Cricket 1903

M a y 21, 1903. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 155 The All-England Eleven when opposed to the howling of Freeman, Howitt and Emmett. His first match for Yorkshire was against Surrey at Sheffield in June, 1870, when he made 11 and 17 not out, his side being victorious by seven wickets. This was his best effort in the three matches he played for Yorkshire that year. In the famous match between Lascelles Hall and Sheffield in the September of that year, played for £50 a side, he greatly distinguished himself with scores of 46 and 35. In 1871 and 1872 he made sparse appearances for the county without success, but in the latter year he assisted X X II. of Boston in America against the English team and bowled well capturing eight wickets in the match, including that of Mr. W. G. Grace in both innings. Coming to 1874 we find him assisting Durham County, when in a match with Yorkshire United he performed the astonishing feat of c’ ein bowling four wickets in one over of four balls. The year 1876 found him receiv­ ing a thorough triil withYorkshire,and he proved an emphatic success against Notts at Trent Bridge when he ran up 56 and 43. This he followed up with 28 against Gloucestershire and 22 and 36 against Middlesex, his average, as the result of somewhat uneven play, working out at 15 per innings for the ount.y. For their opening match in 1877, which was against Middlesex, Yorkshire were minus the services of four or five of her cracks who had been on tour in Australia. Old Roger Iddison picked the team and inclu­ ded a few colts, among them being Henry Lockwood, William Bates (deceased), Beaumont and Blainires. Ir, says much for the resoul ces of Yorkshire that the two last-named should have baen subse­ quently prominent members of the Surrey eleven, and that their services were scarcely missed. When Eastwood went m for his second innings the game was decidedly favouring Middlesex, but he hit finely for 68, the highest sc >re of the match, which he was a main factor in winning by 35 runs. His other chief performance with the bat was his 57 against Derbyshire at Derby, when opposed to Mycroft, Hickton and Platts, but he also made 38 v. Gloucestershire, •28 v. Lancashire, and 24 v. Notts. About this lime the County began to make use of his services as a bowler, and he fre­ quently opened the attack for Yorkshire, though he scarcely met with the success which his ability seemed to warraut. Probably his best performance with the ball was done outside county cricket, when in the North v. South match at Prince’s in 1877 he obtained 6 wickets for 69 runs, going on first with Morley. The whole total of the South was 459, to which Mr. W. G. Grace subscribed 261, so the exceptional merit of the performance will be the better understood. Again, for North v. South at the Oval, he obtained seven wickets for 120 runs, and in the same fixture at Hull he had six for 76 in the match. On three occasions this year he captured the wicket of Dr. W. G. V mo8t gratifying tribute to h>s abilities was his selection to represent the Players against the Gentlemen at Prince’s. There were six Yorkshiremen in the Players’ team, including himself, viz. Ulyett, who made 53 and 118, Ephraim Lockwood, Emmett, Allan Hill and Pinder. Eastwood made the very respectable contributions of 32 and 29 with the bat and captured one wicket, viz. that of W. W. Read f it 33 runs. In 1880, three years after he had retired from county cricket, he made three appearances against the Australians, and was presented with a ball in recognition of his share in the victory which X V III. of Scarboro’ obtained over the colonists in August of that year. He umpired in six matches for Yorkshire in 1895. SURREY v. ESSEX. Played at the Oval on May 18, 19, and 20. Essex won by 260 runs. So heavy was the ground after the rain which fell on Saturday and Sunday that the start on the first day was delayed until after luncheon. Although the pitch never became difficult, the run-getting was very slow, only 161 being scored for the loss of six wickets during the three hours and a half that play lasted. The early downfall of so fine a forcing player as Sewell perhaps caused his comrades to play a safer game than they otherwise would have done, for the Surrey bowling, although it required watching, was never really difficult. The play was very wearying, and everybody appeared relieved when stumps were drawn for the day on account of the bad light. On Tuesday Essex were seen to such advantage that by the end of the day they occupied a winning position. Their last four wickets added but 26 runs, it is true, hut the bowling of Mead after the interval was of so remarkable a character that Surrey were dis­ posed of for 107, after 93 runs had been on the board for the loss of but three wickets. Hayward had played a capital game for his side, considering the fine bowling of Mead and the state of the wicket, scoring 56 out of 94, his chief