Cricket 1901

20 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. F eb . 28, 1901. In the second innings of Lancashire, A. C. MacLaren scored 102 not out out of 126 in 75 minutes. Surrey v. Gloucestershire, at the Oval. By scoring 92 on the first day of the match, Hayward (T.) completed his 1,000 rims for Surrey before the end of May. Sussex v. Gloucestershire, at Brighton. After losing the toss fourteen times in suc­ cession, tight times in 1899 and six in 19C0, Sussex obtained choice of firbt innings. During the Gloucestershire innings, C. B. Fry threw, and was no-balled by White (A ), the umpire at the ‘ ‘ bowler's" wicket. For Gloucestershire, G. L. Jessop made 50 in 45 minutes, 100 in 65 minutes, and, altogether, 179 out of 257 in 105 minutes. The Gloucestershire score was advanced from 142 to 222 in 30 minutes, from 200 to 300 in 35 minutes, and from 142 to 310 in 60 minutes —168 runs in an hour. On the second day of the match 547 runs were scored for the loss of 13 wickets. Middlesex v. Somersetshire, at Lord’s. In the first innings of the latter, V. T. Hill scored 51 out of 64 in 23 minutes, and, in all, 72 out of 75 in 35 minutes, hitting 16 fours. In the second innings of Middlesex, Braund (L. C.) was no-balled by Pickett (H.) before he had loosed his hold of the ball, which, in fact, was not delivered, and it was officially decided that the decision must stand, and the run be addid to the total, although no such addition was at first made. Nottinghamshire v. Surrey, at Nottingham. In Surrey’s second innings Brockwell, W . (51) and Lockwood, W . H. (74) at one time added 40 runs in fifteen minutes. Leicestershire v. Yorkshire, at Leicester. In the two innings of the former Tunnicliffe (J.) made seven catches at slip, five in the first innings and two in the second. Sussex v. Somersetshire, at Brighton. For Sussex Butt (H. K.) caught eight at the wicket, three in the first innings and five in the second. Surrey v. Somersetshire, at the Oval. In the first innings of the latter Lewis (34) was out in an unlucky manner. Stedman (F.) appealed for a catch at the wicket, but the umpire’s reply favoured the batsman. Under the impression that the verdict had gone against him, Lewis left his crease. Stedman promptly whipped off the bails, and the bats­ man was given out as stunited. According to Law 28, howe\er, he ought to have been given run out. Middlesex v. Gloucestershire, at Lord’s. In the first innings of Gloucestershire G. L. Jessop scored 51 out of 57 in thirty minutes, 101 out of 112 in an hour, and altogether 109 out of 120 in sixty-seven minutes. A. H. C. Fargus, whose first appearance this was for Gloucestershire, obtained five wickets for 32 runs in the first innings and seven for 55 in the second. In the second innings Board, J. H. (50) at one time scored 44 runs whilst no other runs were scored either by his partner, C. L. Townsend, or extras. Yorkshire v. Surrey, at Sheffield. Whilst Surrey were batting, Dtnton (D.) in one occasion threw in the ball from the boundary with such force that it knocked the top off the middle stump. London County v. Cambridge University, at the Crystal Palace. W . G. Grace (93) and C. «T. B. Wood (88) made 160 for the first wicket of London County, that being the 50th occasion upon which “ W . G .” had helped to score one hundred or more runs for the first wicket in first-class matches. Kent v. Middlesex, at Tonbridge. In the first innings of the latter all the first twenty rims were scored by P. F. Warner, and all, curiously enough, were obtained off I - . Hearne (*!:-¥:), the hits being four 4’s, a three and a single. Sussex v. Essex, at Eastbourne. In the first innings of Sussex A. Collins batted th re e h o u rs a n d fifteen minutes fo r 29 runB, on a wicket all in fa v o u r of the bowlers. [To be continued.) AN EXHORTAT ION AND REMON ­ STRANCE ON CR ICKET MATTERS ADDRESSED TO A L L SECRETARIES AND HON. SECRETARIES AND TH E IR COMMITTEES GENERALLY . By “ A n O ld H arrovian .” In these degenerate days of money­ making cricket matches, secretaries and hon. secretaries, and committees of all clubs think far more, and in fact almost entirely, of their funds, gained princi­ pally of course by the sixpennies and the shillings taken at the entrance gates. They regard cricket for itself alone but little, and this is not the way the “ noble gam e” should be managed and carried on at any epoch. The money system, however, has been persevered with for several years past, I am sorry to say, and on this matter I wish