Cricket 1905

420 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. S ept . 21, 1905. whilst in the columns of Cricket during the pai-t twenty-four years particulars of the chief contemporary contests have been duly chronicled. Even with the twenty-four volumes mentioned before him, the cricket student would find the information at his command still incomplete, and, if he possessed a fair library, would occasionally find it necessary to refer to the pages of Conway, Davis, Moody, Boyle and Scott, Cohen, Good- fellow and Hele, Ironside, Whitridge. and others. (The publications of Frearson 1876-7, Biers and. Fairfax 1856-57, Fairfax 1857-58 and 1858-59, Thompson 1858-59 and 1859-60, Brodie 1860-61, Hammersley 1861-62 and and 1863-64, Wills 1870-71, &c., are seldom met with in this country, and are practically unknown to all save the chief collectors.) From these remarks one will readily understand how distributed thi information concerning important cricket in Australia is. A couple of volumes dealing with the chief matches should command a ready sale, both in this country and in England. The first might be devoted to inter-State matches, and the games played by all Australian teams prior to, and after, visit­ ing England, whilst the second could be restricted to the matches played by English teams in the colonies. The combined efforts of such authorities as J. C. Davis and G-. L. Gamsey of New South Wales, E. B. Ross of Queensland, T. Horan (“ Felix” ), R. A. Campbell, H. W. Hedley and T. U. Groube of Victoria, and C. P. Moody of South Aus­ tralia should result in a production worthy of the subject of which it treated. Let us hope that the publication of Australian Scores and Biographies will he an accomplished fact before many more seasons have passed. Yorkshire’s victory by 65 runs at the Oval on Saturday last was a very creditable per­ formance, for the England team, although capable of improvement so far as batting was concerned, was nevertheless a powerful side. To its three great all-round-players—Hirst, Rhodes and Haigh—the success of the Champions was almost wholly due, as a glance at the score-sheetwill show. Has any other county ever boasted three such contem­ poraneous all-round cricketers as the Yorkshire triumvirate? Their prowess with bat and ball, as well as in the field, is so great that, were they to play with eight ordinary club cricketers against some of the weaker first-class counties, it is possible that they would not be found on the losing side. Matches wherein a county has contended single-handed with the rest of England have by no means been confined to recent years. Nor was it in celebration of an innovation that, one hundred and sixty-one years ago, James Love first told how Fierce Kent, ambitious of the world’s applause, Against the world combined asserts her cause. Kent have faced England on as many as eighty-five occasions, often, however, re­ ceiving odds either in numbers or given men, and Surrey on seventy-two. So powerful were the latter county a century ago, that they could afford to even allow England their best man (William Beldam, of immortal memory) and still win ! The matches wherein Kent, Surrey and Sussex have met England may be summarised as follows :— Won by Won by Results County. England. Drawn. Unknown. Total. Kent ... 34 ... 43 ... 5 ... 3 ... 85 Surrey.. 33 ... 31 ... 7 ... 1 ... 72 Sussex... 9 ... 16 ... 1 ... 0 ... 26 It will thus be seen that Surrey alone can claim a surplus of victories over defeats. In the very early days of cricket it was by no means unusual for a newspaper to give a brief —very brief—account of a match up to a certain point, and never to record the result in a subsequent issue. This will account for the fourth column in the above summary, as well as in the appended table, showing in detail the results of the eighty-five contests between Kent and England :— P i 3 (U o H . 66 Q W Kent XT. v. England XL... 23 ... 35 ... 5 ... 3 .. Kent XI. v. England XIII.. 2 ... 6 ... 0 ... 0 ... Kent XIV. v. England XI.. 2 ... 0 ... 0 ... 0 .. Kent XV. v. England XI... 1... 0 ... 0 ... 0 .. Kent XVI. v. England XI.. 2 ... 0 ... 0 ... 0 .., Kent XIX. v. England XII. 1... 1 ... 0 ... 0 ... Kent XXIII.v.EnglandXII. 1 ... 1... 0... 0.. KentXXIII.v.Engl’dXHI. 2 ... 0 ... 0 ... 0 .. Totals ... 34 ... 43 ... 5 ... 3 ... 85 In 1843, and again in 1847, Kent won all three matches played and two of the three in 1842, whilst in 1748 England were met twice and vanquished on each occasion. All these games were on even terms. In many of the old paintings and drawings of cricket matches we find the umpires depicted with a bat in their hands. Had such a thing been represented in a single picture only, one might have been pardoned for supposing that the artist was in error, but the custom is shown on so many different canvasses that one can have no doubt that umpires really did at one time have charge of a bat during the course of a match. Was the bat a sign of office ? Or can the custom have originated in order to assist the batsmen in more readily distinguishing the umpire from the fieldsmen? It would be interesting to know