Cricket 1901

O c t . 31, 1901. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 445 P oona H in d u s . First innings. Narsoo, b Douglas Bathe, c Douglas, b Con Sayani a, b Milman ... Baput, b Douglas......... Santph. b Milman Paranjpe, b Milman ... K. Joshi, b Milman ... Erasha, b Douglas Gongle, c and b Milman Bandu, not out .......... S. Joshi, b Douglas ... Extras ... Total.......... Second innings. ... 18 b Douglas .. ... 0 yn 1 cArthur,bBignell 10 ... 24 b Milman ... ... 46 ... 1 runout ... 2 ... 3 b Milman ... ... 3 ... 0 b Douglas ... ... 0 ... 0 c Douglas, b Bignell ... ... 25 ... 9 b Douglas ... ... 6 ... 0 c Furber, b Milman ... . 17 ... 9 c Sprott,bMilman 12 ... 1 not out.......... ... 3 ... 4 Extras... ... 12 ... 70 Total ... ...136 B O M B A Y G Y M K H A N A v. P A R S E E G Y M K H A N A . The return match between the Bombay Gymkhana and the Parsee Gymkhana was played on September 13 on the latter’s ground and resulted in an easy victory for the home team on the first innings by 143 runs. The Parsee Gymkhana placed a very strong team in the field, including Pavri, H. D. Kanga, Mehta, Billimoria and Kharas, while the Bombay Gymkhana lacked the services of Rumboll, Heath and Coombs. Mehta, who it is said is coming to England to qualify for Gloucestershire, took eight of the ten wickets in Bombay Gymkhana’s first innings for 36 runs. P a r sk e G y m k h a n a . Mehta, b Milne......... 22 K .Kharas,bCheetham 41 J. J. Pocha, c and b Milne........................ 2 P. H. Daver, lbw, b Cheetham .......... 4 Dr. M. E. Pavri, c and b Cheetham ... 0 H. D. Kanga, c McCausland, b Clark 42 D. E. Mody, c and b Milne........................41 B. Billimoria, lbw, b Sale .........................39 F. Battiwalla, run out 0 M. Daver, lbw, b Sale 8 A. B. Chotia, not out 0 Extras ....................34 Total ...........233 B om bay G ym k h a n a . First innings. Second innings. . S. Milne, b Mehta . • 20 E. L. Sale, b Davar .......... 8 8. N. Powell, lbw, b Mehta 9 H. Cheetham, c Chotia, b M ehta............................... 9 P. J. Mead, c Battiwalla, b D avar............................... 1 F. J. Clark, lbw, b Mehta... 14 J. T. 'Weatherby, b Mehta 0 A. R. Burney, b Mehta ... 16 L. E. S. Ward, c Chotia, b M ehta............................... 6 S. M. McCausland, b Mehta 0 C. E. Durnford, not out ... 3 Extras ................. 4 b Eharas ..........19 c Davar, b Pocha 31 not out... ..........24 b Pocha .......... 3 b Pocha ..........36 c Davar, b Pccha 6 Extras., Total ......... 90 Total (6wkts) 128 M A R L B O R O U G H C O L L E G E . Matches played, 9; won, 2; dra^n, 6; los+ 2. BATTING AVEBAGES. No. Times Most of not Total in an inns, out runs. inns. Aver. R. B. Watson ..........11 ... 3 . . 224 .. 69*.. 28*00 N. C. Phillips ..........12 ... 0 . . 287 .. 67 .. 23 92 J. H. Gunner ..........12 ... 2 . . 233 .. 51 .. 23-3 A. J. Graham ..........14 ... 1 . . 302 .. 71 .. 2323 E. J. Mann ... ......... 14 .. 2 ... 265 .. 87 .. 22-08 E. S. Phillips ..........13 ... 2 . . 164 .. 29 .. 140 W . T. Brooks ..........11 .. 3 .. 106 .. 32*.. 13 24 R. H. Clarke... .......... 8 ... 2 . . 70 .. 26*.. 11 66 D. C. Robinson ..........11 ... 2 ... 67 . 24*.. 7.4t G. G. Napier... ..........10 ... 0 . . 63 . 29 .. 6-3 H. Church ... .. .. 2 ... 0 . 6 .. 4 .. 25 •Signifies not out. BOWLING AVERAGES. Overs. Mdns. Runs Wkts. Aver. R. B. Watson ... ...114*3. . 26 ... 266 .. 18 .. 14-22 E. S. Phillips . . ... 44 . . 9 .. 170 .. 10 .. 17 00 G. G. Napier . . ...246-1. . 68 ... 661 .. 83 .. 19-72 A. J. Graham .. ...102 ... 17 .. 320 .. 15 .. 22 2 W . T. Brooks . . ...167 . . 65 .. 465 .. 18 .. 25-83 R. H. Clarke ... ...130 . . 28 .. 392 .. 13 .. 3015 <2FormponDence. The Editor does not hold himself responsible tor tie opinions of his correspondents. HONOUR TO WHOM HONOUR IS DUE. To the Editor of C r ic k e t . S ir , — I was much interested in the remarks you made in the last issue of Cricket concerning the averages of Dr W. G. Grace and Mr. C. B. Fry iu 1871 and 1901 respectively. When you state that “ Dr. Grace did precisely what Mr. Fry has done,” you greatly under­ estimate the value of the Master’s per­ formance of thirty years ago. The undoubted fact that the task of run- getting is to-day infinitely more easy than it used to be raises the question. “ What would be the equivalent on the wickets of 1901 to Dr. Grace’s average of 78'25 in 1871 ? ” By diving a little into figures the question can be readily answered. In 1871 Dr. Grace scored 2,739 runs in thirty-five completed innings, average 78 257142, and in 1901 Mr. Fry obtained 3,147 runs in forty completed innings, average 78'675000. In all first-class matches in 1871 there were 31,908 runs scored for the loss of 1,807 wickets, giving an average of 17'657999 for every wicket lost, and in 1901 there were 188,716 runs obtained for the loss of 6,919 wickets, which gives an average of 27'27o039 runs per wicket. Using this data we find that W.G.’s average in 1871 is equivalent to one of 120-878 in 1901, and that Mr. Fry’s average in 1901 corresponds to one of 50-934 in 1871.