Cricket 1900

THE FINEST BAT THE WORLD PRODUCES J u n e 14, 1900. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 195 BUSSEY’S CO w - •• £ a a m n i , i CO s * BUSSEY’S AT THE SIGN OF THE WICKET. B y F. S. A s h le y -C o o p e r . A prominent place deserves to be given to the recent no-baLLincident at Lord’s. During the second innings of Middlesex v. Somerset­ shire Braund was no-balled by Pickett before he had loosed his hold of the ball, which, in fact, was not delivered, and it was officially decided that the decision must, stand, and the run be added to the total. Pickett, with the laudable desire of acquainting the batsman at the earliest possible moment that Braund had taken both feet over the crease, called “ no- ball.” As the ball did not leave the bowler’s hand, the game proceeded as though nothing hadhappened, and no addition was at first made tothe score. Asimilarincidenttookplacea few yearssinceinaSurreyv.Warwickshirematchat Edgbaston, when Walter Humphreys (his last year as a county umpire) no-balled Lockwood, who did not allow the ball to leave his grasp. Both captains declared that it was absurd to count the ball, but Humphreys very stoutly maintained that it should be, inasmuch as the ball had been “ called.” A precisely similar incident took place at Sydney in April, 1871, in the match between Three of New South Wales and Three of Victoria. D. Thompson no-balled D. Gregory before the ball left the latter’s hand. In this case the umpire retired, and Caffyn took his place. It is so seldom that a wicket-keeper’s per­ formances receive much attention, that Butt’s work against Somersetshire, at Brighton, last week must be noted. In the two innings of his opponents he caught eight at the wicket— three in the first innings and five in the second. From the appended table it will be seen that this performance has only once been excelled (as far as the number of catches is concerned) in the annuals of first-class cricket:— LARGEST NUMBER OF VICTIMS SECURED B Y A W ICKET-KEEPER IN A FIRST-CLASS MATCH. 12, c 8 st 4, E. Pooley, Surrey v. Sussex, at the Oval, 1868. 10, c 5 st 5, H. Phillips, Sussex v. Surrey, at the Oval, 18 2. 10, c 2 st 8, E. Pjoley, Surrey v. Kent, at the Oval, 1878. 9, c 2 st 7, Mr. J. Barnard, Marylebone v. Godalming (with T. Beagley, J. 8aundera and Ja». Broad­ bridge), at Lord’s, 1822. 9, c 2 st 7. W. Broadbridge, Sussex v. Hants and Suirey, at ramshill Park, Hants. 1826. 9, c 4 st 5, Mr. M. Turner. Gentlemen of England v. Oxford University, at Oxford, 187 1 . 9, c 6 st 3, Mr M Turner, Middlesex v. Nottingham­ shire, at Piiuce’s. 1875. 9, c 9 st 0, J. Hunter, Yorkshire v. Gloucestershire, at Gloucester, 1887. 8, c 5 st 3. T. Ingram, Essex (with W . Fennex and T. Sco t) v. Kent (with W . Beldham), at Dart­ ford, 1792. 8. c 2 st 6. J. Dennis, Nottingham v. Sheffield, at Mansfield, 1800. 8, c 4 *t 4, E. Pooley, Surrey v. Kent, at Gravesend, 1868. 8, c 6 st 2, Mr. W . Sttwart, Oxford Univer.-ity y. Cambridge University, at Lord’s, 1869. 8, c 6 st 2, E. Pooley, Surrey v. Middlesex, at the Oval, 1875. 8, c 3 st 5, Mr. M. Turner, C-entlemen of England v. Cambridge University, at Cambridge, 1876. 8, c 4 st 4, E. Pooley, Surrey v. M.C.C. and Ground, at Lord’s, 1876. 8, c 6 st 2, Hon. A. Lyttelton, Gentlemen v. Players, at the Oval, 1877. 8, c 5 st 3, Capt. H. B. Kiogscote, M.C.C. and Ground v. Kent, at Canterbury, 1877. 8, c 3 st 5, H. Phillips, Sussex v. Kent, at Brighton, 1884. 8, c 5 st 3. M. Sherwin, Notts v. Gloucester, at Nott­ ingham. 1889. 8, c 8 st 0, A . A . Lilley, M.C.C. and Ground v. W ar­ wickshire, at Lord’s, 1896. 8, c 2 st 6. D. Hunter, Yorkshire v. Surrey, at Brad­ ford, 1898. 