Cricket 1904

A pril 28, 1904. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OE THE GAME 83 BUSSEY’S “DEMON DRIVERS. ■< C C B « 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 o f 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.G. Manufactory-PECKHAM, S.E. Timber Hills—ELMSWELL SUFFOLK. AGENT8 A L L OVER TH E WORLD. AT THE SIGN OF THE WICKET. By F. S. A shley -C ooper . The first opportunity which presents itself of reference being made in this column to the successful visitof the M.C.C.team to Australia, though occurring somewhat late in the day, must be taken advantage of. When the team left England it was stated in some quarters that but slight success would attend its efforts, that there was no chance of the “ Ashes” being regained, and that the prestige of English cricket would not be enhanced as a result of the tour. All these prophecies were proved to be absolutely false, despite the fact that on every hand it was freely admitted that the team chosen was by no means as strong as could have been desired. The absence of such men as F. S. Jackson, MacLaren, Jessop, Ranjitsinhji and Fry naturally prevented the side from being absolutely representative, though it is only fair to add that the majority of the critics considered the team likely to give a good account of itself—it might not win the rubber, but it would not be disgraced. Such were the feelings experi­ enced amongst cricketers generally when the team sailed ; the side had the best wishes of everybody, but few would be surprised if the “ Ashes” were not recovered. And what were the results of the matches ? Of the five Test games three were won and two lost, whilst in not a single match with the separate States was defeat experienced. Both New South Wales and Victoria were beaten twice, whilst of the two games with South Australia the first was drawn much in favour of the Englishmen, and the return won in brilliant fashion by nine wickets. These were splendid results, which speak eloquently for the present strength of English cricket. It can­ not be urged that the team were favoured with an overwhelming share of good luck, for they won the toss in but two of the five Test games, and, in the twenty matches played throughout the tour, won it and lost it ten times. Many causes contributed to the success of the side. The great faith which the captain had in his men and the enthusiasm he in­ spired amongst them, together with the fact that all the members of the side, amateur as well as professional, invariably stayed at the same hotels, were agents which doubtless worked much good. Nor must it be forgotten that the players were urged on to great deeds by being representatives of the M.C.C., the greatest club in the world, the effect of which must have been far greater than if they had been banded together in a private enterprise. The team was strong in batting, for although there were few “ star” bats­ men, there was no tail to the side, whilst there was infinite variety in the bowling. The season, too, it must be remembered, was the wettest experienced for many years in Australia. As the Englishmen were much more accustomed than their opponents to play­ ing on wickets affected by rain, and as they furthermore possessed in Rhodes a bowler unapproached when the wicket is a little “ off colour,” this circumstance may be considered as favourable to the M.C.C. team, though not to a large extent, for, apart from the two Test matches in Melbourne (of which each side won one), which were practically decided by the spin of the coin, £he result of no other match can be considered due to the weather. The idea generally entertained is that at the present time Colonial bowling is not quite so strong as it was a few years ago, and that to this cause may be attributed the defeat of the Australians in the rubber. Howell has undoubtedly deteriorated some­ what, but this can hardly be wondered at, for bowlers cannot last for ever, and Howell was bom in 1869. He is still a very useful bowler, keeping a good length and disguising his variation in pace well, but he has obviously lost that something—sting or devil, call it which you will which has in previous times been associated with his deliveries. HadHowell’spowers not declined, the “ Ashes ” might not have been recovered. Although the Englishmen won the rubber, it is to be hoped that they will not allow them­ selves to be lulled into imagining that it will be an easy matter to repeat their victories on their own ground when the next Australian team comes over, for there are several young players, of whom Cotter is a notable example, who will be found both willing and worthy to fill gaps which may be occasioned by the retirement of their seniors. In conclusion, let us all heartily congratulate Warner, one of the very best of sportsmen, on having regained for England the honours of the cricketing world—a result due, not to good luck, but to the fact that he led the better team, and a team which was always very keen and always played together admirably. A player who accompanied one of the Aus­ tralian teams to England a few years ago has written asking for particulars to be. given in this column of Jessop’s most noteworthy run- getting performances in important cricket. At the risk of boring those who profess to hate statistics in every shape and form, 1 append the details desired, believing that they will interest the majority of those who follow the game closely :— 66 runs out of 66 in 28min., Gloucestershire v. Sussex, at Bristol, 1901 (G. L. Jessop and R. W. Rice added 66 runs together for the second wicket, all of which were obtained by the first- named). 64 runs out of 65 in 35 min., Gents, of England v. Gents, of Philadelphia, at Haverford, 1899 (Jessop made 64 whilst his partner, A. E. Stoddart, scored but 1). 51 runs cut of 55 in ? min., Gloucestershire v. Somer­ set, at Taunton, 1894 (Jessop scored 54 whilst his partner, Roberts, F. G., made a single). 52 runs out cf E3 in ? min.. Cambridge University v. Yorkshire, at Cambridge, 18y9 (whilst iu with T. L. Taylor). 63 runs out of 65 in 30 min., Gloucestershire v. York­ shire, at Cheltenham, 1895. 60 runs out of 62 in 25 min., Gloucestershire v. Wor­ cestershire, at Bristol, 1902. 57 runs out of 59 in 30 min., England v. Yorkshire, at Lord’s, 1901. 76 xuns out of 79 in 65 mins., Gloucestershire v. Nottinghamshire, at Bristol, 1901. 52 runs out of 56 in 20 mins, Gloucestershire v. Somerset, at Bristol, 190J. 50 runs out of 54 in 25 mins., Gloucestershire v. Somerset, at Clifton, 1897. 62 runs out of 67 in 25 mins., Gloucestershire v. Somerset, at Bath, 1903. 60 runs out of 55 in 25 mins., Gloucestershire v. Surrey at the Oval, 1903. 58 runs out of 64 in 20 min*., Gloucestershire v. Yorkhire, at Harrogate, 1897. 55 runs out of 61 in 35 mins., Gloucestershire v. Nottinghamshire, at Nottingham, 1895. 51 runs out of 57 in 30 mias., Gloucestershire v. Middlesex, at Lord’s, 1900. 72 runs out of 79 in £8 mins., Cambs. University v. Sussex, at Brighton, 1897. 81 runs out of 89 in 40 mins., Gloucestershire v. Somerset, at Bath, 1913. 56 runs out of 64 in 50 mias., Gloucestershire v Sussex, at Bristol, 1899. 81 runs out cf 90 in 40 mins., Camts University v. Philadelphians, at Cambridge, 1897. (Made off 14 overs.) 92 runs out of 102 in 70 mins., Gloucestershire v. Sussex, at Bristol, 19 3. 50 runs out of 60 in 25 mins.. Gloucestershire v. Yorkshire, at Bradford, 1900. £0 runs out of 60 in 45 mins., Gloucestershire v. Wor­ cestershire, at Bristol, 1902. 109runs out of 120 in 67 mil s., Gloucestershire v. Middlesex, at Lord’s, 1900. 60 runs out of 71 in *5 mins., London County v. Surrey, at the Oval, 190J. 69 runs out of 81 in 42 ming., Gloucestershire v. Sur­ rey, at the Oval, 1903,