Cricket 1901

J dly 11, 1901. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 261 SURREY v. WARWICKSHIRE. Played at the Oval on July 4, 5, and 6. Drawn. Although the wicket had not quite revived after the heavy rain, the policy of sending the other side in first was one which no captain would have liked to risk, and therefore Mr. Jephson chose first innings. The batsmen found it exceedingly hard to make runs, and all through the day the rate of scoring was slow. Abel and Hayward once more proved to be the main­ stay of the Surrey batting, both playing admirable cricket, and never seeming in such difficulties with the bowling as most of the other men. Mr. Crawford was going strong when he was out, and if he had been allowed to stay much longer things might have been very different. Later, Mr. Jephson played a very sound and steady innings. Kinneir and Diver aid well for Warwickshire, the former being not out 34 when stumps were drawn, with t e total at 77 for two wickets. On the next morning the wicket had recovered so much that the bowl t rs had a difficult task before them ; and as the Warwickshire batting is very strong just now a big total was made. The outstanding feature of the innings was the methodical batting of Kinneir, who, for five hours and twenty minutes kept up his end, never making any mistakes, and never taking the slightest risk. Most of the other well-known men in the team made serviceable Bcores, and some of them played attiactive cricket, Whittle being especially vigorous in his methods. The result of so many productive partnerships was that Warwickshire led on the first innings by 186 runs, and although Abel and Holland had knocked off 63 of these without loss before stumps were drawn, Surrey were not in a very happy position when the game was resumed last Saturday morning. But Abel and Holland continued to play fine cricket, and when the former was out for an aOmirable 56 the total was 123 - only 53 runs behind. Hayes and Holland added 71 runs in fifty minutes before Bolland was out for an exceedingly fine innings of 86, and thus the runs had been hit off for the loss of but one wicket. So far Surrey were doing very well indeed. But Hayes did not last much longer, and with three men out Surrey were only leading by 11 runs. For a time War- wickshire looked decidedly like winning, for Hayward and Mr. Crawford and Mr. Jephson did so little that six wickets were down at twenty minutes past three, when Surrey were only 83 runs on. But the arrival of Mr. Walker upon the scene to become partner to Lockwood, who had by this time become firmly settled, put an entirely different appearance on the game. The two men sturdily kept up their wickets for an hour and ten minutes while by first-class cricket they increased the total by 82 runs, and by the time that Mr. Walker was out defeat was quite out of the question ; he had done nobly for his side at a very critical time. Lockwood continued to bat finely, and soon after he had reached his hundred the innings was declared closed ; he had batted for three hours and a half, and no fault could be found with his cricket, which had done so much for his side. W ar­ wickshire had to make 189 in an hour and a quarter, and as they could not possibly do this and could hardly have got out in the time if they had played the very worst possible cricket, the match ended in the tamest manner. S u r r e y . First innings. Abel, c Quaife, b Kinneir... 41 Santall ... Hargreave Whittle ... Field ... Kinneir ... S u rrey . First innings. O. M. R . W . Second innings. O. M. R. W . 28-1 9 68 2 ............ 23 9 47 1 36 14 70 6 ............ 34 10 81 0 6 2 21 0 ............ 4 1 2^ 0 6 0 35 1 ............ 33 10 108 5 . 4 1 5 1 ........... 3 1 7 0 Quaife (W . G.) ... 13 1 48 0 Lilley ................... 6 0 27 1 Charlesworth ... 4 1 7 0 Charleswarth delivered three wides, Field four wides and one no-ball, Gantall one wide and one no-ball and Hargreave two wides. W a r w ic k s h ir e . Richardson Lees........... Abel........... Lockwood Hayward Jephson ... H olland... Walker ... First innings. O. M. R. W . Second innings. O. M . R. W . . 18 134 . 14 3 13 11 11 4 L e iceste r sh ir e . First innings. Second O. M. R. W . O. M. R. W . H irst................... 14*3 5 21 7 ........... 31*2 2 Rhodes ........... 17 2 59 3 .............. 31 10 Brown ........... 3 0 17 0 ............. 5 0 W ainwright... 6 2 Whitehead ... 6 0 Hirst delivered four no-balls. 46 31 12 27 0 Lockwood deliveied two no-balls and one wide, J*®®® one wide, Hayward one no-ball. Holland one no-ball, and Walker two wides. Holland, b Hargreave 8 Hayes, b Hargreave ........... 