Cricket 1900

A ug . 23, 1900. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 359 (UTomsfpon&ence. The Editor does not hold himself responsible tor the opinions of his correspondents. FOUR STUMPS. To the Editor of C r ic k e t . D ear S ir , — I am inclined to think that “ a well-known cricketer from the Antipodes ” has made a slight mistake. Surely if a fourth stump were added the batsmen would play still more cautiously, as there would be more chance, if he hit, of a ball going past him, and whereas many balls now just off the wicket are hit, if there were a fourth stump he would merely block it. Everybody seems to think that the long scoring causes drawn matches so often. I admit that this may be, as was, I consider, the case in the score of England v. Australia last year, but in nine cases out of ten it is the time which batsmen take to make the long score, which is a different thing. No one would say that Jessop’s centuries help to make a match drawn; on the contrary, he hits his runs very quickly and wins many a match. I think that if only two stumps were used and these made an inch higher it would lead to more hitting, and then bowlers would bowl for catches in the long field. Very often I thii.k that Surrey draws her matches owing to bad fielding, but if Abel could rely on his fields to hold bis catches he would get far more wickets. When W. Rhodes first came out, at the end of the season someone remarked that if he had played for Sussex instead of Yorkshire he would have done much worse. A critic remarked that this was ungenerous and shallow, but I think he (the critic) made a mistake ; the man did not mean to be ungenerous and I consider he spoke the truth. Rhodes would not have such a good analysis with bad fieldsmen who dropped his catches and did not save the boundaries. As it is, he can bowl balls to be hit and knows that they will be caught. If Surrey were certain of this she would be champion county almost every year. With sure county fields and only two stumps men would hit, get caught, and matches be finished. Your well-wisher, “ X . Y . Z .” With regard to a query in “ Pavilion Gossip” as to whether four “ pairs ” in a match is not a record, as was the case in the recent Gloucester v. Middlesex encounter, I can only recall one instance in which it has been beaten in first-clafs county cricket, and on that occasion two men were not dismissed. It happened many years ago—to wit, August 18 and 19, 1828, and the opponents were Sussex and Kent. Here is the record of five Sussex men:— W . Lillywhite, b Searle ... 0 b Searle ........... 0 J. Slater, b Aehby ........... 0 c M ills................. ■ 0 G. Goad, e Claridgi ........... 0 st Wenman ... 0 W . Pickett, not out ........... 0 b Wenman .. ... 0 Murrell, b Ashby................... 0 not out................... 0 In conclusion might I also point out that it was E. A. C. Druce that helped to compile the record ninth-wicket partner­ ship of 293, at Eastbourne last week, not Dance as erroneously given by Mr. F. S. Ashley-Cooper. Thi* is probably a tyj o- graphical error. Apologising, Ycurs, etc., Clifton Villa, A l f r e d D. T a y l o r . Hove Place, Brighton. INDIVIDUAL RECORD SCORES. To the Editor of C r ic k e t . S ir ,—Anent Mr. Francis J. Cunyng- hame’s table of individual record scores on important grounds that appeared in your last, should not Mr. W. Ward’s 278, hit for M.C.C. against Norfolk, in 1820, rank as the highest individual score ever compiled at Lord’s ? The match was certainly considered “ first class ” in its day, and should decidedly stand before Ranjitsinhji’s 260. I would also point out that P. S. McDonnell registered 239 for New South Wales v. Victoria, at Melbourne, in December, 1886, which eclipses G. Giffen’s 237 hit on the same ground in 1891, as given by your cor­ respondent. To the Editor of C r ic k e t . D e a r S i r , —As a young cricketer of the age of eleven, may I take the liberty of asking whether Mr. Francis J. Cun- ynghame is correct in including in this week’s cricket (page 338) in his list of individual record scores in only strictly first-class matches Peel’s score of 226 not out for Yorkshire, at Bradford, in July, 1892. My “ Wisden’s Almaimck ” for 1893 (page 119) shows that in the York­ shire v. Leicestershire match, played at Bradford in July, 1892, Peel scored 226 not out. But in this year Leicestershire was only a second-class county. Yours truly, Rock House, T. F r a n k H