Cricket 1899

204 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. J une 15 , 1899. The consistent bowling of Mead throughout the season on all sorts of wickets has attracted the attention of almost every cricketer, so that a record of his doings may be of interest to readers of Cricket. It is as follows:— M A T . O. M.E. W 11,12 and 13. Essex v. Australians . | *6 32 3 15,16 and 17. M.C.C. v. Leicestershire jj® ® 5g 4 18,19 and 20. Essex v. S ussex..............J .2 ^ J 22, 23 and 24. Essex v. Leicestershire 27 11 33 2 25 and 26. Essex v. Yorkshire ..............|?8 2 11 90 7 29, 30 and 31. Essex v. Kent ..............j ^ J JUNE. 1. 2 and 3. M.C.C. v. K en t.......... ... j^ ? 3} J 5, 6 and 7. Essex v. Y orksh ire ............ j ^ jg jj 8, 9 and 10. Essex v. Hants................. |35'2 10 88 4 12 and 13. M.C.C. v. Camb. Univ. ... | J-j1 * jj° * O n Saturday morning when Yorkshire had to make 32 runs to win the match against Derbyshire, it was discovered that the taps in the players’ dressing- room had been left running open, with the result that the clothes and boots of the Derbyshire professionals could not be used. TJnder these untoward circum­ stances Mr. Wright and Mr. Higson, who rejoiced in the possession of cricket boots, were deputed to bowl, while the professionals fielded in their ordinary attire. D e s c r ib in g the match between Derby­ shire and Yorkshire, a northern contem­ porary says:— “ Hancock did not stay long, though he scored what is called ‘ a leg-bye off his head.’ ” Unfortunately the name of the bowler off whom this interesting score is made is not stated, but it is to be hoped that he was not a fast bowler— few men would care to increase the score of their side in this way when a man like Jones or Mold was at the other end. D u r in g a club match in the north an umpire gave a batsman “ leg and off” for a guard and then promptly sent him back to the pavilion lbw from the first ball he had, the batsman pathetically protesting that the ball had hit him right at the back of his leg. The same umpire proved himself to be quite a hero by taking several other wickets, and he won the match for his side comfortably enough. A c o r r e s p o n d e n t points out that, according to the Standard of June 10th, a record which leaves all other records far behind was made in the Australian match at Cambridge by Mr. T. L. Taylor, who seems to have been “ b Howe 11110.” As this record has escaped the notice of other newspapers, we consulted our Matter-of-fact Commis­ sioner upon the subject, and he informs us that our correspondent has been misled by the accident of the name of the bowler and the score of the batsman being a little mixed up. He says that Mr. Taylor was “ b Howell, 110.” T he best averages of Southern Tasma­ nians in important matches in 1898-99 are as follows :— BATTING . Times Most No. o f not in an Total Inns. out. Inns. Buns. Aver K. E. Burn ... 16 ... 3 ... 365* ... 944 ... 72 6 G. H. Bailey... 6 ... 2 ... 73 ... 210 ... 52 5 C. J. Eady ... 38 ... 3 ...231 ... 779 ... 51 9 W . W ard ... 12 ... 1 ...172 ... 517 ... 47*0 * Signifies not out. BOW LING. Ovtrs. Mdns. Buns. Wkts. Aver. C. J.E ad y ... 512 5 ... 124 ... 1383 ... 70 ... 19*7 K. E Burn .. 152‘1 ... 3 4 ... 412... 18 ... 22*8 N. Dodds ...132 ... 23 ... 557... 23 ... 24 2 O e C. J.Eady’s bowling during the season the Tasmanian Mail says :— E a d y w as again th e backbon e o f th e South, an d altogeth er fo r th e w h ole season w heeled up over 3,000 balls, obtain in g seven ty w ickets fo r an average o f 19 runs per w ick et. T h is is b y fa r th e greatest nu m ber o f balls ever bow led b y an y p layer p reviou sly in T asm ania, w ith th e excep tion o f K en d a ll, w h o in the season 1883-84 b ow led 3,749. A great num ber o f these, h ow ever, w ere bow led in N ew Z ealan d w ith the T asm an ian team , and I think less th an six balls to th e over w as then the ru le. K en d a ll finished up w ith the rem ark ­ able average o f 7*10 per w ick et, bu t th en in those days he w as a gen iu s— p robab ly one o f th e best bow lers th en liv in g . E a d y deserves cred it fo r h is perform an ces last season, fo r a fast bow ler has harder w ork , and has to stand m ore w ear and tear than a m edium or slow on e, and it speaks w ell fo r h im that he has again w o n the tro p h y fo r b o w lin g average fo r th e S ou th against all com ers fo r the fifth con secu tive tim e. H e w as particu larly successful in