Cricket 1899

THE FINEST BAT TH© WORLD PRODUCES. J unk 29, 1899. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME 231 BUSSEY’S GO U_l kJ o fa fa s 09 •J J w .09 £ J w CO Ut <D XI a _ CO C O T~~ eo <** « 3 CO CO per 0 9 C O C O w 09 s ' g X * o w fa >> s. o P G O BUSSEY’S AT THE SIGN OF THE WICKET. B r F . S . A sh le y -C ooper . As it was generally anticipated that the Australian team would find little difficulty in defeating Leicestershire the result of the match came as no surprise. The honours of the game were clearly carried off by Worrall and Noble, the former crediting himself with his second century during the tour, and the latter bowling with more success than ever before. Two years ago Richardson obtained twelve Leicester wickets for 20 runs, whilst in 1878 Alfred Shaw, playing for Notting­ hamshire, actually accounted for seven wickets in the second innings at a cost of but seven runs. Appended will be found a list of the best bowling performances achieved by Australians in eleven a-side matches in England, only those instances being included in which a bowler has obtained four wickets or more for three runs or less. H. F. BOYLE. 9 for 17 ! T- at lo r d ’ s, 1878. 6 for 17 v. Gents of Scotland, at Edinboro’ , 1882. C. J. EADY. 4 for 6 v. Hampshire, at Southampton, 1896. J. J. FERRIS. 7 for 16 v. Staffordshire’s X I , at Stoke, 1890. T. W . GARRETT. 4 for 11 v. Gloucestershire, at Cheltenham, 1886. G. GIFFEN. 8 for 23 v. Lancashire, at Manchester, 1886. 7 for 21 v. Lord March’s X I, at Chichester, 1886. 7 for 11 v. Gloucestershire, at Bristol, 1893. 7 for 15 v. C. E. de Trafford’s X I , at Crystal Palace, 1896. W . P. H OW E LL. 10 for 28 v. Surrey, at the Oval, 1899. T. R. M 'K IBB IN . v. Gloucestershire, at Cheltenham, 1896. v. Lancashire, at Liverpool, 1896. M. A. NOBLE. 7 for 15 v. Leicestershire, at Leicester, 1899. G. E. PALM ER, v. Leicestershire, at Leicester, 1832. v. Northumberlmd, at Newcastle, 1882. v. South of England, at the Oval, 1884. F. R. SPOFFORTH. v. M.C.C., at Lord’s, 1878. v. Shaw’s team, at Holbeck, Leeds, 1882. v. Scotland, at Glasgow, 1882. v. Eleven of England, at Birmingham, 1881. v. Middlesex, at Lord’s, 1884. v. Oxford University, at Oxford, 1886. v. North of England, at Manchester, 1886. H. TRUMBLE. v. Oxford University, at Oxford, 1896. v. Gloucestershire, at Cheltennam, 1896. C. T. B. TURNER, v. An England X I , at Stoke, 1888. v. An England X I , at Hastings, 1888. 4 for 7 7 for 11 5 for 15 5 for 6 | 11 for 27 f 5 for 10 6 for 4 ) 10 for 20 ( 5 for 15 8 for 11 7 for 3 \ 14 for 37 | 7 for 16 9 for 18 i 15 for 36 i 7 for 19 6 for 17 6 for 8 9 for 15 8 for 13 17 for 50 4 for 9 6 for 17 12 for 34 6 for 16 4 for 7 6 for 11 v. Lord Sheffield’s X I, at Sheffield Park, 1890. v. Warwickshire, at Edgbaston, 1890. v. Derbyshire, at Derby, 1890. v. Kent, at Maidstone, l*-90. v. Lord Londesborough’s X I, at Scar­ borough, 1890. Previous to their victory at Lord’s, last Saturday, Nottinghamshire had not beaten Middlesex since they proved victorious at Trent Bridge in 1892. Shrewsbury batted in masterly style in each innings, and credited himself with the two largest scores in the match, whilst J. Gunn bowled successfully in both innings of Middlesex, performing the hat-trick in the second innings by disposing of Hayman, Ford, and Rawlin with con­ secutive balls. Rawlin’s name must be added to the list of those batsmen who have been unfortunate enough to be dismissed by the first ball received in each innings. Con­ sidering the wonderful form recently shown by the Middlesex team, the victory of Notting­ hamshire must be regarded as a very praise­ worthy performance. Of the twenty-three matches played at Lord’s between the two sides, Nottinghamshire have won ten, Middlesex eight, and five have been left unfinished. The forty-fourth match between Surrey and Cambridge University has resulted in a draw owing to the fact that no play was possible on the first day on account of the weather. It is rather surprising to learn that of the forty- four matches played the University has won more than its opponents, the exact figures being Surrey nineteen victories, Cambridge twenty. This, however, must be ascribed to the fact that in the seventies and early eighties the county was very weak, and was generally handsomely thrashed. In the last match there was some very interesting cricket which, with the exception of William Brockwell’s score of eighty-six, all happened on the Friday. Abel played a very fine innings for one hundred but nobody else, except Lees, seemed to be at all comfortable with the University bowling in the first innings. The feature of the Cambridge innings, and of the match, was the remarkable partnership of G. E. Winter and E. R. Wilson for the third wicket. Whilst together the two batsmen added 89 runs to the score, of which number Winter made 84, E. R. Wilson at one time being three-quarters of an hour without making a run. The following is a list of the most notable in­ stances on record of slow scoring in first- class matches. 0 runs in 80 mins., Barlow, R. G.f Lancashire v. Nottinghamshire, at Trent Bridge, July 6, 7, 8,1882. 0 runs in 70 mins., Hall, L., Yorkshire v. Kent, at Canterbury, August 3, 4, 5, 1885. 0 runs in 70 mins., Bannerman, A. C., New South Wales v. Victoria, at Melbourne, December 26, 27, 29,1890. 0 runs in 70 mins., Humphreys, W . A., Sussex v. Kent, at Brighton, August 22, 23, 24, 1892. 0 runs in 60 mins., Lucas, A. P.,Gentlemen v. Players, at the Oval, June 29, 30, ana July 1,1882. 0 runs in 55 mins., Troup, W ., Gloucestershire v. Surrey, at the Oval, May 17, 18, 19, 1888. In a match at Bishopsbourne Paddock, near Canterbury, in September, 1786, Tom Walker (“ Old Everlasting ” ) batted five hours for twenty-six runs when playing for Six of Hambledon against Six of Kent. T. Pier- pont batted seven and a half hours for thirty- one at Sevenoaks for Sussex against Kent (with Saunders), in August, 1827. Eleven years later Mr. J. Napper took two hours to obtain seven runs when representing Sussex (with Fuller Pilch) against England, at Brighton, whilst in 1882 R. G. Barlow batted two and a half hours for five runs, carrying his bat right through the innings, in a match on the Trent Bridge ground between Lan­ cashire and Nottinghamshire. For Kent against Lancashire, at Gravesend, in 1871, Mr. E. A . White made twenty-five singles consecutively. In vol. xxviii of the Sussex Archeological Collection , it is stated that H. Morley, of the old Sussex eleven, was once in for two hours and got but one run, at Lovell Common, near Crawley, and that in another match at Lord’s he was in three hours for nine. But enough of slow scoring. The victory of Somersetshire over Lanca­ shire, at Taunton, last week, was very welcome for two reasons. Firstly, because it was their first success of the season after a series of defeats, and secondly, because the county had not beaten Lancashire since 1892. The two teams first met in 1882, and of the matches