Cricket 1901

212 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. J u n e 2 0 , 1 9 0 1 . BUSSEY’S AT THE SIGN OF THE WICKET. B y F. S. A shley -C ooper . The recent match betwoen the M.C.C. and Ground and London County will long remain historical on account of the very successful howling of Mr. W . G. Grace. That W . G. should obtain wickets is not in itself surpris­ ing. He has heen so pre-eminent a batsman that his skill as a bowler is frequently over­ looked. For many years he was justly regarded as one of the greatest bowlers in the world, and it generally happened that when he failed with the bat he wrought sad havoc with the ball. Some of his greatest per­ formances as a bowler have never been equalled. Details of his greatest feats with the ball can be seen in the Sportsman of July 19th, 1898. The list is too lengthy for reproduction here, but it may be stated that in great matches the Master has taken more wickets than any other bowler that ever lived. In the match at Lord’s last week, he obtained thirteen wickets for 110 runs—a feat which reminds one of several of his performances in the seventies. Such a record would have been considered splendid for a cricketer in his prime, but what words can adequately describe it when performed by a man nearly fifty-three years of age ? It is thirty-seven years since Mr. Grace played his first match at Lord’s, and, when he made his debut for the Gentlemen against the Players—thirty-six years ago—he was chosen owing more for his bowling than his batting capabilities. W . G. played in Gentlemen v. Players matches side by side with men of the Lockyer, Mortlock and Parr era, and it would certainly be strange if he should be chosen to assist the Gentlemen at Lord’s this year, aa in 1865, on account of his bowl­ ing skill. But far more unlikely events could occur. Old William Lillywhite, the greatest of all bowlers since the days of David Harris, was selected for the Players in 1849, when fifty-seven years of age, and four years later commenced the bowling for Sussex against England at Lord’s. Happily, W . G. is still some years younger than was the Nonpareil when he played for the last time in a great match. That the Champion may beat old Lillywhite’s record of longevity must be the sincere wish of every true lover of the game. Cricket is almost life and breath to him, and he is still a very boy in spirits and enthusiasm. What were intended to be a few words only concerning W . G. have grown into many, but “ out of the heart the mouth speaketh,” and it’s the pen that scribbles. An interesting question reaches me from a reader in Berlin. “ It has occurred tom *,” writes my correspondent, “ that in the history of first-class cricket there must be several instances of players missing their century by a run only. I should be glad if you could find room in your column for the list.” As the information will probably be of interest to many besides the gentleman who requested it, I append details of SCO RES O F 99 M A D E B Y P L A T E R S IN F IR S T - CLASS M A TC H E S. 99,' 99, 99, 99, 99,' 99, BUSSEY’S 99, — . Evans, K ent v. M .C.C., Chislehurst, 1823 L ord F . Beauclerck, T he B .’s v. England, L ord’s, 1824 Saunders, J ., X I . Players v. X V I. Gentlemen, L ord’s, 1825 A . B. Trollope, Gents, o f H ants v. Gents, o f Sussex, Southam pton, 1859 Anderson, G ., Yorkshire v. N otts, N ottingham , 1864 G . 