Cricket 1900

J an . 25, 1900. OEICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME a task which was rendered all the more difficult by reason of the brilliant attack possessed by Notts at that time. Such fine bowlers as Attewell, Barnes, Shack- lock, and Flowers were in their prime, whilst with such a man as Sherwin behind the stumps, it was obviously risky to attempt to take liberties with the bowling. Nevertheless, with a possi­ bility of being defeated, Yorkshire set about the task. In less than an hour Bates, who went in first, put together 63 by hitting of absolutely the finest des­ cription that could be desired, paralleled perhaps, in that wonderful century scored by Gilbert Jessop, at Harrogate, two seasons since. Most of Bates’ runs were made by tremendous on drives, a mag­ nificent stroke which he used as well as any other cricketer. Harry Daft, fielding down at the Bramall Lane gates, missed him easily when he had scored 30, only to catch him in exactly the same place when 91 runs were on the board. That performance was almost enough to stamp Bates as a great cricketer, for he showed just the nerve required, and also demon­ strated his ability to make runs under the most difficult conditions. Later on the effort became almost tragic. Bats­ man after batsmau threw his wicket away, being three or four yards out of his crease, when Sherwin stumped him, whilst when Peel fell in this fashion and ran back to the pavilion he was met by Tom Emmett coming out at full gallop across the green in his ordinary clothes, hurrying to get to the crease in time to get the necessary four. As it was, when stumps were pulled up Yorkshire required three runs to win, and had two wickets to fall. On the same ground there was another incident which many people wilt remem­ ber. That was in 1879, when Yorkshire and Gloucestershire met, and Gloucester had been sent in to play the fourth inn­ ings, requiring no more than 71. With the wicket almost perfect it was, of course, long odds on Gloucestershire, who at this time had a very fine side, getting the runs, and W. G. Grace, who had always had a dislike for Bates’ bowling, reserved himself until fifth wicket down, believing that there would be no necessity for him to bat. His turn came, how­ ever, and when, with his very first ball, Bates bowled the champion for a duck, there was a shout of delight from the thoroughly excited crowd, which testified to the keenness of the excitement. Dr. Grace’s repugnance to Bates’ attack was well grounded, for time after time the Yoikshireman beat him and bowled him on wickets whereon, as a rule, the cham­ pion could be safely backed for a three- figure innings. Another incident, well remembered by Sheffielders, took place at Bramall Lane, which also gave rise to great jubilation. It was when Yorkshire and Lancashire were in antagonism, and Barlow was exercising his powers of defence to the full. The Lancashire men were playing for a draw, having absolutely no hope of victory, and at length Bates grew des­ perate. Three times in one over were his curly deliveries stopped by Barlow’s legs. The fourth was dead straight, and was again met by the leg-guard. “ How’s that ? ” shouted Bates. Up went the umpire’s hand, and Barlow retired to the pavilion, with yells and laughter from the crowd. Huddersfield, of course, was Bates’ home ground, just as it is Hirst’s to-day, and here he seemed to have reserved him­ self for the display of some of his best work. It was the custom which I believe is still maintained of friends of the county cricketers who were playing at Fartown offering them cerfcaiu substantial induce­ ments to get good scores, and once, when Yorkshire and Lancashire met, Bates, so to speak, “ stood in ” for quite a lot of presents providing he reached his century. It was in 1885, and, having the advantage of a good wicket to play on, Bites scored with the utmost ease all round the wicket, and by the time the last ball of the last over before lunch was bowled, his score stood 98. As he himself u^ed to say, “ I saw the clock pointing at two, I knew it was the last ball I should have, and I had a go.” Alec Watson, how­ ever, was too wily for him, and, with Bates jumping a couple of yards up the wicket, he miscalculated the length, and was clean bowled. In the second inniiigs he subscribed a brilliantly hit 82 not out, and thus had a record of 170 for once out in the match. It may be pointed out that the 98 in the first day was made out of 141 whilst he was at the wicket. It is also satisfactory to know that the Huddersfield crowd atoned for his dis­ appointment by subscribing the sum of £14 before luncheon was over. The following are some of Bates’ finest bowling performances:— Year. Against. 878. Notts................... 878. Gloucestershire 878 Lancashire 878. Sussex ........... 879. Surrey .......... 879. Middlesex 879. Surrey ......... 