Cricket 1901

THE FINEST BM' THE WORLD PRODUCES. J u n e 2 7 , 1 9 0 1 . CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME 2 2 7 C H IE F B O W L IN G P E RFO RM AN CES IN F IR S T - CLASS M A TC H ES. (X I. a-side Matches only.) F our W ickets. 4 for 0, Sir F. Bathurst, England v. K ent, L ord’s, 1844. (In 8 balls.) 4 fo r 0, J. R . N apier, Lancashire v. Yorkshire, Shef­ field, 1888. 4 fo r 0, Hearne, A ., K ent v. Som ersetshire, Taunton, 1894. Five W ickets. 5 for 0, Pougher, A . D ., M .C.C. and G round v. Aus­ tralia, L ord’s, 1896. 5 fo r 1, Tate, F . W ., Sussex v. K ent, Tonbridge, 1888. 5 fo r 2, Sharpe, J. W ., Surrey v. Ham pshire, Oval. 1890. Six W ickets. 6 fo r 1, Cosstick, S., Victoria v. Tasm ania, Sydney. 1869. 3 6 for 3, H . F. Boyle, Australia v. M .C.C. and Ground, L ord’s, 1878. 6 fo r 3, A . Penn, K ent v. Sussex, Tunbridge W ells. 1878. 5 fo r 3, Barlow, R . G ., Lancashire v. Derbyshire, D erby, 1881. 5 for 3, H . R. Brom ley - Davenport, Gentlemen of England v. St. K itts, St. K itts, 1895. Seven W ickets. 7 for 3, F. R. Spoilorth, Australia v. A n England X I.. Birm ingham , 1884. 7 for 6, M orley, F ., M .C.C. and G round, v. O xford University, O xford, 1877. 7 for 7, Caffyn, W ., Surrey v. K ent, Canterbury, 1862. 7 for 7, Shaw, A ., Nottingham shire v. M .C.C. and Ground, L ord’ s, 1875. 7 fo r 7, Shaw, A , Nottingham shire v. Leicestershire, Leicester, 1878. 7 for 7, M orley, F ., Nottingham shire v. Derbyshire, N ottingham , 1879. 7 for 7, L . T. Driffield, Cambridge University v. M .C.C. and Ground, Cam bridge, 1900. Eight W ickets. 8 for 5, Peate, E ., Yorkshire v. Surrey, H olbeck, 1883. 8 for 7, Bickley, J ., E ogland v. K ent and Sussex, L ord’s, 1858. 8 for 7, Lohm ann, G. A ., England v. South Africa, P ort Elizabeth, 1896. Nine W ickets. 9 for 13, W atson, A ., Lancashire v. Sussex, M anches­ ter, 1890. 9 fo r 15, C. T . B. Turner, Australia v. A n England X I ., Stoke, 1888. 9 for 17, H . F. Boyle, Australia v. M .C.C. and Ground, L ord’s, 1878. Ten W ickets. 10 for 20, F. R . Spofforth, Australia v. M .C.C. and Ground, L ord’s, 1878. 10 fo r 22,S h aw ,A ..N ottsv. Surrey,N ottingham , 1875. 10 for 22. H . R . Brom ley-D avenport, Gentlemen of E ogland v. St. Kitts, St. K itts, 1895. Eleven W ickets. 11 fo r 27, W ootton, G ., M.C.C. and G round v. Sussex, Lord’s, 1863. 11 for 27, G. E. Palm er, Australia v. N orthum ber­ land, Newcastle, 188 i. Twelve W ickets. 12 fo r 20, Richardson, T ., Surrey v. Leicestershire, Leicester, 1837. 12 fo r 23, Freem an, G ., Yorkshire v. Lancashire, H olbeck, 1868. 12 fo r 28. W illbher, E., K ent v. Yorkshire, Sheffield. 1865 Thirteen W ickets. 13 fo r 14, M orley, F ., M .C.C. and G round v. O xford University, O xford, 1877. 13 fo r 38, W ainw right, E ., Yorkshire v. Sussex, Dewsbury, 1894. 13 fo r 38, T . R . M cK ibbin, Australia v. Lancashire, Liverpool, 1896. Fourteen W ickets. 14 fo r 33, Peel, R ., Yorkshire v. N ottingham shire, Sheffield, 1888. 14 fo r 34, R ylott, A ., M .C.C. and Ground v. K ent, L ord’s, 1878. 14 fo r 34, R ylott, A ., M .C.C. and G round v. H am p­ shire, L ord’s, 1878. Fifteen W ickets. 15 fo r 28, Briggs, J ., England v. South A frica, Cape Tow n, 1889. 15 for 35, M orley, F ., Nottingham shire v. K ent, Tow n M ailing, 1878. 15 for 35, Briggs, J., Lancashire v. Leicestershire, M ancheaier. 1889. Sixteen W ickets. 16 for 38, Emm ett, T ., Yorkshire v. Cam bridgeshire, H unslet. 18b9. 16 fo r 52, Southerton, J., South v. N orth, L ord’s, 1875. 16 for 60, W . G . Uraee, M.C.v.. and Ground v. N ot­ tingham shire, L ord’s, 1885. Seventeen Wickets. 17 for 50, C. T . B Turner, Australia v. A n England X I., Hastings, 1888. 17 for 89, W . G. Grace, Gloucestershire v. N otting­ hamshire, Cheltenham, 1877. 