6 Lockwood, b Hargreave ... 6 Hayward, c Charlesworth, b F ield.................................58 V. F. S. Crawford, c Diver, b Santall ...........................21 L. Walker, b Hargreave .. ‘2 D. L. A . Jephson, b Santall 36 Lees, b Hargreave ...........18 Stedman, c Lilley, b Har­ greave ... Richardson, not out ... . B 8, lb 4, w 2, nb 1 . 0 3 15 . 214 Total * Inning * declared closed. W a r w ic k s h ir e . First innings. Kinneir, c Lockwood, Walker ................... Devey, b Richardson ... Diver, b Hayward wood ........................... Santall, c and b Holland Lilley, c Stedman, b Walker 35 Charlesworth, c Crawford, b Hayward..........................38 Whittle,cStedman.b^ alker 40 A . C. S. Glover, not out ... 22 Hargreave, lbw, b Hayward 0 Field, b Hayward ........... 4 B 4, lb 1, w 4, nb 4 ... 13 Second innings. b Santall ...........56 c Charlesworth, b Field...................86 b Field.................87 not out................100 c Diver, b Field... 14 c Lilley,bField... 6 b Lilley .........40 b Field.................. 0 not out... ........... 6 B 8, lb 12, w 8, nb 1 29 Total (7 wkts)*374 YORKSHIRE v. LEICESTERSHIRE. Played at Scarborough on July 4, 5 and 6. Yorkshire won by an innings and 247 runs. A t the end of the first day’s play in this match Yorkshire had scored 441 for the loss of four wickets, and thus, unless rain intervened, Leicestershire were doomed to a severe defeat, for it was hardly likely that they would be able to keep going for nearly a couple of days against the Yorkshire bowling. The partnership between Tunnicliffe and Denton lasted long enough to we r out the Leicestershire bowling, which aftrwards, during ihe partnership between Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Taylor, became somewhat demoralised. The former reached his hundred in two hours and the latter in two hours and a half, their partnership having produced 169 in an hour and three-quarters. On the next morning Hirst had fifty-four minutes’ batting, and scored 61, and the innings ended for 562. Mr. de Trafford was in magnificent form when Leicestershire went in, and treated Rhodes severely. He made 52 of the 64 runs scored for the first wicket. But after he was out, Hirst was irresistible, and a remarkable collapse ensued. Leicestershire had a balance against them of 469, but, aided by an opportune shower, they had knocked off 166 of the runs for the loss of two wicket8 when stumps were drawn, Mr. de Trafford again playing well, while King and Knight put on 117 runs, and were still not out (the former with 53 and the latter with 75). On Saturday morning they only added 7 runs before their partnership was broken, and then the end very soon came. Y orksh ire . Brown, b Coe ...........28 Whitohead, c Coe, b _ . K in g ...........................10 Haigh, c and b King 16 Rhodes, c Macdonald, b King ................... 4 Hunter, not out........... 0 B 13, w 3, nb 3 ... 19 Tunnicliffe, b King ...91 Denton, b Geeson ... 86 T. L. Taylor, c Coe, b Whitehead.................113 F. Mitchell, c Mac­ donald, b King .. 122 Wainwright, b Coe ... 12 Hirst, c Davis, b Coe... 61 Second innings 145 st Stedman.bAbel 25 . 2 b Richardson ... 11 31 b L ees................... 4 40 not out... .......... 6 30 not o u t................. 2 Total... ...400 B 4, w 1 ... 5 Total (3 wkts) 53 T o ta l...................562 L eicestersh ire . First innings. Second inni gs. C. J. B. Wood, c Mitch<" b Rhodes .................. C. E. de Irafford, b Hirsl Knight, c Whitehead, Hirst ........................... King, c Hunter, b Hirst Dr. R. Macdonald, b Hi R. T. Crawford, b Hirst Coe, b Rhodes ........... Whitehead, b Hirst ... A . E. Davis, b Rhodes Geeson, not out ........... Woodcock, b Hirst ... Lb 4. nb 2 ........... Total ................. Y o r k sh ir e . O. M. R. W . O. M. R. W . Woodcock 45 6169 0 K ing...........45 16 112 5 C o e ........... 40 3 13 86 3 Crawford... 5 0 28 0 Geeson ... 20 2 77 1 Whitehead 4 0 33 1 u, ... 15 c Hunter, b Hirst 4 ... 52 c Hirst, b Rhodes 32 b c Tunnicliffe, b ... 11 Rhodes ... ... 76 ... 6 run out........... ... 60 ret 0 c Tunnicliffe, b Rhodes ... ... 0 ... 0 lbw, b Rhodes ... 6 ... 0 lbw, b Rhodes ... 0 ... 1 c Tunnictiffe, b Rhode 8 ... 5 ... 6 c Tunnicliffe, b Hirst........... ... 10 ... 1 not o u t......... ... 11 ... 5 c Tunnicliffe, b Hirst........... ... 5 ... 6 B l, nb 2... ... 3 .. 