Cricket 1900

A ug . 30, 1900. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OP THE GAME. 375 wicket very carefully, and at last decided to put Yorkshire in first—a decision which, by the time that stumps were drawn, seemed a mistake, for Yorkshire had scored 173 for the loss of six wickets, and it was pretty certain that the wicket on the morrow would be in favour of the two redoubtable Yorkshire bowlers. Tunnicliffe played a fine innings, and Mr. Taylor, as usual, was of the greate t assistance to his side, while Wainwrignt, who hts at last got into form, carried his bat for 34. Hiret, however, again failed. The innings was finished off on Friday for an additional 41 runs, and Sussex had to go in against a total of 214, which under the circumstances was not very promising. But with the present Sussex team you never can tell what will happen as long as Mr. Fry and Ranjitsinhji survive, while even if they are disposed of hillick, Mr. Collins, Relf and Mr. Latham may make runs on any wicket against any bowling. As things turned out, Mr. Fry was in the mood to play a patient innings, while Ranjitsinhji, who very soon had to join him owing to the prompt dismissal of Relf and Mr. Latham, hit the Yorkshire bowlers about in a way to which they are not at all accus­ tomed even when the wicket is perfect. He made his fifty in less than three-quarters of an hour, while his partner took an hour and fifty minutes to reach the same total. As Rhodes, Haign and Hirst could make no impression on the batsmen, Wainwright was put on with the happiest results, for in his second over he dismissed both Fry and Ranjitsinhj i. The latter had scored 87 in an hour and a-half, and the former 55 in a little over two hours. Both innings were of the utmost value to the side. A t this point of the game the total was 151 for four wickets. It was a long time before Killick and Mr. Collins could be persuaded to retire, and they put on 74 for the fifth wicket in an hour and twenty-five minutes by very good batting indeed. Eventually Sussex had the useful lead of 54. In their second innings the Yorkshiremen seemed likely for once to be in for a good beating, for they lost Lord Hawke, Brown. Denton and Tunnicliffe for 49 runs, and were still five runs behind. Mr. Taylor and Hirst made things look a little better, but with five wickets down the northerners were only 22 runs on. But another stand was made by Wainwright and Mr. Taylor, producing 27, and yet another by Mr. Taylor and Haigh, producing 58, and the Yorkshire­ men were saved. Mr. Taylor’ s innings was perhaps the best that he has played this year. When eight wickets were down for 199 it was a little after four o’clock, and there was still a chance that Sussex would have time to win, but the rain came down and no further play was possible. Y o r k s h ir e . First innings. Lord Hawke, c Fry, b Tate 26 Tunnicliffe, c Ranjitsinhji, b Gresson ... ................. Brown, sen., b Vine ......... Denton, c Latham, b Tate T. L. Taylor, lbw, b Relf .. Hirst, stButt. b Gresson .. Wainwright, lbw, b Tate Haigh, b Tate ...................18 Whitehead, c and b Tate ... 11 Rhodes, c and b Tate........... 6 Hunter, not out ................... 2 B 5, w 2 Total Second innings, b Vine ................... 9 c Bland,b Vine 18 b V in e................... 5 b T a te................... 1 not out...................68 c Gresson, b Tate 23 c Butt, b Fry ... 14 c Butt, b Vine ... 24 notout...................15 o Ranjitsinhji, b Vine................... 3 BIO, lb5, w 4 19 ...214 Total (8 wkts) 199 49 10 0 47 4 34 S u s s e x . C.B. Fry, lbw, b Wain­ wright, ...................55 Relf, c Whitehead, b Rhodes ................... 7 P. H. Latham, lbw, b Rhodes ................... 0 K. S. Ranjitsinhji, b Wainwright ...........87 Killick, b Brown ... 45 A. Collins, st Denton, b R h od es...................32 F.H.Gresson,bRhodes 5 Vine, not out ...........13 Butt, lbw, b Rhodes 8 Bland, c Hirst, b Rhodes ................... 2 Tate, st Hunter, b Rhodes ...................10 B5, lb l,w 2 , n b l 9 Total ...268 Y o r k s h ir e . First innings. Second innings. O. M. R. W . O. M. R. W . Bland .. 11 5 26 0 ... . 2 0 4 0 Vine .. 25 4 90 1 ... .. 31 7 97 5 Tate .. 18 6 43 6 ... .. 81 12 62 2 Gresson ... ... 9 0 34 2 ... .. 3 1 4 0 Collins ... .. 8 4 6 0 ... .. 16-2 12 7 0 R e lf........... ... 4 2 8 1 ... .. 2 1 1 0 Fry ... .. 2 1 5 1 Collins, R elf and Fry each bowled a wide, and Vine three wides. S u s s e x . O. M. R. W . O. M. R. W . Rhodes 42*3 7 115 7 1Wainwr’t 3 5 20 2 H aigh. Hirst ... ... 19 ... 14 1 70 0 Whiteh’d 5 2 18 0 7 23 0 Brown 5 1 13 1 Rhodes bowled two wides and Haigh a no-ball. “ B A L L S ” O R “ O V E R S ? ” By “ A n O l d H a b r o v ia n .” In the Cricket Scores and Biographies, of which fourteen volumes have been published, no “ overs ” were inserted and no “ maiden overs.” I will now attempt to show how correct the “ indefatigable compiler and author ” of those fourteen volumes has proved himself to have been in follow ing that plan, method, or system from the first, and how that arrangement ought to have been con­ tinued and carried out in all published versions, newspapers, etc., which, how ­ ever, has not been the case. There have been, from time to time, various changes and alterations in the number of “ b alls” bowled or delivered each “ over ” ever since ciicket com ­ menced, and analyses of bow ling preserved, while confusion and inaccuracy have been greatly increased by these alterations as regards correct records