Cricket 1905

A ug . 31, 1905. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 371 GEO.G.BDSSEY & CO, 36 & 38, QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, L O N D O N . Manufactory—PECKHAM, S.E. TIMBER MILLS— D LM SW ELL , SUFFOLK . AGENTS ALL OVER THE WORLD AT THE SIGN OF THE W ICKE T . By F. S. A s h l b y - C o o p e r . After so thoroughly outplaying Middlesex, at Bradford, earlier in the week, without being able to claim the victory, it would have been extremely unfortunate for Yorkshire had they gone down before Essex on the Leyton ground last Saturday, and have lost the Championship in consequence. Matches between Essex and Yorkshire have generally provided good cricket, and the most recent of their meetings proved no exception. The Metropolitans, whatever they may accomplish in their ordinary games, are frequently seen to advantage when they meet the most power­ ful of their opponents. Their doings this year have been by no means sensational, so far as winning inter-county matches is con­ cerned, but they can nevertheless claim to be the only county to inflict defeat upon the Australians, whilst a perusal of the score- sheet of last week’s match with Yorkshire shows that they had the best of a drawn game with the strongest county side of the year. It would almost seem as though the reputation attaching to Somerset as being “ the team of surprises ” had fallen to the lot of Essex. Not often, of late years at all events, have Yorkshire been called upon to play so uphill a game as on Saturday last. To be obliged to follow-on over 400 runs in arrears, with more than a whole day before them, and then to escape defeat is a task which could be successfully accomplished only by a mostpowerful side. Yorkshirefoundthemselves —to everybody’s surprise—in a similar posi­ tion at Brighton four years ago, when they collapsed for 92 after Sussex had declared at 560 with but five wickets down. Brown and Tunnicliffe played the barn-door game to perfection in the second innings, scoring 107 together without being separated, wearying spectators and bowlers alike. So slow was the play that, on the last day, only two wickets fell for 150 runs! The Yorkshire collapse in their first innings last week when, against the bowling of Douglas, they lost five wickets in eight balls, may perhaps be partly attributed to the fact that they had to bat on a very fast wicket directly after playing on a slow one at Bradford. Be that as it may, however, Essex are deserving of hearty con­ gratulation upon playing such a splendid game against their powerful opponents. Hirst and Tunnicliffe were seen to very great advantage, although their play was naturally slow, when their side foliowed-on, whilst Ernest Smith rendered capital service at the end by sta) ing in for half-an-hour without making a run. It is not often one has praise to bestow upon a duck’s egg, but Mr. Smith’s must probably he regarded as the best of its kind in the history of first-class cricket. When the late Mr. I. D. Walker was unfor­ tunate enough to obtain a pair of spectacles in the Gentlemen v. Players’ match, at Lord’s, in 1875, Richard Daft, who was playing for the fielding side, described his second effort as the finest innings for nought he had ever seen. Possibly his opinion would have been revised had he seen Mr. Smith’s display. The occasion appears suitable to publish details of the most noteworthy displays of masterly inactivity witnessed in great matches during the present season :— 0runs in 60 mins, Haigh, Yorkshire v. Leicester­ shire, at Leicester. 0 runs in 60 mins., E. Smith, Yorkshire v. Essex, at Leyton. 0 runs in 45 mins., Braund, Somerset v. Warwick­ shire, at Edgbaston. 0 runs in 35 mins., Myers, Yorkshire v. Leicester­ shire, at Leicester. 0 runs in 35 mins., E, W. Mann, Cambridge Uni­ versity v. Gentlemen of England, at the Crystal Palace. 0 runs in 35mins., Grimshaw, Yorkshire v. Notts., at Sheffield. 0 runs in 35 mins., Vine, Sussex v. Yorkshire, at Leeds. 0 runs in 30 mins., Hayward, England v. Australia, at Lord’s. 0 runs in 30 mins., Storer, Derby v. Northants., at Northampton. 0 runs in 30 mins., Hayward, England v. Australia, at Leeds. 0 runs in 30 mins.. Vine, Sussex v. Warwickshire, at Brighton. 0 runs in 30 mins., E. A. Beldam, Middlesex v. Lan­ cashire, at Lord’s. 0 runs in 30 mins., Tyldesley, England v. Australia, at the Oval. 0 runs in 30 mins., S. H. Day, Kent v. Australians, at Canterbury. 0 runs in 25mins., G.W. Beldam, Middlesex v. Austra­ lians, at Lord’s. 0 runs in 25mins., M. A. Noble, Australia v. England, at the Oval. For Lancashire v. Notts., at Trent Bridge, in 1882, Barlow at one time batted for 80 min­ utes without making a run, whilst in minor matches a player has often gone in first and carried his bat through the innings for 0. The destination of the championship having now been definitely settled, Yorkshire is assured of the honour of meeting England at the Oval on the 14th prox. If a really repre­ sentative side appears for the latter, much good cricket should be witnessed, though in these days, when excellent players are num­ bered by the hundred instead of by the dozen as formerly, a county would have to be extraordinarily powerful in all departments of the game in order to be able to oppose England with any chance of success. That Yorkshire would probably be able to make a better fight than any other county against such odds at the present time few will be found to deny. Those of us who are by no means in love with the County Championship Competition should welcome such matches, especially when, as in this instance, the pro­ ceeds are to be devoted to such deserving causes as the Cricketers’ Fund and the London Playing Fields Society. The Daily Telegraph suggests that the forthcoming match be styled “ Yorkshire v. England” instead of “ Champion County v. Rest of England,” in order, amongst other things, to recall the series of matches between England and Surrey. There certainly appears no reason why the proposal should not be acted upon, and there is much which could be said in its favour. In this year’s “ Wisden,” it is interesting to note, the corresponding match of last season is given as “ Lancashire v. Rest of England,” whereas “ Lancashire v. England” simply would have been a far more imposing title. Possessors of the first two or three volumes of “ Scores and Biogra­ phies ” will know how much interest attaches to the nomenclature of matches. If Mr. Haygarth had been spared to us he would assuredly have protested against the first match of this year’s Blackpool Festival being dubbed North v. South, maintaining that its correct title should have been “ An Eleven of the North v. Essex and Worcestershire (with C. Robson, Esq.” ). All true lovers of the game must regret the continued ill-success of Hampshire, a county which occupies a prominent and honoured place in the history of cricket. It is a curious fact that, although they finished last this year among the first-class counties, no fewer than three of their players — Llewellyn, Capt. Greig, and Mr. A. J. L. Hill—succeeded in obtaining two separate hundreds in a match. There is, fortunately, reason to believe that next year the side will perform more successfully, as Messrs. G. N. Bignell and E. M. C. Ede —a well-known name in Hampshire annals—who appeared