8, c 7 st 1, A . L. Bairstow, Yorkshire v. Cambridge University, at Cambridge, 1899. 8, c 8 st 0, H. R. Bult, Sussex v. Kent, at Tonbridge, 1899. 8, c 8 st 0. F. H. Huish, Kent v. Nottinghamshire, at Nottingham, 1895. 8, c 8 st 0, T. M. Russell, Essex v. Kent," at Leyton, 1899. 8, c 8 st 0, H. R. Butt, Sussex v. Somersetshire, at Brighton, 190. In four consecutive matches, in 1868, E. Pooley caught 16 and stumped 16 :— c 8 st 4, Surrey v. Sussex, at the Oval, c 4 st 4, Surrey v. Kent, at Gravesend, c 3 st 3, Surrey v. Notts, at the Oval, c 1 st 6, Surrey v. Lancashire, at the Oval. In the match Surrey v. Sussex at the Oval, 1872, H. Phillips caught five and stumped five, and E. Pooley also obtained five wickets, so of the 32 wickets lowered fifteen were ob­ tained by the wicket-keepers. For Derby­ shire v. Yorkshire at Derby, in 1882, J. Disney obtained seven of the thirteen York- shire wickets which'fell. Of the first twenty wickets which fell in the match betweenAus­ tralia and An England XI., at Derby, in 1882, the wicket-keepers claimed ten, W. L. Murdoch and E. F. S. Tylecote each making five catches in one innings. By the death of the Rev. J. C. Ryle there has passed away one who first appeared at Lord ’8 nearly seventy years ago. For two years, 1833 and 1834, he assisted Eton against Harrow and Winchester, scoring 7 and 3 and 21 and 1 against the former, and 20 and 11 and 26 and 0 against the latter. He was contemporary at Eton with J. H. Kirwan and C. G. Taylor. He was in the Oxford elevens of 1836 and 1838. But little is known of his style of batting or mode of bowling, as no biography is given of him in Scores and Biographies , but from a perusal of old scores it is apparent that he was generally success­ ful both with bat and ball. He was born at Macclesfield, May 10th, 1816, and died at Lowestoft, June 10th, 1900, aged 84. The death of yet another cricketer has to be noted, Mr. Andrew Marshall Porter, of the 45th Company of the Imperial Yeomanry, having died from wounds received in the fighting at Lindley, on June 1st. He was educated at Harrow and Trinity College, Dublin, and kept wicket against Eton at Lord’s, in 1892, in which match he also scored 0 and 18. A few weeks ago there passed away at Wanostrocht Villa, Blandford, Dorset, Mrs. VVanostrocht, the aged widow of Mr. N. “ Felix,” who was one of Kent’s “ five mighty cricketers.” For many years Mr. Felix was one of the most prominent cricketers in England. He was a left-handed batsman and his off-hitting was magnificent. In the field he was generally point, and whilst in this position he caught out seven in the match between Kent and England, at Canterbury, in 1847. Once again has Ranjitsinhji startled the cricketing world by a burst of wonderful scoring. In nine days he has made 97 and 127 (against Gloucestershire), 222 (against Somersetshire), and 215 (against Cambridge University). He has thus caused his name to be added to the list of batsmen who have scored three separate hundreds in successive innings. Furthermore, he has equalled Mr. W. YV. Read’s performance in 1887 of play­ ing two consecutive innings of over 200, Mr. Read’s scores were 247 against Lancashire, at Manchester, and 244 not out against Cambridge University, at the Oval. ‘ ‘ W. G.” still remains the only batsman who has exceeded the 150 three times in succession, a feat he performed in 1876, when, in ten days, he made 344, 177, and 318 not out. Ranjit- sinhji’s scores are the more wonderful, inasmuch as they were made whilst he was suffering from a sprained thigh. Some extraordinary scoring was witnessed in amatch played at the West London Cricket Ground, June 6 th, between Army and Navy