Cricket 1901

292 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. J uly 25, 1901. BUSSEY’S BUSSEY’S AT THE SIGN OF THE WICKET. B y F . S . A sh ley -O oopeb . During the course of the recent match at Lord’s between Surrey and Middlesex, several newspapers, with an unanimity which was quite remarkable, stated that the first match ever played between the two sides came off in 1844, and that Middlesex made 110, in respDnse to which Surrey lost nine wickets for as many (or as few) runs, whereupon the tenth wicket proceeded to score enough to win the match. I should not have referred to the matter at all had not a couple of cor­ respondents desired further information on the subject. The match was first mentioned in the Cricketer’s Manual by “ B at” (Mr. Charles Box). Enthusiasts may search Seres and Biographies, BelVs Life , and all the sporting publications in vain for the score. The contest was supposed to have taken place on the East Surrey Ground, but cricketers who frequented that spot during the year mentioned have no recollection of a match between the two sides being played. The meagre details given in Bat’s Manual appear to suggest that the result was decided on the first innings. Students of cricket history, in forming an opinion whether the match is genuine or not, would do well to remember that greater historians of the game than Mr. Box have ere now been guilty of perpetrating hoaxes. With regard to the date of the first recorded match between Surrey and Middle­ sex, all that need be said is that the two sides are known to have met as far back as the reign of King George I., and to have been entertained afterwards by the Prince of Wales at Hampton Court. Apropos of the last match between the two counties, the current issue of the Outlook has the following remarks:—“ Perhaps the last example at Lord’s may end the pernicious innovation of the tea interval. Fifty-seven minutes were thus wasted in the three days of the contest between Middlesex and Surrey, and that additional time would have brought this capital struggle to a definite conclusion. At the Oval in Gentleman v. Players the latter took twenty-five minutes’ interval for tea when eight wickets of the batting side had actually been captured. At Lord’s in the companion fixture a twenty minutes’ interlude was taken one hour and three-quarters after luncheon. With an average of four minutes between the fall of a wicket and the arrival of the next batsman, fifteen minutes between innings and fifty minutes for lunch, with an hour wasted in every three-day match over trial balls, the actual playing time is far too limited. A minimum of public protest would soon set this right.” An interval for tea is an innovation which has crept into first-class cricket during the last year or two, and whether it is a necessity is a matter which the players alone are qualified to decide. In the old days, when fieldsmen had more running about to do and batsmen had to run out all their hits, there were no intervals for tea. Old cricketers however, did not play in nearly so many matches or have to undertake such fatiguing journeys as those of to-day. Of late years, too, we have experienced a cycle of wonderful summers, such as players had never known before. Continual match playing and long and frequent railway journeys are a great strain upon cricketers, and it would be ungenerous for spectators to bedgrude them a well-earned rest. In reply to a player who participated in the recent match between the South Africans and Worcestershire I append details of TIE MATCHES IN FIRST-CLASS CRICKET. Kent (with Bedster and Yalden) f il l and 91) v. Hambledon (with Lumpy) (140 and 62), on Windmill Downs, Hambledon, July 8 and 9,1783. M.C.C. and Ground (69 and 10) v. Oxford and Cambridge Universities (115 and 61) at Lord’s, June 20 and 21,1839. Surrey (112 and 160) v. Kent (127 and 145), at the Oval, July 1, 2, 8, 1847. (Kent lost the last three wickets when the game stood at a tie. The All-England X I. (63 and 96) v. X Y I. of Oxford University (92 and 57), at Oxford, June 16, 17 and 18,1862. Surrey (204 and 93) v. M.C.C. and Ground (175 and 122), at the Oval, June 4, 5 and 6,1868. Surrey (93 and 186), v. Middlesex (112 and 167), at the Oval, June 30, 31, 1868. Surrey (215 and 245) v. Middlesex (138 and 322), at the Oval, August 10, 11, 12, 1876. (When the last Surrey wicket fell, the score, according to the telegraph-board, was 244, thus giving Middlesex the victory by one run. An inspection o f the score- sheets, however, showed that a ruu had been omitted in the case of one batsman, and, accordingly, after the error had been verified, the Middlesex players were compelled to accept the result as a tie). D. Gregory’s Australian X I. (123 and 112) v. X Y . of New South Wales and Victoiia (138 and 97), at Melbourne, December 27, 29, 1877, and January 1, 1878. (In the last inniogs Australia obtained 111 with eix wickets down, and four successive batsmen tried to make the winning hit, but all failed, two being run out.) Gentlemen (235 and 149), v. Players (203 and 181), at the Oval. June 28, 29, 30,1883. Surrey (97 and 124) v. Lancashire (147 and 74), at the Oval, August 16,17, 18,1894. South Africans (293 and 14<>) v. Worcestershire (224 and 209), at Worcester, July 15,16,17,1901. Until last week no first-class eleven-a-side match had resulted in a tie except at the Oval since 1839 ! On August 21, 22, 1890, at Taunton, Somersetshire (107 and 127) played a tie match against Middlesex (108 and 126), but the western shire was not then one of the recognised first-class counties. The following interesting note concerning the match between Kent and Hambledon, in 1783, is taken from Scores and Biographies , vol. 1, p. 57 : “ Kent actually won the match. It was discovered afterwards that Pratt, the scorer, whose method—which was the usual one at that time—was to cut a notch on a stick for every run, and to cut every tenth notch longer in order to count the whole more expeditiously, had, by mistake, marked in one place the eleventh notch instead of the tenth. The stick was afterwards produced, but the other scorer could not or would not produce his.” Two events of more than ordinary interest occurred last week, Yorkshire and North­ amptonshire being beaten by Somersetshire and the South Africans respectively. York­ shire had not previously been beaten in an inter-county match since August, 1899, whilst Northamptonshire had not suffered defeat in any kind of match since meeting with a reverse at the hands of Worcestershire as far back as July, 1898. The manner in which Somersetshire snatched the game out of the fire at Leeds recalls the match at Lord’s, in 1893, between Surrey and Middle­ sex. In response to Surrey’s score of 287, Middlesex made 108 and were obliged to follow-on. Messrs. Stoddart and O’Brien went in first and put on 228 for the first wicket, and Surrey were eventually beaten by 79 runs, after an easy victory for the side appeared almost a certainty. There is no necessity to dwell at any length upon Somersetshire’s achievement, as full parti­ culars appeared in the last issue of Cricket. It was a game which will live long in cricket history. To Braund and Cranfield and Messrs. L. C. H. Palairet and F. A. Phillips belong the honour of the game. “ It was a glorious .victorie.” The performances of Braund this year should do much to increase the popularity of the game in Somersetshire. The form he has recently shown suggests that no place in the world of cricket should be beyond his reach.