Cricket 1903

D e c . 3 1 , 1 9 0 3 . CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 467 3 H. K. Foster Worcestershire v. Yorkshire, at Hud­ dersfield. H. A. Haines, Philadelphians v. Leicestershire, at Leicester. L. V. Harper. Cambridge University y. M.C.C. & Ground, at Lord’s. Hearne, A ., Kent v. 8om°rset, at Taunton. H. Hesketh-Prichard, London County v. M.C.C. & Ground, at Lord’s. J. G. Hirsch, London County v. Sumy, at the Oval. Hirst, G. H., Yorkshire v. Sussex, at Brighton. Hulme, J., Derbyshire v. Essex, at Leyton. K. L. Hutchings, Kent v. Sussex, at Brighton. Jackson, F. M., Surrey v. E*sex, at Leyton. A. C. Johnston, Hants v. Kent, at Bournemouth. R. P. Keigwin, Cambridge University v. Yorkshire at Sheffield. R. P. Keigwin, Essex v. Yorkshire, at Sheffield. King, J. H., M.C C. & Ground v. Sussex, at Lord’s. Kitchener, Hampshire v, Worcester, at Worcester. C. J. Kortright, Essex v. Surrey, at Leyton. Langford, Hants v. Warwickshire, at Edgbaston. Langford, Hants v. Somerset, at Bournemouth. A. E. Lawton, Derbyshire v. Notts, at Nottingham. Lees, W. S., Surrey v. Middlesex, at the Oval. P. N. LeRoy, Philadelphians v. Nottinghamshire, at Nottingham. Lockwood, W. H., Surrey v. Middlesex, at the Oval. A. P. Lucas, Essex v. Lancashire, at Levton. E. G. Martin, Oxford Univ. v. Cam. Univ., at Lord’s. C. H. McGahey, Essex v. Middlesex, at Leyton. Mead, W., Essex v. Yorkshire, at Leyton. Mead, W ., Essex v. Middlesex, at Leyton. Mills, Gloucester v. Nottinghamshire, at Nottingham. L. J. Moon, Middlesex v Lancashire, at Manchester. Moorhouse, Warwickshire v. York»hire, at Hull. A. Morton, Derbyshire v. M.C.C. & Gd.. at Lords. Needham, E., Derby v. Warwickshire, at Chesterfield Oates, T., Nottinghamshire v. Derbyshire, at Derby. Radcliffe, L , Lancs, v. Leicestershire, at Leicester. Keif, A. E., Sussex v. M.C.C. & Ground, at Lord’s. 0. M. Samson, Cam. Un. v. M.C.C. & Gd., at Lords. Smoker, Hants v. Kent, at Catford. Strudwick, H.t Surrey v. Middlesex, at the Oval. F. E. Thomas, Gloucester v. Yorkshire, at Sheffield. T. H. Watson, Cam. Univ. v. Surrey, at Cambridge. Whiteside, J. P., Lei .ester v. Essex, at Leyton. N ote .—0 not out is not reckoned. E. W. Dillon was dismissed by the first ball he received in each innings when playing for Kent v. M.C.C. & Ground, at Lord’s. Three Surrey men—Lees, Lockwood, and Strudwick —obtained “ spectacles ” against Middlesex, at the Oval. Table No. 19.—TABLE SHOWING THE NUM- BEti OF BATSMEN WHO SCORED 1,000 OR MORE RUN 8 DURING THE SEASON IN FIRST-CLASS MATCHE 8 . No. Times Most of not Total in an inns.out. runs. inns. Aver. C. B. Fry............... 40 ... 7 .. 2,683 ... 234 .. 81*80 K. S. Ranjitsinbji .. 41 ... 7 .. 1,924 ... 2C4 ... 66 68 birst, G. H........44 .. 5 ... 1,844 ... 163 ... 47 28 Iremonger, J.......... 31 ... 1 ... 1,380 ... 210 ... 46*00 Knight, A. E......... 46 ... 6 ... 1 834 ... 229*... 45*85 P. A. Perrin ........ 36 ... 4 ... 1,428 ... 17 i ... 44 62 Tyldesley, J. T. ... 50 ... 6 ... 1,956 ... 248 ... 44*43 A. C. MacLaren ... 52 ... 8 ... 1,886 ... 204 ... 42*86 Quaife, W. G.....30 ... 4 ... 1,113 ... 1£0 ... 42 80 Ounn, J.................. 42 ... 3 ... 1,665 ... 294 ... 42 69 H. K. Foster........ 41 ... 3 ... 1,696 ... 216 ... 42 00 A. O. Jones ... £8 ... 2 ... 1,422 ... 296 ... 39 60 P. F. Warner........ 33 ... 4 ... 1,141 ... 149 39 34 G. L. JesEop ........ 36 ... 0 ... 1,882 ... 288 ... 38 38 Gunn, W ................ 29 ... 1 ... 1,011 .. 139 ... 36 10 Hayward, T. ... 64 ... 3 ... 2,177 ... 166*... 35*68 B. J. T. Bosanquet 32 ... 1 ... 1,082 ... 108 ... 34*90 Denton, D.............. 56 ... 3 ... 1,832 ... 133 !.! 34 56 Hayes, E. G........... 61 ... 7 ... 1,865 ... 145 ... 34 53 E. M. Dow son ... 43 ... 4 ... 1,343 ... 135 ... 34-43 G. W. JBeldam ... 34 ... 3 ... 1,058 ... 118 ... 