Cricket 1904

A ug . 11, 1904. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORl) OP THE GAME. 329 F or Hertfordshire against Dorset, Golding made a score of 202 runs out of a total of 618. During this long innings 0 . F . Huyshe, the Dorset wicket-keeper, only allowed eight byes, while he had the credit o f stumping three men. L ast week several men whose services are invaluable to their county teams were taking part in clnb cricket. Am ong them were B. J. T. Bosanquet, who, while Middlesex were getting a thrashing at the hands of Gloucestershire, had a fine time at Market Drayton, scoring 121 and 51 besides taking a lot of w ickets; K. 8. Ranjitsinhji who made 87 against a X X I I . of G illing and D istrict; and the H on. F . S. Jackson who made 44 against the same side. R a n jit s in h ji took a tremendously strong team to Gilling to play a local tw enty-tw o on the last two days of last week. His eleven included the H on. F. S. Jackson, Bow ley, Arnold, Pearson, Braund, and four well-known men who have ceased to play for their counties, viz. Lockwood, Richardson, Mead, and Marlow. In the two innings of the local team Braund took 23 wickets, 14 in the first innings for 17 runs, and 9 in the second for 41. ------- S oon after the Leicestershire innings began on Friday in the Torkshire match at Leicester, Lord Hawke was obliged to retire, ow ing to an attack o f lumbago. This prevented him from taking any further part in the game and from appearing on Monday against Middlesex. S ome few weeks ago, when F. R. Spofforth, the famous old Australian bow ler, was in splendid form for Hamp­ stead, his leg gave way, and it was not until Saturday last that he was able to play again. Unfortunately his leg again gave way, and he had to retire. On the same day Walter Mead, the old Essex bowler, fell on his shoulder when trying to make a difficult catch, and hurt his arm severely. D r. G race appeared last Friday in a rdle with which he is not very familiar, going in last for London County against Oundle Rovers. He hit so hard that he scored 86 out of a total of 118 for the last wicket, and was still not out when the innings came to an end. W . L. Murdoch scored 104 for London County, and L . O. S. Poidevin 233 for the Oandle Rovers. During the match 1,019 runs were Bcored on the tw o days, 461 on the first day, and 568 on the second. Tw o of the Y oun g Amateurs of Surrey, R. G. A . Kerr and C. A. Sadler, played a fine uphill game on Friday against the Y oun g Professionals. Their side had to make 218 to win in the fourth innings of the match, and when the two men came together six wickets were down for 38. Kerr, who had been absent in the first innings, made 60, while Sadler carried his bat for 85, and the match was won by two wickets. The partnership between McGahey and Buckenham for Essex against Notts produced 179 runs for the ninth wicket, which is a record in first-class cricket. F or Liverpool against the Harrow Wanderers, D. Q. Steel, the old Cam­ bridge Blue and Lancashire ciicketer, ard brother of A. G. Steel, made 41. On the same side A. T. Kemble, the old Lanca­ shire wicket-keeper, was playing. Am ong the Harrow Wanderers A. J. Webbe made 21, and M . C. Kemp, tbe old Oxford and Kent wicket-keeper, 39. Q u e r y : Who is the “ most reliable spheroid hugger ” in the Gloucestershire eleven, the man who (according to G. L. Jessop in the Daily Mail of Saturday) missed P . F. Warner six times in an inn­ ings of 44, and twice had the chance of running him out ? Mr. Jessop says, “ I have rarely seen a batsman have more luck in such a comparatively small score as Warner had. Besides being missed six times, he was lucky not to have been run out twice. . . . Strange to say, on each occasion the chances went to our most reliable spheroid hugger.” It may be added that the names of several men are mentioned in various papers as having missed Warner, who is described as having given three, four, five and six chances. It looks like a case of paying your money and taking your choice. R udston , the Yorkshireman, who scored 164 and 69 for his county against Leicestershire last week, is engaged at Hull, where he