Cricket 1905

S ept . 21. 1905. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OP THE GAME. 419 GEO.G.BDSSEY & CO, 36 & 38, QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, L O N D O N . Manufactory— PECKHAM, S.E. TIMBER MILLS— E L M 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 . The Hastings Festival has once again been seriously interfered with by rain, and, for the second year in succession, the guarantors will be called upon. Fortune has certainly been unkind to the Festival during recent seasons, but it is to be hoped that ‘ ‘ the powers that be ” in Hastings will not permit it to be discontinued in futureyears. Hastings and St. Leonards is so large a place that sufficient support should be found even locally to guarantee the Festival always finding a place in the season’s programme. It is betraying no secret to state that the assistance rendered by the Hastings residents has been very disappointing. For some reason hard to name, the game does not seem to be so popular in the premier Cinque Port as it was even a decade ag o-a statement which is amply verified by the fact that the Hastings Club and Ground, which was re­ formed only a few seasons since, came to an untimely end last year. For many years the Festival was favoured with perfect weather, and it would be very regrettable if it were allowed to lapse owing to fear of rain in future years. To many minds Festival cricket is, after country-house cricket, the most delightful phase of the game, for there is seldom the grim seriousness which seems inseparable from inter-county matches. Some of the most pleasant games ever indulged in must have been those which were played at the country seats of noblemen and wealthy gentlemen in the latter half of the eighteenth century. Sir Horace Mann, Mr. Richard Leigh and others would frequently have the best cricketers in the country to play before them and their distinguished guests. Mr. Leigh was so fond of arranging such contests that the Duchess of Gordon, a grand dame of the period, once publicly acknowledged that “ Though I am the first, you are the second match-mater in England, Mr. Leigh.” This kind of festival cricket, it is almost un­ necessary to add, was not dependent upon gate-money. Appended is a table showing the most note­ worthy instances of rapid scoring by sides in first-class matches during 1905, the summary being a companion to the one which appeared last week dealing with fast scoring by indi­ viduals :— 30 runs in 10 mins., Hayes and Hobbs, Surrey v. Northants, at Northampton. 40 runs in 12mins., Heap and A. H. Hornby, Lanca­ shire v. Somerset, at Manchester. 41 runs in 12mins., R. O. W. Burn and N. R. Udal, Oxford University v. Gentlemen, at Oxford. 42 runs in 12mins., J. N. Crawford and Lees, Surrey v. Leicestershire, at the Oval. 49 runs in 10 mins., G. T. Branston and W. H. B. Evans, Oxford University v. M.O.O. and Ground, at Lord’s. 52 runs in 15mins., W. Findlay and Sharp, Lanca­ shire v. Kent, at Canterbury. 55 runs in 18mins., Board and'G. L. Jessop, Glou­ cestershire v. Yorkshire, at Bradford. 59 runs in 20 mins., Lord Dalmeny and Lees, Surrey v. Warwickshire, at the Oval. 71 runs in 15mins., R. N. R. Blaker and A. P. Day, Kent v. Gloucestershire, at Catford. 72 runs in 20 mins., Radcliffe (G.) and Sharp, Lanca­ shire v. Essex, at Leyton. 75 runs in 26 mins., W. B. Burns and G. N. Foster, Worcestershire v. Kent, at Worcester. 85 runs in 29 mins., Board and G. L. Jessop, Glou­ cestershire v. Kent, at Catford. 90 runs in 35 mins., W. W. Armstrong and V. T. Trumper, Australians v. Nortliants, at North­ ampton. 98 runs in 30 mins., R. E. Foster and Wilson, Wor­ cestershire v. Kent, at Worcester. 98 runs in 40mins., Board and G. L. Jessop, Glou­ cestershire v. Lancashire, at Manchester. 99runs in 25 mins., W. Findlay and A. H. Hornby, Lancashire v. Somerset, at Manchester. 100 runs in 40 mins., L. G. Colbeck and E. W. Mann, Cambridge University v. Gentlemen, at Crystal Palace. 100runs in 45 mins., Board and C. O. H. Sewell, Gloucestershire v. Lancashire, at Bristol. 