Cricket 1900

THE FINEST BAT THE WORLD PRODUCES. Auct. 9, 1900. CRICKET ; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 323 BUSSEY’S GO M J o B m E P CO ►3 * J S w £ — CO ec J. “ S 3 “ I i - S > *s a s c u x j L U L lJ S _ C O C O <*5 CW C O C O w 03 s ' 0 3 CO CO «u w CM J. >9 s* o -*-3 a £ c*—I a § S Q D BUSSEY’S AT THE SIGN OF THE WICKET. B y F. S. A shley -C ooper . Saturday last furnished two remarkable finishes which for sustained excitement would be hard to beat. The more exciting of the two finishes was seen in the less important match. The fact that Glou­ cestershire required 211 runs in their second innings to beat Somersetshire gave promise of an exciting struggle, especially as scoring throughout the match had not been heavy. The game fluctuated in a remarkable manner, first one side and then the other appearing to hold the advantage. When the ninth wicket fell and 32 runs were still required to win, a victory for Somer­ setshire seemed assured, but Mr. Rice, who was playing a really great innings, found a most valuable partner in Paish, and by steady play the two succeeded in knocking off the runs. When the match was a tie Somersetshire still had a chance of saving themselves from defeat, as Bice snicked a ball into the hands of Cranfield, but the fieldsman failed to bring off the catch. Whilst congratulating Gloucester­ shire on their victory, one cannot help feeling sorry for Somersetshire in having the game snatched from them at the last moment. This unexpected ending recalls to mind the Gentlemen v. Players match at Lord’s in 1877, in which Mr. G. F. Grace and Mr. W. S. Patterson obtained 46 runs whilst together, and by so doing won the game for the Gentlemen by a wicket. In the match at Trent Bridge in 1863 between Notts and Fourteen Free Foresters 69 runs were required when nine wickets were down in the second innings of the county, and, amidst great excitement, George Wootton and Sam Biddulph added 68, making the match a tie. The second game in which a very close finish was seen was in the Surrey v. Middlesex match at the Oval. Middlesex required 167 to win, and after getting a hundred for the loss of only two wickets, had four down for 126 and nine for 149, 18 runs still being required when Hearne went in last man. lt was owing to the successful hitting of Mr. Williams that Middlesex managed to pull off the match, though the manner in which Heame kept up his wicket must not be overlooked. Several close finishes have occurred in matches between the two sides, the games at the Oval in 1868 and 1876 having ended in a tie. The 1876 match had a very curious termination. When the last Surrey wicket fell in the second innings the score, according to the telegraph board, was 244, thus giving Middlesex the victory by one run. An inspection of the score sheets, how­ ever, showed that a run had been omitted in the case of one batsman, and accord­ ingly, after the error had been verified, the Middlesex players were compelled to accept the result as a tie. The summary ending to the Hampshire innings in tbe match against Kent last Thursday deserves a line to itself, the last five wickets all falling at the same total. Such an occurrence in first-class cricket is extremely rare, so a few instances of extraordinary collapses may be briefly noted here. In the match at Sydney, in February, 1879, between Lord Harris’s England Eleven and New South Wales, the last six wickets all fell at the same total in the second innings of the latter, Ulyett obtaining four wickets with con­ secutive balls. (By-the-way, Wisden for 1880 credits Ulyett with but three wickets in that innings, but Tindall was “ c and b Ulyett,” not “ c F. Penn, b Emmett,” as stated.) In the match at Nottingham in 1879 between Notts and Derbyshire, the first innings of the latter amounted to but 16, the last five wickets falling with the score unaltered. In their second attempt the first two bats­ men fell without a run, so on the first day twelve Derbyshire wickets fell for 16 runs, the last seven having failed to score. The most remarkable collapse of all, taking into consideration the players engaged, occurred at Lord’s in 1872, when the M.C.O. lost their first seven wickets before a run had been made, eight being down for 2. Amongst the seven who were so ignominiously got rid of were W. G. Grace, John Smith of Cambridge, C. P. Coote, C. J. Brune, and Alfred Shaw. In the Kent v. Surrey match at the Oval, in 1847, Kent, with four wickets in hand, required only 1 run to win, yet failed to obtain it, the match ending in a tie. In the tie-match at Melbourne, iu 1877-78, between Australia and Fifteen of Victoria and New South Wales, the latter, requiring 113 to win, had made 111 for six wickets, and four successive batsmen tried to make the winning hit, but all failed, two being run out. When the history of cricket during 1900 comes to be written the bowling of Wilfrid Rhodes will in all probability be described as the most remarkable feature of the season. The success with which he has met with the ball has been phenomenal, and one has to go back to the days when Alfred Shaw was in his prime before one comes across a slow bowler who met with so many repeated successes. Not the least extraordinary of Rhodes’s many triumphs was against Essex last week, when he obtained four­ teen wickets at a cost of only 68 runs. Whilst referring to Rhodes, I think my friend “ Wanderer” is hardly correct in describing him as “ reaping a harvest ” against Surrey. Four wickets for 99 runs hardly suggests very deadly bowling. It is many years since cricketers expe­ rienced so wet an August Bank Holiday as fell to their lot at the beginning of the week. In consequence of the wet many great and interesting matches were thoroughly ruined. It was only at Taunton that play was possible for any length of time, but the two hours during which play lasted enabled Trott t j obtain all the ten wickets in the first innings of Somersetshire at the modest cost of 42 runs. He is the second bowler who has this year taken all ten wickets in one innings of a first-class match, equalling the feat performed by Briggs for Lanca