Cricket 1900

464 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. Nov. 29, 1900. Overs. Mdns. Runs. Wkts. Aver. A. J. Irons ... . . 3 . . 0 .. 29 .. — — J. A . Jonhston . 2 . — 25 — — E. Rymer Jones . . 11 . . — .. 58 .. — .. — C. H. Mason ... . . 3 . . — .. 19 .. — .. — F. E. Thomson . 2 . — .. 16 .. — .. — H. E. Thomson .. 2 . . — .. 17 — .. — F ir s t E leven F. G. Bull ... . . 163-5. . 27 .. 436 .. 35 .. 12 48 P. P. Lincoln ... . . 4 5. . 5 .. 242 .. 16 .. 1512 H. T. Richardson. . 1534. . 31 .. 504 .. 31 . . 1625 C. J. M. Godfrey .. 576-4. .115 .. 1805 .102 . . 17-41 E. J. Brown ... . . 912 . 16 .. 325 .. 16 .. 203 A. 8. Johnston . 95-3... 13 .. 351 .. 15 .. 23-40 L. R. Havers ... .. 136 .. 24 .. 438 .. 17 . . 25 76 J. D. Gillespie . 87 . . 10 .. 316 .. 9 . . 35-11 L. R. Glover ... .. 46 .. 8 .. 183 .. 5 . 36-60 W . 8. Pate .. .. 955. .. 20 293 .. 7 . . 41-85 Bowled in under eight innings : S. E. Atkinson 1 .. 0 .. 7 .. 1 . . 7 F. Helder................... 12 .. 3 .. 25 .. 2 . . 12 50 F. B. W ood ... .. 18 .. 6 .. 41 .. 3 . . 13-66 8. Ellis ................ .. 13 ... 3 .. 35 .. 2 . . 17-50 F. E. Lander ... .. 31 .. 0 .. 232 A 11 . . 21.9 W . Austin ... .. 69 .. 18 .. 150 .. 7 . . 21-42 T. H. Summers 7 .. 0 .. 55 .. 2 27 50 W . Morris .. 321 .. 3 .. 132 .. 4 . . 33 F. W . 8. Brabham 17 71 .. 2 . . 35-50 T. L. Passmore .. 57 . 239 .. 6 . . 3816 C. L . Bemmerde .. 16 81 .. 1 . . 81 A. O. Pettman .. 17 89 .. 1 . . 89 Bowled without success — G. C. Beasley ... 3 10 .. — . . — J. P. Clarkson .. 8 30 . — . . — G. Helder........... .. 4 .*. o 16 .. — . . — W . K. Honeywill . 2 ... o .. 4 .. — . . — C. E. G. Lee... .. 3 .. o .. 16 .. — . . — C. H. Mason... .. 3 .. o .. 19 .. — . . — E. Rymer Jones .. 8 .. o .. 43 .. — . . — F. E. Thomson 2 “ A ” .. o .. T eam . 16 W . Edwards ... .. 99-5 .. 15 .. 301 .. 32 . . 9-40 T. L. Passmore .. 1?3*3 .. 22 . 395 .. 33 . . 11-96 8. C. Burnett ... .. 68-2 .. 5 .. 266 . 16 . . 1662 G. Helder........... .. 124 1 .. 20 .. 430 .. 26 . . 16 69 8. V . Windett... .. 1*53*3 .. 19 .. 632 .. 32 . . 19 7fi E. F. Debenham .. 201-1 24 . . 732 .. 33 . . 2218 A. O. Pettman .. 38 .. 4 .. 139 5 . . 27-80 Bowled in under eight innings : — C. E. G. Lee ... .. 27-1 .. 6 .. 69 .. 9 . . 6*66 H. W . Le May .. 3 .. 1 . . 14 .. 2 . . 7-00 H. W ileon .. 8 .. 0 .. 26 .. 3 . 8-66 W . Austin .. 73 .. 0 . . 30 .. 3 . . 1000 W . 8. Pate .. 41-5 .. 11 .. 106 .. 10 . . 10 60 T. Nelson . .. 9 .. 1 .. 44 .. 3 . . 14*<6 J. R. Hollingworth 53 .. 10 .. 158 . 10 . . 15-80 W . Nichol .. 38 .. 6 . 128 .. 8 . . 16-CO F. Helder.......... .. 493 .. 5 . 178 .. 11 . . 16-18 C. T aylor........... .. 8 .. 1 33 .. 2 . . 16-50 A. N. Massie ... .. 543 .. 4 . . 211 ... 10 . . 21-10 W . K. Honeywill .. 24 .. 1 .. 132 .. 6 . . 22 00 F . B. W ood ... .. 43 .. 3 . . 186 .. 8 . . 23-25 H. T. Richardson .. 49 .. 6 . . 167 ... 7 . . 23 85 A . D a v is........... .. 12 .. 3 . . 49 ... 2 . . 21-50 W . H. Smith ... .. 11 .. 1 . . 49 ... 2 . . 24 50 fl. W . Gill ... . 31 .. 1 . . 123 ... 5 . . 24-60 J. D. Gillespie .. 6 .. 0 . 41 ... 1 . . 41-00 E. J. Brown ... .. 12 .. 1 . . 92 ... 2 . . 46 00 Bowled without success — 8. E. Atkinson .. 5 .. 0 . . 32 ... — ... — T. P. Austin ... 3 .. 0 . . 22 ... — ... — 8. Ellis .......... .. 4 .. 1 . . 23 ... — . — L. K. Glover ... 5 .. 0 . 15 ... — ... — H. J. Graham... .. 1 .. 0 . 9 ... — — A. J. Irons .. 3 .. 0 . 29 ... — .. — J. A . Johnbton .. 2 .. 0 . 25 ... — — E. Rymer Jones .. 3 .. 0 . . 15 ... — .. — H. E. Thomson 2 ... 0 . . 17 ... — .. — N E X T Y E A R ’S CR ICK E l'. In another fortnight Cricket readers will know pretty well what they are to expect in the shape of first-class cricket next summer. As it is, even now, though some of the leading counties have not as yet given the public an idea of their probable cards, it is possible to get some­ thing like a notion of what the season of 1901 will supply in the way of attractions. What with the war and the weather, in the majority of cases, even with the clubB of greater resources, last year was not one of financial success. Hence it is hardly surprising to find at the moment a disposition rather in favour of a re­ duction than an enlargement of the programme. Of late years Lancashire, Surrey, and Yorkshire alone have played all the other first-class counties. Nor there is any reason to doubt that they will all adhere to the policy next year. Lancashire’s match list has not been published, but it is fairly safe to anticipate that it will include, as in the case of Surrey, home and home fixtures with the other fourteen counties competing for the first-class championship. This amounts to twenty-eight inter-county engagements without reckoning other matches. With Surrey and Yorkshire it means an addition of several more; in the case of the former of no less than six, consisting of home and home fixtures with the two Universities, as well as the London County C.C. Surrey’s Second Eleven, too, will have to meet two more counlies than last year by the addition of Devon­ shire and Norfolk to the list. It is not Derbyshire’s