3412 Killick, E .H ......... 40 ... 3 ... 1,252 ... 116 ... 33*83 Bowley, F..........43 ... 4 ... 1/283 ... 164 ... 32 89 Braund, L. C......... 49 ... 6 .. 1,425 ... 132 ... 32*38 C. H. McGahey .. 41 ... 6 ... 1,144 ... 144*... 31 77 C. J. Burnup....... 49 ... 3 ... 1,443 ... 134 .!! 31*36 Arnold, E.............. 45 .. 7 ... 1,167 ... 128 ... 30 44 King, J .H ............... 44 ...3 ... 1,209 ... 167 ... 29 48 Brown, J. T., sen.... 47 ...1 ...1,324 ... 125 ... 28*78 R. H.Spooner....... 49 ... 1 ... 1,337 ... 247 ... 27*85 Rhodes, W ............ 61 ... 9 ... 1,137 ... 98*... 27* 7 Vine, J................... 49 ... 2 ... 1,208 ... 104 ... 25.70 C. J. B. Wood ... 50 ... 3 ... 1,184 ... 118*... 25*19 Holland, F. C........ 48 ... 0 ... 1,129 ... 97 23*52 *Signifies not out. N ote .—For the first time since 1894, Abel (R ) owing to ill-health, failed to obtain over 2,000 runa during the season. (To be continued). THE M.C.C. TEAM IN AUSTRALIA. THE QUEENSLAND MATCH. ( f o u r t h o f t h e t o u r .) Played at Brisbane on November 27, 28, and 30. M.C.C. won by six wickets. Very little importance had been attached to this match, for Queensland cricket is some­ what despised by the three great cricketing states, but as a matter of fact, the Queens­ landers gave the M.C.C. by far the best match of the tour as far as it had gone. There was even a time whon the home team had the best of the situation, with a possi­ bility of pulling off a victory. On the first day Queensland gave an excellent account of itself, thanks in great measure to the fine cricket played by Dr. Macdonald, who was so successful for Leicestershire a year or two ago, and Evans, one of the best batsmen in the state. At the same time, it must be said that Carew and Atkins had paved the way for a good score by excellent cricket. While Mac­ donald played his usual defensive game, Evans hit with great boldness and vigour. Macdonald, who went in second wicket down, was last out, after keeping up his wicket for three hours and ten minutes without making a mistake in his 59. On the other hand, Evans was only just over an hour in scoring his brilliant 72, and at one time he made 25 runs off Rhodes in three overs. The English­ men lost Braund before stumps were drawn with the total at 21. He fell a victim to Henry, the aboriginal fast bowler, of whom great things were hoped. But Henry’s form was pretty well known, and on the next day the visitors found that beyond his great pace there was nothing at all remarkable about him. The result was that he met with very little success. But Byrne, a slow left-hand bowler, was in great form, and accounted for five wickets for 74 runs. None of the Englishmen showed to any great advantage, although Warner, Arnold, Foster, Knight and Bosanquet all made good scores. At the end of the innings the Queenslanders were leading by 27 runs, but long before the end of the day this advantage had been practically lost by the poor display of the team in the second innings. When stumps were drawn only 90 runs had been scored for nine wickets, none of the batsmen except Evans and Foster being able to make anything of Braund, who took five wickets for 50 runs in eighteen overs. The last wicket only added one run on the Monday when the game was resumed, and the Englishmen had an apparently easy task before them, although before the 119runs were knocked off they lost four wickets. M.C.C. First innings. Warner, c McDonald, b Griffith...............................37 Braund, c Foster, b Henry 2 Arnold, b Henry.................34 Q ueensland . First innings. Patrick, c Braund, b Fielder 0 Carew, b bosanquet ........28 Atkins, b Arnold...............30 McDonald, lbw, b Arnold 59 Evans, c Foster, b Rhrdes... 72 Fitzgerald, c and b Braund 12 Crouch, c Bosanquet, b Braund ........................ 