Cricket 1897

264 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. J uly 8, 1897. BUSSEY’S <CCB<« BATS. H IGHEST GRADE . BUSSEY’S BALLS. HIGHEST GRADE. BUSSEY’S v n / / S l u l i D x v GUARDS. H IGHEST GRADE . BUSSEY’S < C C B « GLOVES. H IGHEST GRADE BUSSEY’S BAGS. H IGHEST GRADE. CRICKETERS’ DIARY IS A GEM FOB 6d. CATALOGUES ON APPLICATION TO CITY D E P O T - 36 & 38, QUEEN VICTORIA STREET LONDON. OR DEALERS ALL OVER THE WORLD. MANUFACTORY— PECKHAM , LONDON. TIMBER M ILLS— ELMSWELL, SUFFOLK. BETWEEN THE INNINGS. I don’t think I have been more surprised for a long time than I was when 1 saw in last Saturday’s Sportsman the following para­ graph : “ M.C.C. AND GROUND v. HAMPSHIRE. “ In answer to several enquiries we may state that having taken the opinion of the Secretary of the M.C.C., the above fixture at Bournemouth last Monday and Tuesday will not be reckoned as first-class.” Anything more remarkable than this I have not seen of late. Does not the approved M.C.C. scheme say that:—“ First- class counties are those whose matches with one another, with M.C.C. and Ground, with the Universities, with the Australians, and such other elevens as shall be adjudged ‘ first- class matches ’ (sic) by the M.C.C. Committee areusedin compilation offirst-classbatting and bowling averages?” This surely leaves no loophole for a difference of opinion. Had the match been Hampshire v. Mr. John Smith’s Eleven (and the scratch eleven ever so strong), it would have been within the province of the M.C.C. Committee to decide upon its status. But, by the M.C.C. scheme, Hamp­ shire v. M.C.C. and Ground is a first-class match beyond all question; and the fact that the teams engaged were very weak hasncthing to do with the matter. Hampshire might have played as weak a team against (say) Essex, without anyone’s questioning the status of the match; and the M.C.C. has more than once put a side scarely stronger in the field for a first-class match. For instance, against Essex last year the eleven (which was beaten in an innings) was: Messrs. C. P. Foley, F. A. G. Leveson-Gower, C. E. S. Mason, D. D. Pontifex, and L. J. Turner, with Brown (of Bedfordshire), Davenport, Harry, J. T. Hearne, G. G. Hearne and Woodcock Only two of these (Jack Hearne and Wood­ cock) played first-class cricket at all regularly in 1895 ; and only two others (Mr. Foley and George Hearne) have ever been at all well- known figures in English first-class cricket, though Harry and Davenport are both good men. As to sides playing weak teams against the M.C.C., cannot everyone remember the action of Mr. Leveson-Gower last year, when actually only three of the team which played against Cambridge a day or two later appeared for Oxford against the M.C.C. ? But 1 suppose argument is not of much uie. In course of time we may get used to seeing this sort of thing :— “ SURREY v. YORKSHIRE. ‘ ‘ In response to numerous enquiries, we may state that it has been decided that this match is not to count as first-class. Our readers will remember that Brown and Haigh were absent from the Yorkshire team ; while Messrs. Key and Chinnery did not play for Surrey.” Henderson’s benefit has indeed been a success. All that was needed to crown it was a victory for Surrey ; but that was not to be, and, after all, the draw reflected immense credit upon Mr. Key’s men. Baldwin never did better work for his county, not even when he scored his 111 against Notts last year. The Tykes’ trundling evidentlyhas no terrors for the Suffolk-born man, who last year ran up 84 against Peel, Haigh and Co., helping Hayward to add 221 in about three hours for the third wicket. Abel’s run out might easily have cost Surrey the game, as “ run-outs” probably cost them the match with Sussex at the Oval in 1896, when Abel, Biaund and Richardson in the first innings, and Holland and Hayward in the second, were all out thus. H ere is m y m on th ly list o f lo n g p artn er­ ships :— THE LONG PARTNERSHIPS OF 1897. (May 31st to June 30, inclusive). May. 108.. 