Cricket 1904

J une 9, 1904. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME 179 BUSSEY’S “DEMON DRIVERS. <CCB « 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. Eeaders of G e o . G . B u s s e y & 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 e o . G . B u s s e y & 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.G. Manufactory— PECKHAM, S.E. Timber Mills—ELMSWELL SUFFOLK. AGENT8 A L L OVER TH E WORLD. A T T H E S IG N OF T H E W I C K E T . By F. S. A shley -C ooper . The meeting of Middlesex and Yorkshire appears to possess as great an attraction now­ adays for the public as did matches between Surrey and Notts in the latter part of last century, and those between Kent and Sussex in still earlier times. Those who were present at Lord’s during the latter part of last week witnessed some of the keenest cricket seen in London for some time. That Middlesex deserved their victory probably none will deny, for from the time Foley and MacGregor came together in the first innings, until the last ball of the game was bowled, the Metropolitans were always playing a winning game. The partnership of the two old Cambridge cricketers, which resulted in 121 runs being added for the eighth wicket, was the chief cause of Middlesex’s victory, and recalled the stand made by the same batsmen for their University against Sussex, on the famous Hove wicket, in 1890, when MacGregor made 131 and Foley 117, their partnership realising 214 for the fourth wicket. (Francis Ford made a score of 191 in the same innings, which was declared closed at 703 for nine wickets, and Sussex were thrashed by 425 runs). There are not many batsmen possessing so much skill as Mr. Foley does, who can be so little relied upon tomake runs, when runsare most needed; he is quite likely to make a cipher in one innings of a match, and a hundred in the other. But for this unreliance he would probably be a regular member of the county team, for he has often shown his ability to make good scores against the best bowling. Apart from MacGregor and Foley, who came together at a critical time and saved the situation when everything was going in Yorkshire’ s favour, Warner, Trott and Hearoe were in a large measure responsible for the defeat of the ex-champions. Warner s scores of 45 and 39 were of far more value to the side than the figures would lead one to imagine, and it may safely be stated without fear of contradiction that he has seldom, if ever, played two innings of such merit in a match before. Both Trott and Hearne contrived, by their bowling, to bring about the victory which the batting of Foleyj MacGregor, and Warner had rendered probable. Hearne has been in excellent form this year with the ball, many of his perform­ ances being worthy of his best days. More reliable than Trott, the fortunes of the county depend to a very large extent upon his efforts. The present is his seventeenth season in the Middlesex eleven, his first appearance for the side having been as far back as 1888, against the sixth Australian team. That he is able, after all these years, to prove one of the best bowlers in the country is splendid testimony both to his skill and constitution. On Friday last Trott was responsible for one of those irresistible pieces of bowling which are so characteristic of him. At the end of the first innings of Yorkshire he bowled down the wickets of Ernest Smith, Rhodes, Haigh, and Lees Whitehead in twelve balls without a run being made from him. Curiously enough, this feat of obtaining four wickets without being scored from he performed twice last season—for M.C.C. and Ground against London County at Lord’s, and for Middlesex against Surrey at the Oval. The result of the great match may possibly have an important bearing on the destination of the champion­ ship, which Middlesex may be trusted to make a great effort to retain. To Yorkshire enthusiasts the inability of Rhodes to obtain wickets at Lord’s on a pitch which should have been altogether to his liking will be far from pleasing. Whether his deterioration is only temporary, and due to his visit to Aus­ tralia or to the fact that he is now a greater run-getter than in previous years, time alone can show. One of the brightest and most interesting performances witnessed during the past few days was the partnership of 154 by “ W.G.” and Murdoch for the first wicket of London County against Leicestershire, at the Palace. Both these famous players must be (cricketi- cally) considered veterans, seeing that the former made his debut at Lord’s in 1864, and that the latter appeared for New South Wales against Victoria as far back as 1875. The manner in which “ W.G.” maintains his form is remarkable: several players have participated in great matches when over fifty years of age, but none has met with so great an amount of success as the Master. From the following table it will be seen that, in first-class cricket, “ W .G .” has helped to put up as many as 150 runs for the first wicket on as many as twenty occasions— truly a wonderful record. 283, W . G. (180) and B. B. Cooper (101): Gents. of South v. Players of South, at the Oval 1869 2?8, W . G. (150) and T. G. Matthews (85) : Gloucestershire v. Yorkshire, at Sheffield 1872 226, W . G. (154) and Abel, R. (105) : South v. North, at Scarborough ........................1889 203, W . G. (152) and A. J. Webbe (63) : Gents. v. Players, at Lord’s ............ ... 1875 175, W. G. (73) andC. I. Thornton (107): Gents. of England v. I. Zingari, at Scarborough 1887 170, W. G. (170) and Scotton, W. H. (34) : England v. Australia, at the Oval... 1886 169, W. G. (109) and W . Troup (127): Glouces­ tershire v. Somerset, at Taunton.............1698 164, W . G. (215) and J. W. Dale (55) : Gents. v. Players, at the Oval ....................1870 163, W G. (72) and Quaife, W. G. (108) : 1ondon County v. Cambs. University, at Crystal Palace.. ..................................1901 16', W. G. (88) and Smith (John), of Cam­ bridge (8i) : M.C.C. and Ground v. Mid- ltsex, at Lord’s .. ........................1871 161, W. G. (85) and W. R. Gilbert (99) : Glou­ cestershire v. Middlesex, at Clifton ... 1879 1(0, W. G. (93) and C. J. B. Word (88): Lon­ don County v. Cambridge University, at Crystal Pjlace............................................ 1900' 158, W . G. (1H5) and J. Shuter (71): Gentj. of England v. Australians, at Lord’s ... 1888 156, VV. G. (83) and E. M. Grace (70) : Glouces­ tershire v. Surrey, at theOval .............. 1873 166, W G. (92) and Scotton, W . H. (71): Lord Londesboro’s XI. v. Australians, at Scarborough............................................. 1886 154, W . G. (98) and Jupp H. (80) : South v. North, at Canterbury ........................1873 154, V . G. (73) and W. L. Murdoch (74): London County v. Leicester, at the Crystal Palace ...................................1904 161, W. G. (68) and A. E. Stoddart (83) : Eng­ land v. Australia, at the Oval ............. 1893 151, W . G. (118) and A. E. Stoddart (71) : Gentlemen v. Players, at Lord’s .............1896 150, W . G. (104) and A. E. 8toddart (71): South v. North, at Hastings ............. 1895 On forty-two other occasions he has assisted in scoring 100 or more, but less than 150* runs for the first wicket. Playing for London County against Surrey at the Crystal Palace in 1901, he and C. J. B. Wood succeeded in making over 130 together in each innings, “ W . G .’s ” scores being 71 and 80, and Wood’s 66 and 70, whilst the partnership realised 131 and 142 in the respective innings. Long may the veterans flourish ! Of the many three-figure innings played during the present week, those for which James Seymour and Tyldesley were re­ sponsible were probably the best. Tyldesley did not make a single mistake whilst hitting his 210 against Somerset, at Bath, his display being in every way worthy of his great reputation. He has now played more three- figure innings for Lancashire than any other cricketer—a record appropriately standing to the credit of the finest batsman the county has ever possessed. James Seymour, now in