Cricket 1900

THE FINEST BAT THE WOULD PRODUCES. A ug . 23, 1900. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OP THE GAME. 355 BUSSEY’S AT TH E SIGN OF TH E W IC K E T . B y F. S. A s h i.e y -C o o p b e . When Lancashire and Surrey meet, an interesting and close match can generally be relied upon. The defeat that Surrey experienced in the match at Manchester invested the return game wil h more than ordinary interest, and it was felt that the southern county would do its utmost to reverse the result of the previous en­ counter. The spectators at the recent match, therefore, prepared themselves to see Surrey make a good fight, but not even the most sanguine supporter of the county could have anticipated Surrey winning in so decisive a manner. A defeat by an innings and 99 runs for the county which had only once before been beaten represents a very considerable margin. It has been said that the wicket was hardly up to the usual Oval standard, yet Surrey managed to score 463, and it cannot be said that they had all the best of the wicket. Had it not been for Messrs. Crawford and Jephson only a poor total would have been recorded. No finer sight can be seen on any cricket- ground than Mr. Crawford playing one of his characteristic innings. In the recent match he was seen quite at his best, making 101 out of 133 in seventy-five minutes. It was his grand hitting which laid the foundation of Surrey’s big score. Mr. Jephson, whose centuries this season have been made against the two strongest teams in the country, Lancashire and Yorkshire, followed Mr. Crawford’s example by playing a three-figure in­ nings. At one time—when the ninth wicket went down— it did not appear likely that he would reach his hundred, but Stedman surprised everybody by scoring 50 and helping Mr. Jephson to put on 131 runs for the last wicket. Lancashire seemed quite unable to make any stand against the Surrey attack, and in consequence had to put up with a very heavy defeat on the third day. In their second innings every batsman was caught, which can have happened but seldom in first-class matches. In a recent issue of Cricket, a corres­ pondent, Mr. J. Holcombe, supplied some interesting information concerning a bowling performance by H . M. Carrick, who, for the Leys School v. Old Leysians, on July 29 and 31, at Cambridge, took seventeen wickets for 120 runs. Mr. Holcombe asks: “ Is not this nearly a record number of wickets taken by a bowler in one match ? ” Seventeen wickets is a great number for one bowler to obtain, but it has often been exceeded. F. R. Spofforth is credited with clean bowling all twenty wickets of his oppo­ nents in a match in the interior of Aus­ tralia in or about December, 1881; it was stated that he rode four hundred miles to participate in the game. ( Vide ‘ ‘ Scores and Biographies,” vol. xiv., pp. 519-20.) J. Bryant clean bowled all twenty wickets of his opponents when playing for Erskine v. Deaf Mutes, at Melbourne, October 15 and 22, 1887. A bowler named Martin obtained all twenty wickets for Stock- bridge v. Abbott’s Ann, on the Common Down, Stockbridge, May 7, 1883; Mee, for Lincoln Lindum v. Old Reptonians, at Lincoln, in 1892, obtained nineteen wickets out of twenty which fell, a per­ formance equalled by F. B. Whitworth, for Lindley v. Woodborough, in Sep­ tember, 1886, and A. Pink, for Peters- field v. United Services, at Petersfield, July 25, 1893. Eighteen wickets out of twenty have been taken by C. S. Hope, Clapton v. Blackheath Paragon, at Clap­ ton, July 23, 1857 ; Alfred Shaw, M.C.C. and Ground v. Thorndean Hall, atThorn- dean Hall (in Essex), July 5, 1870; T. Armitage, Keighley v. Wakefield, at Keighley, June 15, 1872; C. Absolon, Wood Green v. United Willesden, at Wood Green, July4,1872; Quartermaster- Sergt. Miller, Deolalee v. Egretpootra, at Deolalee (India), August 25, 1876 ; A. J. Pilcher, Clifton College (Second Eleven) v. Bath College (First Eleven), in 1883; C. E. Homer, Bexley v. Incogniti, at Bexley, June 25, 1886; and G. Cuming, (all bowled), Clergy Orphan School v. South Eastern College, in May, 1888. V. H . Tippett obtained seventeen wickets for one run, for Pemberton House School (Skegness) v. Alford, August 3, 1885. The following have taken all twenty wickets in a match, but Tlot necessarily with the ball: T. Adams (of the old Kent eleven), C. Absolon, J. Bryant, Martin, F. Parris, and F. R. SpofForth. It was a capital performance on the part of W . T. Garratt to save Essex from defeat on Saturday last in the manner he did. He commenced his innings at a time when everything was going against his .side, and kept up his wicket three hours and fifty minutes for 64 not out. Mr. Perrin, judging from his doings against Warwickshire and Gloucester­ shire, has evidently regained his form. It was the brothers Quaife who placed Warwickshire in a winning position, W .G . making 223 not out and W . 115. W .G .’s big score was made in a far more rapid manner than is usual with him, and the argument that his long innings occa­ sionally prevent his side winning will not hold good in the present instance. The fact that two brothers should each notch a century in the same innings of a first- class match is a curiosity. At the moment of writing I can recollect only the following INSTANCES OP TWO BROTHERS SCORING CENTURIES IN THE SAME INNINGS OF A FIRST-CLASS MATCH. Mr. G. F. Grace, 115 not out, and Mr. E. M. Grace, 108, Gloucestershire v. Nottingham­ shire, at C lifton.................................................. 1872 Mr. J. E K . Btudd, 154, and Mr. C. T. Studd, 113, Cambridge University v. Gentlemen of England, at C am bridge.................................. 1881 F. Hearne, 142, and G. G. Hearne, 126, Kent v. Middlesex, at Canterbury ................. ... 1886 Mr. L. C. H. Palairet, 109, and Mr. R. C. N. Palairet, 106, Somersetshire v. Middlesex, at Lord’s ........................................................... 1895 Mr. R. C. N. Palairet, 156, and Mr. L. C. H. Palairet, 154, Somersetshire v. Sussex, at Taunton ........................................................... 1896 Mr. W . L. Foster, 140 and 172 not out, and Mr. R. E. Foster, 134 and 101 not out, W orces­ tershire v. Hampshire, at W orcester........... 1899 W . G. Quaife, 117, and W . Quaife, 101, W ar­ wickshire v. Leicestershire, at Leicester ... 1899 W . G. Quaife, 223 not out, and W . Quaife, 115, Warwickshire v. Essex, at Leyton ........... 1S00 From the above it will be seen that Messrs. L. C. H . and R. C. N. Palairet are