Cricket 1904

M ay 12, 1904. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME 115 BUSSEY’S “DEMON DRIVERS. < C C P « GEO, G. BUSSEY & GO Desire to inform Cricketers all over the world who may experience a difficulty in ob­ taining “ Demon Drivers ” that this difficulty arises in consequence of the ever-increas­ ing demand exceeding the supply. Readers of G eo . G . B ussey & Co.’s pamphlet, entitled “ Evolution of the Demon Driver,” are aware that a fea­ ture of the success of the “Demon Driver ” is due to a special process, occupying a long period, that the bats under­ go before leaving the works, and although there are always a large number of Bats under this treatment which could be placed on the market, G eo . G . B ussey & Co., in the interest of cricketers and their own repu­ tation, will not deviate from the system that has made the The Finest Bat the World produces. GEO.G.BUSSEY&CO, 36 & 38, QUEENVICTORIASTREET, E.C, Manufactory— PECKHAM, S.E. Timber Mills- ELMSWELL SUFFOLK. AGENTS A L L OVER T H E WORLD. AT THE SIGN OF THEjWICKET. By F. S. A sh ley -C ooper . Speaking to me quite recently on matters cricketical, an old county captain gave it as his opinion that far too great an advantage falls to the lot of the side which wins the toss. Whether the captain guesses correctly or not, as the coin is tossed in the air, is wholly a matter of luck, and therefore as little benefit as possible should be allowed to remain with the side gaining choice of first innings. The team which bats first gsnerally performs on a billiard-table wicket, which may have become worn or damaged by rain when the time arrives for the other side to go in. Cannot something then be done, it will be asked, so that it may not be so frequently said that winning the toss meant winning the match ? Although it may be argued that the toss is lost as often as it is won, and there­ fore that on the average a side may be said to have choice of first innings as frequently as not, it is none the less true that now and again a county will lose the toss, and so be placed at a disadvantage in match after match. Sussex once lost the toss in fourteen consecutive matches—a run of ill-luck probably unparalleled in the annals of first-class cricket. A simple remedy may be suggested whereby the slightest advantage would.be allowed to remain with the side having first innings. It is generally known that when a wicket is being specially prepared for a great match, a space about sixty yards by thirty is roped off so that the public may not encroach. If all this portion were well rolled, without allowing a certain part to be prepared so that a wicket as hard as iron would be the outcome, and then if the side winning the toss were allowed to pitch the wickets on any portion they wished, and the other side were permitted to do the same when their turn to bat came, the result would be that each team would bat on a good natural wicket, that scoring would not be so heavy as it has been of recent years, and that the bowlers would receive encouragement. The Hon. E. V. Bligh was right when he said, in a recent issue of Baihfs Magazine that a more varied and less certain game would be immensely more interesting to the great majority of lookers-on than the ‘ ‘ tame and same ’ 9 game of the present period. The “ reformers” who advocate time-limit cricket, a larger wicket, a smaller bat, or an alteration in the leg-before-wicket rule, admit that the absurdly big scoring (and many drawn matches) must be attri­ buted wholly and solely to the billiard-table pitches which have been fashionable during the past decade. Yet they will not consent to play on natural wicket, although recom­ mended to do so by the M.C.C., and so adopt a course which would make the game far more interesting. Their position reminds one of the people who declare that Heaven is the most lovely place that the imagination can picture, but who, nevertheless, are always very reluctant to quit the earth. “ A quick eye and perfect wrist, such as enables two champions of rapier play to fight for life in a French duel, and to thrust at one another for two and a half mortal hours without injury to either party, may yet have its counterpart upon Lord’s, or at the Oval, and neither side be able to get the other ou t! ” says the Hon. E. V. Bligh. The cricket during the past week should have done much to restore confidence to the supporters of Surrey. Lees was in exceptional form with the ball in the two matches played at the Oval by the county, whilst Lockwood performed well against London County and the M.C.C.’s Australian Team. It had been anticipated that the bowling at the disposal of the side would be weak, but, so far from this proving to be the case, the county found slight difficulty in disposing of London County and Hampshire for reasonable scores. It is also worthy of remark that in neither match was the disposal of Surrey’s opponents attributable to either Rudd or Rushby, both of whom are regarded as bowlers of much promise. So it would appear that the old members of the team are still to be relied upon to do good work. There is a curious coincidence in figures in Lees’ performances against London County and Hampshire : in the first match he at one time obtained five wickets for seven runs in 42 balls, and in the second five wickets for seven runs in 55 balls. In previous years he had bowled well against Hampshire— e.g., the hat-trick at Southamp­ ton in 1897, and eight wickets in an innings for 31 runs, at the Oval, in 1900—but his success in this week’s match was more note­ worthy because he was practically the only bowler of experience on the side. Lockwood gave a glimpse of his best form on Saturday last, when the second innings of London County threatened to become somewhat pro­ longed. His record for the whole innings of six wickets for 29 runs, though a capital achievement in a total of 196, does not give one a true idea of the deadly nature of his bowling, for the last twelve balls he delivered were responsible for the downfall of four men at a cost of but five runs. The next occasion on which he bowled was on Monday last, when he obtained four wickets for 71 against the strong M.C.C. Australian Team in an innings of 300. The Hampshire men were doubtless extremely glad that he was unable to perform against them in co-operation with Lees, for in such a case their score would have failed to reach even such a poor total as 63. In their second innings Smith was almost irresistible, at one time claiming six wickets in 37 balls for 9 runs. It was, by-the-way, given to understand that Smoker was included in the Hampshire team on account of his slow bowling, so the fact that he did not deliver a single ball during Surrey’s innings of 218 must rank as a curiosity of cricket, especially as Llewellyn was an enforced absentee and as many as five men had a turn with the ball. It is stated that Mr. E. M. C. Ede, an amateur who has recently bowled extremely well in club cricket, and who is a useful batsman, will shortly make his re-appearance in the county eleven. Such a course would be bound to strengthen the side, for Mr. Ede is sure to make his mark as a player sooner or later. Amongst the players who have given evidence of being in form thus early in the season is Iremonger, whoso performances during the past few years for Nottinghamshire have stamped him as one of the best professional batsmen of recent times. In the August of 1901 he scored over 100 runs for the first wicket in partnership with A. O. Jones on four occasions within the short space of eight days, making 134 and 144 (without being parted) v. Surrey at the Oval; 238 v. Essex, at Leyton ; and 119 v. Derby­ shire, at Welbeck. His individual efforts in these matches were respectively 119 and 34 not out, 133 and 4, and 108. As he followed these innings with scores of 8 and 102 not out against Middlesex, on the Trent Bridge ground, he achieved the very rare distinction of obtaining four separate hundreds for his county in consecutive matches. It has been stated that Iremonger, if he continues in the form he has shown during the past few years, will prove worthy of being placed in the same category as George Parr, Richard Daft,