e w l e t t . The Parrog, Newport, Pembrokeshire. very successful bowler. In former days, say about 80 or 90 years back, and even at a much later period, cricketers did not receive near such very high pay as they do now, or obtain such handsome pre­ sents. They were satisfied, or supposed to be contented with the humble shilling, which now finds its equivalent in the guinea. It became a custom whenever a bowler got three wickets with three following or consecutive balls to present him with a new hat. A collection of one shilling was made from each person playing, and the result was as stated. The hat trick, both in name and practice, has continued ever since, and will, I hope, so remain, in recollection of our forefathers at cricket. But it is doubtful if those engaged now will be satisfied with a hat as a valuable reward for their skill and merit. Everything, however, in these days is overdone and carried to excess. Too many matches are played by far, and the noble game thereby becomes more common, and consequently less interesting and exciting than it was when fewer contests took place some fifty years back. But money rules the day at cricket, as well as with most other things just now. Yours, etc., “ A n O l d H a r r o v ia n .” To the Editor of C r ic k e t . D e a r S i r , —Referring to Mr. Cunyng- hame’s list of record scores in Edition 551 of Cricket (page 338), should not Hayward’s 315 for Surrey against Lan­ cashire, at the Oval on August 18, 19 and 20, 1898, be counted as “ strictly first- class,” and is it not really Hayward’s record score ? Yours faithfully, E d w a r d W. G e o r g e . 73, Larcom Street, Walworth. ORIGIN OF THE “ HAT TR ICK ” AND NAME AT CRICKET. To the Editor of C r ic k e t . D ear S ir ,— Many, and no doubt in fact most, cricketers, do not know how this name and custom originated. I will therefore explain and state what I heard when I was young. It was simple in the extreme, and began, I believe, in and about the time when Lord Frederick Beauclerk flourished, namely, from 1791 to 1825, his lordship being for upwards of thirty years one of the greatest expo­ nents of the art of batting, and also a INCOGNITI v. EXMOUTH .—Played at Exmouth on August 17 and IS. E xmouth . First inniogs. Rev. J. H. Copleston, c Neamp, b 8chw arz.......... 1 H. F. Justice, c Radcliffe, b 8chwarz ...........................17 Second innings, b Browce ........... 0 Griffiths, c Lushington, b Hnaith.................................. 14 S. M. Mackenzie, b Schwarz 8 8. J. Carr, st Luxmore, b Schwarz ................... 4 J. H. Hunt, c Francis, b Snaith .. ...........................28 r . E. Winter, b Snaith ... 6 Rev. S. Featherstone, b S n a ith .................................18 SirA..W .ffemming.b Francis 5 F. W. Christian, b Francis.. 11 R. M. Pierce, not o u t...........10 R.Cotgrave,c and b Browne 8 Extras........... ... 10 Total ................... 140 c Schwarz, b Francis ...........45 b Browne ........... 4 c Browne,bSnaith 29 c Gibb, b Browne 22 c B r o w n e , b Schw arz...........47 c Gibb, b Browne 5 b Browne ........26 b Browne ......... 3 b Snaith ......... 0 b Francis ......... 7 not out................. 4 Extras ... 5 Total...197 I ncogniti . A .B . Delm£-Radcliffe, b Bunt ...................37 L. S. Browne, b Hunt. 62 H. A. Francis, b Hunt 14 R.O.Schwarz,cWinter, b Hunt ...................19 J. A. Gibb, c Justice, b Pierce ...................62 JVC. Snaith, c Pierce, b Copleston.................. 14 F. W . Lushington, A. P, A. F. C. Luxmore. b G riffiths..................2 9 H. G. Barlow, not out 55 F. A. Jones, c Carr, b H u n t.........................28 Extras ...........36 Total (8 wkts)*338 Neame, and W . P. Carp* mael did not bat. * Innings declared closed. HAMPSTEAD v. SOUTHGATE.—Played at Sou>h- gate on August 18. H ampstead . E. Ford-Smith, c Dick­ son, b Lewis ......... I C. D. .McMillin, lbw, b W. T. H . Danby, not out .......................... 102 A. Eiloart, b Ricketts. 1 S. C. Howard, S. 8. Pawling, A. Wallace, A. S. Dornton, and Mohamed Said did not bat. * Innings declared closed. SOUTHGATR. L. D. Smith, run out.. 6 C. Herries, b Said ... 8 F. S. Lewis, b Said ... 8 A. W . 8harpe, not out 28 . _____ _______ ____ R. 8. Dickson, R. Page, A. Knight, W . T. Ricketts” L. Lewis, and E. White did not bat. A.A.Carter, b Roberts 23 R. Matthews, not out. 43 B 8, lb 6, w 1 ... 15 Total(4 wkts)*220 T. D. Roberts, not out 20 B 12, lb 3, w 1... 16 Total (3 wkts) 86