Cricket 1901

278 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE CAME. J uly 18, 1901. TH E SOUTH A F R IC A N TEAM . THE NOTTS MATCH. SIXTEENTH OF THE TOUR. Played at Trent Bridge on July 11,12, and 13. The South Africans won by 94 runs. The Notts team was by no means at full strength Mr. Jones and J. Gunn being at the Oval, while W. Gunn was also absent. Nevertheless, it was a very strong team, and the South Africans are to be highly congratulated on bringing off such a brilliant victory, which was gained by all-round excellence. A great deal of progress was made with the match on the first day, for each side had completed an innings, while the South Africans had increased a lead of 69 by 57 runs for the loss of but one wicket, so that they were in an excellent position. The best cricket of the day was shewn by Mr. Beid, who made his runs when they were very badly wanted, but not a little credit is due to Mr. Rowe, who helped the former to put on 66 runs for the last wicket. Mr. Kotze bowled with great effect when Notts went in. On the second day the South Africans considerably increased their advantage, and by the time that stumps were drawn Notts were nearly out of the running. Mr. Shalders and Mr. Murray Bisset both played admirable cricket, while Mr. Reid, for the second time in the match, made a most useful score. The chief feature of the innings was the determined hittingof Mr. Kotze, who hit six 4’s in succession in his i8. Notts had to make 347 runs, and at the close of play had lost five wickets for 122 runs. It was discovered during this innings that Mr. Rowe had a somewhat suspicious action, which will probably be news to him and the rest of the team, as well as the batsmen to whom he has previously bowled, not to mention the umpires who have never seen any reason to no-ball him. But we live in an age of progress. On Saturday Shrewsbury, who was not out 25, played the most delightful cricket, and nearly brought his score to a hundred. Oates also did well, and at one time there seemed more than a probability that Notts would make a big fight of it. S o u t h A f r ic a n s . First innings. Second innings. W . Sbalders, c and b Wass. 27 c Carlin, b Wass. 51 L . J. Tancred, b Hallam ... 5 A.Bisset,c Anthony, b Wass 8 M. Hathorn, c Oates, b Hallam ............................ 5 run out J. H. Sinclair, c Anthony, b Wass ................................18 M. Bisset, b Hallam ........25 E. A. Halliwell, b Anthony. 4 A . Reid, c Iremonger, b Atkinson ........................ 41 B. C. Cooley, lbw, b Anthony ...........................« 2 J. J. Kotze, b Hallam ... 3 G. A . Rowe, not out ........ 21 Lb 5, nb 1 ... 6 Total...................165 N o t t s . First innings. Iremonger, c Halliwell, b K o tz e ................................... 0 run out c Dench, b H al­ lam ................... b Wass ...........J c Oates, b Wass.. < b Hallam ...........! c Dench, b Hal­ lam ........... ... * b Hallam ........... c Shrewsbury, b W ass ........... i not o u t .................. Lb 3, w 2, nb 1 Total ...........278 Second innings. R. H. Howitt, b Kotze ... 10 Dench, b Kotze ................... 6 Carlin, c Reid, b Sinclair ... 7 Shrewsbury, b Sinclair ... 0 Anthony, b Sinclair ........... 6 Harrison (D .), b Kotze ... 33 Oates, b Kotze ...................25 Wass, b Kotze ................... 1 Hallam, b K o tze ................... 0 Atkinson, not out.................... 0 B 7, w 1 ........... 8 c Halliwell, Rowe b Kotze b Kotze bR ow e b Sinclair ... b Kotze b Rowe run out st M. Bisset, Sinclair .. c A . Bisset, Sinclair ... notout... B 10, w 7, nb 1 18 Total ...........253 O. M. R. W . .. 24 5 1 94 4 .. 26 6 86 4 13 2 38 0 .15 4 39 0 3 15 0 Total...................96 S o u t h A f r ic a n s . First innings. Second innings. O. M. R. W . ------------------ W ass................... 16 2 72 3 Hallam ........... 23 7 55 4 ., Anthony ........... 9 2 58 2 . Atkinson........... 1'3 0 4 1 ., Carlin Wass delivered two no-balls and Atkinson two wides N o t t s . First innings. Second innings. O. M. R. W . O. M. R. W Kotze................... 12*4 2 31 7 Sinclair ........... 15 2 51 3 R ow e................... 3 2 6 0 Shalders 4 Cooley... 