6...Coe & C. J. W ood Leic. v.M.C.C. Lord’s... 31 110...4...Denton &Moorhouse...Yks. v. H’ ts. B’fU... 31 June. 114...4...Ford & Rawlin ... M ’dx. v. Glos. Lord’s... 5 124...*...Burnup & Marriott...C.U. v. M.C.C. C’bge. 7 104...2...Knight & Rudd...Leic. v. Essex Leyton... 7.8 175...1... Jackson & Tunnicliffe Yks. v.W ’wk S’fld. 7 102.. 8.. Lacey & Steele...Hants, v. D’by. S’pton... 8 118...2...L. & R. Palairet...Sm’t. v. Md’x. Lord’s... 8 107...3...Druce & Mitchell...C.U. v. Hants. C’ bge... 10 102 . 3.. Nicholls & R. Palairet... Sm’t. v. Sy. Oval 14 111 ..4 ..Chatterton & Davidson D’by. v. Yks. D’by. 14 128...4...Druce & Jessop ... C.U. v. Phila. C’bge. 14.15 106...2...Baldwin & Hayes ... Sy. v. Sm’t. Oval ...14.15 122.. 4 . Ford & Warner...Md’x. v. Notts. Lord’s... 15 141...6...Attewell & Dench...Notts, v. M a’x. Lord’s 16 108..2...Diver&W . Quaife ..W ’wk.v. Kent B’ham 16 101...3...Abel & Baldwin ... Sy. v. Lancs. M ’chstr... 17 126...7...Peel & Wainwright...Yks. v. Md’x. Lord’s 17 137...8...Hawke & Wainwright...Yks.v.Md’x. Ld’s. 17 107...4...King & L ester.......Phila. v. S’x. B’ton... 17 132... 1...Jones & Shrewsbury. Notts.v.Knt. G’end. 18 112...3...Dench & Dixon . Notts, v. K»-nt G’en d.... 19 112...6...Attewell & Pike...Notts, v. Kent G’end.... 19 108...4...Byrne & Diver...W ’wk. v. Leic. B’ham.... 22 116...2...Ford & Hayman ... Md’x. v. Phila. Lord’s 23 103.. 5...Brown & Hawke... Yks. v. Notts. N ’ham. 24 204...1.. Abel & Brockwell.. Sy. v. W ’wk. B’ham. 24 190...6.. Chinnery & Key ... Sy. v. W ’ wk. B’ ham 24.25 165...5...Brann & Newham . S’x. v. C.U. B’ton. ... 24 104... 1...Carpenter & McGahey...E’x. v. H ’ts. S’tn. 24 143...2...Gunn&. Shrewsbury...Notts.v.Yks. N’ham 25 126...7...Attewell & Dench Notts.v.Yks. N ’ham 25.26 148...*...Hawke & Peel .. Yks. v. Notts. N’ham... 26 143 . 1 . Burnup & Mitchell. C.U. v. S’x. B’ton. 25.26 128 . 5 ..Chatterton & Storer...D’ by. v. E’x. Leyton 28 133.. 5...Lucas & Turner... E’x. v. D’by. Leyton... 29 100...8.. Painter & F. N. Townsend ... Glos. v. Sm’ t Taunton 29 * Both “ not ou t” when time called. Three stands of over 100 in one innings is unusual, though, of course, not unique. More unusual is it to find six different men concerned in the three, as was the case in the Notts innings at Gravesend. Generally the big scorer of the innings in such cases, shares in, at least, two of the three, and there is, at least, one case on record in which one man was a participant in three separate stands of three figures in one innings. The man was poor William Scotton, the match, Eleven of England v. Australians, at Huddersfield, in 1884. Mr. E. T. Hirst and Scotton put on 106 for the third wicket; Attewell and Scotton 133 for the fourth, and Grimshaw and Scotton 136 for the sixth. The respec­ tive individual scores were:—Scotton 134, Hirst 71, Attewell 84, Grimshaw 77. I said one instance, but a glance at my records has shown me four more. Here they are : Yorkshire v. Gloucestershire, at Clifton, 1888:— Hall and Worrrald, lfO for the third; Hall and Wade, 116 for the eighth; Hall and Moorhouse, 104 for the ninth. Sussex v. Cambridge University, at Brighton, 1895 : —Murdoch and G. L. Wilson, 129 for second; Murdoch and Brann, 188 for fourth; Murdoch and Bean, 119 for fifth. Stoddart’s Team v. South Australia, at Adelaide, 1895:—A. Ward and Brown, 174 for second; A. Ward and Ford, 18L for fourth; A. Ward and Peel, — for fifth. (I don’t know the exact figure here, but it was over the hundred). Notts v. Sussex, at Nottingham, 1895 :—Gunn and Daft, 115 for second; Gunn and Flowers, 103 for third ; Gunn and Dixon, 108 for fourth. In this last-mentioned match, Bagguley and Mr. R. H. Howitt piled on 202 for the seventh wicket in addition. The only other