Cricket 1900

F e b . 2 2 , 1S00. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 23 matches side by side that a fair estimate of the strength of the elevens can be had. Thus it will be seen that the Prince’s followers achieved all their victories in a most decisive manner, having, in fact, each time an innings and plenty of runs to spare. The only place where the visiting teams have met with any setbacks i* Philadel­ phia, and there, with the exception of the two years above named, the invaders have not been permitted to escape with­ out suffering at least one defeat at the hands of the Gentlemen of Philadelphia. Neither the teams of Lord Hawke nor P. F. Warner, however, could boast of such a clean sweep as that made by the Englishmen who came this year. The following table gives the complete records of all the visiting teams since 1891 Y eir. Visitors. 1891. L .rd Hawke 189i. Irish Team 1893. Australians 1*94. Lord Hawke Plyd. W . L. Dr. P.O. ... 8 ... 6 ... 1 ... 1 ... *837 . 8 ... 4 ... 2 ... 2 ... *667 ... 6 ... 4 ... 1 ... 1... -800 5 .. 3 ... 0 ... 2 ...l'(00 1895. Cambridge-Oxford... 5 . 2 . 2 1 . *500 1896. Australians ......... 6 4 ... 1 ... 1 ... *809 1897. P. F. Warner .........5 ... 2 ... 1 ... 2 ... ‘ 67 1898. P. F. W arn er......... 8 ... 6 .. 0 ... 2 ...1*000 1899. RaDjitsinhji .........5 . 3 ... 0 ... 'Z ...1*000 In the matter of individual work that r.f A. E. Stoddart of the Prince’s team has been surpassed only once by G. Giffen, the Australian, in 1896. In bowl­ ing G. ii. Jessop also had better records nhead of him, but it must not be forgotten that Baltimore, Boston and Chicago, where usually but little resistance is offered at the wickets, were skipped by the Prince. The following comparative tables of individual records will prove of much interest :— No. Times Most of not in an Total Year. Batsman. inns. out. inns. runs. Aver. l>91. C. W . Brown ... 11... 1 ... 72 ... 310 ... 3100 1892. M. Gavin .......... 15... 4... 90*... 281 ... 26*54 It93. A. ConiDgham 6 ... 1 ... 69 ... 138 ... 27*60 1894. L .C .Y . Bathurst 6 ...2 ... 53 ... 145 ... 36 *5 1895. N .F . Druce ... 7...0 .. 121 ... 319 ... 46*67 1896 G. Giffen ........... 7 ... 1 ... 96 ... u78 ... 63 00 1897. J. R. Head ... 9 ... 1 ...101 ... 315 .. 39 37 1898. F. Mitchell ... 11 ... 1 ...1*8 ... 359 ... 25 90 1899. A . E. Stoddart... 5 ... 1 ... 74 ... 234 ... 58*50 * Signifies not out. Year. Bowler. Balls. Mdns. Runs. Wkts. Aver. 1891. J.H.J.Hornsby 570 . 44 ... 176 ... 30 ... 5*86 1892. B. Hamilton ...1,439 ...111 ... 493 ... 51 ... 9 66 1893. G.H.S.Trott ... 418 ... 23 ...177 ... 27 ... 6 55 1894. W .F .W hitw ell 362 ... 24 ... 120 ... 18 .. 6*66 1895. W . W . Lowe .. 523 ... 33 ..272 ... 15 ...18*13 1896. E. Jones........... 610 ... 44 .189 ... 30 ... 6*30 1897. G. L. Jessop ... 825 ... 46 ...375 ... 30 ...12*60 1898. J.L.Ainsworth 1,632 .. 136 ... 474 ... 73 ... 6*49 1899. G. L. Jtssop ... 603 ... 46 ...170 ... 21 ... 8 09 The bowlers named above have in each instance bowled more than 300 balls. C'fovmponDence. 'Ihe Editor does not h Id himself res onsille for th opinions of his correspondents. AN OLD SUSSEX MATCH. To the Editor of C r ic k e t . S i r , —In iefetence to a paragraph that appeared in the last issue of Cricket under the above title, will you allow me to state that since the issue of the pamphlet referred to I have discovered particulars of the Sussex v. England match. Con­ trary to the assertion, the score will be found fully recorded in Yol. II. of Scores and Biographies, p. 388, the error occur­ ring through the match being designated “ Sussex v. Marylebone, with Pilch, Wenman, Barker, A. and W. Mynn, Esqrs.,” in the last-named, and “ Sussex v. England ” in the newspaper that first led me to record the “ find.” This opens up a question whether Mr. Haygarth has prefixed the correct appellation to the match; but at the same time it reveals the fact that very few matches of importance have been overlooked by that indefatigable compiler. The corrected score is appended. Played at Brighton, August 15, 16 and 17, 1836. M arylebonr . W ith Pilch, Wet>man, Barker, A . and W. Mynn, Esqrs. First innings. Second innings. A. Mynn, Esq., b Broad- b rid g e ..................................45 c and b Millyard 92 W .Mynn, Esq., b Lillywbite 15 b Broadbridge ... 18 E. G.Wenman, c Lillywhite, b Broadbridge .................. 3 b Broadbridge ... 0 F. Pilch, b Broadbridge .. 14 b M illyard...................... 20 C. G. Taylor. Esq., c M or­ ley, b Lillywhite ............ 6 c Meads, b Lilly- white ........... 1 W . Strahan, Esq., b Lilly- white ................................... 3 b Taylor .. 3 T. Barker, b Lillywhite ... 1 hit wkt, b Broad- biidge ......... 