Cricket 1905

J uly 27, 1905. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 291 GEO. G. BDSSEY & CO, 36 & 38, QUEEN VICTORIA STREET , E .O , Manufactory—PECKHAM, S.E. TIMBER MILLS— ELHSWELL , SUFFOLK, AGENTS ALL OVER THE WORLD. AT TH E SIGN OF THE W IC K E T . By F. S. A s h le y -C o o p e r . It seldom happens that two such important matches are played simultaneously in London as was the case last week, when Lancashire opposed Middlesex at Lord’s what time Yorkshire and Surrey met at the Oval. The presence, too, of the Sussex XT. at Leyton served but to further embarrass the average Metropolitan enthusiast asto which particular game he should witness. Those who attended the Oval until lunch time on the second day, and afterwards proceeded to Lord’s to watch the concluding stages of the Lancashire- Middlesex game, should feel happy in know­ ing that they saw what was probably the best cricket played in London during the three days. Despite Warner’s superb innings, played at a time when his failure might have meant the collapse of the whole side (for his colleagues appeared quite unable to cope successfully with Brearley’s fast deliveries), the best, and most pleasing, display of either match was the all-round form of Hirst, who performed with such pronounced skill that, until the Friday evening, the game at the Oval seemed to have resolved itself into a struggle between him on the one hand and the whole Surrey XI. on the other. His success, being achieved on the eve of the fourth Test match, was particularly welcome, for it afforded ample demonstration of the fact that he had quite recovered from the strain which had handicapped him earlier in the season. The Surrey crowd, perhaps the most critical as well as appreciative before which a match could be played, although greatly disappointed at the severe defeat sustained by their county, must have experienced a tinge of pleasure in their sadness in knowing that the result had been brought about by so popular a favourite as the genial Vorkshireman. The break-down of Lees, whilst being a severe blow to Surrey, by no means accounts for the poor batting display given by the team. The turning-point in the game was caused by the first dozen overs or so delivered by Hirst, for they caused Surrey to be always afterwards playing an up-hill game. Hayward and Hayes played a great game for their side, but there was never the slightest doubt as to what the result would be. Whilst a definite result was obtained at the Oval, a draw was the result of the match at Lord’s, where, as in the previous year, Middlesex, after having all the best of the game, were prevented from administering the coup de grace , and so had to be content with a moral victory. Warner’s innings, already alluded to, is, perhaps, the best thing seen in London this year, as well as the most meritorious display yet given by that gifted player. Brearley’s untiring exertions under a hot sun could not fail to evoke admiration ; none but a very powerful and willing man could have worked so hard as he did, especially during the first portion of his opponents’ second innings. His great efforts recalled to mind the bowling of Richardson in the Test match at Manchester nine years ago, and what greater praise than this would it be possible to bestow? MacLaren and Sharp played a good game for Lancashire when the match had to be saved, but the Middlesex fieldsmen were at fault more than once. The result of this week’s Test match at Old Trafford is a guarantee of the “ ashes ” remaining in England for some little time to come, for, should the Australians succeed in winning at the Oval, they would still have ^ailed in their mission to wrest the cricketing honours of the world from the old country. Their inability to win the rubber is, beyond all doubt, due to the lack of really formidable bowling at their command. At times they have, even in the early stages of a match, given one the impression that their bowlers were playing for a draw instead of endeavour­ ing to obtain wickets—a mode of procedure entirely foreign to the tactics generally pur­ sued by Australian teams in this country. On hard wickets the side is capable of scoring largely against any attack, but the lack of bowling stamps it as the weakest combination which has visited us since 1893. At the present time English cricket is very strong, as would have been clearly shown had all the Test matches reached a definite result. “ NotOut” of the Sydney Referee, Australia’s foremost critic, in a private letter recently received, made the following inter­ esting comments : —“ England appears to be sure of keeping ‘ the ashes.’ I have never felt any doubt about it, provided your selectors picked the teams carefully. Why C. B. Fry should ever be left out of an England team puzzles me. English people will no doubt think there are no new bowlers in Australia. But we have some pretty good ones out here, one at least better than anyone in the Australian Eleven. There are some very fine batsmen, too. The beating of Australia will not do cricket any harm, inasmuch as it will cause the selectors to look around a little more than they have been accustomed to within the past few years.” If *•Not Out’s ” prediction proves correct, as it probably will, the non-success of the present team will certainly be a bleseing in disguise so far as Australian cricket is concerned. QUERNMORE SCHOOL v. FOREST HILL HOUSE.—Played at Ivy Ground, Honor Oak, on July 5. Q uernmore S chool . W. O. D. Maile, Brown ................. W. G. Allen, b Brown A. M. Lewis, b Brown B. C. Ashton, c Schneider, b Smith F. S. Jaspor, b Smith L. Knowles, c Walker, b Smith ................ E. Lopez, b Smith ... G. Mallett, c Rook, b Smith ................. R. S. Gledhill, c Ham­ mer, b Brown T. F. Marriott, c Ham­ mer, b Brown C. M. Smith, not out Extras................. Total 0 44 F orest H ill H ouse S chool . F. Hammer, c Lopez, b Maile ................. A. W. Brown, run out E. W. Morris, b Maile A. F. Rook, c & b Ashton ................... A. B. Davies, c Maile, b Ashton................. W. H. B. Walker, b Ashton W. Schneider, c Gled­ hill, b Lew is.......... F. S. Smith, b Ashton L. O. Thornbery, not out ........................ W. S. Brown, c Maile, b Lewis ................. Extras .......... 30 Total (9 wkts.)... 76 11. M. Thrapp did not bat. QUERNMORE SCHOOL v. SIDCUP COLLEGE. Played at Quemmore on July 12. Q uernmore . A. M. Lewis, ht. wkt., b Famfield ..........20 L. Knowles, c and b Farnfield................. 4 W. L. Harvey, b Farn­ field ........................ 8 B. C. Ashton, b Farn­ field ........................10 F. S. Jasper, c Wal­ lington, b Farnfield 0 W. 0. D. Maile, not out ........................17 E. Lopez, c Ram, b Famfield................. G. Mallett, c and b Famfield .......... R. S. Gledhill, ran out ....................... T. F. Marriott, c Heath, b Farnfield D. G. Whittington, b Famfield .......... Extras ..........J Total ... 83 S idcup C ollege . D. Wallington. c Lewis, b Maile ... 20 B. S. Famfield, c Lopez, b Maile ... 0 A. Anderson, lbw, b Ashton ................. 4 S. D. Kerr, c Harvey, b Ashton................. 8 W. Baxter, b Ashton 3 A. H. Baxter, b Maile 12 H. Heath, b Ashton.. A. V. Hunt, not out.. P. Ram, b Knowles.. R. M. Shapley, I Knowles................ A. L. Thomas, < Lopez, b Ashton .. Extras ......... Total ... 66