Cricket 1905

A ug . 17, 1905. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 339 I ML U l v n i l U l - v ■ m n i /k _ . C O M PL E T E S P O R T S CA TA LO G U E ON A P P L IC A T IO N . B U S S E Y ' S S B U S Y ’S CATALOGUE e»APMCATMM r FOOTBALLS WPROVEOMAKE-KEEPTHEIR SHAPE-LASTIONCER GEO. G. BDSSEY & CO, 36 & 38, queen v ic t o r ia s t r e e t , L O N D O N . Manufactory—PECKHAM, S.E. TIMBER MILLS— ELMSWELL, SUFFOLK, agents all over the world a t TH E SIGN OF TH E W IC K E T . B y F . S. A sh ley -C ooper . Last week’s match at Leeds between York­ shire and Surrey caused any hope the latter side may have retained of securing the County Championship to be dispelled, and caused the question of premiership to rest between Yorkshire and Lancashire only. Considering that Hayward failed in each innings, and that the game was played for the most part on a soft and slow wicket, Surrey did by no means badly in running their powerful opponents to so narrow a margin as five wickets. The season of 1905 will probably be referred to in future years as the one which marked the revival of the fortunes of Surrey. In 1904, when dogged by ill-luck throughout the summer, their successes were few and far between, and not even the most optimistic of the county’s sup­ porters could have foreseen the advance the side would make this year. All true lovers of the game will unite in hoping that Surrey, the most famous of cricketing counties, is now at the commencement of what will prove to be a very bright epoch in its history. The majority of its best players are still com­ paratively young men, and, as many very promising youths are on the ground-staff at the Oval, the powers that be of the Surrey Club can well look forward to the future optimistically. Last year, when, owing to sheer bad luck, the side could do nothing right, each successive reverse was marked by the dismal croaking of the uncheery critics, who, with an un­ animity which was altogether remarkable, prophesied that the team would never prove a winning one until the mode of management of the Club was entirely altered! These irresponsible critics were presumably unaware that when Surrey was at the height of its prosperity its affairs were conducted upon precisely the same plan : be that as it may, however, the Surrey County C.C., in abso­ lutelyignoring the gratuitous advice tendered, and so estimating it at its proper value, are to be heartily congratulated. It is extra­ ordinary that, now that the side has proved itself the strongest in the South of England, we hear no more about “ mismanage­ ment,” &c., &c., although the mode of conducting affairs at the Oval has not changed in the slightest degree ! But it is easy to criticise a side which is struggling with ill-luck and can do little right. Last Thursday’s match at Leeds was the 88th in which Surrey has contended with York­ shire. SYNOPSIS OF RESULTS OF MATCHES PLAYED BETWEEN SURREY & YORKSHIRE. Date of Won by Won by Ground, first match. Yorks. Surrey. Drn. Total. Sheffield. ... 1851 ... 13 ... 11 ... 6 ... 30 Oval .......... 1851 ... 19 ... 15 ... 10 ... 44 Hull .......... 1879 ... 1 ... 0 ... 0 ... 1 Huddersfield. 1881 ... 1 ... 0 ... 0 ... 1 Hoibeck ... 1883 ... 1 ... 0 ... 0 ... 1 Dewsbury ... 1884 ... 0 ... 0 ... 1 ... l Bradford ... 1888 ... 1 ... 2 ... 2 ... 5 L eed s.......... 1892 ... 3 ... 1 ... 1 ... 5 In Yorkshire... 20 ... 14 In Surrey ... 19 ... 15 10 10 44 44 Grand Total.......... 39 ... 29 ... 20 ... 88 It is a remarkable fact that Surrey did not prove successful on their own ground between 1865 and 1886. Last year as many as nineteen individual innings of two hundred or more were played in first-class cricket in England, a number which was exceeded on Saturday last when *248 G. L. Jessop ... ... 234 *303 A. O. Jones ... 274 217 C. H. McGahey ... 277 222 M. A. Noble ... ... 267 *246 Quaife, W. G. ... ...*255 *201 Rhodes, W. ... 201 233 Tyldesley, J. T. ... 250 341 P. F. Warner ... ... 204 *232 C. J. B. Wood ... ...*200 239 R. A. jYoung ... ... 220 A. O. Jones scored 274 against Essex at Leyton. The chief scores of 1905 are:— W. W. Armstrong . W. W._Armstrong . Bowley, F ................ J. F. Byrne ... . R. E. Foster ... . C .B .F iy .............. C. B.Fry .............. Hirst, G. H.............. Hirst, G. H.............. Iremonger, J........... w In 1901 as many as twenty-one such scores were made, which was in itself sufficient testimony to the wonderful excellence of the wickets that year. But during recent seasons an individual innings of a couple of hundred has been no more a curiosity than was one of a hundred even a couple of decades ago. The fact that four brothers Foster have recently been playing together in the Wor­ cestershire eleven recalls to mind the fact that five Walkers—Y. E., A. H., F., Alfred and John—appeared for Middlesex against Kent, at Southgate, on June 16th, 17th, 1859. In addition to the well-known instance, pointed out by a correspondent in last week’s issue, of four Graces assisting Gloucester­ shire, the case of the four Steels—D. Q., A. G., H. B., and E. E.—playing for Lan­ cashire against Surrey, at Liverpool, in 1884, may be cited. By-the-way, some years ago a pamphlet dealing with the doings of the Steels in the cricket field was issued in (I believe) Liverpool. Can any reader of this column inform me where the small publica­ tion can be obtained ? Although the rubber was decided at Man­ chester, this week’s Test match at the Oval proved a very great attraction to the general public, as was plainly shown by the large attendances. England’s great luck in the matter of the toss continued, ani, Jackson having in each of the five matches had the advantage of going in first, it is probable that at no distant date we shall again hear of the suggestion that, in matches of such impor­ tance, the rival captains shall alternately have the choice of going in to bat first. Beyond all else, the recent match will be memorable for Fry’s superb and chanceless innings of 144—his first three-fisrure score in a match of the highest class. The ease and freedom with which he scored in all direc­ tions forces one to the conclusion that in the previous games, when the rubber was still undecided, he was somewhat over-awed by the importance of the occasion. This week, however, when, whatever the result of the match, the “ ashes” were bound to remain in England’s keeping, there was less cause than formerly for anxiety. In consequence, the Sussex captain was able to show that freedom from restraint which he has generally done in inter*county matches, with the result that he achieved the greatest triumph of his career. There were, of course, many other features of interest in connection wiih the game—notably Duff’s splendid innings of 146—but it was essentially Fry’s match. HAMPSTEAD v. SOUTHGATE.—Played at South­ gate on August 12. H ampstead . D. J Crump, c F. S. Lewis, b H. R. Ford.104 E. W. Sutton, lbw, b Ricketts .................28 R. J. Hebert, not out.. 48 A. E. Mutter, b H. R. F o rd ........................ 2 H. E. McClure, not out 23 B 14, lb 3 ... 17 Total ...222 ' F. M. Farmiloe, C. Brachi, J. C. Toller, J. T. Ash, T. Brachi and A. A. Barran did not bat. * Innings declared closed. S outhgate . F. S. Lewis, b Toller... 42 J. C. Ford, b Toller... 33 F. T. Mann, not out... 50 H. R. Ford, R. E. Paige, E. J. Mann, not out... 20 B 13, lb 5, w 1 ... 19 Total ..........164 ^ C. R. P. Cooper, T. IT. C. I^evick, T. R. Lewis, W. T- Ricketts and J. White­ head did not bat.