10 B. Good, b Lillywhite........... 0 b Broadbridge ... 8 J. H. Dark, b Broadbridge 1 c Meads, b Mill- yard ................15 J. Bayley, not out ........... 0 st Box, b Lilly- white ........... 0 T. Sewell, b Lillywhite ... 0 not out................. 1 B 4, w 1 ................... 5 B 6 , w 1, n b l ... 8 Total ...................93 Total .............176 S ussex . First innings. C- Lanaway, b A. Mynn ... 26 H. Morley, b B a yley........... 9 James Taylor, b Good ... 11 G. Millyard, c Barker, b Good .................................. 7 E. Thwaites, c Taylor, b Bayley.. .......................... 10 J. Rroadbridge, notout ... 3*2 T Box, run out .................. 2 Second innings. b Bayley ........... 3 c Good, b Bayley 1 c Taylor, b A. Mynn .......... 6 b A. M y im ......... a c Dark, bBayley 31 ’ ~ ’ 6 2 b Good .. b A . Mynn... c W . Mynn, A . Mynn... b A . Mynn... run out W . H. Mason, b A. Mynn 14 W . Brown, Esq.,b A. Mynn 0 G. Meade, b A. Mvnn........... 0 W . Lillywhite, c W . Mynn, b Bayley ................... 0 not out......................24 B 13, w 13, nb 3.......... 29 W 12, nb 11 ... 23 Total ....................140 Total ........... 122 M.C.C., etc., won by 7 runs. I remain, jours, etc., ALFRED D. TAYLOR. Clifton Ville, Hove Place, West Brighton. Feb. 1, 1900. THE WEST INDIAN TEAM. To the Editor of C r ic k e t . D e a r S i r , —The team selected to repre­ sent the West Indies in England this year is a very fair one, but could have been improved on by selecting Mr. H. B. G. Austin, who has just gone to England, and who is one of the finest bats in the West Indies.* Again, Mr. Roberts, who is at Oxford and only missed his blue last year through illness, would con­ siderably strengthen the team. The great drawback to the team is that it is without a cricketer experienced in English cricket. This defect will fre­ quently make itself felt in the coming tour. Mr. Bowring will captain the team, but he has played no first-class cricket, and is not the man to keep the team in order. Mr. Nock, of Trinidad, will be the manager, but he has little knowledge of England. If Mr. P. A. Warner, who is a West Indian (from Trinidad), would consent to captain the team, and Mr. Low, who is now in Trinidad and knows England well, would act as manager, I think the West Iudiati Team that has been selected would make a fair show against most of the counties. Yours truly, A WEST INDIAN. B irbados, January 12, 1900. * We believe that Mr. Austin has been selected siace the a*ove lett.r was written. TH E N EW R U L E IN OPERAT ION . The new rule which empowers either umpire to no-ball a man was put into force on the 1st of January at Buenos Aires. The match was between Quilmes and Flores. Mr. A. J. Symons was bowling for the former, and was no­ balled by the umpire at the batsman’s end three times in succession. Much dissatisfaction was expressed at the umpire’s decision. A long discussion arose, which ended in a compromise, the umpires changing ends, after which there was no more no-balling, for when the umpire who had called the no-ball surveyed tt e bowler from the other end he said that he could see nothing unfair in his action. It is to be feared that some of the opposing side, on hearing this statement, must have said “ Rats ! ” although possibly the batting side may have seen a good deal of force in it. Admirers of the new rule will naturally consider that the umpire showed cleaily that it is easier to study a man’s action from the neighbourhood of square leg than from behind him at the bowler’s wicket; on the other hand, those who think that the new rule is a bad one will be inclined to think that the umpire had made up his mind beforehand. It appears that he was an amateur, and that after the match he privately said that he had given his decision because of the bowler’s pronounced wrist action. But it is a little difficult to understand how it was that the aforesaid pronounced wrist action was merged into obscurity as soon as he had taken up another position, for one can see a pronounced wrist action from the outermost seats at the farthest end from the wicket at the Oval. After all a wrist action is not a safe sign to go by, for no two people can agree as to the amount of it which a bowler can possess without throwing. The upshot of this decision, which may under the excep­ tional circumstances be regarded as a famous decision, was that the bowler’s side was beaten by four runs and a lot of bad feeling caused. Let us hope that in suburban and country matches the local umpire will not seize upon his new found opportunity with avidity. Otherwise we may have to go back to lob bowling again in these matches. But will even a lob bowler be safe if he has anything of a wrist action!