Cricket 1904

84 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME, A p r il 28-; 1904. 61 runs out of 73 in 60 mints., laloucestershire v. Som­ erset, at Taunton, 1894. 74 runs out of 88in 35 minutes, Cambridge University v. M C.C. and uround, at Lord’s, 1899. 101 runs out of 118 in 40 mins.. Gloucestershire v. Yorkshire, at Harrogate, 1897. (Befor- lunch he made 43 out of 54 in 20 mios., and after lunch—off eight overs—58 out of 64 in 20 mins.) 171 runs out of 202 in 105 mins., Cambridge Uoiver- eity v. Yorkshire, at Cambridge, 1899. 286 rues out of 355 in 175 mins., Gloucestershire v. Sussex, at Brighton. 1903. 233 runs out of 318 in 150 mins., England v. York­ shire. at Lord’s, 1901. Probably his greatest display, bearing in mind the conditions under which it was made, was in the match between England and Australia at the Oval, in 1902, when, by scoring 104 out of 139 obtained whilst in in 75 minutes, he was the means of turning what appeared to be a certain defeat into a brilliant victory by a single wicket. He played another historic innings for the Gentlemen against the Players, at Lord’s, in 1897, obtaining whilst in 67 out of 88 in 35 minutes, the remarkable thing being that he should so monopolise the scoring as his partner was F. G. J. Ford, generally one of the fastest of run-getters. For Gloucester­ shire against Middlesex, at Lord’s, in 1901, he obtained 52 runs in 12 minutes, mak­ ing 43 off three consecutive overs, of which he received fifteen balls, whilst when assist­ ing the county against the West Indians at Bristol in 1900—a match not regarded as first- class—he scored 157 out of 200 made whilst he was at the wicket in 60 minutes. Twice during his career he made two separate hundreds in a match, scoring 104 and 139 for Gloucestershire v. Yorkshire at Bradford in 1900, and 109 and 106 not out for Gloucester­ shire X II. v. Next X V III., in Earl Bathurst’s Park, Cirencester, in 1903. In a minor match at South Nutfield, in 1902, when play­ ing for South Nutfield against Holmsdale, he carried out his bat for 222, of which the first 162 were obtained in exactly an hour. Quite recently, whilst examining some old score books, I made a curious discovery, the particulars of which will be of interest to students of the game. On page 226 of Yol vi. of “ Scores and Biographies ” appears an account of the match played between the All England Eleven and X X II. of Cornwall, at Redruth, on June 20th, 21st and 22nd, 1859. It is there stated, as it is in all published descriptions of the game, that George Parr scored 101, but according to the official score book of the A.E.E., that bril­ liant batsman hit four 4’s, nine 3’s, seven 2’s and 34 singles, which yield but 91 runs, although the person who kept the score made them amount to 101. Vvhat should be done in the circumstances? Should the mistake be rectified, or be allowed to remain ? That an error, intentional or otherwise, was made by the official scorer in lotting up the runs is obvious. Strictly speaking, the slip, which has remained undetected for forty-five years, should be put right. At the same time, one cannot help sympathising with such an old-time favourite as Parr, for in his day three-figure innings were almost curiosities, runs then not being obtained with anything like the ease with which they are, unfor­ tunately, nowadays. Richard Daft, in his “ Kings of Cricket,” refers to this match— on page 54—on account of some wonderful bowling in the first innings of Cornwall. A single was obtained off the fourth ball delivered by Jackson, who then took ten wickets without a run being scored from his deliveries, his analysis for the whole innings being 49 balls for 1 run and ten wickets. It is possible that the England players were aware that Parr’s score amonnted to but 91, and that they credited him with the extra ten so that he might have a three-figure innings opposite his name. Such a procedure, whilst rare, is not unparalleled. A few years ago, a player in India was dismissed when he had made 99, but it was put down as 100 “ because it was Christmas Day,” whilst when “ W. G.” obtained his 400 not out at Grimsby, in 1876, it was said that the score really amounted to 399, and that one run was added in order to make the enormous total. Mr. Haygarth, in referring to the rumour in Scores and Bio­ graphies said (Vol. xiv.—cvii.): “ This altera­ tion (if done) was foolishness, and totally opposed to justice. Had the compiler known of this fact when Vol. xiii. was published, the score would certainly have appeared as 399. ‘ Our Champion ’ has gained such a vast quan­ tity of runsthat he wouldnotwish foranyadded to his name which he did not really obtain.” The death of the dear “ Old Buffer ” on Sunday last will be regretted byTcricketers in all parts of the world, for by his many books and multitudinous articles in newspapers and magazines he had gained the affection of all lovers of the game. Although he was always so keenly interested in cricket, the game was not his onljT love. He was, in fact, at all times delighted to chat about sport generally, and especially to recall the palmy days of the prize-ring. His stories about old-time sports­ men, who flourished in the days before the railway had driven the post-boys off