Cricket 1905

282 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. J uly 20, 1905. innings is given below. It may be stated that a B team in America does not by any means innil v inferiority. B elmont . J. B. King, c Freeland, b Newhall.................315 O. M. Graham, b White ............................... 36 A. M. Wood, c Leser, b Newliall .................106 E. M. Cregar, b Leser.......... ......................... 10 W. Graham, not out ....................................... 59 E. K. Leech, b Leser ........................................ 13 F. L. Altemus, c Jordan, b Newhall ...................1 W. F. Keenan, jun., b Newhall ................. 1 D. Graham, c Jordan, b Newhall ..........................0 N. S- Hales, b Leser ............................................... 0 W . A. Allison, c Newhall, b Middleton.. ... 9 Extras ... ................................. 22 Total ...........................572 W it h reference to the above scor?, Mr. P. F. Kelly writes from America: — The partnership for the second wicket between J. B. King and A. M. Wood, in which 339 runs were made, is also a record for United States and Canada, the best being for any wicket 340 in 1894, at San Fran­ cisco, \V. Robertson, 206 not out, A. G. Sheath, 118 not out for Bohemians v. Cali­ fornia Club in unfinished partnership without team losing a wicket. The total of the innings, 572, is the largest in the Halifax Cup Competition, the previous best being 559, made by Germantown v. Belmont in 1902. The largest innings in the United States and Canada is 689, by S. Patterson’s X I. v. A. M. Wood’s X I., in 1894. T h e b e are four cricketers who, when­ ever in future years they hear the Eton and Harrow match mentioned, will be reminded of the match in which they took part last week. Their names are J. Reunert and G. H. Watson (Harro­ vians), and N. C. Tufnell and the Hon. P. A. Methuen (Etonians). The former pair made 71 for the last wicket in the second innings of Harrow when their side wanted runs very badly iudeed ; the latter pair saved Eton from defeat by keepii g in for 35 minutes in the second innings when the position seemed abso­ lutely desperate. Nor will future old Etonians and Harrovians ever forget the pluck of these four men. In his fine innings of 201, for Hamp­ stead against Upper Tooting, to which reference was made in last week’s Cricket, Mr. H. B. Hayman scored 63 off three successive overs from the same bowler. I should think that this must surely be a record, but so many wonderful things are done in matches of which the scores never go further than local newspapers, that it is impossible to say so with certainty. From Manila (Philippine Islands) Mr. H. E. Higginbotham writes : “ To seekerB of records I think I may safely venture to say that iu your issue of May 4th, page 106, ‘ Pavilion Gossip,’ the Sussex team, as therein mentioned, establishes one, and might well be headed ‘ A Cricket Curiosity,’ for an eleven of short names : Two of three letters.................. 6 Four of four letters.................. 16 Two of five letters .................. 10 Three of six le tte rs .................. 18 Eleven equal .................. 50 or an average of 4 A letters to a nauie. R e fe r r in g to W. Newham’s score of 62 not out for Sussex against Warwick­ shire last week, Mr. A. J. Gaston says in the Brigh'on Argus :— Long before the advent of the Indian Prince and Mr. Charles Fry, Mr. W . Newham was one of the safest batsmen in the team, and his many batting feats even now are fresh in my memory. To date, “ D icky’’ has scored no fewer than 14,450 runs for “ Good old Sussex,” having partici­ pated in 346 matches, and being credited with twenty century innings (including 201 not out v. Somersetshire at Hove in 1896). One of his best partnerships was 344 for the seventh wicket in conjunction with K. S. Ranjitsinhji at Leyton against Essex in 1902. Compared with Mr. W . Newham’s 14,458 runs, Prince Ranjitsinhji has scored 17,062 runs for Sussex; Mr. Charles Fry’s record to date is 17,963 runs; and Mr. George Brann’s 11,465. C. A. L. P a yn e, who made 101 f >r M.C.C. v. Derbyshire on Monday—his first hundred in first-class cricket—was captain of the Charterhouse Eleven last year, when his highest scjre was 86. He received his colours in the previous year, when be had an average of 40 