to write and promulgate a few words of exhortation and remonstrance, hoping thereby to do good to cricket in general before it is too late. I will carefully confine my statement to facts, from which there will be no escape, at least that is my opinion, though of course I do not wish to say anything positive or dictatorial in any way, and also it would be useless if I did. Well, then, to the great detriment of our national pastime, there are at the present time (excluding of course the Gentlemen v. Players matches, the Uni­ versity contests, and the Public School meetings), scarcely any matches of note now arranged and played except those between county and county. I therefore venture to assert that a little more variety ought to be given, and certain interesting matches reintroduced into the series which is now annually concocted and arranged every successive December, and I refer simply to the great matches only which were once contested, and not to second or third- rate affairs. The follow ing famous matches formerly had a place from time to time, but now they have it seems been abandoned alto­ gether, to the great injury of cricket generally, as far as variety and interest are concerned. They all came off occasionally about half a century back, but have been gradually, and at last entirely, ousted by certain counties, of which some are of a very moderate calibre, though ranked as first-class. These counties gained the position and status of first-class, all well know, through constant and undue pressure and interest with the authorities, but they did not deserve to be exalted to that rank primarily, and were placed there at last reluctantly. Names of a few matches which were played about 1860, and which now are never even thought o f :— Old v. Young. Married v. Single. First Eleven v. The Next Fourteen. England v. Eighteen Veterans. Fast Bowlers v. Slow Bowlers. M.C.C. v. England. M.C.C. v. The North. Old Etonians v. Old Harrovians. M.C.C. v. Surrey. &c., &c. A ll these were great matches, and con­ tained the names of most of the best men of the day, and if places were left open for only a few of these occasionally a pleasing variety would eventuate, instead of the perpetual sameness as shown in the annual contests between county and county now in vogue. These inter­ county matches have lately become so common and numerous, that at last they will of a necessity be less interesting than they now are. Some little alteration and addition are certainly needed, notwithstanding the merit and excitement county v. county matches may possess now, and of some of these counties it is doubtful if they even deserve to be classed or named as first-rate just at present. Each county, and also several of the most inferior of the so-called first-class divisions, insist on cramming into their annual list as many matches as possible. This leaves no room at all for other matches, and none of the interesting contests named in the above small list have now (1901) a chance of securing any vacant days. Variety is always pleasing with cricket as well as in other things in this life, and why should cricket (our beloved game) now have to take a back seat, and why should “ filthy lu cre” have the first place given to it entirely ? A sad ending this was to the last century, while the new one seems to be about to be carried out on the same lines. I t is too late, of course, for any of the above-mentioned matches to be intro­ duced this year, but perhaps by calling attention to the subject in this article a few of those matches named above may find a place in the list of 1902, and I am sure that some deserve to be recognised, and should not be forgotten and aban­ doned altogether, even for the sake of matches between county and county, interesting as I allow they are, and also more profitable. Let, therefore, the list of matches for 1902 when arranged, as they will be in December, 1901, at least contain a few of those mentioned. Let two or three dates or days be left open for contests as played some 50 years back. Let not county v. county absorb, engulf and engross every single day, year after year, during the whole season to the total exclusion of other interesting battles. Justice and fairness on cricket matters demand strongly this renovation, and also let monopoly by the counties no longer have the upper hand entirely. I write all the above for the sake of cricket alone, and hope that I shall give no offence by m y statement of painful facts to those in authority or to others also.