Cricket 1905

S h pt . 7, 1905. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 391 have entitled them to feel pleased with their season’s results. Not yet has the county recovered from the loss which it suffered when Mead ceased to appear in the team, and it is hardly too much to say that if a modus vivendi had been found which would have reinstated Mead, the side would have been one of the strongest in the country. On very fast wickets the bowling wag stronger than usual, but although Buckenham and Tremlin often gave an excellent account of themselves, it cannot be said that there is a great bowler on the side. Once or twice Douglas astonished the world, and among the younger bowlers there are some who give great hopes for the future. The remarkable failure of Perrin in the first half of the season handicapped the county very considerably, but McGahey, Carpenter, and the Rev. F. H. Gillingham all kept up their reputation, while Douglas, Reeves and Fane at times greatly distinguished themselves. On the whole it may be said that the pros­ pects for the future of Essex are far better than they have been for a long time. G lou cestershire , the county of the Graces, may be sincerely congratulated on the season’s results. They have beaten Surrey, Sussex, Notts, Middlesex (twice), Worcestershire, Somerset, and Lancashire. It is true that Lancashire were severely handicapped by having to play without their four best men who were playing in one of the Test matches, and that Sussex were without C. B. Fry, but this was not Gloucestershire’s fault. One of the most noticeable points about the season was that all the matches were finished except two, which were drawn entirely owiDg to rain. In Dennett the county possesses a bowler who, if he could have more assistance, would be one of the greatest men of his age. But he has had most of the work, and it seems wonderful that with so few good bowlers at his command Jessop can have managed to pull off so many matches. Among the batsmen there has been no star of the first magnitude, although C. O. H. Sewell has done exceedingly well. Jessop played one great innings, but he has not been himself as a batsman although in the field he is as brilliant as ever, and he has taken to bowling again with success. H a m p sh ir e , for the fourth year in succession, are at the foot of the cham­ pionship table, and it is impossible to help feeling sympathy with them in their lowly lot. On paper they have a really strong team, but more often than not they had to put what was almost a scratch eleven in the field. Yet some of their batsmen have very greatly distin­ guished themselves, notably Captain Greig, A. J. L. Hill, and E. M. Sprot, and no fewer than three men, Greig, Hill and Llewellyn, made two separate hun­ dreds in a match. But the bowling was so weak that the bulk of it has been done by Baldwin, a veteran whose days of county cricket seemed numbered a long time ago. In E. M. C. Ede and G. N. Bignell the county possesses two recruits who may be in the front rank in years to come. The victories gained by K ent this year number ten, as in 1904, but whereas in that year there were four losses and seven drawn games, these numbers were reversed this year. One feels that Kent ought to have done better. Their bowling is not at all bad, and their batting is more attractive than that of any other team in the country. But the only victories over counties which are in the upper half of the table were those against Yorkshire at Hull and Surrey at Beckenham. Blythe has been the mainstay of the side in bowling, and, like Dennett, has had no other really fine bowler to back him up. In batting Dillon, Seymour, Mason, Blaker, and the two Days have all played most attractive cricket, but the long scores which are so necessary at the present day were not forthcoming. A. P. Day had a most brilliant first season, and his brother kept up his reputation. The season of 1905 must have been greatly disappointing to L a n c a sh ir e . Until the beginning of July they did not lose a single match, although they had narrow escapes at the hands of War­ wickshire and Worcestershire. They began the season with five victories off tbe reel, and after escaping from War­ wickshire and seeing the Surrey match abandoned, they won three matches in succession. Then after another escape at Worcester they had a moral victory over Notts and Sussex, and beat Somerset with extreme ease. Up to this time they could point to nine wins and no defeats. But their troubles began with the Surrey match at Manchester, where they lost by ten wickets. They had much the worst of the match against Essex at Leyton, declined to try for a victory over Sussex at Brighton, and had the narrowest escape of defeat by Middlesex at Lord’s. For a time they pulled themselves together, beat­ ing Notts and Gloucestershire. But they were beaten by Yorkshire, after having much the best of the game, and although they struggled gamely to the end, the Championship was taken from them. The batting of the team has not been quite as strong as usual, despite the success of Poidevin (who has been a tower of strength), Maclaren, Spooner, Hallows, Tyldesley, Sharp, and Hornby, of whom the two last have greatly increased tbeir reputations. In bowling Brearley and Kermode have done the bulk of the work, but Kermode fell off considerably after the middle of the season. A valuable discovery has been made in Cook, who seems likely to develop into one of the best all-round men of the day. (To be continued.) HAMPSTEAD v. SOUTHGATE.—Played at Hamp- stead on August 80. H ampstead . S outhgate . F. S. Lewis, c and b Everitt ............... 6 J. C. Ford, c Rowley, b Everitt ............... 15 H. B. Corry, c Foster, b Dumbelton .........35 H. F.G. Noyes, c Toller, b Foster ............... 0 V. Vivian, b Foster ... 8 H. R. Ford, c Foster, b Rowley ............... 8 A. H. Jacob, not out... 18 Rev. E. S. Duval, b Rowley ................ 1 A. II. Page, b Rowley 0 C. Waldron, b Rowley 0 Ricketts, E. VV., c Tol­ ler, b Rowley......... 0 133, lb 2, w 1... 6 B. S. Foster, lbw, b Jacob......................62 E. W. Sutton, b Ford... 14 E. E. Barnett, stCorrie, b Ford ............... 137 F. R. D. Monro, b Wal­ dron ......................73 W. S. Hale, F. Rowley, and J. C. Toller did not bat. G. G. Dumbelton, not out ......................55 A. W. Pjveritt, not out ......................32 B 19,1b 3, w2... 24 Total (4 wkts) 397 A. J. Orr, T. M. Farmiloe, LONDON AND COUNTY BANK (2) v. WIN­ CHESTER HOUSE.—Played at Norbury on August 26. W inchester H ouse . J. L. Evans, c Boorne, b Bourke............... 17 R. Walker, c Bourke, b Musin ............... 1 A. Nicoll, not out ... 38 P. H. Merchant, s Stephens, b Bourke 4 F. Pethebridge, b Bourke ............... 0 T. Layt, b Bourke ... 0 W. Elliott, c sub, b Bourke ............... 0 L. and C. R. V. Brown, b Walker 1 C. W. Gibbs, b Walker 13 H. A. Francis, bWalker 0 C. G. T. Price, b Nicoll 8 II. G. White, c & b Walker ............. 1 J. Boorne, lbw, b Nicoll 12 T. A. R. Heley, b Nicoll 0 J. Dickinson, b Bourke ............... 11 W. Brockwell, c and b Bourke ............... 3 G. D. U. P. Ladyman, b Bourke............... 4 S. Paige, c and b Francis ............... 17 B 15, lb 6 ... 21 Total.........116 B ank (2). E. Musin, b Walker ... 11 M. P. Bourke, not out 5 G. L. Frost, b Walker 5 A.G.Stephens.bWalker 1 Byes ................ 5 Total 62 Total ... 97 CR ICKET GOLFERS v. GOLF CRICKETERS. Played at Lord’ s on August 31. Cricket Golfers won on the first innings by 6 runs. C ricket G olfers . First innings. Second innings. W. N. Roe, c and b O. Scott 0 b O. Scott........12 II. J. Hill, b Mitchell......... 4 not out.............. 4 Capt.W.O.Holloway,cJohn- ston, b Mitchell .........10 cSharp.bMitchell 16 E. D. Compton, b O. Scott 1 b O. Scott........ 0 Sir A.Conan Doyle, c and b Mitchell ...................... 11 b Scott.............. 1 Major H. C. Moorhouse, b c Taberer, b O. O. Scott ......................12 Scott............ 0 P.J.deParavicini, b O. Scott 9 D.W. J. Duncan, st Archer, b O. Scott...................... 9 M. F. Wingfield, run out... 13 not out.............. 23 A. O. Macpherson, c Sharp, b O. Scott...................... 9 MajorO.E.Clowes.b O.Scott 0 H.Smith-Turberville,notout 2c and b Mitchell 0 Byes ...................... 2 Byes .....13 Total ................82 Total (6 wkts) *105 * Innings declared closed. G olf C ricketers . First innings. Second innings. H. M. Taberer, b Holloway 20 Hon. D. Scott, b Moorhouse 2 b Rowe .....19 A. S. Johnston, b Holloway 24 F. II. Mitchell, c Compton, b Doyle ...................... 3 Hon. O. Scott, b Doy’e ... 2 c Clowes, b Moor­ house ....... 0 W. R. Sharp, b Holloway . 1 A. G. Archer, b Holloway... 8 notout......... 12 C. K. Hutchison, c Moor­ house, b Doyle............... 1 A. Eden, b Holloway... ... 1 b Moorhouse ... 2 H. H. Hilton, c Holloway, b D oyle............................. 1 b Moorhouse ... 12 E. F. Overbury, run out ... 5 notout ....... 3 W. Ginger, not out ......... 1 Byes ...................... 7 Byes ... 2 Total ............... 76 Total (4 wkts) 50 C ricket G olfers . First innings. Second innings. O. M. R. W. (). M. R W. O. Scott.......... 151 4 32 7 ......... 10 2 43 4 Mitchell.......... 15 2 48 3 ......... 5 0 32 2 Taberer ... 4 0 17 0 G olf C ricketers . First innings. Second innings. O. M. R. W. O. M. R. W. Moorhouse ... 8 1 19 1 .......... 3 0 15 3 Holloway ... 21 7 28 5 C. Doyle.......... 14 8 22 4 Clowes ... 1 0 11 0 Roe ....... 3 0 22 1 Hill ......... 1 1 0 0 R ICHARD DAFT’S “ Nottinghamshire Marl.” — Particulars apply, Radcliffe-on-Trent, Notts. [A dvt .1