Cricket 1905

J uly 20, 1905. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 275 BUSSEY'S GEO. G. BDSSEY &CO, 36 & 38, QUEEN VICTORIA STREET , E.G . Manufactory—PECKHAM, S.E. TIMBER MILLS— ELMSWELL, SUFFOLK, AGENTS ALL OVER THE WORLD, AT TH E SIGN OF TH E W IC K E T . B y F . S . A s h l b y -C o o p b k . In these days, when so m uch prom inence is given in the newspapers to individual per­ formances, it must he very disappointing to a batsman when he j ust fails to achieve a really notable feat. Some players, o f course, are less prone than others to attach much importance to their own efforts, but K inneir would scarcely have been human had he not expressed regret for failing by three runs on ly to make a hundred in each innings of last week’ s match between W arwickshire and Sussex. On several previous occasions a precisely similar disappointment had been experienced in first- class cricket, as the follow ing short list testifies: — 99 and 133, C. B. Fry, Sussex v. Hampshire, at Brighton ............................................. 1898 99 and 127* C. B.Fry, Sussex v. Leicestershire, at Brighton............................................. 1903 99 and 207,* K. S. Ranjitsinhji, Sussex v. Lancashire, at Brighton........................ 1904 98 and 156, W. Ward, M.C.O. v. Bullingdon Club, at Lord's...................................... 1819 98 and 147, J. R. Mason, Kent v. Surrey, at the Oval .................................................... 1900 98 and 113,* J. B. King, Philadelphians v. Surrey, at the O v a l............................... 1903 98* and 117, A. J. I/. Hill, Hampshire v. Worcestershire, at Worcester ......... 1904 97 and 127, K. S. Ranjitsinhji, Sussex v. Gloucestershire, at Brighton................. 1900 97 and 131, Humphries (E,), Kent v. Notts., at Nottingham............................................. 1904 101 and 97, Lewis (A. E.), Somerset v. Hants, at Taunton ............................................. 1904 97 and 201,* C. B. Fry, Sussex v. Notts, at Brighton ... ..................................... 1905 97 and 105, Kinneir (S. P.), Warwickshire v. Sussex, at Edgbaston ........................ 1905 ♦Signifies not out. There are as many as forty-fou r other in ­ stances of a player making a hundred in on« innings of a match and eighty or more in the other, whilst thirty-tw o times a batsman has scored as many as eighty in e^ch innings without reaching three-figures in either. These figures, of course, refer to first-class matches only. The heavy scoring b y the Australians at Bath deserves more than passing reference, inasmuch as W arw ick Arm strong’ s score of 303 not out ranks as the highest ever made by an Australian in this country. It has been exceeded on twelve occasions only in the whole history of first-class cricket, and is the fourth largest obtain d at the expense of Somerset. T he largest scores credited to Australian batsmen in England are :— 303*, W. W. Armstrong, v. Somerset, at Bath... 1905 300*, V. T. Trumper, v. Sussex, at Brighton ... 1899 286*, W. L. Murdoch, v. Sussex, at Brighton ... 1882 284, M. A. Noble, v. Sussex, at Brighton.......... 1902 248*, W. W. Armstrong, v. Gentlemen, at Lord’s .................................................... 1905 * Signifies not out. W h ilst the largest partnerships are as follow s:— 428 for sixth, M. A. Noble (284} and W. W. Armstrong (172 not out), v. Sussex, at Brighton ............................................. 1902 320 for third, W. W. Armstrong (303 not out) and M. A. Noble (127), v Somerset, at Bath ..................................................... 1905 276 for third, G. H. S. Trott (186) and W. L. Murdoch (129), v. Cambridge Uni­ versity Past and Present, at Leyton ... 1890 273* for seventh, W.JW. Armstrong (248*) and J. Darling* (117*), v. Gentlemen, at Lord’s ................. * ............................. 1905 During his record innings Arm strong gave two chances, both in the same over, once at 205 and again at 215. These were small blemishes, despite the fact that his success was achieved against one of the weakest of the counties. A s Mr. Haygarth would have stated:— “ It must be observed in justice to other cricketers that his enormous score was not obtained against the best bow ling and fielding of the day.” Still, no man in the world could have done better, so the record- breaker can listen to criticism with a light heart. Of Somerset’s share in the match few wordsneed be written. Their bowlers’ analyses were far from inspiring enthusiasm in the breasts of the county’s supporters, but the side certainly batted better than one anticipated, bearing their previous performances in mind. Both Braund and Martyn did excellent work, and their partnership of 146 in the second innings ranks as the largest yet made against the present team for the first wicket. But for the batting of the two men named, the side might well have suffered defeat by an enormous margin. To-day is the fourth day of the Hampstead “ Week.” It has for some years been a debatable point as to whether Hampstead or the Wanderers are the strongest purely amateur combination in Metropolitan cricket circles, for amongst the members of each club are to be found several men who have made a name for themselves in county, and even still higher-class cricket. Without discussing the point, one may safely say that either side, if it put its strongest eleven into the field, would probably prove equal to playing a close game with more than one team at present participat­ ing in the County Championship Competition. The Hampstead C.C. was formed in 1867 and, until the end of 1870, was known as the St. John’s Wood C.C., they then playing their matches on the old Eton and Middlesex Ground at Primrose Hill. In 1871 they migrated to a spot at the back of the Belsize Road, near St. Mary’s Church, and changed their title to St. John’s Wood (Hampstead) Club. There they remained until 1877 when, at a cost of £1000, they removed to their present quarters off the Finchley Road. Like the Marylebone C.C., they have had three different homes during their existence. May their career prove as long and as unruffled as that of their more famous contemporaries ! To Sir Spencer Maryon-Wilson the Hamp­ stead C.C. are very greatly indebted, for he has not only proved a most ideal landlord, but has always taken the greatest interest in the club’s welfare. During the past thirty years the best known Hampstead secretaries have been Robert Fleming, John George Quidding- ton Besch and F. C. Wheeler, whilst among the many great players who have assisted the club of late may be mentioned: A. E. Stoddart, F. R. Spofforth, G. MacGregor, H. B. Hayman, E. L. Marsden, L. J. and W . R. Moon, J. C. Toller, S. S. Pawling, E. E. Barnett, Ahsan-ul-Hak, G. Crosdale and G. A. S. Hickson. May Hampstead flourish! TWO TEST M ATCH PLAYER S . In the Brighton Argus Mr. A. J. Gaston gives the following particulars with reference to the batting of Mr. A. C. Maclaren and Hay­ ward against the Australians. He says:— ‘ ‘ I have included the fixture Liverpool and Dis­ trict v. Australians in 1893, as the match was calculated in the first-class averages that year. It is a remarkable coincidence that Mr. A. C. Maclaren and Tom Hayward should, prior to the last test match at Leeds, have each taken part in the same number of matches, and played the same number of innings. Mr. A. C. Maclaren’s figures work out with a bitting average in Australia of 53-26 runs per innings. In England, the Lancashire captain’ s figures drop to 25*84 runs per innings. Tom Hayward’ s batting is a study of consistency. In Australia, the Surrey doyen’s batting average is 39*36 runs