Cricket 1905

J uly 20, 1905. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OE THE GAME 283 Cricket give a history of the changes which have been made in this interesting law, and of the customs connected with it. B e lo w will be found a list of scores in minor matches by well-known players :— C. M’Gahey 120 and P. Perrin 89 for Essex Club and Ground v. Colchester Garrison; G. Tosetti 132 for M.C.C. v. Westminster School; L. O. 8. Poidevin 102 not out and A. Marshal 91 for London County v. Streatham; Braund 53 not out for Dr. E. M. Grace’s X I. v. Cardiff; J. N. Crawford 139 for Repton v. Malvern; W. Trask 81 and 6 for Eastbourne v. Belsize; A. Marshal 87 for London County v. Cyphers; P. Perrin 95 and C. M’Gahey 73 for Essex Club and Ground v. Felstead School; A. C. von ErnBthausen 131 for Gore Court v. Royal Engineers, Chatham ; L. M. Balfour-Melville 91 for Grange (Edin­ burgh) v. Oxford Authentics. I n the course of the Week of the Streatham C.C., Norman Miller, the Surrey cricketer, scored 423 runs, and was not out four times. Of the six matches, Streatham won one, lost one, and drew four. I n Monday’s lists of averages C. B. Fry was still leading with 73'42, but Hirst was deposed from second place by Armstrong, who, thanks to his 303 not out against Somerset, advarced to 64*27. Hirst stood at 60'38, and W. G. Quaife at 54-50, no one else having an average of fifty. Fry still required 91 runs to reach his second thousand. Thirteen men had scored over a thousand, viz.:— Fry 1,909, Armstrong and Hayward 1,414 each, Tyldesley 1,337, Noble 1,336, Hirst 1,268, Iremonger 1,264, Denton 1,231, Quaife 1,199, Kinneir 1,143, Hayes 1,123, Vine 1,016, Hill 1,012, Rhodes required 83 runs and 4 wickets to accom­ plish the feat of making a thousand runs and taking a hundred wickets. I n bowling, Cox, the Suesex player, joined Lees and Brearley with over a hundred wickets, but Laver, who had taken 24 more wickets than any other Australian, still required 18 to complete his hundred. T h e nineties have again been in evidence during the past fortnight. The list is as follows;— E. W. Dillon, Kent v. Worcestershire........ . 99 J. E. Raphael, Oxford v. Cambridge .......... 99 P. Y. Warner, Gentlemen v. Players (Lord’s) 97 Kinneir, Warwickshire v. Sussex.................. 97 B. P. Chapman, Sussex v. Warwickshire ... 96 E. L. Wight, Oxford v. Cambridge ... ... 95 King, Leicestershire v. Sussex......... ........... 95 J. Reunert, Harrow v. Eton ......................... 92 A. C. Maclaren, Lancashire v Sussex ... 92 V. Trumper, Australians v H ants.......... ' ... 92 Iremonger, Notts v. Derbyshire .................. 92 R. S. Leather, Yorkshire (2) v. Staffordshire 91 Sharp, Lancashire v. Sussex ................. ... 91 F ob Chatham House, Eastbourne, v. Old Boys, on July 8th, P. Campbell made 221 out of a total of 323 for 8 wickets. Hii hits included seven 6’s and thirty-four 4’s. J. N. C r A w BO K D , the Surrey bowler, took five wickets for Repton against Malvern for 76 runs cn July 12tb, and then on the same day scored 139, his hits including two 6’s and twenty-four 4’s. On the following day he took five wickets for 71 runs in the second innings of Malvern, and made notout 12, so that in the match he scored 151 for one complete innings and took ten wickets for 147 runs. D u rin g the past month the Somerset­ shire men have not inown what it is like to get a side out for fewer than four hundred runs. Ti e following scores have been made against them :— June 19, 20,21, by Lancashire ........... 401 June 26, 27, 28, by Gloucestershire ... 521 June 29,30, & July 1, by Worcestershire 534 July 3 and 4, by Lancashire.................. 442 July 6 and 7, by Yorkshire ................... 474 July 13,14,15, by Australians ........... 