Cricket 1905

S ept . 7, 1905. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 387 GEO.G.BDSSEY & CO, 36 & 38, QUEEN VICTORIA STREET , L O N D O N . Manufactory—PECKHAM, S.E. TIMBER MILLS— E LM S W E L L , S U F F O L K . agents all over the world AT THE SIGN OF THE WICKET. By F. S. A s h l e y - C o o p e r . More exciting finishes than those witnessed on Saturday last at the Oval, Bournemouth and Blackpool could not have been conceived even by the most imaginative of story-tellers, which is saying a great deal. On each of the former grounds one run was eventually required to win with the last man in : at the Oval a catch in the slips caused the match to result in a tie, whilst at Bournemouth a leg- bye enabled the Australians to inflict defeat upon the England XI. under the leadership of “ W. G.” In the latter match each bats­ man, curiously enough, who was in when the game was won, carried out his bat without having scored—an event of the rarest occur­ rence. At Blackpool, when the end came, the scores, as at the Oval, were equal, but, as Lancashire still had three wickets in hand, the result was a draw, and not a tie—an extraordinary finish which reminds one that in the match at Lord’s, in 1851, between XIV. of the M.C.C. and Ground and The England X I., the latter required but one run to win when stumps were drawn and had still five wickets to fall. Another similar result was in connection with the meeting between the second Parsee team and the Gentlemen of Scarborough, in 1888, seeing that at the end Scarborough were left twenty minutes in which to obtain four runs, and scored only three, with three wickets still to fall. From the appended list of close finishes in which Kent have participated it will be seen that last Saturday’s match was the third in the county’s history which has resulted in a tie:— (a.)-TIE MATCHES. Kent v. Hambledon. Hambledon ................ 1783 Kent v. Surrey, Oval ................................... 1817 Kent v. Surrey, Oval ................................... 1905 (*•) -MATCHES WON BY KENT. 1 wicket, v. England, Finsbury ............... 1744 1 v. Surrey, Finsbury ...................... 1750 1 v. England, Rochester ............... 1800 1 v. Sussex, Tunbridge Wells ......... 1876 1 v. Lancashire, Maidstone................ 1877 1 v. Sussex, Tonbridge...................... 1888 2 wickets, v. Sussex, Town Mailing............... 1837 2 v. Sussex, Town Mailing................ 1838 2 v. Sussex, Brighton ...................... 1839 2 ”, v. England, Town Mailing ......... 1841 2 v. Surrey, Maidstone...................... 1873 2 v. Derbyshire, Tunbridge Wells ... 1876 2 v. Middlesex, Tonbridge............... 1890 2 v. Australians, Canterbury ......... 1899 2 runs v. England, Town Mailing ......... 1839 2 v. Kent, Maidstone ...................... 1870 2 v. M.O.C. and Ground, Lord’s 1896 3 v. Warwickshire, Gravesend......... 1891 4 v. M.C.O. and Ground, Lord’s 1796 4 v. Sussex, Canterbury ............... 1842 6 v. Surrey, Oval ... ...................... 1852 7 v. Yorkshire, Maidstone ................ 1879 9 v. Sussex, Brighton ..................... 1844 (3.) -MATCHES LOST BY KENT. 1 wicket, v. Hambledon, Hambledon ........ 1786 1 v. Sussex, Canterbury .............. 1844 1 v. Derbyshire, Derby..................... 1877 1 v. M.O.C. and Ground, Lord’s 1902 1 v. Sussex, Tunbridge Wells ........ 1902 1 v. Middlesex, Lord’s ..................... 1904 2 wickets, v. Surrey, Kennington Common .. 1736 2 v. Hambledon, Coxheath.............. 1787 2 v. Sussex, Brighton ..................... 1829 2 v. Yorkshire, Sheffield .............. 1862 2 ” v. M.C.C. and Ground, I^ord’s 1899 2 v. Middlesex, Tonbridge.............. 1901 2 ”, v. Somerset, Taunton .............. 1902 2 runs v. Sussex, Gravesend..................... 1855 5 v. White Conduit, Islington ........ 1786 5 I v. M.C.C. and Ground, Lord’s 1857 K v. Middlesex, Beckenham.............. 1902 7 ” v. Sussex, Tunbridge Wells ........ 