1 Kotze bowled four widen and one no-ball, Sinclair three wides, and Shalders one wide. 31 9 61 27*3 2 110 3 18 2 57 3 1 13 0 0 4 LANCASHIRE v. SOMERSETSHIRE. MOLD NO-BALLED EIGHTEEN TIMES. Played at Old Trafford on July 11 and 12. Lancashire won by ten wickets. There was tremendous excitement at Old Trafford at the bfginning of this match, for Mold was down to play for Lancashire, while Phillips, who had no- balled him last year at Nottingham for throwing, was one of the umpires. Since the Notts match Phillips and Mold had not come into contact, and the keenest interest was felt as to whether he had altered his opinion since that time. The eager spectators were not long left in doubt, for Mold was put on first with Hallows. In his first over he passed the exam­ ination of the um pire; but in his second he had to bowl eleven balls before he could get through the over. Mr. MacLaren promptly took him off, and after an over’s rest put him on at the other end. In the course of eight consecutive overs he was no-balled thirteen times, and was then taken off. Later in the innings he was again put on and bowled for thirteen overs without being no-balled, fo that presumably, although no one could see the slightest alteration in his action, he had suddenly improved it. The whole thing was exceedingly amusing, and it is a little odd that the spectators did not see it in that ligh t; on the contrary they were very exasperated. It may be mentioned that Richardson, the other umpire, did not find any fault with M old’s action, and therefore did not no-ball him. The Somersetshire innings was chiefly rrmarkable for the successful slow bowling of Mr. E. E. Steel, who took five wickets for 57 runs, and was seldom played with confidence. When Lancashire went in Tyldesley and Mr. Garnett played splendid cricket for the second wicket, putting on 147 runs in an hour and ten minutes. After Mr. Garnett was dismissed Tyldesley continued to play a great game, and was not out 1C8 when stumps were drawn with the total at 275 for three wickets, the Somerset­ shire score having already been exceeded by 22 runs. On the next morning he was within very easy reach of his second hundred when he was caught at the w icket; his brilliant innings of 193 having been made in three hours and a-quarter. The tail did nothing, but thanks chiefly to Tyldesley Lancashire h d a lead of 101 runs. As things turned out this was nearly enough with which to win by an innings, for Mr. Steel and Mold (who was not no-balled at all) were in irresistible form. S o m e r s e t s h ir e . First innings. L. C. H . Palairet, c Hallows, b M old.................................. 29 Braund ,c Tyldesley, b W ebb 29 G. W . Jupp, b Mold ........... 2 Lewis, st Smith, b W ebb ... 19 8. M. J. W oods, b Steel ... 40 Robson, b Steel ...................24 V. T. Hill, b Steel ...........16 Gill, c Tyldesley, b Steel ... 23 A . E. Newton, b Steel ...3 0 G.Barrington,cSteel, bM old 14 Cranfleld, not o u t................. 4 B 4, lb 3, nb 1 6 .......... 23 Second innings. c Smith, b Steel.. 23 cTyldesley.bSteel 0 absent, hurt ... 0 c Smith, b Steel 25 not out...................36 b M old................... c Ward, b Steel . c Garnett, b Steel c MacLaren, b M old................... b M old .................. c Steel, b Mold ... Leg-bye Total ... .. 253 Total ...........1T8 L a n c a s h ir e . E.E.Steel,cCranfield, b Gill ............................ 0 E . G. Garnett, c Gill, b Braund ......................67 Tyldesley, c Newton, b GUI ......................... 193 Ward, st Newton, b C ranfield......................22 Hallows, c Gill, b Cran­ field ..............................26 C .R . Hartley, c Gill, b Cranfield................... 0 Hibbert, not out ... 23 A . C. MacLaren, c Palairet, b Cranfleld 2 Smith, b Gill ........... 0 W ebb, b Gill ........... 2 Mold, c Hill, b Braund 6 B 10, lb 1, nb 2... 13 T o ta l......... 354 Second innings: Hibbert, not out, 4 ; A . C. Mac­ Laren, not out, 7.—Total (no wicket), 11. S o m e r s e t s h ir e . First innings. Second innings. O. M. R. W . O. M. R . W . Hallows ... .... 7 2 21 0 ... M old ... ...2 3 1 88 3 ... 20-4 4 65 4 Webb ... ... 13 1 64 2 ... Steel................ .. 13 0 57 6 ... 21 6 42 5 M old delivered fifteen no-balls and Webb one no-ball L a n c a s h ir e . First innings. Second innings. O. M. R. W . O. M. R. W . CraBfleld... .... 29 6 76 4 ... G il l ................... 