Cricket 1900

O c t . 25, 1900. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 437 110, Abel, R. (107) and Hayward, T. (82), Surrey and Sussex v. England, at Hastings. 109, C. J. B. W ood ^79) and King, J. H. (68 not out), Leicestershire v. Hampshire, at Southampton. 104, C. B. Fry (145) and P. H. Latham (31), Sussex v. Leicestershire, at Brighton. 102, C. B. Fry (110) *nd Killick, E. H. (39), Sussex v. Middlesex, at Brighton. 101*, T. S. Fishwick (55 not out) and Charlesworth, C. (52 not out), Warwickshire v. Hampshire, at Edgbaston. 100, H. B. Hayman (87) and R. W . Nicholls (44), Middlesex v. Yorkshire, at Lord’s. 100, Abel, R. (103 not out) and Hayes, E. G. (80), Surrey v. Nottinghamshire, at the Oval. 100, L. C. H. Palairet (75) and Lewis (37), Somerset­ shire v. Kent, at Taunton. (c.)— T h ib d W ic k e t . 323, P. Perrin (205) and C. McGahey (142), Essex v. Kent, at Leyton. 262, L. C. H. Palairet (161) and C. A. Bernard (122), Somersetshire v. Hampshire, at Southampton. 235, Carpenter, H. (140) and C. McGahey \107), Essex v. Sussex, at Leyton. 201, T. L. Taylor (147) and Tunnicliffe, J. (101), Yorkshire v. Surrey, at the Oval. 199*, Quaife, W. G. (131 not out) and Kinneir, S. P. (98 not out), Warwickshire v. Surrey, at the Oval. 196, C. B. Fry (229) and K . S. Ranjitsinhji (103), Sussex v. Surrey, at Brighton. 195, Abel, R. (221) and Lockwood, W . H. (104 not out). Surrey v. Worcestershire, at the Oval. 195, R. E. Foster (136) and C. B. Fry (92), Gentlemen v. Players, at Lord’s. 194, K . S. Ranjitsinhji (276) and C. B. Fry (185), Sussex v. Leicestershire, at Leicester. 169, K . S. Ranjitsinhji (109) and C. B. Fry (105), Sussex v. Gloucestershire, at Bristol. 168, R. E. Foster (171) and H. C. Pilkington (87), Oxford University v. Cambridge University, at Lord’s. 167, P. F. Warner (170) and H. W . Kaye (76), Middle­ sex v. Essex, at Lord’s. 165, Brown, J. T.,sen. (163) and Abel, R. (98), Players v. Gentlemen, at Lord’s. 163, Tyldesley, J. T. (121) and Brown, J. T., sen. (65), North v. South, at Hastings. 152, A. E. Stoddart (221) and K. W . Nicholls (84), Middlesex v. Somersetshire, at Lord’s. 118, Killick, E. H. (104) and Marlow, F. W . (67), Sussex v. Cambridge University, at Brighton. 139, K. S. Ranjitsinhji (192 not out) and Killick, E. H. (51), Sussex v. Kent, at Tonbridge. 135, Quaife, W. G. (97) and Quaife, W . (71), War­ wickshire v. Gloucestershire, at Edgbaston. 135, K . S. Ranjitsinhji (87) and (J. B. Fry (55), Sussex v. Yorkshire, at Brighton. 132, P. F. Warner (134) and C.M . Wells (82), Middle­ sex v. Nottinghamshire, at Nottingham. 129, Kinneir, S P. (70) and Quaife, W . li. (69), War­ wickshire v. Leicestershire, at Leicester. 128, P. C. Baker (13 >) and S. H. Day (44), Kent v. Nottinghamshire, at Nottingham. 126, J. Daniell (101 not out) and A. M. Sullivan (55), Cambridge University v. Surrey, at Cambridge. 126, Kinneir, S. P. (95) and Quaife, W . G. (91), W ar­ wickshire v. Surrey, at Edgbaston 122*, K . S. Ranjitsinhji (88 not out) and A. Collins (73 not out), Sussex v. Hampshire, at Brighton. 121, Kinneir, S. P. (80) and Quaife, W. G. (52), War­ wickshire v. Essex, at Edgbaston. 120*, Tyldesley, J. T. (70 not out) and Briggs, J. (58 not out), Lancashire v. Kent, at Manchester. 116, E. J. Newton (69) and Barton, Y. (68), Hamp­ shire v. Derbyshire, at Derby. 115, Denton, D. (85) and Hirst, G. H. (46), Yorkshire v. Warwickshire, at Leeds. 111, J. R. Mason (137) and C. L. Townsend (58), Mr. A . J. W ebbe’s X I. v. Cambridge University, at Cambridge. Ill, H. G. Owen (134) and C. McGahey (87), Essex v. Hampshire, at Leyton. Ill, A. J. L . Hill (87) and E. M. Sprot (50), Hamp­ shire v. Leicestershire, at S uthampton. 109, A. J. L. Hill (76) and W ebb, A. (70), Hampshire v. Sussex, at Portsmouth. 1C6, C. McGahey (184) and Carpenter, H. (66), Essex v. Leicestershire, at Leyton. 