Cricket 1905

O ct . 26, 1905. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OB' THE GAME. 435 GEO. G. BDSSEY &CO, 36 & 38 , QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, L O N D O N . Manufactory—PECKHAM, S.E. TIMBER MILLS— I L U S V E L L , S U F F O L K . AGENTS ALL OVER THE WORLD AT THE SIGN OF THE WICKET. B y F . S. A shlby -C oopeb . NOTEWORTHY EVENTS OF 1905. I.—T he S ides . During the season of 1905 as many as 189,170 runs were obtained in great matches for the loss of 7,378 wickets, which yields an average of 25*63 runs for every wicket lowered. Compared with the previous half- dozen years, the season’s record in this respect may be considered very satisfactory :— Year. Runs. Wkts. Aver. 1899 ... 169,341 ... 6,513 ... 26 00 1900 ... 157,480 ... 6,342 ... 24’83 1901 ... 188,716 ... 6,919 ... 27'27 1902 ... 154,037 ... 6,897 ... 2233 1903 ... 141,358 ... 6,363 ... 22*21 1904 ... 179,264 ... 6,713 ... 2670 1905 ... 189,170 ... 7,378 ... 25 63 The heavy scoring at Trent Bridge and Worcester, which was so marked a feature of the cricket of 1904, was not so pronounced during the past season. In 1904 the average number of runs obtained for every wicket lowered at Nottingham was 35*85, and at Worcester 33*83, whilst last season the figures were respectively 30*02 and 31*27. It is an interesting fact, especially when one remembers that England did not lose any of the test matches played this year, that the Australian team of 1905 proved itself to be (on paper) a stronger side than either of those which visited us in 1899 and 1902 ! In 1905 the tourists could claim an advantage of 9-0 runs per wicket over their opponents (31*43—22*38); in 1899 the excess was but 8 6, and three years ago 8*5. Can it be that the critics under-estimated the strength of the last combination ? The opinion that it was the weakest side which had visited us from Australia since 1893 was commonly held by followers of the game. That it was strong in batting was everywhere recognised, whilst the fact that its bowling lacked the “ devil” to make it a really formidable team was generally admitted. And yet, as though to disprove the latter statement, we find that, apart from the test matches, not a single score of 400 was hit against them. The fact that everything during the tour was subordinated to the test matches caused the side to be judged almost wholly from its doings in those contests. This was, perhaps, scarcely fair, for in what may be termed their extraneous fixtures, they did very well indeed, their only reversebeing by the narrow margin of 19 runs in their first match with Essex, whilst in the five big matches they certainly did not have a fair share of luck. During 1905 as many as 76 scores of 400 or more were registered in first-class matches in this country, seven of them exceeding the sixth hundred:— 627-9, Worcestershire v. Kent, at Worcester. 627, Lancashire v. Notts, at Nottingham. 620, Australians v. Hampshire, at Southampton. 611, Sussex v. Essex, at Leyton. 609-4, Australians v. Somerset, at Bath. 609, Australians v. Northants., at Northampton. 601-8, Lancashire v. Sussex, at Brighton. The Australians, as will be seen, compiled three such scores, which was certainly note­ worthy, although their runs were obtained against weak sides. (Against New Zealand, at Wellington, in their preliminary tour, they made 593 for nine wickets). The heaviest scoring match of the year was that at Bournemouth, between Hampshire and Worcestershire, wherein 1,424 runs were made for thirty wickets: and the second heaviest that between Middlesex and Essex, at Lord’s, the aggregate—1,361 for twenty- six [.wickets—in which constitutes a record for the ground. It is a curious coincidence that, in each of these matches, the home side experienced defeat after declaring their innings closed. The smallest aggregate obtained in a completed match was 298 for thirty wickets, in the Surrey v. North­ amptonshire game at the Oval, which also provided another record for the season in the shape of the latter’s collapse for a total of 32. Close finishes were numerous. The Kent v. Surrey match at the Oval resulted in a tie, whilst the Australians beat an England XI., at Bournemouth, by one wicket; Sussex over­ came Somerset at Brighton by two wickets ; and Northamptonshire and Warwickshire experienced defeat by 8 and 9 runs respect­ ively at the hands of Leicestershire, the for­ mer at Leicester and the latter on the Edg­ baston ground. The match between Lanca­ shire and an England XI. at Blackpool had a curious termination, the former requiring only one run to win and having three wickets in hand when stumps were drawn : Cook was caught in endeavouring to make the winning hit. The heaviest defeat was that by an innings and 329 runs, administered by the Australians to Northamptonshire, whilst Surrey’s victory by 343 runs overWorcester­ shire at the Oval, after declaring their second innings closed with a wicket still in hand, is worthy of being chronicled. II.— T h e B a tsm e n . There were 290 partnerships of 100 or more runs during the season, the following being the most remunerative 361 for 4th, A. O. Jones (274) and Gunn, J. (151), Notts v. Essex, at Leyton. 333 for 1st, J. F. Byrne (222) and Kinneir, S. P. (158), Warwickshire v. Lancashire, at Edgbaston. 320 for 3rd, W. W. Armstrong (303*) and M. A. Noble (127), Australians v. Somerset, at Bath. 278 for 3rd, Knight, A. E. (177) and C. J. B. Wood (119), l^eicester v. Hants., at Southampton!. 275 for 5th, M. A. Noble (267) and J. Darling (93), Australians v. Sussex, at Brighton. 273* for 7th, W. W. Armstrong (248*] and J. Darling (117*), Australians v. Gentn., at Lord’s. 261 for 2nd, Seymour, Jas. (131) and E. W. Dillon (124), Kent v. Somerset, at Taunton. 260 for 6th, J. N. Crawford (142*) and Ix>rd Dalmeny (138), Surrey v. Leicestershire, at the Oval. Mr. A. O. Jones (72 and 103) and George Gunn (41 and 67) added over 100 runs for the second wicket in each innings of Notts against the Australians, at Trent Bridge, their partnerships realising 107 and 139. Messrs. L. Gr. Wright (149 and 51) and E. M. Ashcroft (73 and 73 not out) performed a perfectly similar feat for Derbyshire v. Sussex, at Derby, adding 210 and 125 in the respective innings, whilst C. Hill (87 and 93) and M. A. Noble (60 and 162) added 122 together in the first innings, and 172 in the second, for the Australians v. Gentlemen, at the Crystal Palace, the runs in each instance being made for the third wicket. Yet another instance of two century-partnerships in a match by the same batsmen was furnished by Wilkinson, W. H. (60 and 57) and Myers (39 and 60) who added 100 together for the 7th wicket in the first innings, and 116 (also for the 7th wicket) in the second, for York­ shire v. Leicestershire, at Sheffield. One of the most curious partnerships of the year was that in which Tyldesley (250) and Worsley added as many as 141 together for the 10th wicket of Lancashire v. Notts, at Trent Bridge. So greatly did the former monopo­ lise the run-getting, that Worsley’s final score was only 37 not out. Of the 233 individual scores of 100 or more obtained during the season, C. B. Fry claimed as many as 10, Denton 8, Hirst, M. A. Noble, Quaife and Tyldesley 6 each, and Hayward and Poidevin 5 each. Hobbs, who would seem to have a great future before him, had the distinction of pilying a three-figure innings (28 and 155) on his first appearance