Cricket 1899

THE FINEST BAT THB WORLD PRODUCES. J une 15, 1899. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 195 BUSSEY’S co M j o fa fa D 09 J J W £ </3 S w Q CO to 3 " | l - s a s c o u j l u g £ “ = H CD> _ _ CO CO *— cZ «M CO er> H CO S ' K a « o fa per 0 9 C O C O I 3 - s 3 a 3 S3 Q D BUSSEY’S AT THE SIGN OF THE WICKET. B y F. S. A sh le y -C ooper . In his admirable introduction to Kings of Cricket, Mr. Andrew Lang makes reference to a match between Nottinghamshire and Gloucestershire in which “ the ball visited the boundaries of the Trent Bridge ground and Notts made over five hundred.” Until last week, however, Nottinghamshire had never made five hundred runs in one innings against the “ County of the Graces.” Their total of 607, the third highest score ever made by the county, at one time gave promise of being even larger, for when play ceased on the first day 438 runs had been obtained for the loss of but two wickets. The excellent start given to the side by Mr. A. 0 . Jones and Shrewsbury was certainly the feature of the match, whilst their stand of 391 for the first wicket is the third longest partnership in first-class matches. Appended will be found a list of the most productive partnerships on record:— 623* for 2nd, Capt. Oates (313, not out) and Private Fitzgerald (287, not out), 1st Royal Munster Fusiliers v. Army Service Corps, at the Curragh, June 12, 1895. 603 for 2nd, G. F. Yernon (259) and A. H. Trevor (338), Orleans Club v. Rickling Green, at Rick- ling Green, August 4 and 5, 1882. 554 for 1st, Brown, J. T., senr. (300) and Tunnicliffe, J. (243). Yorkshire v. Derbyshire, at Chesterfield, August 18, 19 and 20,1898. 492 for 2nd, F. M. Atkins (3S4) and A. Hearne (128) Mote Park v. Shorncliffe Camp, at Maidstone. Ju y 25 and 26. 1887. 472 for 1st* S. Colman (203) and P. Coles (247 notout), I evonshire Park v. G. W . Morrison’s X I., at Eastbourne. August 31, 1892. 470* for 1st, L. Wilson (246, not out) and W. G. W yld (203, notout), Beckenham v. Bexley, at Becken­ ham, August 1, 18S5. 464 for 4th, Capt. C. L. Young (204^ and Lieut. H. N. Dumbleton (325), Royal Engineers v. Royal Marines, at Portsmouth. August 15 and 16,1834. 454 for 3rd, Barnes, W . (266) and Midwinter, W . (187). M.C.C. and Ground v. Leicestershire, at Lord’s. June 1 and 2, 1'82. 412 for 8th, S. E. Gregory (235) and M. A . Noble (227), Sydney v. Warwick, at Sydney, February 7 and 14, 1891. 440 for 1st, W. N. Cobbold (163) and W . R. Gray (218, not out). West Wratting v. Fitzwilliam Hostel, at W. st W rattiog Park (Cambs.). May *1, 1891. 436 for 3rd, L. W . Pye (239, notout) and J. C. Wilson (195), Central Cumberland v Hawkesbury District, at Sydney. October 4. 1897. 421 for 4th, C. H. Ross (216) and R. Mcl.eod (213). Melbournev. Williamstown (Victoria), January 9. 1892. 419 for 2nd, Gunn.W . (219, notout) and Attewell. W . (200), M.C.C. and Ground v. Northumberland, at Lord’s, August 9 and 10, 1889. 401 for 1st, Viscount Throwlf-y (123) ^nd W F. Forbes (331), A. E. Fellowes’ X I. v. Huntingdonshire, at Huntingdon, July 12 and 13, 1881 403* for 1st, B . M. Biaybroske (256, not out) and J. H. Kelsey ( 36 not out), Blue Mantles v. East­ bourne College, at The Saffrons, Eastbourne, May 15,1899. 402* for 1st, J. Shuter (304, not out) and T. Ashdown (62, not out), Bexley v. Emeriti, at Bexley, June 14,1884. 399 for 1st, F. M. Atkins (238) and A . Hearne (150), Mote Park v. St. Lawrence (Canterbury), at Maidstone, August 17, 1887. 398 for 2nd, Gunn.W . (196) and Shrewsbury, A. (267), Nottinghamshire v. 8uesex, at Nottingham, May 15,16 and 17. 1890. 395 for 1st, J. Slight (279) and J. Rosser (192), South Melbourne v. St. Kilda, at Melbourne, January 27 and 28, 1883. 391* for 1st, S. H. Meek (192, not out) and F. C. Pollitt (150, not out), F. C. Hoare’s X I. v. Fenton Hall, at Fenton Hall, August 4, 1877. 