Cricket 1902

A ug . 28, 1902. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 371 BUSSEY’S > m Q * ■ w = n £ £ a-. P £ n - H CO 2 S3 CO 0 3 BUSSEY’S AT THE SIGN OF THE WICKET. B y F . S . A sh ley-C oop b r. Whenever Kent play a match at Canter­ bury the circumstance always fills the veterans with pleasurable reminiscences. No county, Surrey alone excepted, can boast so great a cricket history as Kent, and Canter­ bury has always been one of the chief centres of the game within the borders of the county. In very early times Bishopsbourne Paddock was the scene of many of the greatest matches of the day. Sir Horace Mann, one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the game there has ever been, had a country seat at Bishopsbourne, called Bourne House, where he would entertain teams with the greatest hospitality. It was there that “ that anointed clodstumper,” Tom Walker, made his splendid double of 95 not out and 102 (going in first in the first innings and carry­ ing out his bat) for the White Conduit Club jigainst Kent in 1786. Gentle David Harris, the mighty Beldham, the immortal Small, and many another famous man of that far­ away age played his part upon the cricket stage at Bishopsbourne. But Canterbury will always be aprominent name in cricketing annals on account of the Canterbury Week, which was inaugurated sixty years ago by a match between Kent and England. That first match, by-the-way, was a somewhat notable one, for the county, after making 278 and obtaining a lead of 12 runs on the first innings, collapsed for 44 at their second attempt, and were defeated by nine wickets. Mr. Emilius Bayley, then but 19 years of age, went in first and carried out his bat for 17—a marvellous feat for one so young, considering that Adams, Pilch, Felix, the Mynns, E. G. Wenman, Dorrinton and C. G. Whittaker could make no stand against the bowling. The Kent people thought the match had been sold, “ which, of course, was nonsense,” said Mr. Bailey; “ but Alfred Mynn was hissed in Maidstone market.” During the past 60 years no seasonhas passed without many of the greatest cricketers of the time appearing on the classic sward at Canterbury. The complete history of the Canterbury Week, which would make most interesting reading, has yet to be written. rIhe ground has been the scene of many triumphs of the county, and the display there by Kent last week against the Australians in no way tarnished the county’s record, not­ withstanding the fact that the visiting team proved successful. The judgment in running of the Australians—like that of the Middlesex players against Somerset at Lord’s earlier in the season—was apparently sadly at fault, seeing that Duff and Noble were run out in the first innings, and Trumper, Hill and Saunders in the second. During the past week centuries have been made in great matches by W. G. Grace and A. P. Lucas, and in minor cricket by W . L. Murdoch. Whatever disadvantages are possessed by the perfect wickets of modem days—and that there are disadvantages it would be absurd to deny—it must be acknow­ ledged that they tend to keep before the pub­ lic men who might otherwise drop out of first-class matches. If wickets of to-day were as rough and as bumpy as they were when “ W.G.” first appeared at Lord’s, it would be dangerous for anybody not possess­ ing unusual agility to attempt to face modem bowling. Thirty-six years have elapsed since “ W.G.” reached three figures for the first time in a great match, and how extraordinary his career has been can, in a measure, be grasped when it is considered how very few men there are 36 years of age now participat­ ing in first-class cricket. In other words, “ W.G.” notched his first important century before nearly all the players of to-day were born ! And he still knocks up hundreds, and still manages to reach his thousand runs a season ! A. P. Lucas, although nine years younger than “ W .G .,” must be classed among the veterans. His cricket career has been a most distinguished one, seeing that he has represented Uppingham, Cambridge University, Surrey, Middlesex, Essex, the Gentlemen against trhe Players, and England against Australia. When only seventeen years of age he appeared in the Surrey eleven, and he was but two years older when he was chosen to assist in the Gentlemen v. Players match. “ Scores and Biographies ” says of him, “ His style is taking to the eye, his patience is wonderful, and his defence difficult to overcome ; in fact, the better the bowling, the better he plays.” Like Shrews­ bury—another veteran, who flourishes like a green bay-tree—A. P. Lucas made his first century in important cricket as early as 1876, W. L. Murdoch, in whose vocabulary the word care is not to be found, keeps up his form in a way that none but a veteran can. This year he has exceeded the hundred on five occasions for London County, making 132, v. Leicestershire, June 10. 106*, v. Streatham. July 9. 201*, v. Norwood, July 30. 104, v. Oundle Rovers, August 1. 119, v. Biomley Town, August 25. May the veterans be ever with us! Mr. R. J. Parker writes as follows:—“ I have just read your notice of the death of William Clark in last week’s Cricket , and beg to suggest that you are in error in saying that he was no relation to the famous old William Clarke. During the time that ‘ Bill Clarke ’ occupied the Clayton Arms, and on many occasions since, I have had many chats with him, and more than once he said that old William Clarke was his uncle. Further, at his request, some years ago, I obtained for him a portrait of the ‘ uncle,’ which he had framed and hung up in his private parlour at the Clayton Arms, and of which he was not a little proud. . . . . I am sorry to trouble you, but should like to know that the recently deceased was not in error in claiming kinship with the great bowler.” Scores and Biographies (Vol. XIII., p. 78) says: “ He is no relation to William Clarke, the famous Nottingham slow bowler of former days,” the statement probably being made by the deceased himself in the circular of information he filled up for publication in the Cricket Scores and Biographies . Perhaps some Nottingham enthusiast can definitely settle the question ? PELHAM v. HONOURABLE AR TILLER Y COMPANY.—Played at FiDsbury on August 23. H.A.C. W . E. Waigh, b Parker 16 H. Sharpe, b J. E. Potter.................. ... 45 R. W . Neumegan, b Parker ................. 3 H. J. Bonser, b Parker 0 J.D. B .W atts,cAdams, b Parker E. W . G. Harper, D elaC our ... . E. W . Llewellyn, D elaC our ... . B. T. Bonser, b Bonser A. W . Parker, notout P. C. De la Cour, b Bonser .................. J. E. Potter, c Harper, b Bonser 12 A. D. Collins, b De la C o u r ......................... 0 H. S. Bonner, lbw, b Parker ................... 2 H. W . Bell, b De la C our.......................... 0 W . M. Green, not out 0 B 6, lb 4 .................10 Total ..106 . 6 Pelham. A . F. Potter, b Watts A. E. Axbey. b Harper P. Lingwood, not out Byes ... ........... Total ... 0 0 0 3 ..112 A. R Edgell, b Watts 37 C. H. Adams, C. E. G. Hemsley, and G. L. Daltoi* did not bat.