strokes being nine fours. Of the first 48 runs made by his side he claimed 39, made in half-an-hour. Brockwell was unfortunate in being disposed of by a magni­ ficent eatch at deep square-leg by Sewell—a catch which it is safe to say must rank as one of the best ever seen on a London ground. After luncheon Mead was irresistible, his analysis reading 33 balls, three maiden overs, for two runs and six wickets. Such effec­ tive bowling has seldom been seen in a great match on any ground, eclipsing Peate’ s analysis of eight for five for Yorkshire v. Surrey at Holbeck in 1883, but falling short of W. G.’s seven for none for Gloucestershire against Notts at Cheltenham in 1877. Mead’s feat is the most remarkable piece of bowling accomplished in an Essex match since Beeves took five wickets for no runs against Derby­ shire, at Leyton, in 1901. When Essex went in a second time, Sewell hit in splendid fashion, making 60 out of 89 in 56minutes, his chief strokes being a five and four 4’s. Perrin and McGahey were both seen to advantage, and when stumps were drawn Essex were 290 ahead with six wickets to fall. Yesterday, although Essex gained an easy victory, as was generally anticipated, but few persons could have been prepared for the feeble resis­ tance offered by Surrey to Mead and Young. The latter carried all before them, dismissing tho home eleven for 76, and winning the match for their side by 260 runs. Hayward again proved the highest scorer in the innings, but his runs were not made without luck. Surrey certainly suffered severely from the enforced absence of Abel, and possibly from the lack of a regular captain of experience, but it must be admitted that their display was quite unworthy of the side. Young finished off the innings in great form, his last three wickets beiDg obtained in eight overs at a cost of eight runs. E sse x . First innings. F. L. Fane, lbff, b Jackson 13 Sewell, c and b Montgomery 15 P. Perrin, c sub., b Clode.. 43 C. McGahey, o Wiltshire, b Clode ........................ 82 A . J. Turner, b Clode.........36 C. J. Kortright, c Hayward, b Jackson ........................ Bu kenham, c Lockwood, b Clode ............................... 12 Russell (T.)» b Brockwell... 10 Young, c Jackson, b Clode 0 Tremlin, c Bayes, b Clode 13 Mead, not out ................. 3 B 3, lb 2, w 1... Second intinga. c and b Hayward 25 st 8 tedman, b Jackson st Stedman Hayes b Hayes st Stedman Clode 4 run out not out not out.. 10 b .. 44 47 6 B 16, lb 1, nb 1 18 Total .........187 *Totil (6 wkta) 268 • Inniogs d c’.ared closed. S u b r s y . First inningj. Hayward, c and b 1'remlin 66 Holland, c Kor right, b Trem in Hayes, c McGahey, b Mead Brockwell, c Sewell,b Trem­ lin .................................... E. Wiltshire, b M ead......... Lockwood, b Mead . ... L. Walker, b Mead .......... Clode, b Mead ................. Stedman, b Mead................. Montgomery, c Buckenham, b Mead ........................ Jackson, not o u t................. No-ball ................. Fe oad inuings. b Young ..........29 c R M 8 i“llbYoung 6 c Hussell, b Mead 1 c and b Young 0 b .Head................. 4 b Me i d ................ 6 c Kus»ell,b Youog 1 c Uusell.b Young 4 b Me i d ................17 not o u t........ b .Mead........ B 6 , nb 1 Total ..........107 Totil .. ... 76 Esssx. First inning3. Second innings. O. M. R. W. O. M. it. W. Mont omery ... 16 6 25 1 .. Jackson ... .. 24 5 39 2 ...’ 18 8 82 1 Brockwell .. 21 4 60 1 .. . ... 6 1 *<8 0 lode .. . 38 11 62 6 .. ... 25 6 78 1 Hayward... ... 9 3 15 0 ... ... 6 1 23 1 Lockwood ... ... 12 2 49 0 Holland ... 6 1 9 0 Hayes .. . ... 20 12 19 2 Jackson bowled one wide and Hnyward one no-ball. S U B R R Y . First innings. Second inni •gs. o K w 3 O. M. it. W. Tremlin ... ... 19 4 63 3 .. Mead ... .,.. 20.3 6 34 7 .. . 7 . 19 5 44 5 Young ... .... 7 3 9 0 .... ... 18 7 26 5 Young bowled two no-balls. LIVERPOOL AND DISTRICT v. M r . S. M. J. WOODS’ XI. Played at Aigburth on May 18 and 19. Mr. Woods’ XI. won by an innings and 117 runs. On the opening day, thanks to Braund’s batting and some successful bowling by Crantield, Mr. Wood’s XI. were in such a position when stumps were drawn that, unless something extraordinary occurred, it was evident that the home team would be severely beaten. Braund’s innings, although a good display, was a fortunate one, as it should have been terminated at 51 and again at 98. It may be added that the match is not reckoned first-class. M b . Woods* XI. S. M. J.Woods,c andb fiimmer ................. 6 Braund, o E. Steel, b Kitchener................117 Robson, c Garnett, b Kimmer .......... ... 15 E. M. S. Poyntz, c E. Steel, b Kimmer ... 4 Lewis, c Garnett, b Barnes .................69 Hardy, lbw, b E. Steel 40 H. Martyn, b Barnes 5 H. Burriugtoa.candb E. Steel .......... ... 13 L. M. M*j )t b Kitche­ ner .......... ... 0 Craufleld, c Kemble, b E. Steel................ 1 North, not out .......... 0 Byes 8 , 1-b 2 ..........10 Total ..279