391 for lst, A. O. Jones (250) and Shrewsbury, A . (146), Nottinghamshire v. Gloucestershire, at Bristol, June 8, 9 and 10,1899. * Signifies without loss of a wicket. From the above list it will be seen that the brilliant partnership between Mr. Jones and Shrewsbury has only been exceeded on nine­ teen occasions in the whole history of the game. The manner in which the Australians won the match at Cambridge, on Saturday last, recalls to mind the defeat inflicted by Gloucestershire upon Kent at Gravesend in 1895. Wonderful hitting by Howell and Jones early in the day enabled the Australians to equal the University total of 436. During their partnership the two men added no less than 85 runs in twenty-five minutes, one over from Wilson alone producing 21 runs ! No over has been so severely punished in a first-class match since H. J. H. Scott hit 22 runs (6, 4, 6, 6) from an over consisting of four balls, delivered by Saul Wade at Sheffield in 1886. The display in the second innings of the University was as feeble and dis­ appointing as that of the Australians afterwards was brilliant. With the exception of two overs, Jones and Howell bowled unchanged through the innings and dismissed the side for 122. That the wicket was not the cause of the collapse was shown by the fact that the Australians scored the necessary 123 runs without losing a wicket, obtaining the last 74 in twenty-eight minutes. Since their arrival in England they have not been seen to such advantage in all departments of the game as on Saturday last. The match between Middlesex and Sussex at Lord’s will go down to posterity as the one in which Messrs. Fry and Brann scored over a hundred runs for the first wicket in each innings. Similar performances were achieved by Ulyett and Hall for Yorkshire v. Sussex, at Brighton, in 1885, and by Tunnicliffe and Brown for Yorkshire v. Middlesex, at Lord’s, in 1896. The victory of Middlesex must chiefly be attributed to Trott, who played innings of 123 and 35 not out, in addition to capturing six wickets in each innings of Sussex. There cannot be any doubt that Trott is, on his day, the best all-round player before the public. For the Marylebone Club against Sussex, at Lord’s, at the commence­ ment of the season, he scored 64 and 69 and obtained eleven wickets at a cost of 113 runs, whilst against Yorkshire on the same ground he played a wonderful innings of 164, which he followed up by some excellent bowling which enabled Middlesex to win by an innings. It is very pleasing to see Mr. Ford playing in his own resolute fashion once more. His score of 160 was, after Trott’s display, the chief factor in the Middlesex victory. The success of the Middlesex eleven this season has been so consistent that it seems as though it is impossible for the teams to do anything wrong. When eight or nine men have failed the remaining two or three have always saved the side from a complete col­ lapse. The credit of the score of 488 against Yorkshire chiefly belonged to Mr. Warner and Trott, who scored respectively 150 and 164 : against Sussex Mr. Ford made 160 and Trott 123, nobody else reaching 50, whilst on Monday last, when nine wickets had fallen for but 55 runs against Kent, Mr. R. W . Nicholls and Roche became associated and added 230 runs before a separation could be effected, thus creating a new record partner­ ship for the tenth wicket in first-class matches. As a matter of fact this perform­ ance has only once been surpassed in any match—by Dr. A. W . T. Daniell (180 not out) and Dr. C. D. Hamilton (101 not out) who added 337 runs without being parted, after nine wickets had fallen for Dr. Daniell’s X I. v. Westham Wanderers, August 8th, 1895. This feat, it may be added, has never been properly authenticated and, until it has been so, must be ranked in tho same category as the Ulster v. Macquarie game and the match at the Cape, in which Beech is reported to have scored two separate centuries. The manner of Albert Ward’s dismissal on Tuesday was so unusual as to warrant more than a passing notice. In playing a ball