609 for 4 T h e Crawford family had a successful time of it last week, as the following summary of their cricket will show :— Parson Crawford (J. C.), 36,14, and three wickets for 68. R. T. Crawford, 183, and four wickets for 56. V. I1'. S. Crawford, 25, 68, 40, 41, and one wicket for 24. J. N. Crawford, 139,12, and ten for 147. This gives an aggregate of 558 in the week for the father and three sons. The Parson’s three wickets, I may add, were got in four balls, and both of his innings realised over a hundred runs for the partnership, 110 with G. Tosetti and 107 with R. T. C. E. M. D ow son, the old Harrovian and Surrey cricketer, who has been up in the North, first in Glasgow, and subsequently in Lancashire, since he came down from Cambridge University, will, I hear, be presently located in London for a per­ manence. Rumour has it that he returns South early in the autumn. Of the probabilities of his participation in first- class cricket again I, however, know nothing definite. T h e annual match between Young Amateurs and Young Professionals of Surrey is to be played this year on August 23rd and 24th at the Oval. The secretary of the Surrey County C.C., it is hardly necessary to add, will be glad to hear of any youngsters of promise for either side. This year the quality of the youngsters who have come up to the Oval has been distinctly above the average, so that one may hope to find some player or players of exceptional promise coming to the front. F r o m what one hears Surrey is more than usually well represented this mmnitr iu the Public School elevens. In wicket-keepers e-ptcially the county is as strong in amateurs as it is in pro­ fessionals, with N. C. Tufnell of Eton, H. G. May of Sherborne, and A. C. Houlder of Tonbriige, all of them con­ siderably above the average, and ail of them qualified for Surrey. N. C. Tufnell, who saved the match for Eton at the finish at Lord’s on Saturday, by the way, is a son of Mr. Carleton F. Tufnell, who played for Kent in his time. On the other, the Harrow side, the principle of cricket heredity was well represented in the person of M. C. Bird, a son of Mr. George Bird, the old Middlesex amateur, and E. H. Crake, the captain, whose father was not only a good cricketer, but an Association player of repute in the early days of the Wanderers. C eick k tk rs of the present day are apt to pity their forefathers because of their primitive methods of playing the game, and the difficulties which they had to encounter in getting from match to match. But what Eton or Harrow boy, reading a short interview which appeared on Monday in the Daily Telegraph , would not vote for a return of the old times if he could go to Lord’s in the fame way as the boys of fifty years ago f In this interview Mr. R. J. P. Broughton, the old Harrovian, says :— The match (Eton v. Harrow) was always played in the holidays, a day or so after we broke up. There were no railways then, and we had to come to London hy coach or post chaise. The coach was the cheaper, but we preferred to go by chaise, and so saved up for it in advance. A chaise held three, and the cost was thirty shillings, or ten shillings each boy. As a rule, ten or twelve of these vehicles would start from the school. At the given word they would go off at the gallop, and all the wai to London it was one mad, wild race. They used to pass and re-pass, and if the post-boys were not particularly skilful in mannging their horses accidents were inevitable. Generally there were one or two smashes. One year the race was more than usually exciting. It was literally neck and neck until one of the chaises skidded in a rut. and then there was a collision. Those behind, unable to stop, crashed on to the broken vehicles, adding to the confusion and producing some accidents. After this racing was strictly forbidden. M r. B ro u g h to n , who, like one of his contemporaries, the Rev. H. J. Biron, is a grower of beautiful rcses, first played for Harrow against Eton in 1832, and for Cambridge against Oxford in 1836. He still takes an active interest in cricket, although he is nearly ninety years old— he was born on July 11th, 1816—and still acts as umpire for his village, Chipperfield in Hertfordshire. He hardly ever misses an Oxford and Cambridge or Eton and Harrow match. An interview with him appeared in Cricket of August 9th, 1900. From the Office Window of the Daily Chronicle :— Raising a point of order on the prefix Mr., a correspondent suggests that a man may be very great and long dead, and yet have to bear the ignominy of this common compli­ ment. Mo one writes of Mr. William Shakespeare, of Herr Kant, of M. Comte, or of the prince of scoffers by any other name than plain Voltaire. But our Wesleyan friend assures us that ministers of the