880. N otts.................. . N otts................. 880. Notts................... 880. Derbyshire 881. K ent................... 881. Sussex .......... 881. Derbyshire 881. Gentlemen 881. N otts................. 881. Notts................... 881. Victoria ........... 882. Middlesex fc82. K e n t.................. 382. Derbyshire 832 . Gentlemen 882. Middlesex 383. N otts................. 884. Lancashire 884. Sussex ... ... 885. Surrey ........... 885. Surrey ........... 385. Derbyshire 385. Derbyshire 886 . Lancashire 886 . Surrey ........... At. Sheffield ........... Sheffield ......... Hu ldersfield ... Brighton........... H u ll................... Huddersfield ... (all O v a l................... Sheffield .......... Trent Bridge ... Trent Bridge ... Derby ........... Bradford ........... Sheffield ........... Derby ........... O v a l................... Trent Bridge ... Trent Bridge ... Melbourne Sheffield ........... Sheffield ........... Huddersfield ... O v a l................... Lord’s .......... Sheffield ........... Sheffield ........... Sheffield ........... Sheffield ........... Sheffield .......... Leeds................... Leeds................... Dewsbury Oval ................. 1887. Leicestershire... Dewsbury 5 wkts. for 17 7 wkts. for 3d 8 wkts. for 45 7 wkts. for 19 9 wkts. for 44 6 wkts. for 11 clean bowled) 8 wkts. for 21 6 wkts for 29 6 wkts. for 34 6 wkts. for 33 5 wkts. for 15 6 wkts. for 23 6 wkts. for 25 6 wkts for 37 6 wkts for 50 5 wkts. for 30 6 wkts. for 17 5 wkts. for 17 6 wkts for 33 6 wkts. for 12 6 wkts. for 31 4 wkts. for i9 3 wkts. for 16 3 wkts for 8 3 wkts. for 14 6 wkts. for :6 4 wkts. for 25 7 wkts. for 43 5 wkts. for 30 5 wkts. for 45 6 wkts. foi 19 12 o. 9m . 3r. for 3 wkts. 9 o. 6 m. 7 r. for 3 wkts. His hundreds for the county were as follows:— 1878. v. Notts ........................... 1879. v. Laucashire................... 1881. v. Kent ......................... 1884. v. Cambridge University 1884. v. Notts .......................... 1886. v. Cheshire ................... 1886. v. D erbyshire................... 1886. v. Sussex ................. Ib87. v. D erbyshire................... 102 118 108 133 116 101 106 lo 6 103 SURREY COUNTY CLUB. The following is the full programme for the Surrey Eleven for this year :— APRIL. 16. Oval, Surrey v. London County Club and Ground M AY. 1. Oval, Surrey Eleven v. Next Fourteen. 3. Oval, Annual General Meeting. 3. Crystal Palace, Surrey v. London County Club and Ground. 7. Oval, Surrey v. W arwicks'ire. 10. Oval, Surrey v. Hampshire. 11. Leyton, 8 urrey (2) v. E>sex (2). 1 1 . Leicester, Surrey v. Leicestershire. 16. Oval, Surrey (2) v. Hants (2). 17. Derby, Surre/ v. Derbyshire. 21 . Oval, Nurrey v. Worcestershire. 24 Uval, Surrey v. Essex. 28. Oval, Surrey v. Sussex. 28. Bedford, Surrey (2) v. Bedfordshire. 31. Oval, Surrey v. Gloucestershire. JUNE. Nottingham, Surrey v. Notts. Oval, Sarrey (2) v. Lancashire (2). Cambridge, Surrey v. Cambridge University. Oval, Surrey v. Somersetshire. Manchester, Surrey v Lancashire. Sheffield, Surrey v. Yorkshire. Oval, Surrey (2) v. Northants. Oval, Surrey v. Cambridge Uuiversity. Oval, Surrey v. Oxford University. Worcester, Surrey v. Worcestershire. Oval, Surrey (2) v. Glamorganshire. JU LY. Birmingham, Surrey v. Warwickshire. Oval, Surrey (2) v. Essex (2). Oval, Surrey v. Leicestershire. Oval, Gentlemen v. Players. Alton Surrey (2) v. da its (2). Leyton, Surrey v. Essex. Oval, Surrey v. West Indians. Cardiff, Surrey (2) v. Glamorganshire. Brighton, Surrey v. Sussex. Swindon, Surrey (2) v. Wiltshire. Oval, Surrey v. Kent. Oval, Surrey v. Yorkshire. Oval, Surrey v. South Africans. AUGUST. Oval, Surrey v. Middlesex. Northampton, Surrey (2) v. Northants. Oval, Surrey v. Notts. Manchester, Surrey (2) v. Lancashire (2). York, Surrey (2) v. Yorkshire (2) ( anterbury, Surrey v. Ktnt. Bournemouth, Surrey v. Hampshire. Oval, 8 urrey ( 2 ) v. Yorkshire (2) Oval. Surrey v. Lancashire. Lord’s, Surrey v. Middlesex Oval, Surrey (2) v. Bedfordshire. Bristol, Surrey v. Gloucestershire. Taunton, Surrey v. Somersetshire. Oval, Surrey (2) v. Wiltshire. Oval, Surrey v. Derbyshiie. THE SOUTH AFRICANS. M AY. 21. Southampton, v. Hampshire 24. Crystal Palace, v. London County C.C. 28. Liverpool, v. Liverpool and District 31. Oxford, v. Oxford University JUNE. 4 Sheffield, v. Yorkshire 11. Cambridge, v. Cambridge University 14. In Kent, v. Kent 18. Nottingham, v. Not|s 25. Lord’s, v. West Indian team JU LY . 5. Birmingham, v. Warwickshire 9. Leicester, v. Leicestershire 12. Derby, v. Derbyshire 16. Oval, v. Surrey 19. Worcester, v. Worcestershire 23. Northampton, v. Minor Counties 27. Swindon, v. Wiltshire 30. Bristol, v. Gloucestershire AUGUST. 2. Cardiff, v. South Wales 6 . Week in Scotland 9. Week in Scotland (second match) 16. Brighton, v. Hnn«ex 2). Manche-ler. v ILancashire 23. Lord’s, v, M C.C. aud Urouud