Cricket 1901

THB BINBST BAT THB WORLD PRODUCES. A ug . 29, 1901. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME 371 BUSSEY’S BUSSEY’S AT THE SIGN OF TH E W ICKE T . B y F. S . A s h l e y -C o o pe h . Those of us who contend that faulty fielding is in a great measure responsible for the huge scores made nowadays in first-class matches had our opinion strengthened by a perusal of the sport­ ing papers at the end of last week. In the great matches which commenced on Thursday last eighteen individual three- figure scores were recorded, and it is worthy of note that only seven of those innings were faultless. Several of the mistakes made by the fielding side proved terribly expensive. Carpenter, who made 144, should have been dismissed with only a single to his credit, whilst Sprot (147) gave his first chance when 21, Latham |(172) when 15, and Tyldesley (161) when 27. These facts speak for themselves. Was it not the “ Old Buffer” —the guide, philosopher and friend of many of us from our earliest days—who declared that all the practice nets should be gathered together and made into a huge bonfire, and that players should practise fielding all together in order that the team might work almost like a machine in the field ? The idea may seem old-fashioned, but it is undoubtedly the right one. If we appeal to cricket history, we find that the best teams have been strong in fielding. The Hambledonians were celebrated for their smartness in the field. Their ground sloped gently downwards from the middle, and good fielding was a necessity. Many of the matches played by the famous old Kent eleven were won by good “ scouting-out.” The manner in which the old Kent eleven worked together has never been surpassed by any combination before or since. Mr. Felix has himself spoken of the way the players performed in the field under the superior generalship of Wenman. “ He had only to look, and we moved, like the stars obeying the great dictates of a great centre.” The numerous victories of the Australians have been in a great measure brought about by splendid work in the field. If every county captain could convince himself of the truth of the statement that “ Good fielding makes weak bowling strong,” scoring would rule much lower, and drawn games would be few and far between. A very famous old cricketer wrote to me quite recently— “ It was only a week ago I said to one of the county captains, ‘ 1 would not select any man, however good a bat, who was a bad field and a misser of catches.’ This was apropos of the ------ team. I mention no names, but leave you to guess.” The details I gave in the last issue of Cricket concerning the highest individual innings hit in various countries have caused Mr. E. H. D. Sewell to write to me as follows : “ I think you will find that Lieut. Colin Mackenzie’s 267 in 1872 (place ?) is the record individual score for India. He belonged to the Seaforth Highlanders. I only give you this on very second-hand information, as I was in India when Ranjitsinhji scored 257 not out, and recollect the highest individual score being discussed. I believe also one De Saulez or Saulez scored something like 260 in the Bombay Presidency. I regret being so vague, but from all accounts the 257 not out you mention in last week’s Cricket is not the record for India.” I must confess that before Mr. Sewell’s letter came to hand I had never heard of the large innings attributed to Lieut. Mackenzie. The score of the match in which the innings was played did not appear in any of the English sporting papers, nor is it to be found in Scores and Biographies. Perhaps an Indian reader of Cricket can give details ? The large score made by Lieut. E. Saulez was 239 not out for Ahmednager v. Poona, at Ahmednager, July 27 and 28, 1894. For this information I am indebted to Major Poore, who took part in the match and fortunately keeps a record of his matches in the cricket-field. Until the score of 267 by Lieut. Colin Mackenzie is properly authenticated, K. S. Ranjitsinhji’s 257 not out must rank as the record for India. The small scoring of the past few days, following the great run-getting of the previous week-end, came almost in the nature of a relief. Under the altered conditions the greatest amount of success attended the efforts of those batsmen who were able to play a forcing game. Perhaps the best innings played during the time alluded to was the one by that most brilliant but erratic Kent batsman, Mr. Marchant. The days on which this gentleman is at his best are not so frequent as one could desire, but when he is seen in his best hitting vein he is the most delightful player to watch. The Middlesex bowlers will not readily forget the manner in which he treated their deliveries at Lord’s on Tuesday last. He made exactly a hundred in sixty-five minutes, giving no chance, and hitting a five and fourteen 4’s. The manner in which he made his runs gave one the impression that run-getting was not a very difficult task, but the value of his innings was not properly realised until Middlesex lost as many as seven wickets in equalling his score. The value of such an innings as Mr. Marchant’s cannot be estimated by the number of runs con­ tained in it. A gentleman, hailing from Manchester, requests particulars of the record distances a bail has been bowled off the wicket; and these I append. LONG DISTANCES FOE A BAIL. 63 yds., 6 in., A. Mold, Lancashire v. Surrey, at tha Oval, August 20, 21, 22,1896. 62 yds., H. Rotherham, Uppingham Rovers v. Gents of Derbyshire, at Derby, August 5.1831. 60 yds. (out of ground), G. Howitt, U.A.E.E. v. XX II. of the Hull Mechanics Institute, at Hull, August 29, 30, 31, 1867. 68 yds., O. Flint, ReadiDg Biscuit Factory v. Woking­ ham, June, 1890. 56 yds., 3 ins., T. Richardson, Surrey v. Sussex, at the Oval, July 25, 26,1896. 55 yds., Tryndall, Leyton v. Kilbum, July, 1892. 54 yds., C. Heseltine, Hampshire v. Worcestershire, at Southampton, August 24, 26, 26, 1899. 53 yds., A. Mold, Manchester v. Longsight, August 29, 1887. 51 yds., F. W. Munro, against Robinson Gold Mining Co., at Johannesburg, December 6 ,1£90. 51 yds., S. Herbert, Brighton Y.M.C.A. v. Brighton and Hove Gas Company, at Preston Park, Brighton, July 13,1901. 50 yds., C. Nash, Pinetown v. Zingari, at Pinetowu k (Natal), March 26,1886.