Cricket 1902

THB FINEST BAT THE WORLD PRODUCES. A ug . 21, 1902. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 355 BUSSEY’S S M o Q ^ h< § 4 GO co p e r 04 CD AT THE SIGN OF THE WICKET. B y F. S. A shley -C oopbr . Not the least noteworthy event of the past week was the feat of Rhodes in obtaining his thousandth wicket in first-class cricket. Considering that he was unknown in great matches before the commencement of 1898, his record must he considered a most remark­ able one. It was upon the retirement of Peel that Rhodes was given a place in the York­ shire eleven, and with so much success didhe at once meet that he very soon proved him­ self to be 6ne of quite the best bowlers in the world. The records of the game might be searched in vain for another instance of a bowler stepping from club cricket into first- class matches and meeting with so much success. In his first year of premier cricket he claimed as many as 154 wickets, at a cost of 14*60 runs each, and in no single season since has he obtained a smallercrop than 179. In 1899 he claimed 179 victims for 17*10 runs apiece, in 1900 his record was 261 at 13*81, in 1901 as many as 251 wickets fell to him at 15*12, and this year, up to Monday last, he claimed 160 at 13*60 runs each. Since the commencement of 1898 Rhodes has taken 1,005 wickets at a total cost of 14,891 runs. Richardson, it may be added, in four consecutive seasons—1894 to 1897—obtained 1,005 wickets for 14,154 runs. In the second innings of Notts v. Middlesex, at Nottingham, a week ago, Mr. MacGregor stumped five batsmen, and allowed but one bye during the time the venture lasted. Mr. MacGregor’s fame as a wicket-keeper is so great—and deservedly so—that to many people mention of the above feat will occasion no surprise. Before theNottingham matchMr. MacGregor had kept wicket seven times this season, stumping four men and catching two. Therefore, in performing the feat alluded to, he obtained almost as many wickets in one innings as he had previously taken during the whole season ! The doings of the chief of this year’s wicket-keepers are briefly summarised below, the record being brought up to the 17th inst. :— Matches played in. Caught. Stpd. Board ... . B u tt.................. Carter ... . W . Findlay . Gaukrodger . H uish ... . Hum phries . H unter ... . K elly ... . Lilley A .E . Newton R e s e ll (T.‘ M .) 17 Stedm an............25 Stone ............ 7 W hiteside ... 18 C. E. W in ter... 10 52 31 16 14 23 43 42 31 18 29 11 83 24 38 11 22 8 Total wkts. Total, fallen. 68 ... 359 18 19 2 17 86 11 4 3 3 5 8 11 40 19 20 41 62 44 48 26 35 22 S7 27 41 16 350 205 114 298 867 226 378 259 310 146 292 2 0 307 107 213 153 BUSSEY’S Only those wicket-keepers who have taken as many as fifteen wickets are included above. The Barbados Cricketers' Annual for 1901-2 has recently come to hand. To state that it is compiled on the same lines and with as much care as in previous years is alone sufficient to denote that the publication is well worth the shilling charged for it. Among the many readable articles contained in the volume, the oneon cricket in St. Lucia, by J. B. D. Osborne, is one of the most interesting. The Annual is compiled by J. Wynfred Gibbons, and published at the Globe Offices, Yictoria Street, Barbados. To all enthusiasts interested in West Indian cricket, the.book—now in its eighth year—is indis­ pensable. Derbyshire’s victory over Warwickshire, at Derby, by an innings and 250 runs, was as surprising as it was pleasing. Having just previously succumbed to Notts by an innings and 89 runs, almost every enthusiast in the whole country would have assumed an “ I told you so ” air had Derbyshire lost to Warwickshire by a large margin. The glorious uncertainty of cricket, however, was once again exemplified, and the result of the match should do much to restore confidence to Derbyshire folk. Probably no county— not even Hampshire—has had such a run of ill-fortune of late years as Derbyshire, and it is a pleasing fact to note that the three men who were chiefly responsible for the downfall of Warwickshire—Ollivierre, Law­ ton, and Warren—are still young, and probably have yet to be seen at their best. Quite recently a Cambridge University cricketer-a good judge of the game—told me he considered that Warren had a great future before him as a bowler. Whether it is to be, time alone can show, but in the best interests of Derbyshire cricket it is to be hoped my friend’s prophecy will prove a true one. It is a remarkable fact that until last week Derbyshire had not won a match on the Derby ground sincebeating Leicester­ shire by an innings and 31 runs in June, 1898 ! An old cricketer, in the person of William Benjamin Clarke, passedaway atNottingham on Tuesday last. The deceased was born at Old Basford, on November 5th, 1846, and was therefore in his fifty-sixth year at the time of his death. His name will be found a few times in the Nottinghamshire eleven, commencing in 1874. He was not related to William Clarke, the famous slow bowler of sixty years ago, or to William Clarke, of Kirby-in-Ashfield, who first appeared in the county eleven in 1876. From 1866 to 1872 the deceased was engaged by the Plymouth club, and afterwards by the West of Scotland C.C., at Partick, Glasgow. In 1880 he became qualified by residence for Middlesex, and in the year named made his first appear­ ance for his adopted county against Notts, at Lord’s, and, by obtaining seven wickets for 51 runs in the first innings, raised hopes of future excellence which were, unfortunately, never realized. In all Middlesex matches in which he participated, he obtained 68 wickets for 1317 runs, and in 24 completed innings obtained 182 runs. In his day he was a useful bowler—right hand, slow to medium pace,—but it would be an exaggeration to suggest that he ever occupied a very promi­ nent place in the cricketing world. In April 1889, he became “ mine host ” of the Clayton Arms—a familiar landmark to all frequenters of the Oval. S T R E A T H A M v. W IM B L E D O N . — Played at Streatham on August 16. W imbledon . D . E . D angar, c Ken, b D o b s o n .................... 67 W . H olland, b M iller 24 E . L . Clapham, b D obson ........................ 19 A . L . Foster, c K en, b D obson ...................... 5 E. B. T odd, o and b D obson .......... ... 9 W . E . M artyn, o H ooper, b D obson .. 16 S tbeatham . J . H . P . Berthon, b D obson .....................10 R . Graham, lbw , b D obson ...................... 0 L . Calvert, run out ... 27 F. C. Pott, b H ooper... 1 W . M uir, not out B 5, lb 2, w 1 Total ............ 13 . 8 ...199 N . M iller, c H olland, b M uir .................... 87 H . L . Daw son,b Foster 5 J. E . Raphael, c Ber­ thon, b H olland .. 29 H . H . Scott, c Dangar, b Foster ....................26 G . Bicknell, c Graham, b M uir ............ ... 21 E . J. D obson, run ou t 9 J. F. W . H ooper, c Todd, b H olland ... 48 V .F.Feeny, c Graham, b Holland ............ 3 L . A. M . Fevez, not out .............................28 B 14, lb 3, w 1, nb 3 21 Total (8 wkts.) ...277