103 ^Total ... ..212 W ood 10 0 38 0 W oodcock delivered three no-balls and King three wides. OXFORD v. CAMBRIDGE. Played at Lord’s on July 4, 5, and 6. Drawn. Although, by arrangement between the two captains, play began on each mem ing of this match half an hour earlier than usual, the bowling on both sides was of such a moderate class that the batsmen always had the best of the situation, and the result was, as in 1899 and 1900, that the match was drawn. Cambridge relied on seven old Blues and four new men, Messrs. Longman, Harper, Johnson, and Robertson, while the position was exactly reversed on the Oxford side, which included four old Blues and seven new men, Messrs Dillon, Hollins, W yld, Williams, Kelly, Findiay, and Munn. There was nothing to choose between the teams at any time during the three days’ play until the last two or three hours, when Oxford seemed very likely to lose. It cannot be said that the cricket world at large was very greatly excited over this year’s match, for the batting of neither team had been in accord­ ance with University traditions; it was chiefly of the painstaking order, with very little originality about it, and very little occurred during the game to remind one of the brilliant cricket played in former days by G. H. Longman, the Lytteltons, the Steels, K . J. Key, L. C. H . Palairet, F. S. Jackson, etc. Cambridge kept in nearly all the first day (the play of course lasting half-an-hour longer than usual), and the cricket was not very exhilarating to watch ; there was a want of boldness and enterprise about most of it. The only period of the day which reminded one forcibly of former times was during the partnership of Fargus and Blaker for the tenth w icket; here there was some approach to enthusiasm among the spectators, who, such of them as took any interest in the cricket, were relieved to see a little lively batting, the two men adding 45 runs in about twenty minutes. The most noticeable point about the day’s cricket was the steady innings of E. M. Wilson, which gradually wore down the Oxford bowling until there was not much left of it, a state of affairs which was hardly realised either by Wilson himself or the incoming batsmen. Wilson may be said practically to have played two innings. He was beginning to feel settled enough just before lunch to hit out occasionally, but after lunch he steadily began to play himself in again, taking about an hour and a-half to make 23 runs. But he had his reward, for eventually he made his hundred after batting nearly four hours, and thus accomplished a feat which is rare in this match. His innings ought to have been a good deal more useful to his side than it was, but none of the best batsmen in the team took the fullest advantage of their opportunities. Long­ man’s innings of 27 must not be forgotten. In part­ nership with Wilson he helped to put on 69 for the the first wicket in an hour and a quarter by very good cricket indeed. Undoubtedly the most attractive cricket of the innings was played by R. N. R . Blaker, whose 49 was made in less than an hour and was quite worthy of the best traditions of University cricket. Throughout the day the Oxford bowlers showed to advantage, aided as they were by the uninteresting nature o f the Cambridge batting. The fielding was good. When stumps were drawn Oxford had made 34 for the loss of Mr. Marsham. On the next morn­ ing Dillon, who can play a very attractive game, was content to keep up his wicket, and the batting was without interest until More joined Knox and helped him to put on 118 in an hour and three-quarters. Towards the end of his innings he hit hard and well. Knox was batting for two hours and a half, beginning with the utmost steadiness, and afterward bringing off his pull stroke frequently. Williams made no mistakes but played very slow cricket. In the end Oxford had a lead of 11 runs on the first innings. W ilson bowled with great steadiness and effect. Cambridge had about an hour’s batting, and during that time Longman and Harper played a pretty game. When stumps were drawn the score was 64 for the loss of Longman, who had made a very successful dibut. Hind had been sent in over night to play a few overs, and when play was resumed on Saturday he played excellent cricket, helping Harper to put on 103 runs in an hour and three- quarters. Harper played a most valuable innings. Afterwards Dowson was in splendid form, and assisted by Robertson, who hit hard, and Daniell, he placed Cambridge in such a satisfactory position that the captain was able to declare when eight wickets were down. It had been arranged that play should be prolonged until seven o’clock if there was any chance of bringing the match to a conclusion, but even the extra time only allowed Oxford three hours in which to make 327. As things turned out the extra half hour was needed, as nearly all the Oxford