100runs in 45 mins., J. N. Crawford and Lord Dalmeny, Surrey v. Leicestershire, at the Oval. 113runs in 30 mins., W. Findlay and A. H. Hornby, Lancashire v. Somerset, at Manchester. 120 runs in 50 mins, Leach and Vine, Sussex v. Hants, at Portsmouth. 134 runs in 50 mins., Holland and Lees, Surrey v. Hants, at Aldershot. 140 runs in 50 mins., R. N. R. Blaker, A. P. Day and C. H. B. Marsham, Kent v. Gloucestershire, at Catford. 181 runs in 65mins., W. B. Burns and G. N. Foster, Worcestershire v. Kent, at Worcester. 202 runs in 90 mins., Lees, Holland, N A. Knox and Strudwick, Surrey v. Hampshire, at Aldershot. 220 runs in 105 mins., Hayes and J. E. Raphael, Surrey v. Derbyshire, at Derby. 254 runs in 145 mins. (for 3 wickets), by Essex v. Middlesex, at Lord’s. (After being set 254 to get in 165 mins. Middlesex declared their second innings closed.) 260 runs in 130 mins., J. N. Crawford and Lord Dalmeny, Surrey v. Leicestershire, at the Oval. 280 runs in 144 mins. (for 5 wickets), by Worcester­ shire v. Hants., at Bournemouth. (After being set 277 to get in 145mins. Hants declared their second innings closed.) 30 runs off 2 overs, R. A. Duff and V. T. Trumper, Australians v. Oxford University, at Oxford. 45 runs off 3 overs, Board and G. L. Jessop, Glouces­ tershire v. Lancashire, at Manchester. 50 runs off 6 overs, Davis and Hayward, Surrey v. Warwickshire, at the Oval. 98 runs off 12overs, Board and G. L. Jessop, Glouces­ tershire v. Lancashire, at Manchester. (Made in 40 minutas. W. *Brearley was punished for 57 (12, 18,12,15) in four overs). 534 runs for 10 wickets in a day, Worcestershire v. Somerset, at Worcester. (All made by Wor­ cestershire). 521 runs for 10 wickets in a day, Surrey v. Warwick­ shire, at the Oval. (Surrey—370 for 8 , Warwick­ shire—151 for 2). 520 runs for 7 wickets in a day, Gents, v. Australians, at Lord’s. (Australians—502 for 5, Gents.—18 for 2 ). 513 runs for 6 wickets in a day, Hants, v. Australians, at Southampton. (All made by the Australians, who made 224 for 2 before lunch). 509 runs for 9 wickets in a day, Gloucestershire v. Australians, at Bristol. (All made by the Aus­ tralians). 499 runs for 12 wickets in a day, Kent v Glouces­ tershire, at,Catford. (Gloucestershire—220 for 6 , Kent—279 for 6 ). From the concluding portion of the above table it will be seen that the Australians frequently indulged in scoring far faster than the average. As it is impossible for every item of interest to be noted in the newspapers, it is almost unnecessary to add that the summaries published this week and last do not profess to be absolutely complete. A letter just received from a correspondent in Stoke Newington refers to a subject which, I believe, was touched upon in this column some years ago. The writer asks,— *Can I by any means get a record of important cricket in Australia, meaning the full scores and analyses P Of course Wisden gives the matches against English teams and the inter­ state contests since Lord Sheffield’s gift gave an impetus to Australian cricket. 13ut what I want—viz , the earlier matches—I can’t get from Wisden. Is there a book published giving the scores of all great matches played in Australia? . . .” Doubtless many other followers of the game have experienced a similar difficulty in tracing the performances of the leading cricketers of Australia in their own country, for no such book as the one inquired about has ever been published. Mr. Clarence P. Moody’s Australian Cricket and Cricketers , issued eleven years ago, furnishes much valuable data, although full scores are not given, and the information concerning matches between Tasmania and Victoria is incomplete. The history of im­ portant cricket in Australia is, unfortunately, scattered through many volumes. The scores of the majority, though not all, of the Inter- State matches played between 1851 and 1878 are to be found in the last ten volumes (v. to xiv.) of Scores and Biographies , all of which can still be obtained through a book-seller,