Cricket 1888

AUG. 16, 1888. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 345 followed up this by making 161 before the professional was out, it w ill be seen that they made 279 at the two places before they were separated. I k alluding to the remarkable bowling of Tate, the Sussex professional, at the close of the return match between Kent and Sussex, at Tonbridge a fortnight ago, I recalled a somewhat similar feat of Mr. G. Strachan, the Surrey Captain, for the Gentlemen against the Players thirteen years ago. In looking, the other day, through the third number of “ Notting­ hamshire Cricket Scores and Biographies.” recently to hand, I came across a sensa­ tional piece of bowling very much on the same lines as that of Tate. I t was by Mar­ tin McIntyre in the match between Notts and Surrey, played at the Oval on July 21, 22, and. 23, 1873. Martin finished up the second innings of Surrey and the match by taking five wickets (four of them clean bowled) in the last eleven balls. Some CRicKET-readers will remember the match in question from the fact that Jupp nearly carried his bat throughout both innings of Surrey, being ninth out in the first and not out at the end of the second innings. T h e Parsee Cricketers, who added another to their creditable list of successes this season (a really well-earned victory) at Eastbourne on Tuesday, are to make their second appearance at Leyton to­ morrow, when they are to meet an eleven composed of the chief members of this year’s Publio School teams. The latter w ill include the pick of several of the schools, as the following names will show : E . C. Streatfield (Charterhouse), C. O. B. Davey (Cheltenham), H . B. Champain or W . W . Hodges (Chelten­ ham ), H . W . Studd (Eton), E Yate-Lee (Eton), E . Hodgson (Eton), J. S. Jackson (Harrow), B. A. Cunningham (Marl­ borough), A. J. Dixon (Rugby), J. C. Iiortwright (Tonbridge), J . Leese (W in­ chester). The fixture is not only a novelty in London cricket but should be very attractive of itself, and there ought to be some very interesting cricket. T h e sensational scoring of the Surrey eleven against Sussex at the Oval at the end of last week was the more remark­ able from the fact that it was the first occasion on which batsmen had been fortunate enough to have anything like a fast pitch for [several weeks, and there would have been no great surprise if the majority had been deceived by the pace of tho ball. As the innings furnished the largest score as yet recorded in a first- class match in England, the occasion was one of historic interest, and it will be well to perpetuate some of the details. T h e Sussex men were out in the field as nearly as possible eight hours and fifty minutes, so that runs were got throughout at a rate of about eighty to the hour. Everyone on the Sussex side tried his hand with the ball, and the Surrey scorer is my authority for the sta*ement that there were no less than forty-two changes of bowling during the innings. The wickets, it may be of interest to add, fell :— 1and 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 161 206 399 414 541 657 659 678 T h is is the third time that Surrey has made over six hundred runs in a County match, and, in fact, it was only last week beating its own records, which were as under :— 631—v. Sussex, Oval, June 29, 1885, ('50—v. Oxford University, June 25, 1888. The former was the best record in a first-class Inter-County fixture up to date, the latter the highest in a first-class fixture of any kind in England up to this month. Australia, though, has the dis­ tinction of the two highest totals in important matches, 803 — Smokers v. Non-Smokers—at Melbourne, in 1887, and 775— New South Wales v. Victoria— at Sydney in 1882. O n e would really hardly think that the mistake of allowing a bowler to change ends more than twice, in contravention of Buie 14, would be likely to occur twice in important matches during a season. I t is singular, too, that both the cases which have occurred should have been recorded on the same ground. In the match between Surrey and Oxford University, if I remember rightly, A . C. Croome, the Oxford bowler, overlooking the fact that he had already changed twice, made the third change before the infringement of the rule was noticed by Surrey. Precisely the same thing took place at the Oval, too, in the innings of England against the Australians on Tuesday