fault that the county is not able to announce an enlarged programme. The executive were prepared to meet all comers, or nearly so. Though their efforts have not been entirely successful, they have been fortunate in arranging home and home matches with Gloucester­ shire, a very attractive addition to the programme. It was at one time rumoured that there was a doubt about Essex and Middlesex meeting next year. Fortu­ nately Essex was not one of the sufferers by the reduction of the Middle­ sex list. On the contrary, the Leyton public will be the gainer on the whole, as an additional fixture has been made with Notts. The addition of a match (one with Derbyshire) in Gloucester­ shire’s programme has already been men­ tioned. What the Hampshire executive have in contemplation for next year has not been made public as far as we know. Kent is arranging precisely the same matches as last year. For the first match of the Canterbury week Essex will take the place of Lancashire, who have re­ verted to the old arrangement of exchang­ ing Bank Holidays with Yorkshire. Surrey will furnish the attraction for the second match of the Canterbury week, as in 1900. Middlesex has curtailed the num­ ber of its matches by the abandonment of its fixtures with LeicestershireandWorces­ tershire. The new ground of the Leicester­ shire club will be opened on May 13, and fittingly, by the Surrey team, who have provided occasion for several of Leicester­ shire’s best performances in the past. Reference has already been made to the arrangement of a new fixture between Notts and Essex. Notts and Surrey, as hitherto, exchange the two Bank Holi­ days. Somersetshire will play the same matches as last year with, it is rumoured, the addition of Worcestershire. Sussex play the same counties as last year ; and Warwickshire will in all probability have the same match-list. Worcester­ shire, the youngest of the first-class counties, loses, as mentioned above, its matches with Middlesex, but has been able to arrange with Somerset. On the strength of its un­ beaten record for the last three years in the Minor Counties’ Competition, Northamptonshire was hopeful of being able to arrange a sufficiency of fixtures to enable it to qualify for the first-class championship. It was not, perhaps, the best time for the attempt. Whether or no, its efforts were not crowned with success, for Leicestershire, indeed, is said to have been the only county to agree to arrange matches. The dates for the principal matches at Lord’s are as fol­ lows :— July 4, 5 and 6, Oxford v. Cambridge. „ 8,9 and 10, Gentlemen v. Players. ,, 12 and 13, Eton v. Harrow. The annual match between Gentlemen and Players at the Oval will take place on July 11, 12 and 13. This means that it will follow instead of precede, as hitherto, the fixture at Lord’s. Lock­ wood of Surrey, J. T. Brown of York­ shire, and Walter Wright of Kent, are to have benefits. Who will receive the proceeds of the Whit Monday match at Lord’s has yet to be decided. The par­ ticulars of a visit of a Dutch team to England next August are given in “ Pavilion Gossip.” THE NEW RULES OF THE MELBOURNE C.C. For many years past it would hardly have been accurate to say that club cricket was played in Australia under the rules of the Marylebone Cricket Club. A somewhat startling innovation has now been made by the Melbourne C.C. on the lines which found favour among a few enthusiasts in England a year or two ago, when the experiment was tried and abandoned after a very short time. The new rules,are as follows :— 1. The time allotted for play shall te divided on each day of the match equally between the opposing clubs, provided— (a) That when either side has completed an innings, the opposing side shall then proceed to bat, and shall continue until it has concluded its corresponding innings. (b) That when each side has completed an innings the available time then remaining for play on any day of the match shall be divided, as previously mentioned; if however, such time be less than one hour, it shall be added to the time available on the succeeding day’s play, and the total thus arrived at shall be divided equally between t competing clubs. The side last in the field shall bat for the remainder of the day first referred to, and shall resume on the next day of the match. 2. All interruptions occasioned by weather or light shall be counted as portions of the time allotted to the batting side during whose occupancy of the wickets such interruption has occurred. 3. The follow-on rule shall not apply, but the opposing sides shall (except as herein­ before provided) bat alternately. 4. At any time during the last day of a match either side may declare its innings closed. Another innovation was carried on the proposition of Hugh Trumble, viz., the doing away with sight-boards in pennant cricket. The idea was to save time, as well as to give the bowler a little assistance. Piloted and PnbUihed lot the Proprietor by M ib h i t t * H a t o b u , L t d . 187 . 168, and 1(9, Upper Thamei Street, London, B.C., Nov. 29th, 1900.