106, J. R. Mason (85) and S. H. Day (43), Kent v. Somersetshire, at Blackheath. 105, Dench, C. E. (59) and Gunn, W . (53), Notting­ hamshire v. Middlesex, at Lord’s. 104, Abel, R. ,107) and D. L A . Jephson (44), Surrey and Sussex v. England, at Hastings. 102*, Denton, D. (85 not out) and T. L. Taylor (50 not out), Yorkshire v. Warwickshire, at Edg­ baston. 101, Barton, Y . (99) and E .M . Sprot (46), Hampshire v. Somersetshire, at Southampton. 100*, P. H. Latham (79 not out) and Killick, E. H. (35 not out), Sussex v. Leicestersh., at Brighton. 100, Storer, W . (114 not out) and Bagshaw, H. (73), Derbyshire v. Worcestershire, at Worcester. (d .)— F o u r th W ic k b t . 268, Carpenter, H. (151) and Russell, T. M. (139), Essex v. Derbyshire, at Derby. 256, Knigbt, A. E. (182) and Whitehead, H. (116), Leicestershire v. Sussex, at Leicester. 248, J. R. Mason (147) and W . L. Knowles (124), Kent v. Surrey, at the Oval. 194, K. S. Ranjifcinhji (222) and Killick, E. H. (127), Sussex v. Somersetshire, at Brighton. 162, Bowley, F. (98) and Wheldon, F. (81), Worces­ tershire v. M.C.C. and Ground, at Lord’s. 149, Hayward, T. (127) and Abel, R. (112), Surrey v. Warwickshire, at Edgbaston. 145, B. J. T. Bosanquet (139) and Rawlin, J. T. (39), Middlesex v. Leicestershire, at Lord’s. 145, J. R. M i son (98) and S. H. Day (65), Kent v. Surrey, at the Oval. 136, Hearn*, A. (73) and J. R. Mason (71), Kent v. Middlesex, at Lord’s. 124, C. J. Burnup (74) and J. P. Mason (72), Kent v. Somersetshire, at Blackheath. 133, J. R. Mason (137) and C. J. Burnup (61), Kent v. Hampshire, at l'onbiidge. 132, Gunn, W. (110) and Pough^r, A. D. (46), M.C.C. and Ground v. Worcestershire, at Lord’s. 132, Hirst, G. H. (77) and T L. Taylor (74), Yorkshire v. Middlesex, at Leeds. 130*, Tunnicliffe, J. (1 0 not out) and Hiist, G. H. (55 not out), Yorkshire v. Nottinghamshire, at Nottingham. 180, C. A. 1eroard (82) and A. E. New' on (77), Somer­ setshire v. Gloucestershire, at Bristol. 150, J. R. Mason (72) and B . C. Stewart (68), Kent v. Middlesex, at Tonbridge. 127, Whitehead, H. (108) and King, J. H. (51), Leices­ tershire v. Essex, at Leyton. 127, W . W . Lowe (92) and G. E. Bromley-Martin (41), Worcestershire v. Gloucestershire, at Worcester. 124, E. R. W ilson (8:) and J. Daniell (63), Cambridge University v. Sussex, at Brighton. 122, K . S. Ranjitsinhji (215 not out) and Butt, H. R. (66), Sussex v. Cambridge Univ., at Cambridge. 122, Denton, D. (75) and T. L. Taylor (71), Yorkshire v. Somersetshire, at Taunton. 122, G. L. Jessop (95) and H. D. G. Leveson-Gower (47), Mr. C. I. Thornton’s England X I. v. Yorkshire, at Scarborough. 121, Carpenter, H. (125) and P. F. Warner (83), M.C.C. and Ground v. Yorkshire, at Lord’s. 12), C. J. B. Wood (64) and Knight, A . E. (60), Leicestershire v. Surrey, at the Oval. 118, Barton, V . (205) and C. E. Briggs (58), Hamp­ shire v. Sussex, at Brighton. 116, E. W . Dillon (74) and J. R. Mason (68), Kent v. Worcestershire, at Canterbury. 113, Robson, E. (IC4) and S. M. J. W oods (33), Somersetshire v. Surrey, at the Oval. 113, R. E. Foster (127) and C. D. Fi her (49), Oxford University v. Surrey, at the Oval. I ll, A. E. Lawton (60) and Storer, W . (55), Derby­ shire v. M.C.C. and Ground, at Lord’s (1st innings). I ll, Storer, W. (175 not out) and A. E. Lawton (53), Derbyshire v. M.C.C. and Ground, at Lord's (2nd innings). 110, C. J. Burnup (20D) and J. R. Mason (68), Kent v. Lancashire, at Manchester. 110, F. H. B. Champain (8b) and G. L . Jessop (71), Gloucestershire v. Notts, at Nottingham. 107, Lockwood, W . H. (95) and Hayward, T. (55), Surrey v. London County, at the Crystal Palace (1st inniDgs). 106, Denton, D. (71) and Hirst, G. H. (48), Yorkshire v. M.C.C. and Ground, at Lord’s. 1C6, Knight, A . E. (80) and King, J. H. (52), Leices­ tershire v. Lancashire, at Leicester. 104, S. M. J. Woods (121) and J. Danieil (43), Somer­ setshire v. 8urrey, at Taunton. 