played for the Y ork ­ shire eleven in the match against the South African team, scoring 41. Last year he headed the batting average of the Yorkshire second eleven with 29, and a total o f 414 ; his highest score was 63. H e is an exceedingly cautious player. U p to Monday last three men had made a total of over 2,000 runs during the season, viz., Hayward, C. B. Fry and Tyldesley. The men who were nearest to them were Iremonger with 1,737, Hirst with 1,717 and A . O. Jones with 1,684. F our men at the end of last week had taken over a hundred wickets, viz., J. T. Hearne (122), Wass (111), Warren (104) and Lees (101). Warren is the only Derbyshire man who has ever accom ­ plished the feat in county matches alone. Rhodes and Cox only required one wicket on Monday to complete their hundred while Hallows was at 91, Kotze at 93’ Haigh at 94, Odell at 92, Braund at 93,’ Reeves at 95, J. Gunn at 97. Since then Kotze, Cox and Rhodes have joined the select band. R e f e r r in g to chances missedin county matches G. L. Jessop says in the Daily M a il :— More out of curiosity than from any other reason, at the beginning of the season I deter­ mined to jot down the number of fair chances that were missed by our side during the year. A glance at the list this morning rather astonished me. Without counting practically impossible slip catches or snap catches at the wicket no fewer than 43 chances have gone unaccepted. And this in only 13 matches. This is all the more extraordinary, for even at the beginning of the season when young and more or less experienced players are called upon our fielding is certainly not below the. average of county sides. H a y w a r d has now played ten innings of a hundred this season and C. B . Fry nine. The record for the season is thir­ teen by C. B. F ry in 1901. A list of the hundreds made b y the two men this sea­ son is as follows :— T. H a y w a r d . v. Notts .................116 v. Cambridge Univ. 1S8 v. Oxford Univ. ... 127 v. Lancashire..........122 v. Middlesex ..........148 v. Warwickshire ... 161 v. Gentlemen..........203 v. Sussex.................106 v. Sussex.................112 V. Kent .................188' * Signifies not out. T here has been quite an epidemic of lbw . among first wicket batsmen this week. C. B. F ry was twice lbw to Hallows and Rudston twice to Bosan­ quet and the other first wicket men who were out in the same way are R. H . Spooner, E. W . Dillon, Wrathall, Fishwick, and J. Douglas. O n August 8th, 1885, W . Fairbanks made 219 for Old Cliftonians v. United Services, which ranked as a record for the Old Cliftonians until Monday last, when E. Field scored 229 not out, also against United Services. Thus the record which was established on August 8th, 1885, was beaten on August 8th, 1904. A curious coincidence. M o d e r n batsmen are often accused of sacrificing the interests of their side in their anxiety to make their own innings a hundred, or to bring their total to a thousand, or to raise their average to a level with that of some other batsman, but it is seldom that a batsman is as frank to own to feeling this anxiety as Mr. Fishwick. In his notes in the D aily M a il on Tuesday he says, “ W e batted on a beautiful wicket to-day without making the best of our opportunities. We ought to have made more than 299 runs. Kinnaird and I started slowly, both of us eager to get our 1,000 runs. We accomplished this, but not without some luck.” Mr. H . A. CURSHAM, who acted as captain of the Notts team in the match against the South Africans played for the Cuunty in the seventies. The last time that he was in the team was in 1880. He is an International Association Footballer. I t is no uncommon thing for veterans to make runs in first-class matches in j these days of splendid wickets, but it is very seldom indeed that one o f them bow ls nearly all through an innings of 228, and takes six wickets, as did Dr. Grace on Monday for London County X>. X HYi v. Somerset..........120 v. Leicestershire... 191* v. Derbyshire ... 226 v. Yorkshire......... 177 v. Lancashire ... 105* v. Cambridge Univ. 150 v. Leicestershire... 191 v. Surrey ..........181 v. Hampshire ... 211