0 Griffith, lbw, b Braund ... 8 Foster, c Foster, b Arnold 18 Byrne, c Foster, b Fielder 8 Henry, not out ................. 0 Extras..................... 7 Total ...............242 Second innings. b Arnold ..........12 run out .......... 0 st Strudwick, b Braund .......... 3 lbw, b Braund . 6 c Arnold, b Fielder ..........27 b B raund......... 2 b Arnold ... . lbw, b Braund . b Arnold ... . c R h o d e s , Braund ... . not o u t............. Extras ... . Total ... . Second innings. : Fitzgerald, b Byrne .......... 4 c A tk in s Griffith .. notout.. ., b Griffith .. ... 34 ... 25 Foster, c and b Fitzgerald.. 21 Knight, c Evans, b Byrne .. 46 Bosanquet, c Crouch, b B yrne..............................37 notout................20 Lilley, c Crouch, b Byrne... 2 Rhodes, c McDonald, b B yrne................................ 6 Relf, st Evans, b Byrne ... 0c Foster,b Griffith 23 Fielder, not o u t .................. 5 Strudwick, c McDonald, b Griffith .......................17 Extras........................ 8 Extras .............. 5 Total .................215 Q ueensland. First innings. R. W. Total (4 wkts) 119 Second inning3. R. W. Fielder 30 ... ... 2 ... ... 15 .......... 1 braund 54 ... ... 3 ... ... 60 .......... 6 Rhodes.......... 38 ... ... 1 ... ... 6 .......... 0 Arnold.......... 38 ... ... 3 ... ... 16 .......... 3 Bosanquet... 65 ... ... 1 ... Relf .......... 10 ... ... 0 ... M.C.C.] First innings. R. W. Second inning3. R. W. Henry.......... 74 ... ... 2 ... ... 21 ......... 0 Byrne.......... 74 ... ... 5 ... ... 60 .......... 1 Griffith.......... 69 ... ... 2 ... ... 34 .......... 3 Fitzgerald ... 14 ... ... 1 ... THE MATCH AGAINST NORTHERN DISTRICT XVIII. ( f i f t h o f t h e t o u r ) . Played at West Maitland (N.S.W.) on December 2. Drawn, in this match P. F. Warner stood out, his place as captain being taken by R. E. Foster. The home team batted first and ran up the useful score of 284, of which 9\.runs were from the bat of the Rev. P. S. Waddy, the old Oxford University cricketer, who played remarkably good cricket. In addition to Waddy, Cameron and Moore also did very well indeed. When stumps were drawn the M.C.C. had made 144 for the loss of one wicket, Hayward being not out 58, and Tyldesley not out 81. On the next day the Englishmen increased their score to 453, Tyldesley, Bosanquet and Lilley being very much to the fore. For the local team P. S. Waddy again vastly distinguished himself. This time he made 102 by first-class cricket, and fully deserved the loud cheers with which he was greeted on his return to the pavilion. Lindsay did uncommonly well, playing a fine innings of 62, while Hogue scored 39. When the game ended the local men, with eleven wickets in hand, were 72 runs on, so that they had good reason to congratulate them­ selves on their performance in the match. Although the locals batted with eighteen men they only fielded with thirteen. W est M aitland XVIH. First innings. Second innitgs. Hogue, b Arnold................. 6 lbw, b Bosanquet 35 Lindsay, b Hirs t................. 2 not ou t............... 61 Ebsworth, run out ..........12 c Hirst, b Arnold 4 Moore, lbw, b Bosanquet... 31 c Foster,b Arnold 6 Waddy,c Braund, b Arnold 93 cBrannd,bLilley 1C2 Onus, b Arnold .................21 lbw, b Bosanquet 0 Clements,c Braund,bArnold 8 Cap. b Arnold ................. 0 McGlinchy, c Foster,b Hirst 16 not out.................12 Cameron,cFoiter.b Braund 43 b Hirst .......... 6 Bourke, b Braund .......... 0 Lawrie, b Br«und ..........11 Freeman, b Braund .......... 8 Norman, c Tyldesley, b Brannd ........................ 0 Lawrie, c Foster, b Braund 9 Baker, not out ................15 Maguire, c Hayward, b Braund ........................ 1 Harken, lbw, b Braund ... 0 Extras ................. 9 Extras... ... 15 Total .........281 Total (6 wkts) 241