Cricket 1899

S kpt . 7, 1899. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 391 BUSSEY’S BUSSEY’S A T T H E S IG N O F T H E W I C K E T . B y F . S. A sh le y -C ooper . A t Brighton, on Saturday last, Kent amply avenged the defeat they sustained at the hands of Sussex at Tonbridge earlier in the season. The first match this season between the two sides was memorable for two reasons. Firstly, on account of the bowling performance by C. H . G. Bland, who obtained all ten wickets in the second innings of Kent at a cost of but forty-eight runs, and, secondly, because of the line form shown by the Sussex wicket-keeper, Butt, who brought off no less than eight catches at the wicket in the two innings of his opponents. Many of the published accounts of the match credited him with only seven victims, but eight is the correct number. Kent and Sussex are very old opponents, having played return matches as far back as 1735. During the past few weeks Kent have been showing such greatly improved form that it was anticipated they would make a good fight in the return match, and those who expressed confidence in the powers of the “ Men of Kent ” must have felt gratified at the result of the match—a victory for Kent by nine wickets. It was unfortunate for all concerned that the game was played on a wicket damaged by the weather, for it made run-getting (even at Brighton) a matter of difficulty. Although the Kentish victory was by as much as nine wickets the best batting display of the whole match was, curiously enough, given by a member of the losing side—M r. 0 . B. Fry, who played one of his masterly innings. A short while ago it seemed as though Mr. Fry had, for a time at least, lost form, and when the team to represent England against Australia at the Oval was being chosen, Mr. Fry stated that he did not consider himself in sufficiently good for .n to be given a place in the eleven. Fortunately, however, the selection committee (which has been so unjustly condemned in some quarters) thought otherwise, and Fry was chosen, with the result that his inclusion proved a tower of strength to the side. Since that match he has not once looked back, but has been delighting everybody by making a succession of large scores. His score of 82 on Friday last, remembering the state of the ground and the position of his side when the innings was played, was certainly as meritorious as several of over 150 made this season. The result of the match was chiefly brought about by Day, who scored 81 and 21 not out, and Mason, who was successful both with bat and ball, scoring 24, and obtaining eight wickets for fifty-three runs. A t the conclusion of the game a single-wicket match was arranged between the two fast bowlers, Bradley and Bland. Brann and Banjitsinhji were the umpires, Col­ lins kept wicket, and Killick and Huish fielded. The result of the match was as follows: —Bradley, run out, 6. Bland, b Bradley, 0 ; b Bradley, 4 ; Bradley winning by an innings and two runs. Bland won the toss, but put his opponent in first. The result of the recent match between Surrey and Warwickshire has enabled Surrey to head the championship table. For their high position they are indebted to their wonderful scoring throughout the season, their bowling being weak and generally handsomely thrashed. Richard­ son had lost nearly all his old form, whilst Lockwood was often unable to play on account of an injury. Accordingly a great deal of bowling fell to Brock­ well’s lot, and right well did he perform his work. Hayes was seldom tried, and Lees did not often cause the batsaien much trouble. Surrey’s great want is a first-class slow bowler, and if the county could only unearth a second Southerton they would probably be champions for many years to come. There is a tale told about Southerton which I do not remem­ ber to have ever seen in print, and which may as well be told here. Southerton used to play for three counties, Surrey, Sussex and Hampshire, sometimes appear- for all three in the same season. As all cricketers are aware there is a small projecting piece of wood at the top of each bat about a third of an inch deep, but in the early sixties this piece of wood was often as much as three-quarters of an inch in depth, sometimes even a full inch. It was in one of the Hampshire matches that a brilliant idea suddenly occurred to Southerton. He suggested to his fellow-cricketers—most of whom were strong on the leg-side—that they should cut away the piece of wood, explaining that they would be able to hit to the on with greater ease and certainty. No sooner said than done. Somebody produced a knife, and in less time than it takes to tell eleven bats were beheaded. It is sad to learn that the Hampshire men did not play any better after mutilating their bats. In fact, they did not do nearly so well as before, and were dismissed twice for very small totals and easily beaten. It would be interesting to know what the Hampshire players thought of Southerton, for the match was lost and eleven bats ruined. But on that point history is silent. During the past week the wickets have, generally speaking, been in favour of the bowlers, and in consequence many fine bowling performances have taken place. Many batsmen who had previously been making scores of over a hundred have found it difficult under the changed conditions to score half that number. In a season remarkable for high scoring there is always considerable discussion about enlarging the wicket, narrowing the bat, etc., but those who make such suggestions overlook the fact that in following seasons the wickets may be in favour of the bowlers. There is one law which is very seldom noticed, namely, the one which refers to the width of the bat. There are several men taking part in first-class cricket at the present time whose bats are broader than they should be. Some years ago, when the Australians were playing at Sheffield Park, some of the bats belonging to players of both sides were measured, with the result that several were found to be too large.