all th e b ig representative m atches— m ore so a lo n g w ay than in clu b crick et, w h ere R ich ardson easily defeated him . And of Mr. Eady’s batting the Mail re- inaiks:— “ E a d y com es n ext to B u m w ith an average o f 52 fo r 18 innings, and he is fo llo w in g in B u rn ’ s footsteps, fo r this is also his fifth co n ­ secutive season in w h ich he has w o n the b o w lin g average an d been second in the batting. L ast season w as u n d ou btedly E a d y ’ s best w ith th e bat, fo r he show ed sounder and better crick et than ever h e has done, and m ade m ore strokes th an previou sly. H is h ittin g w as hard and clean, and he opened th e eyes o f the V ictorian s w hen h e batted against th em . T he matches played by the Australians against Cambridge University have re­ sulted as follows:— 1878. A t Lords, Cambridge University won by an innings and 72 runs. 1882. A t Cambridge, * ami ridge University won by six wickets. 1884. A t Cambridge, Australians won by an innings and 81 runs. 1886. A t Cambridge, drawn. 1888. A t Cambridge, drawn. 1890. A t Cambridge, drawn. 1893. A t Cambridge, Australians won by 117 runs. 1899. A t Cambridge, Australians,won by ten wickets. Or eight games in all, of which number the Australians have wen three, Cam­ bridge University two, the remaining three being drawn. A n extraordinary exhibition of fast scoring was seen on the Hornsey Cricket Ground on Wednesday, June 7th, when Hornsey played St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, G. H . Swinstead winning the match on the stroke of time (7 o’clock) with two consecutive sixes, hitting the ball out of the ground. The Hospital batted first, scoring 261. Hornsey com­ menced batting at 4.55, scoring 262 in 2 hours 5 minutes. The first four wickets fell for 21 runs in 20 minutes. Then W . I. Hancock and G. H . Swinstead became associated, and the pair mastered the bowling, scoring 221 in 1 hour 33 minutes, when Mr. Hancock was stumped for a splendidly played 91— 233 runs were scored in 1 hour 37 minutes whilst the partnership lasted, and 31 runs were scored in the last 15 minutes, including the two sixes which won the match. G. H . Swinstead was not out 130. T h e r e are at least two instances in which a match has been won in as sensational manner as the above. Playing for Caius College v. Gar- boldisham, at Garboldisham, June 3, 1883, E. F. G. J. Page and another man went in first in the second innings to obtain 15 runs to win. Page received the bowling. The first ball he cut for four, the second he hit to long-leg for four, the third ball a magnificent hit to forward equare-leg for six, the fourth ball went almost to the same place for seven, and Caius thus won the match by ten wickets, Page having scored 21 runs from the first four balls sent down. For the Australians v. Yorkshire, at Sheffield, in 1886, H. J. H . Scott finished the match by scoring 22 runs (6, 4, 6, 6) off an over of four balls delivered by Saul Wade. B y putting on 230 for the tenth wicket in the first innings of Middlesex against Kent, at Lord’s, on Monday, Mr. R. W. Nicholls (the Hornsey amateur) and Roche beat the record by 57 runs. The previous record was 173 by Briggs and Pilling, at Aigburth, for Lancashire against Surrey in 1885. The feat of Mr. Nicholls and Roche is the more note­ worthy because when they came together the score was only 55. On Sunday our hot weather statistician made what he informs us is the most interesting discovery of the age. He had found in the Sunday Chronicle the record of a match played between Stock­ port and Glossop, in which Extras played a noble innings of 128, while the highest scorer among the batsman was only able to put up 72. Happily, a closer study of the score went far to show that there were really no extras at all, and that by a printer’s error the total of the innings had been duplicated. But on the bare chance that our H .W .S. is right and that the total of the innings is wrong we append the score:— G lossop . L. Ward, b Higson ................................ 32 W . Walton, not out ... ........................... 78 Berwick, c Heawood, b Brown................ 8 Charlesworth, c Standrin, b Brown ... 4 Firth, c Tyler, b Naylor ........................... 7 Warren, not out ........................................... 1 Extras ...................................................128 Total (for four wickets) ... 128 M r . George Botting writes:— I should like to call your attention to Butt’s