80, and made a highest 6c:>re of 112. Last May he played in the Freshmen’s match at Oxford, scoring 44 and 0. E v e r y now and then some veteran or other, by playing a fine innings against modern bowling, is fortunate enough to be able to give practical proof to the present generation of cricketers that he must have been a splendid player when he was in his prime. Thus Newham, who played his first match for Sussex 24 years ago, made 62 in perfect form for Sussex against Warwickshire last week, and on Monday Sir T. C. O’Biien, who played his first match for Oxford against Cambridge in 1884, scored 153 for M.C.C. and Ground v. Derbyshire. True, Derby­ shire were without the bowling of War­ ren, but they had the same bowlers who a week or two ago got the Australians out for 253 on a good wicket. I t seems to be generally taken for granted that in allowing Howell to act as substitute for Kelly at the wicket in the match between the Australians and Somerset, S. M. J. Woods was infringing the laws of the game by his good nature. Kelly hurt his hand on Friday, and on the next day his place was taken by Howell, who had not been playing in the match. It is the general practice that a substitute shall not be allowed to act as wicket-keeper, but a diligent search through the laws and the M.C.C. “ Decisions and Interpretations ” reveals no reference whatever to a substitute acting as wicket-keeper. The chief law about substitutes is as follows:— A substitute shall be allowed to field or run between wickets for any player, who may during the mitch be incapacitated from illness or injury, but for no other reason, except with the consent of the opposite side. To this law there are four “ notes” in the M.C.C. Decisions and Interpreta­ tions, of which the first alone touches this question. It is very badly worded, but its meaning seems clear :— It is well to remember that a side which loses a player’s services through illness or injury, brought about during a match, is entitled to a substitute, “ it shall be allowed ” whereas under other circumstances consent is necessary which must depend upon the courtesy of the opposing captain. A gain L * w 38 says :— In all cases where a substitute shall be allowed, the consent of the opposite side shall be obtained as to the person to act as sub­ stitute, and the place in the field which he shall take. In the Somersetshire match the Aus­ tralians lost the services of Kelly through injury, whence according to the first note to law 37 they were entitled to a substitute—“ it shall be allowed.” And the consent of the other si ie was obtained (as required by law 38) as to the person (Howell) to act as substitute, and the place in the field (wicke'-keaper) which he should take. Hence Braund c sub (Howell), b Laver, 62; Montgomery c sub (Howell), b McLeod, 11. W it h regard to the unwritten law that a substitute may cot act as wicket keeper, Mr. D Q. Steel in an interview which appeared in Cricket, on February 23rd, said, “ The first time that I played for Lancashire was against Notts in 1876. . . . A curious thing happened in that match. Wild, the Notts wicket-keeper, damaged his hand, and Smith, a Lanca­ shire professional, who was allowed to keep wicket in his place, got four of us out in the second innings. This led to a discussion whether a substitute ought to be allowed to keep wicket, and the M.C.C. made an informal rule that he should not.” A LITTLE light is thrown on the question in a “ History of the Laws of Cricket,” which appeared in Cricket, on January 31st and February 28th, 1901, from the ?pen of Mr. Alfred D. Taylor. Referring to the “ Substitute ” la v (No. 37) he says “ No mention is made with regard to substitutes in the old laws, but the privilege of allowing a man to field in place of one compelled to retire was generally granted. On several occasions, too, their places have been filled at the wicket, though in contradiction to the laws of the game. Until May 15th, 1845, this law read: ‘ No substitute in the field shall be allowed to bowl, keep wicket, stand at point, cover-point, or stop behind (long-stop) in any case.’ ” I t will be noticed that in the above Mr. Taylor says, “ though in contra­ diction to the laws of the game.” But he does not point out what laws have been infiioged. Perhaps, in his kiudness, he will for the benefit of readers of