8 . L yttelton, Cambs. U niversity v. Southgate, Cam bridge, 1867 Jupp, H ., Surrey v. Sussex, Brighton, 1869 M cIntyre, W ., N otts v. K ent, Nottingham , 1869 A . A ppleby, Lancashire v. Yorkshire, Sheffield, 1871 99, C. I. Thornton, M .C.C. and G. v. Cambs. U niv., Cambridge, 1878 99, Smith, A . F ., Players o f N orth v . Gents, of South, Prince’s, 1874 99, D aft, R ., N otts v. M iddlesex, N ottingham , 1876 99, W . R . Gilbert, Gloucestershire v. M iddlesex, Clifton, 1879 99, W . O. M oberly, Gloucestershire v. M iddlesex, Clifton, 1880 99, G. S. Foljam be, M .C.C. and G. v. O xford Univ., O xford, 1881 99, A . G. Steele, Lancashire v. M iddlesex, M an­ chester, 1882 99, C. W . W right, N otts v. Sussex, Brighton, 1882 9>*, E . 0 . Powell, H ants, v. Surrey, O val, 1884 99, Read, J. M , Surrey v. Gloucestershire, Oval, 1884 9"*, G. Brann, Sussex v. Gloucestershire, Chelten­ ham , 1885 99, S. W . Scott, M iddlesex v. Surrey, O val, 1887 99, W . H . Patterson, K ent v. M iddlesex, Canter­ bury, 1887 99, K . J. K ey, Surrey v. Sussex. O val 1887 99,* J . Gr. W alker, Gents, o f England v. O xford University, O xford, 1888 99, O. G. R addiffe, Gloucestershire v. Australians, Clifton, 1888 99, H . T . H ew ett, Gents, of E ngland v. I. Zingari, Scarborough, 1890 99, J. J. Lyons, Austr *lians v. M .C.C. and G ., L ord’s, 1890 99* W ardall, T ., Yorkshire v. Staffordshire, H ull, 1892 99, W . G. Grace, Gloucestershire v. Sussex, Gloucester, 1892 99, H . M oses, N ew South W ales v. South Australia, Adelaide, 1892 99, G . J. M ordaunt, O xford U niversity v. Somerset, O xford, 1894 99, R . S. Lucas, M iddlesex v. Sussex, B righton, 1894 99, W ard, A ., Lancashire v. Leicestershire, M an­ chester, 1894 99, C. B . Fry, Sussex v. K ent, M aidstone, 1895 99, Bagshaw, H ., D erbyshire v. Essex, D erby, 1895 99, Russell, T . M ., Essex v. Somersetshire, Taunton, 1895 99, R . C. N . Palairet,Som ersetshire v. K ent,Taunton, 1896 99, Tunnicliffe, J ., Yorkshire v. Sussex, Brighton, 1896 99, Denton, D ., Yorkshire v. Leicestershire, Leicester 1897 99, E . M . A shcroft, Derbyshire v. N otts, N otting­ ham , 1897 99, C. B . Fry, Sussex v. Ham pshire, Brighton, 1898 99, Q uaife, W . G ., W arw ickshire v. Ham pshire, Southam pton, 1898 99, C. M cGahey, Essex v. Leicestershire, Leicester, 1899 99* H ayward, T ., Surrey y. Essex, Leyton, 1900 99 W . M cCorm ick, V ictoria v. Tasm ania, Launces­ ton, 1901 •Signifies not out. The name of C. B. Fry appears in the above list twice. Against Hampshire at Brighton in 1898 he scored 99 and 133. C. J. Bumup made 95 and 93 for Cambridge Uni­ versity v. M.C.C. and Ground, at Cambridge, in 1896. There are sixty instances upon record in which a player has missed his century by two runs only. Ulyett made 199 not out for Yorkshire against Derbyshire at Sheffield in 1887, N. F. Druce 199 not out for Cambridge University v. M.C.C. and Ground at Cambridge in 1895, and A. J. L. Hill 199 for Hampshire v. Surrey at the Oval in 1898. No cricketer has yet made exactly 299 runs in an innings in a first-class match, the nearest approach being the 297 notout by H. Moses for New South Wales v. Victoria at Sydney in 1888. On two occasions a player has scored 299 not out in minor cricket, viz., A. J. Webbe for Trinity College v. Exeter College at Oxford, May 26, 1875, and W . F. Raphael for Lancaster Park 3rd v. Midland, Canterbury 4th, at Christchurch, N .Z., March 17, 1896. Mr. Arthur Haygarth, in Volume X IV . of his immortal work, has the following remarks concerning “ W . G .’s ” 400 not out for the United South of England v. X X II. of Grimsby—‘ ‘ Of this match it was subsequently stated that Mr. W . G. Grace’s score was 399, not 400, one being added to make the enormous total. This alteration (if done) was foolish­ ness, and totally opposed to justice. Had the compiler known of this fact when Vol. X III. was published, the score would certainly have appeared as 399. ‘ Our Champion ’ has gained