the road, would fill volumes. He knew intimately for many years the great Fuller Pilch, and many other members of the famous Kent eleven of seventy yrears ago. Although naturally preferring the cricket of his younger days to that of more recent times—for he was not an admirer of the sensational scoring which has been so fashionable of late yrears— he was not a man who failed to find a great amount of interest and pleasure in the game as played during the latter part of his life. On the subjectof fielding he has preached many an eloquent sermon, by word of mouth as well as with the pen. Always a splendid fieldsman himself, he failed to understand why modern cricketers should devote so little time and thought to that important branch of the game, for he maintained—and rightly—that saving runs is as great an art as making them. Oneof the most genial and kindly of men, his death will prove a matter of regret to all those who were acquainted with his writings, and es­ pecially to everybody^ whose good fortune it was to know him well. In the January issue of Cricket there were, owing to a slip, a couple of omissions in the list of “ Cricket Publications of 1903,” which I have been requested to notice here. Fifteen numbers of the Yorkshire Cricket Chronicle were published, “ by the authority and under the patronage of the Y orkshire county com­ mittee,” by J. VV. Northend, of 8, Norfolk Row, Sheffield, at a penny each. The publi­ cation is illustrated, and deals almost wholly with Yorkshire cricket and cricketers. The History of the Rochdale Cricket Club , 1824- 1902, by J. Fothergill, was itsued at one shilling by the Rochdale Observer. The book consists of 192 pages, is illustrated, and con­ tains a well-written account of the eighty years’ cricket played in Rochdale. e i o u a & p u u u f u u . Tut Editor does not hold himselj responsible tor it e opinions of his correspondents. LUCK IN THE TESTS. D e a r S ir , —As Mr. Warner is reported to have said (or did he write it ?)that much “ unfair and ungenerous ” criticism has been used towards the amount of luck during the Tests, would it not be possible for Cricket to give a summary of the main n cidents of the fi\e games referred to ? Or rather, perhaps, a s , everyone is practically agreed about fotsV of them, as to what did actually happen in the other. So far as my own recollection serves me. No. 1 was won, as Mr. Warner says of the rubber, “ fa irly and s q u a r e l y Nos. 2 and 5 were, admittedly, purely the result of luck; in No. 3 again, Mr. Warner, I gather, admits that England was beaten “ fairly and squarely.” What did happen in Test No. 4 ? How I is it that certain critics, and many others ' who have no ambition to figure in that category, possess— pace Mr. Warner—the mistaken (surely not necessarily “ unfair ur ungenerous ? ” ) impression that the luck of the game in this No. 4 Test went strongly in favour of the visitors. Without going into the question of bad play or good play, skilful generalship or indifferent tactics, cannot you find i pace in Cricket for a succinct statement of the various points in the game—the toss, the weather, and the varying condi­ tions of the wicket, etc.— which are generally supposed to comprise the luck of the gam e? I am sure a purely dis­ passionate statement of facts in Cricket would be not only interesting but in­ structive ; and further it might, though I do not say that j t shall, conclusively set at rest present uncertainty. Mr. Warner’s views we know. Many of us, too, know those held b y Mr. Iredale and some of the best Australian writers. I did not see the account and comments of “ Felix ” in the Australasian, but his views I am sure, would necessarily carry great weight. What did he say ? In no spirit of mere controversy, but with an earnest desire for information to form a final judgment, I repeat cannot Cricket give us further light on this vexed question, and, so far as impartial followers of the game are concerned, set it at rest once and for all ? One other point (still in a fair, and I hope, impartial spirit): Why not have the great game of the season in May f Mr. Warner and his men have had a grand voyage to set them up, and must be in just as good trim as the opponents they are called on to meet. Either team can have the same opportunities for practice. The weather is a pure lottery. As I write, but for a somewhat chilly N .E. wind, it is glorious ; far better than that “ en joyed” (sic) for cricket either in the seasons of 1902 or 1903. May weather is just as likely to be good for cricket, perhaps more likely, than that in June. Again, there is every prospect of Mr. Thornton putting a really good, if not quite representative, side in the field at Scarborough in September; if therefore, the match of the year is played at Lord’s next month, and prac­ tically a return in September, it would appear that the arrangement could hardly be improved upon. Australian cricketers, o f course, want to see the M.C.C. Austra­ lian team come out on top ; and equally naturally, it is practically the unanimous desire of cricketers in this country to see the Rest of England successful. All, however, agree iu desiring to see, or read about, a great and even match, won by the better side. K ing W il lo w .