In the 1799 English cricket season, Surrey again beat All-England three times. As in the previous year, the number of matches declined due to the effect of the Napoleonic War.
A cricket club was formed at Seringapatam in south India after the successful British siege.
Contents |
| Date | Match Title | Venue | Source | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10–11 June (M-Tu) | MCC v Thursday Club ^ | Lord’s (Dorset Square) | SB252 | Thursday Club won by 54 runs |
| 17–18 June (M-Tu) | Montpelier v Richmond & Brentford # | Montpelier Gardens | SB253 | Montpelier won by 91 runs |
| 24–26 June (M-W) | MCC v Thursday Club ^ | Lord’s (Dorset Square) | SB254 | MCC won by 41 runs |
|
^ The two MCC games against its own Thursday Club are major fixtures as the majority of players on each side are recognised. The Thursday Club is effectively Middlesex. |
||||
| 27–28 June (Th-F) | Richmond & Brentford v Montpelier # | Richmond Green | SB254 | Montpelier won by 148 runs |
|
# The Montpelier v Richmond and Brentford games in S&B (p. 253-255) present a real difficulty because both teams are reasonable, indeed Montpelier are quite strong, but against each other and without "given men" they are not easily a major match. There are unknowns in the Richmond & Brentford sides and the results went convincingly in favour of Montpelier. The dilemma is almost solved by MCC games against similar sides since 1797. Thus, if a good quality town club with given men or at any rate a full team of recognised players competes against a good quality MCC side (or against All-England or a recognised county team), that is a major match. But, where it is a case of two such town clubs playing each other without a good number of noted given men, the game is not major. The Montpelier v Richmond & Brentford games seem to fail the given men test and, in any case, Richmond & Brentford did have some unrecognised players. |
||||
| 30 July - 1 Aug (Tu-Th) | All-England v Surrey | Lord's (Dorset Square) | SB259 | Surrey won by 8 wkts |
| 1-3 Aug (Th-S) | R Whitehead v Lord Yarmouth | Lord's (Dorset Square) | SB259 | Yarmouth's XI won by 4 wkts |
|
Evidently the Whitehead v Yarmouth game was arranged ad hoc on 1 Aug as the All-England v Surrey game finished on the same day (most of the players took part in both games) |
||||
| 13-16 Aug (Tu-F) | All-England v Surrey | Lord's (Dorset Square) | SB262 | Surrey won by 143 runs |
| 16-17 Aug (F-S) | All-England v Surrey | Lord's (Dorset Square) | SB263 | Surrey won by innings & 117 runs |
|
Another case of an extra game starting immediately that the first one finished. There is some doubt about the exact date of the second game which ACS have on the 15th as S&B states that the first game carried over to the 16th. |
||||
| 16-17 Sept (M-Tu) | Waltham & Herts v Middlesex | Waltham Abbey | WDC | drawn |
| 23-24 Sept (M-Tu) | Middlesex v Waltham & Herts | Lord's (Dorset Square) | FL18 | Middlesex won by 3 runs |
|
In both these two games, Waltham & Herts was a minor team. Herts played several games in late C18 but needed given men. |
||||
Note that many scorecards in the 18th century are unknown or have missing details and so it is impossible to provide a complete analysis of batting performances: e.g., the missing not outs prevent computation of batting averages. The "runs scored" are in fact the runs known.
With few matches being played, only six batsmen exceeded 150 runs:
Note that the wickets credited to an 18th century bowler were only those where he bowled the batsman out. The bowler was not credited with the wickets of batsmen who were caught out, even if it was "caught and bowled". In addition, the runs conceded by each bowler were not recorded so no analyses or averages can be computed.
The leading wicket-taker was Thomas Lord with 16
Other top bowlers were John Wells 15; Thomas Boxall 13; Charles Cumberland 11; John Hammond 9
Note that many scorecards in the 18th century are unknown or have missing details and so the totals are of the known catches and stumpings only. Stumpings were not always recorded as such and sometimes the name of the wicket-keeper was not given. Generally, a catch was given the same status as "bowled" with credit being awarded to the fielder only and not the bowler. There is never a record of "caught and bowled": the bowler would be credited with the catch, not with the wicket.
John Wells with 10 ct, 5 st was the leading performer in the field
Thomas Ray took 10 ct and other good fielders were Charles Warren 2 ct, 6 st; John Hammond 4 ct, 3 st; Thomas Burgoyne 7 ct; William Barton 7 ct
|
||||||||