1845 8 v. Hambledon, Hambledon ........ 1781 9 „ v. England, Finsbury .............. 1751 10 v. England, Lord’s ..................... 1792 The above statistics refer to eleven-a-side matches only. In 1825 Five of Kent played Five of Sussex, at Newenden, in Kent, each side having onejnnings and scoring 0, whilst at Finsbury, in 1750, Four of Kent, with S. Dingate (7 and 2) played a tie with Five of Surrey (1 and 8). In the latter match, but not in the former, all the players were cricketers of note. In the Kent v. Surrey match at the Oval, in 1847, Kent lost their last three wickets when the game was a tie. All the players who appeared in that historic contest have passed away. It is very pleasing to realise how success­ ful a season Sussex have had this year. Even without the aid of Ranjitsinhji, the greatest batsman of recent times, the team have done far better than for many years past. The consistent run-getting of Fry has, of course, proved one of the chief factors of the side’s success, but of little less value, if any, have been the superb bowling of Cox on hard wickets, the all-round cricket of Killick and Relf, and the sound batting of Vine. Cox, it is of interest to know, has obtained more wickets for the county than any other player in a single season. It is no exaggeration to state that he has strong claims to be considered the finest left-hand bowler in England at the present moment. His many successes on the run - getting wicket at Hove stamp him as a player of the very highest class. As in several previous years, a succession of long partnerships by Fry and Vine for the first wicket have been recorded. In 1901 the pair sent up the hundred together on four occasions, in 1902 and again last year six times, in 1903 as many as seven times (twice in one match), whilst this season they have been associated in no less than eight such productive part­ nerships—a record. Altogether they have indulged in thirty-one such stands—all for Sussex. Particulars of their 1905 perform­ ances are as follows :— 125, Fry (201*) and Vine (37), v. Notts, at Brighton. 110, Fry (233) and Vine (29), v. Notts, at Nottingham. 138, Fry (98) and Vine (43), v. Gloucestershire, at Brighton. 107, Fry (175) and Vine (22), v. Kent, at Tonbridge. 108, Fry (100) and Vine (27), v. Warwickshire, at Brighton. 188, Fry (127) and Vine (69), v. Hants, at Hastings. 118, Fry (155) and Vine (49), v. Kent, at Hastings. 118, Fry (79) and Vine (54), v. Essex, at Brighton. In addition to the above, Vine has partici­ pated in four “ century” partnerships with other players - twice with R. A. Young, and once each with Relf (A. E.) and Bowley— making a total of twelve in all for the season, which is certainly a most extraordinary record:— 111, Vine (146) and Relf ( 68 ), Sussex v. Leicestershire, at Leicester. 122, Vine (124) and Young (61), Sussex v. Lancs., at Brighton. 146, Vine (53) and Young (220), Sussex v. Essex, at Leyton. 116 Vine (41) and Bowley (73), Players of South v. Gents of South, at Bournemouth. It is quite possible that next season the championship may again be brought south, for at the present time both Sussex and Surrey are very strong. So far as one can at present see, Lancashire will be considerably weakened next year, for not only has Brearley definitely announced his inability to play first-class cricket regularly in future, but Kermode is returning to Australia, and will probably not come back to this country again. So the prospects for the two counties are certainly bright. The remarks made in this column last week concerning the nomenclature of matches appeared at an appropriate time, for the match at Bournemouth which concluded yesterday was in some papers described as being between the Gentlemen of the South and the Players of the South, whilst in others its title was given as Gentlemen v. Players simply. Should the official descrip­ tion be the former, Mr. R. E. Hemingway