraordinary stand, and before they were parted as many as 182 runs had been added, Mr Newham getting 101 without a mistake. Henry Phillips and Mr Blackham saved the innings, and the match ultimately ended in a win for Hants by seven wickets after some very high scoring.
CRICKET AT OXFORD
M.C.C. AND GROUND v OXFORD UNIVERSITY
As at Cambridge, the Marylebone Club only sent a weak eleven to Oxford on Thursday last for the first of the two annual matches with the University. In bowling they were fairly strong, with Midwinter, Flowers, Fothergill and Morley, but there was certainly not more than one first-class bat on the side. N McLachlan, the Oxford Captain, who had been suffering from the effects of an old football strain, made his first appearance with the eleven this year, but there were two very noticeable absentees in Messrs Leslie and Whiting, the latter of whom, it may be remembered, played an excellent second innings against the Australians.
Rain prevented any play on the first day, but on the second Oxford went in to the bowling of Fothergill and Flowers, and again J G Walker did a really good performance. His 87 was the result of careful and sound cricket, and he has certainly proved himself to be one of the very best batsmen at the University. E D Shaw, who was so successful against the Australians, was caught when he had only made one run, but Kemp and Peake gave the Marylebone bowlers considerable trouble, and the latter hit very freely, helping materially to give Oxford a respectable total of 242.
Excepting Midwinter and Fothergill, the Marylebone batsmen could do little with the slow round-arm bowling of Shaw, and at the end of the second day he had taken four wickets for 28 runs, the total then showing 97 for the loss of eight wickets.
On Saturday Oxford had little difficulty in getting rid of the Marylebone batsmen a second time, and as the total only reached 117 Oxford won before luncheon time by an innings and 19 runs. Flowers, Fothergill, Midwinter and Wild between them contributed 159 out of 213 made by M.C.C. from the bat. The weakness of the Marylebone team with the bat robbed the game of most of its interest.
GENTLEMEN OF ENGLAND v OXFORD UNIVERSITY
With hard wickets and no great amount of bowling on either side, some heavy run-getting was expected in this match, finished at Oxford yesterday. The University had not its strength, with Messrs Shaw, Kemp and Whitby away, but the eleven again proved themselves a good batting side. Soon after luncheon Mr Alfred Penn, in trying to field a ball, put his knee out, and thus the not very strong bowling of the Gentlemen was still further weakened.
Robinson came off well for the University to the extent of six wickets for 52 runs, but otherwise the bowling was only moderate, and, thanks to a faultless innings of 108 not out by Mr Webbe and some good hitting by Mr Schultz, the University were 67 behind on the first innings. The match ultimately resulted in a win for the Gentlemen by five wickets.
|