17 for 103, My croft, W .. Derbyshire v. Hampshire, Southam pton, 187H. Eighteen W ickets. 18 for 96, H . A rkw right, Gentlemen o f M .C.C. v. Gentlemen o f Kent, Canterbury, 1861. (X II. a-side.) v. (StSr. BUSSEY’S M o H C O j S Oo3 0 § £ 0 9 C D BUSSEY’S AT THE SIGN OF THE WICKET. B y F . 8 . A s h l e t -C o o p k e . “ O ! wonderful, wonderful, and most wonderful, and yet again wonderful! ” The phenomenal success of the Yorkshire bowlers at Trent Bridge on Friday last took us all by surprise. Late Thursday evening it was evident that on the following morning the home team would have to face the bowling of Rhodes and Haigh on a drying wicket, but no one could have been prepared to see the whole side disposed of in ninety balls for the total of 13. But the wicket could not have better suited Khodes and Haigh had it been specially prepared for them, and the bowlers named were in superb form. Nottingham folk will probably derive some comfort from the fact that Shrewsbury was unable to participate in the match owing to a damaged hand, but even the presence of Shrewsbury, great batsman_as he is, would hardly have stemmed the tide"of disaster. The total of 13, although not a record for first-class cricket, is the smallest score ever made by a side in an important inter-county match. The following short table may prove of interest:— SM A LL E ST A G G R E G A T E SCORES IN IM P O R T ­ A N T CRICK ET. 6. K ent v. Bexley Club (w ith L ord F. Beauclerck and J. H am m ond), at Bowm an’s Lodge, D artford H eath, K ent, A ugust 25, 1805. (A ccording to another account the total was five only.) 6. The B’s (with John W ells and M r. J . Law rell) v. England, at Lord’s, June 12, 13 and 14, 1810. 11. N orfolk V. M .C.C. and Ground, at Dereham , August 11 and 12. MSI. 12. O xford University v. M .C.C. and Ground, at O xford, M ay 24, 1877. 13. Nottingham shire v. Yorkshire, at Nottingham . June 20 and 21,1901. 14. Nottingham shire v. X V I. o f Derbyshire, at WinkBworth, Septem ber 4 and 6, 1873. 15. M C.C. v. Surrey, at L ord’s, July 15,1889. 16. M .C.C. and Ground v. Surrey, at L ord’s, M ay 14 1872. 16. Derbyshire v. N ottingham shire, at N ottingham July 10 and 11, 1879. 16. Surrey v. Nottingham shire, at the Oval, Julv 26 27, and 28, 1880. ’ The match in 1805 between Kent and the Bexley Club, although cjntaining a few good names, has no claim whatever to be regarded as first-class. But the case is different with the B match of 1810, nearly seventy-five per cent, of the players who participated therein being worthy of places m a Gentlemen v. Players match. The total of eleven by Norfolk in 1831 was made when the Norfolk Club was the strongest side in the country after the Marylebone Ciub. Leicester were disposed of for 15 and 8 by Nottingham, at Leicester, August 25, 1800, and Bury for 15 and 20 by Cambridge University (with J. Sparks), at Cambridge, May 18, 1827. In September, 1879, Aberdeenshire dismissed Kincardineshire for 8, and in June, 1899, Aberdeenshire were disposed of for 10 by Forfarshire, whilst in August, 1883, Suffolk were dismissed for 11 by I. Zingari. The chief cause of the collapse of Notts was the wonderfully successful bowling by Khodes, who took six wickets at a cost of only four runs. This is an analysis quite out of the common. To the curious, it may prove interesting to remark that only on two occa­ sions had a bowler possessed similar figures at the end of an innings, viz., F. R. Spofforth, for Australia v. M.C.C. and Ground, at Lord’s, 1878, and Briggs, for Lancashire v. Derbyshire, at Manchester, in 1888. 'Ihe table appended will enable one to see at a glance the place occupied by Rhodes’ recent performance in the records of cricket.