by J. Ferris. He had already bowled one ball illegally when the atten­ tion of the umpire (Carpenter) was called to the fact by Messrs. Grace and Shuter, and as nothing had resulted from the ball it was decided to treat it as if it had never been delivered, and to allow Ferris to resume at the opposite end. The occurrence, no doubt, ought not to have escaped the notice of the umpires or the captains; but though I m ind well that the point was raised, and a precedent created by a similar case in the Bugby and Marlborough match at Lord’s a year or so ago, a curious complication would have arisen, more particularly taking into account the importance of the match, had Lohmann been dismissed by the ball which was subsequently wiped off the records. C a n anyone answer the following inquiry from “ F .G .” ? :— I)EAii S ib , —Can anyone tell me when the “ bail ” was divided and changed into “ bails.” In the “ Laws of C rioket” of 1828, the bails, i.e., one bail for each wioket, must be eight inches in length, now the law is two bails on each wicket of four inches each. In Seymour's caricature of “ Stumped Out,” published about 1830-33, one bail only is represented; and when I was a little boy our stumps consisted of three stamps and one bail. I never saw a divided bail until 1835, when I first went to a publio school, and the divided bail was a kind of com prom ise, and was practically one bail cut in two with a fret-saw. It was turned in a lathe entire and shaped like a rolling pin and made of boxw ood, and m ortised to fit the stamps, and, when set on the stamps, was faotus ad unguem, as you could not feel the division by running your nail over it. A set of bails cost 3s. 6d. Perhaps Lord Charles Bussell or L ord Bessborough ean give the inform ation, and I am sure they will if they can.—Yours faithfully, F.G. CRicKET-readers of all classes w ill have heard with gratification of the success which attended the efforts of the Derby­ shire eleven against Yorkshire this week. The losing side were, of course, without Peel and Ulyett, but all the same the men of Derbyshire won with a good majority of seven wickets in hand. The win was, considered from any point of view, a meritorious one, and coming, as it did, so soon after a good fight with Middlesex, should have an excellent effect in giving heart and renewed energy to the team. Everyone will hope to see the form of the last few days permanently maintained. It is singular that the same day should have seen the Sussex eleven also in pos­ session of the first victory they have so far had in important matches this season. More power to both I U n le s s I am mistaken, the youthful spark who recently married the giddy young thing known as “ Bob,” otherwise the Dowager Duchess of Montrose, is none other than the Captain of the W e l­ lington College Eleven of 1888. H .H . Prince Christian Victor and A. G. M. Croome, of the Oxford Eleven, were under the orders of M. H . M ilner that year as members of the Wellington team. T he following w ill show the results of the matches played between the eight principal Counties up to date. Lanca­ shire and Notts, it w ill be seen, have their last engagement on Thursday next, the six remaining Counties on the following Monday. Surrey has yet to meet Lanca­ shire, Yorkshire, and Gloucestershire. Last Played. W on. Lost. Draw , fixture. S urrey ................. 11 ... 11 ... 0 ... 0 Aug. 27 Yorkshire ..........10 «. 4 „. 3 ... 3 „ 27 Kent ................. 12 ... 6 ... 4 ... 2 „ 23 Lancashire..........13 ... 3 — 5 ... 4 „ 23 Gloucestershire 11 ... 5 ... 4 ... 2 „ 27 Nottingham shire 12 ... 3 ... 6 ... 3 „ 27 Middlesex .......... 9 ... 3 ... 6 ... 0 „ 27 Sussex..................11 ... 1 ... 8 ... 2 „ 27 P E IN C IP A L M A T C H E S FOB NEXT W E E K . T h u rs d a y , A u g . 16 :~Kennington Oval, Surrey v. Lancashi'e—Brighton, Sussex v. H ants—Clif­ ton, Gloucestershire v. Yorkshire—Nottingham , Notts v. A u s tra lia n s . F b id a y , A u g . 17 Lord's, M.C.C. and G. v. Norfolk—Leyton, Parsees v. Public Schools—Northam pton, Northants v. Herts. M on d a y. A u g . 20 Lord’s, Parsees r. Gentlemea of M.C.C.—Bradford, Yorkshire v. Surrey—Carlisle, Cum berland v D urham—Chel­ tenham , Gloucestershire v. Australians—Derby, Derbyshire v. Lancashire—Gravesend, Kent v. Middlesex—H itchin. Norfolk v. Herts—Leyton, Essex v. M.C C. and G.—Taunton, Somersetshire v. Hampshire.