32 6 110 4 ... W oods ... .... 7 0 38 0 ... Braund ... ... 11-2 1 88 2 ... Robson ... ,.. 4 1 28 0 ... Palairet ... . .. 1 0 1 0 ... Hill ... !” 0-5 0 11 0 Gill delivered two no-balls. YORKSHIRE v. WORCESTERSHIRE. AN INNINGS OF 214 BY HIRST. Played at Worcester on July 11,12 and 13. Yorkshire won by an innings and 212 runs. Once more the invincible Yorksbiremen have won a match by an innings and a very large margin of runs. They got rid of their opponents in two hours and a half, and when stumps were drawn had a lead of 33 runs with six wickets in hand, although there was nothiog to lead one to suppose that they were going to make a very big score. But Mr. Mitchell was not out 59 and Hirst not out 22, and these two batsmen put on 107 runs by not very interesting cricket, and then Hirst let himself go. He did n it receive much assistance until he was joined by Rhodes, when he had only just made his hundred, but the two bowlers then had a very enjoyable time, and by the most resolute batting put on 146 runs for the ninth wicket, Hirst being enaoled to reach his second hundred; he was batting four hours and forty minutes and hit twenty-six 4’s. Yorkshire had a lead of 374 runs, which pointed to an innings’ victory, more especially when at the close of the day’s play, W or­ cestershire had lost six men for 83, including all their best except Wheldon. On the rext morning Mr. Simpson-Hayward played first-class cricket, and helped Wheldon to put on 69 in an hour, but nothing could put off the inevitable defeat. WORCESTERSHIBE. First innings. Bowley, c Hunter, b Hirst Pearson, b H irst................... Arnold, b Hirst ................... R. E. Foster, c Hunter, H a ig h ........................... Wheldon, c Tunnicliffe, Rhodes ................... H. K. Foster, c Hunter, b Wainwright ...................29 G. H. Simpson-Hayward, b Brow n................................... 5 Bird, not out.......................... 8 Straw, c Tunnicliffe, b Rhodes ........................... 0 Burrows,c Hawke, b Rhodes 13 W ilson, c Wainwright, b Rhodes ...........................15 B 3, lb 4, w 2, nb 1 ... 10 ... 42 b .. 17 Second innings, c Taylor, b Hirst 0 c Tunnicliffe, b Haigh ...........30 c Hawke, bW ain- wiight ........... 1 b Wainwright ... 14 c Rhodes,bBrown 35 c Hirst, b Rhodes 5 b Rhodes ...........53 c Hunter, b Haigh 2 not out................... 6 st H u n t e r , b Brown ........... 2 c Denton,b Brown Lb 5, w 1, nb 1 Total ...................156 Y o r k s h ir e . Total ...162 Brown, c Straw,b Bur­ rows ..........................18 Tunnicliffe, c Bird, b Pearson ...................67 Denton, c R. E. Foster, b W ilson ...................48 T. L. Taylor, c Straw, b W ils o n .................... 2 F. Mitchell, run out... 57 Hirst, cWilson, b Bur­ rows .......................... 214 Wainwright, c and b Wilson ...................28 Lord Hawke, bW ilson 5 Haigh, c Straw, b Bird 9 Rhodes, b Pearson ... 53 Hunter, net out........... 8 B 20, lb 10, w l... 31 Total ,..530 W o r c e s t e r s h ir e . First innings^ _ Second innings. O. Hirst ...........15 Rhodes ...........23*4 Brown ........... 7 Haigh ........... 5 W ainwright... M. R. W . 3 40 3 ., 9 45 4 0 33 1 18 0 10 O. M. R .“W. 14 6 28 1 15 7 35 2 11-4 0 46 3 7 1 20 2 16 Brown delivered two wides, Rhodes one wide, and Hirst two no-balls. Y o r k s h ir e . O.M. R. W . O. M. R. W . 48 5 1594 IPearson ...26*4 4 101 2 39 12 1042 S.-Hayw’d 6 0 23 0 31 3 911 |R. Foster 3 0 21 0 Foster bowled a wide. W ilson .. Burrows .. B ir d .......... SUSSEX v. LEICESTERSHIRE. AN INNINGS OF 127 IN SIX HOURS AND A-QUARTER. Played at Hastings on July 11, 12 and 13. Abandoned. Although for the most part the batting o f the Leicestershire men on the first day of this match was anything but attractive, it was at least sound. At the close of the day’s play the total was 353 for eight wickets, so that if Sussex hoped to win they would have had to do something particularly brilliant in the way of batting. The chief feature of the day’s cricket, although by no means the most interesting, was the batting of Dr. MacDonald, the Queensland cricketer. His patience was at least as marked as that ever shown by Alec Bannerman. He took nearly an hour to ecore his first six runs, and the Sussex men naturally thought that by the end of