Cricket 1901

THB FINEST BAT THB WORLD PRODUCES. A u g . 1, 19 01. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OE THE GAME 307 BUSSEY’S O r > 't - ^ / Y v GO a t t h e s i g n o f t h e w i c k e t . B y F. 8 . A s h l e y -C o o p e k . The heavy rain experienced in all parts of the country at the end of July, 1901, will long he remembered in cricketing circles. Not for a great number of years had such an abandonment of matches been caused. The storm, or series of storms, will chiefly remain unforgotten by lovers of the game because not a ball could be bowled in the Surrey v. Yorkshire match, which had been set apart as a benefit for Lockwood. At various times rain has caused curious interruptions in matches. A contest between teams cap tained by P. L. Kaye and H. Y. Green was fixed, to be played on Monday, the 1st of September, 1884, but on account of rain only one over was bowled, no runs were scored, and after waiting till two o’clock, it was decided to draw stumps. The over that was bowled was played by C. I). Hamilton, of that year’s University College Hospital Eleven. The full score of the match was :— H. V. G re e n ’ s XI. C. D. Hamilton, not out ............ 0 A. E. Lucas, not out ................... 0 Extras........................................ 0 . . 0 CO CO p e r 0 9 BUSSEY’S Total (no wicket) A similar occurrence took place at Lord’ s in 1877, during the course of the match between M.C.C. and Ground and Essex, the first day’s play being restricted to a maiden over bowled by R. Clayton. The current issue of The Outlook says:— “ Midsummer madness in the lobby and smoking-room of the House of Commons has lately taken this form : ‘ When does William Field ?—When Tommy Bowles.’ ” And Tuesday’s Daily Telegraph records that ‘ it occurred to Mr. Batty Langley to offer a few observations,” and that “ Mr. Bowles gave a fillip to the debate.” Mr. Lyttelton must have felt quite in his element: Let W illiam Field when Tommy Bowles, The bat let Batty Langley ply— Yet I’ll go bail these merry souls Cry “ How’s that,Umpire?” by-and-bye. All flesh is grass, and Field is mold (Though verdant now, beyond a doubt); Poor Tom’s a-cold when Bowles is bowled And Batty Langley's given “ Out! ” Well, carpe diem ! Fate’s awards Are sometimes “ no-ball,” sometimes“ wide” ; ] lay up ! The Commons look like Lord’s, And "fillips ” are by Bowles supplied. From Mitcham a gentleman writes to me as follows:—“ I have recently been reading Fred Gale’s ‘ Echoes from Old Cricket Fields,’ and I see it there stated that Mr. William Ward during his career scored over 200 runs in an innings on five occasions. The statement appears in the chapter entitled *John Bowyer Smokes a Pipe with Me.’ In that chapter Bowyer says—or the ‘ Old Buf­ fer * says for him : ‘ How is it that Mr. Ward five times scored over 200 runs, once 278 not out, in one hands (for John talks old- fashioned) if he could not play real fine cricket ? ’ 1 have been a regular reader of Cricket since the first number appeared and have often wished some details of Mr. Ward’s chief scores would be given. I should esteem it a favour if you could find space in your columns to reply to this note.” Mr. Gale, in penning the chapter alluded to, evidently referred to Mr. Ward’s biography in Scores and Biographies , where it is stated, “ He made one of the highest innings on record, namely 278, in the year 1820, and on four other occasion he scored (it is believed) 200 runs in a match with both his innings com­ bined.” There is a great deal of difference between making a couple of hundred runs in a match and one hands (or innings). Mr. Ward’s chief scores in important cricket are appended in chronological order :— 72 Epsom v. Sussex, at Lord’s, 1816 68 Hants, v. M.C.C., at Lord’s, 1817 54* Hants, v. M.C.C., at Lord’s. 1818 86 M.C.C. v. Gents, of England, at Lord’s, 1818 88* Hants, v. Epsom, at Epsom, 1819 278 M C.C. v. Norfolk, at Lord’s, 1820 87 M.C.C. v. Godalming, at Lord’s, 1822 64 England v. The B.’s, at Lord’s, 1823 79* West Kent v. Epsom, at Eosom. 1823 120 Hants, v. England, at Bramshill Park, 1823 195 } W - 'Ward’s XI. y. H. Hoare’s XI, at Lord’s, 182 90 Godalming v. Sussex, at Petworth. 1824 171* M.C.C. v. Middlesex, at Lord’s, 1825 53 M.C.C. v. Godalming. at Lord’s, 18 5 102* XVI. Gents, v. X I Players, at Lord’s, 1825 96* X V n . Gents, v. XI. Players, at Lord’s, 1827 67 Right-handed v. Left-handed, at Lord’s. 1828 58 Hon. Col. Lowther’s XI. v. H. Lloyd’s X I., at Lord’s, 1829 52 M.C.C. and Ground v. The B.’s, at Lord’s. 1832 54* M.C.C. v. Cambs. Town Club, at Lord’s, 1832 Mr. Arthur Haygarth, in his immortal work, says of Mr. Ward—“ His average is one of the largest ever obtained by any cricketer, and had he not continued the game too long, it would, perhaps, have been exceeded by none..................... He was a hard forward hitter, and is one of the few there are who scored largely against round aim, having begun his career against the underhand delivery, and having never, it is supposed, obtained two noughts or a ‘ pair of spectacles * in any match of note.” Mr. Ward has been celebrated in verse :— And of all who frequent the ground named after Lord, On the list first and foremost should stand Mr. Ward. No man will deny, I am sure, when I say That he’s without rival first bat of the day, And although he has grown a little too stout, Even Mathews is bothered at bowling him out. He’s our life-blood and soul in this noblest of And yet on our praises he’s many more claims ; No pride, although rich, condescending and free, And a well-informed man. and a city M.P. Mr. Ward was born at Islington, July 24th, 1787, and died at 14, Windham Place, Bryan- ston Square, June 30th, 1849. It is rather curious that he should have commenced his record innings on his birthday. He batted three days for his score of 278. Mr. Gilbert Laird Jessop, otherwise “ The Croucher,” is the subject of the cartoon by “ Sp y” in Vanity Fair of the 25th ult. Remembering what a master of his art “ Spy” has proved himself, his latest crea­ tion is somewhat disappointing. By glancing at the picture, one not interested in the g-ame would judge Jessop to be almost six feet in height, whereas he is not in fact five feet six inches. The artist, however, as though to compensate for this, has made him “ broad in th’ beam,” or, as a poet once said of the late “ Thomas Hearne; A good cricketer, but somewhat heavy in the stern.” It is, however, perhaps ungenerous to criticise in this manner a portrait, which, had it been produced by any other artist than “ Spy” would have met with universal approbation. On Tuesday afternoon last, at Hastings, during the course of the match between the local club and Hampstead, a question arose as to whether a substitute, who was running for an injured batsman, could be compelled by the fielding side to wear pads. The query, it may be as well to add, was not raised by members of either team engaged, but by an enthusiast in the pavilion. There is no law which deals specifically with the point, and opinion on the subject was con­ sequently divided. The general view appeared to be that the fielding side could legitimately object to a padless substitute careering up and down the wicket. No one will deny that a man devoid of leg-guards can cover the space between the wickets in far less