of the “ noble gam e.” It is believed that at first six balls were delivered each “ over,” then four, which last number was continued many years. In 1889, however, the number of “ b a lls” each “ o v e r” was altered from four to five, and this was continued for eleven seasons. B u t in 1900, a further alteration was made, six being the number used. Therefore, as a proof how erroneous and mistaken a plan or system it is to publish “ overs,” I w ill give an example in point which will demonstrate plainly, and I hope, to the satisfaction of all true cricketers, the accuracy of m y statement and contention. In 1899, “ a cricketer ” bowled or delivered, as published (say) 1.000 “ overs,” and to shew the fallacy of this manner of reckoning or scoring, I will suppose for a moment that the same cricketer in 1900 again delivered the same number of “ overs,” namely 1,000. W ell, the result is th is : In 1899 he delivered 5,000 “ balls,” and in 1900, though delivering the same number of “ overs” (as published), he delivered 6.000 “ balls,” being a difference of no less than 1,000 “ balls,” and so on in proportion with larger or smaller number of “ overs.” It m ay be urged or argued by those who prefer “ overs” to “ balls,” that each reader of the papers, or guides, or almanacks, or any book of cricket records, can and must m ultiply each published “ over ” b y four, five, or six, as the case may require. But this cannot be done easily, or on the spur of the moment. Persons reading cricket books, or guides, or almanacks, or papers, only look at and notice and observe the number of “ overs” delivered, and ignore altogether these repeated changes as regards the “ number ” of “ balls ” con­ tained in each “ over,” and w ill never take the trouble to multiply. In plain words then, 1,000 “ overs ” in 1899 and 1,000 “ overs ” in 1900 are not the same, but have a great difference and value, and so on indefinitely. Hence it is evident that “ overs ” ought never to have been published with the scores when they appeared, but, instead, “ balls ” and nothing else should have been tabulated and preserved. The compiler of the Cricket Scores and Biographies saw and perceived this necessity from the first, and the accuracy of that indispensable arrangement and system remains now as it did then. “ Maiden overs,” too, are quite super­ fluous, and do not appear in any part of that work. There is no particular merit in any bowler delivering maiden overs, in fact, none at all. But to send down the greatest number of “ balls ” for the fewest number of runs during the whole innings is the criterion of a good and successful bowler, and that alone. In conclusion, I wish to point out that all secretaries and hon. secretaries of all cricket clubs are entirely to blame for this mistaken and erroneous manner of scoring by “ overs” instead of b y “ balls” in all published matches, whether great or small. For if they had only given simple directions to their scorers in their boxes to multiply all the “ overs ” at the end of each innings b y four, five, or six, as the case and laws m ight require, the result would at least have been approxi­ mate accuracy in cricket records, which has been long, it must be allowed b y all, sadly wanting. INCOGNITI y. HAMPSHIRE HOGS.—Played at Southampton on August 20 and 21. I n c o q n it i . Rev. F. W . Poland, c E. Maitland, b Rhoades ...................81 M.R. Quin, b Rhoades 0 A. M. Inglis, lbw, b Porter ...................94 E. C. Smith, c Street, b Porter ................... 8 J. C. 8naith, c Mait­ land, b Porter...........28 O. L . C. West,c Lang­ don, b P orter........... 9 A E. Holt, c and b Rhoades ...................55 F. J. Portman,cHeath- cote, b S treet.......... 76 M. L. Banks, not out 17 L. E. G. Abney, b Rhoades ................... 7 J. J. H. Orman, absent 0 Extras...................20 Total ...395 H a m p sh ir e H o g s . First innings. B. W . Bentinck, c Poland, b Snaith.................................. 56 E.Penton,cInglis,b Portman 7 F. E. Street, run o u t .......................50 J. Langdon, b Snaith........... 8 J F.Rhoades,c and b Snaith 85 Rev. A. L. Porter, run out .. 26 Capt. Maitland, b Portman 4 A. W . Fisher Hall, c Snaith, b Banks .......................... Major Heathcote, c and b Snaith.................................. 12 E. Clark, c H olt,b Snaith... 0 R. C. Maitland, not out ... 1 E xtras...........................30 Total ...................288 Second innings. c Poland,b Abney 8 b Abney ........... 0 b Abney 4 b Abney ...........11 b Snaith ........... 8 b Abney ........... 3 b Banks ...........21 9 cPortman,bAbney 22 b Abney ........... 6 not out.................. 24 not out...................29 Extras ...........21 T ota l...........193 PANTHER v. BR IXTO N WANDERERS.—Played at East Dulwich on August 18. B r ix t o n W a n d e r e r s . A. J.Whyte, b Wallers 14 C. W . Phillips, b Prior 41 A. S. Russell,b Wallers 1 H. J. Humin, ht wkt,b Wallers .................. 0 W.R.Ceasar, bWallers u F. Humin, b Wallers 0 C. F. Jones, b Lewis .. 0 W. J.Benje, c Wallers, P rior........................... B.A . Glanvil'e, not out J. Marwell, run o u t... L. Lewis, b Wallers .. B 9, lb 9, w 1 Total 12 0 0 0 19 , 87 P a n t h e r . A.E.D.Lewi8,bRus8ell 5 S. Silverthome, b Russell .................. 24 R. L. Allport, b Benje 2 A. Wallers, not out ... 48 D. Gray, b Benje ... 1 S. F. Prior, R. Bingham, Bartlett, and B. W . Green did not bat. W.A.Star dish.b Jones 1 E. W . Mantle, not out 23 B 2, w 1, nb 3 6 Total (5 wkts) 110