when the fashion died out, and, in this connection, it may be added that, in an advertisement on page i. of Conway’s Aus­ tralian Annual for 1877-78—less than three decades ago, that is—an umpire was depicted with a bat under his arm, carrying it as though it were a g u D . Possibly, however, the block from which it was taken was an old one, as the umpire was shown wearing a tall hat—a monstrosity which had certainly been abolished for some considerable time previous to the year named. The late Hon. Robert Grimston, whenever he had to play against the very fast bowling of Alfred Mynn, used to take two bats in with him to the wicket and hand one of them to the umpire. With the larger and heavier he used to defy Mynn’s attack, whilst with the other, which was of the usual dimensions, he hit all the rest of the bowling. NATIONAL PROVINCIAL BANK v. HON. ARTILLERY OOMPANY.-Played at Finsbury on September 16. N . P . B an k . O.E.Melville,bOhattell 25 H.E.Dunell.st Neume­ gen, b Leggatt ... 1 H. L. Stephenson, b Chattell ............... A. King, c Neumegen, b Ohattell............... A. Harrison, run out E.W. Armstrong, lbw, b Thompson......... 22 J.W.Ricliards.run out 24 C. A. Shaw, not out... 36 W.H. Fear, b Leggatt 1 L.A.Stanley.bLeggatt 5 L. J. Griffiths, b Leg­ gatt ...................... Extras............... Total ...151 H. A. O. H.J. Bonser, cMelville, b Stanley...............29 J.D. H.Watts, b Dunell 2 W.J. Chattell, b Harri­ son ......................48 F.O. Adair Thompson, b Harrison .........16 . A. Rutter, W. E. Waigh, L. M. Leggatt, H. H. Walsh, T. W. Leage and A. R. Shield did not bat. R. W. Neumegen, not out ...................... Extras............... Total (4 wkts) 101 YORKSHIRE (CHAMPION COUNTY) v. REST OF ENGLAND. Played at the Oval on September 14,15 & 16. Yorkshire won by 65 runs. As the proceeds of this match are divided equally between the Cricketers’ Fund Friendly Society and the London Playing Fields’ Society, it was unfortunate that the weather in September was so much like that of an ordinary October that the prospect of sitting out of doors all day did not appeal to as many people as could have been wished. Under the circumstances it was quite remark­ able that the crowd on each of the first two days numbered about 3,000. Without doubt, the cold weather also had something to do with the impossibility of getting a representa­ tive side for the Rest of England, although the eleven which was finally chosen was strong, and included five men who have played for England this year. Lord Hawke won the toss, and decided to bat first, although after the heavy rain the wicket was difficult. But, aided by some mistakes in the field, the Yorkshiremen, who were without the Hon. F. S. Jackson, ran up a very useful score. Rothery and Tunnicliffe put up 48 for the first wicket, and the score was taken to 138 for four wickets before lunch. In the after­ noon Hirst played an effective game and, meeting with a fair share of luck, made a score of 68, which included eight 4’s. J. N. Crawford met with great success with the ball towards the end of the Yorkshire innings. When stumps were drawn the Rest of England total was 64 for three wickets, Hayward, L. Gr. Wright and Hayes being out. On Friday morning there was a heavy dew and for a time the wicket played so queerly that six men were out when the total was only 88. Then Crawford played a really good innings, showing plenty of confi­ dence at a critical time, and as Arnold, Thompson and Blythe all made useful scores the total of the innings was only 18 less than that of Yorkshire. Crawford bowled so well that the first four wickets fell for 48. But Haigh and Rhodes then came to the rescue of their side, putting up 55 for the fifth wicket in 40 minutes,' and after the latter was out Haigh played a great game. He made 78, his highest score of the season, in a couple of hours and his hits included seven 4’s. The Yorkshire innings came to an end just before the time for drawing stumps, and the Rest of England, with a whole day before them had to make 232 to win. On Saturday, the Rest of England briskly set about their task, and the first 40 runs were made in half- an-hour. At 48 Hayward was out, but before the next wicket fell the score was taken to 89 by Wright and Hayes. The former was then caught for an admirable 59 after baiting for an hour and a quarter. So far, everything pointed to a victory for the Rest of England, but Hayes and Tyldesley were more cautious than usual and neither of them could get settled. Hayes was caught and bowled after batting an hour for 17, and Tyldesley bowled for 18, which were made in 40 minutes. At lunch-time four wickets were down for 113 and with a fair chance of winning the Yorkshiremen played up with the utmost determination. The batting broke down and Quaife alone played up to his reputation. It is more than likely that if he could have found anyone to stay with him and hit, his side might have won the match. As it was, six men made 19 between them, and although Thompson remainedwith Quaife nearly half-an-hour for 6, this was not the kind of batting which was then required to