103, Hayward, T. (108) and Lockwood, W . H. (68), Surrey v. London County, at the Crystal Palace (2nd inniogs). 103, Hirst, G. H. (65) and Wainwright, E. (47), Y ork­ shire v. Leicestershire, at Leicester. 103, Hayward, T. (94) and Storer, W. (46), Players v. Gentlemen, at the Oval. 102, Gunn, W . (137) and Dench, C. E. (66 not out), Nottinghamshire v. Kent, at Nottingham. 102, Brown, J. T., sen. (163) and Hayward, T. (Ill), Players v. Gentlemen, at Lord’s. 102, Hirst. G. H. (84) and E. Smith (70), North v. South, at Lord’s. 101, W . G. Grace (110) and J. Gilman (36), London County v. M.C.C. and Ground, at the Crystal 100, C. J. Burnup (123) and C. McGahey (68), Gentle­ men v. Players, at the Oval. 100, Hirst, G. H. (92) and T. L. Taylor (35), Yorkshire v. Gloucestershire, at Bradford. (To becontinued.) P ORTRAIT MEDALLION8 OF POPULAR CRICKETERS.— W. G. Grace, K . S. Ranjit­ sinhji, C. B. Fry, C. J. Kortright, A. C. MacLaren, A. E. Stoddart, J. R. Mason, G. L. Jessop, Abel, Richardson, Hayward, Lockwood, Hearne (Alec.).— Price 2d. each, post free 3d., or the set of 13, post free, 2s. 2d.— M e r r it t a n d H a t c h e r , Ltd., 168, Upper Thames Street, London. © om sfp o n iicn tt. The Editordoes not holdhimself responsible for the opinionsof hiscorrespondents. ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE RULES. To the Editor of C r ic k e t. A fairly varied experience leads one to the conclusion that, in some respects, at any rate, cricketers are wofully negligent. It is remarkable how few players have any intimate acquaintance with the rules of the game. Intuitively, of course, a fair knowledge of the laws is bound to be gained by a player who follows the game for any length of time, but there is no reason why this intuitive knowledge should suffice as, in the majority of cases, it does. The captain of a well-known provincial club, a short time ago, con­ fessed he had never read the rules of cricket in his life. The club in question boasts its M.C.C. and other “ class” fix­ tures, while the player spoken of received his cricket training at one of our best public schools, under the eye of masters who are adepts at the game, and under the guidance of one of the finest pro­ fessionals who has ever appeared. Again, in a club match in the early part of the season, a well-known professional was given out “ l.b.w.” from a ball about a foot wide of the wicket. The opposing captain, who was the bowler, evidently thinking the decision needed a little ex­ planation, afterwards volunteered the information that he had appealed because of the alteration in the “ l.b.w .” law this season. Doubtless, in first-class cricket, um­ piring has improved of late years, but in club cricket a less satisfactory state of things prevails. Whether matters would be remedied by the proceeding or not, it may safely be asserted that players would lose little and gain much by a little care­ ful study of the rules of the game. Tours truly, “ ANON.” A SUGGESTION. To the Editor of C r ic k e t. S ir , —Has it ever been suggested in any of the numerous discussions on the subject of the l.b.w. rule that the bats­ man’s off side might be included as well as the ground actually between the wickets ? That is if the ball pitch either straight or on the off side, and, in the umpire’s opinion, be going to hit the wicket, if the batsman stops it with his person he should be out. The batsman must stand somewhere, and if he be in his proper place, that is, clear of the wicket on the leg side, it seems hard that he should be out if the ball hits him. On the other hand, directly he steps in front he takes a liberty, and should be pre­ pared to suffer if he makes a mess of things. This might possibly put a stop to that curse of modern cricket—standing in front and watching the off balls go by. Yours truly, “ INCOG."