—Yours, etc., C. A. F red erick s . Paris, 17 th October, 1901. To the Editor o f C b icice t. Dear Sir,—The attention of the Asso­ ciated Cricket Clubs, of Philadelphia, was called to the fact that a certain unauthor­ ised and extremely discourteous article published in one of our daily papers with respect to Mr. Bosanquet’s side, was, unfortunately, noticed in an English paper. I am, therefore, instructed to enclose to you, which I do herewith, (1) a copy of a statement made by the President of the Associated Cricket Clubs, which shows the utter groundlessness of the statements in question, and (2) a copy of the retraction made by the paper which published the article. I need hardly add that Mr. Bosanquet’s side was in every respect most acceptable to our cricketers, and that the recollec­ tions of his visit to this country will be among the most pleasant of those who support International Cricket in Phila­ delphia. Mr. Patterson asks me to add personally for him, that so far as his failure to play against Mr. Bosanquet’s side was concerned, instead of being due to the paltry reason assigned in this article, it was simply and purely due to professional and business engagements, and that he regretted his inability to play quite as much as other cricketers here in Philadelphia.—Faithfully yours, R e y n o ld s D. B r o w n , Secretary Associated Cricket Clubs. October 15, 1901. Philadelphia, October 8, 1901. M y dear M r. W arburton, M y attention has ju st been called to an article in this even in g’s Telegraph, entitled “ G old B rick for O ur Cricketers,” w hich fills me w ith am azem ent and indignation. T h e statem ents contained therein are u n ­ true from begin n in g to end, and could only have been inspired h y m alice on the part of the w riter. M r. Bosanquet has acted in entire good fa ith ; his team w as the best th at he could secure. W h ile th e y w ere badly beaten in the last test m atch, th ey adm inistered to us a good thrashing in the first. T h e y were regarded b y cricketers in E n glan d as a strong team , and it has been m anifest to those h avin g experience that th ey w ere unable to p lay up to th eir true form . R efle c tio n s U n w a r r a n t e d . T h e reflections on these gentlem en are not on ly unw arranted, but brutal to those who are our guests. T h ere has not been the slightest difference of opinion am ong the representatives of the Associated C ricket Clubs on an y subject relative to the arran ge­ m ent or m anagem ent of the m atches; we have been p ractically a unit on all m atters relatin g thereto. T h e aw fu l death of our beloved President necessitated changes in dates th at w ere diffi­ cu lt of adjustm ent, but the E nglishm en, w hile ve ry firm for dates of their selection, were prom pt to recognise the necessity and sym ­ pathetic in the calam ity which had befallen us. I sincerely tru st th at you w ill give the fullest and most em phatic denial to the state­ m ents in the article above referred to, as a m atter of simple ju stice to M r. Bosanquet and his team and the associated C ricket Clubs. Y o u rs v e ry tru ly, J . B . C O L A H A N , Jun. President of A ssociated C ricket Clubs. M r. B arclay H . W arburton . The following appeared in the Evening Telegraph :— W e regret exceedin gly the publication of the article on the B ritish cricketers w hich appeared in the Evening Telegraph of October 8, as w e have ju st received the personal assurances of M r. G eorge Stuart Patterson, w hich have convinced us th at our source of inform ation was n ot so reliable as w e believed it to be. F o r the sake of the sport, the Evening Telegraph has endeavoured to be en tirely ju st, and w hile it now concedes th at the article, as published, w as w rong in the m ain, members of the Comm ittee adm it that the v isitin g cricketers did object to an arrangem ent of the schedule w h ich would interfere w ith th eir pleasure. T h e Evening Telegraph in th e original article headed “ G old B rick fo r Our Cricketers ” w as not on ly extrem ely severe in its criticism upon the p layin g ab ility of the visitin g team , but charged that Captain Bosanquet had brought over a num ber of O xford and Cam bridge students on a “ ja u n t” to see the A m erica’ s Cup race and the O xford-C am bridge H arvard- Y a le track and field sports at the expense of the local international cricket comm ittee. T h e article fu rther charged th at the E nglishm en, in order not to have their ‘ ‘ pleasure trip ’ ’ spoiled, insulted the A m eri­ can people b y entering a vigorous protest against postponing the first w eek’ s schedule on account of the death of President M cK in ley.