Cricket 1905

436 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. O ct . 26, 1905. for Surrey in a County Championship match, whilst C. B. Fry, B. J. T. Bosanquet, Capt. J. G. Greig, L. G. Wright, A. J. L. Hill, P. A. Perrin and Llewellyn each made two feparate hundreds in amatch, Fry performing the feat for the fourth time during his career and Bosanquet for the second. L. G. Wright, for whom the season was averitable triumph, was alone in obtaining three separate hun­ dreds in succession—his scores were 195, 176 and 122—but C. B. Fry missed the distinc­ tion by three runs only, making 156, 106, 97 and 201 not out in one week in May. On three occasions did three players reach the hundred in a Bingle innings, viz., for the Australians v. Hampshire, at Southampton, for Kent v. Somerset, at Taunton, and for Surrey v. Leicestershire, at the Oval. The last instance was a noteworthy one, inasmuch as the Surrey innings was declared closed with only six wickets down. As a contrast to all this high scoring it may be mentioned that there were 56 occasions upon which a player was twice disposed of in a match ere making a run, the most notable instance being that of Storer who, in the Derbyshire v. Lancashire match, at Derby, was dismissed on each occasion by the first ball he received ; in his previous innings—for Derbyshire v. Yorkshire, at Bradford—he had also been disposed of first ball. C. B. Fry, as usual, easily exceeded 2,000 runs during the season, his aggregate being 2,801, whilst Hayward made 2,592, Denton 2,405, Hirst 2,266, Quaife 2,060 and M. A. Noble 2053. In strictly first-class cricket, W. W . Armstrong obtained 1,902 runs, with anaverage of 50-05, whilst in all eleven a-side matches his total Was 2,002. The Victorian, it may be added in parenthesis, headed both the batting and the bowling averages of the Australians. When Trumper obtained his record aggregate Of 2,570 three years ago his average was but 48*49, but it must be remembered that scoring in 1902 ruled considerably lower than in 1905. The performances referred to of the two Colonials have, for some reason hard to name, caused some of the critics to compare their doings with those of “ W. G.” in his prime ! But in his prime—1868 to 1874— “ W. G.” never averaged so low as 50, and yet he had to run out all his hits, except at Canterbury. III.— T h e B o w l e r s . Of notable bowling feats during the season there were several. No player succeeded in obtaining all ten wickets in a single innings, but nine were taken by Arnold, W. Brearley, Gill, Jayes, Lees, Ringrose and Tremlin. For Lancashire against Somerset, at Man­ chester, Brearley obtained seventeen wickets for 137 runs, his analyses being nine for 47 and eight for 90. Wilson, of Worcestershire, was the only other bowler who took more than thirteen wickets in a match, his record against Somerset at Taunton being fifteen for 142. Two very successful first appearances in inter-county cricket have to be chronicled, Cook obtaining eleven wickets for 118 runs against Gloucestershire, at Manchester, on his debut for Lancashire, and Mignon signalising his inclusion in the Middlesex team by taking seven for 63 in an innings at the expense of Surrey, at the Oval. The most remarkable performances during the season, from a statistical point of view, were as follows : — 7 for 16, W . W. Armstrong, Australia v. Gloucester­ shire, at Bristol. 12 for 34, A. Ootter, Australia v. Worcestershire, at Worcester. (7 for 15 and 5 for 19). 8 for 24, J. N. Crawford, Surrey v. Northampton­ shire, at the Oval. 6 for 15, W. W. Odell, Leicestershire v. Derbyshire, at Chesterfield. Gfor 16, Rhodes, W., Yorkshire v. Cambridge Uni­ versity, at Cambridge. 6 for 9, Rhodes, W., Yorkshire v. Essex, at Hud­ dersfield. 7 for 11, Smith, W. C., Surrey v. Northamptonshire, at the Oval. 7 for 14, Thompson, G. J., M.C.O. & Ground v. Notts., at Lord’s. W. Brearley obtained four wickets in four balls for Lancashire against Somerset at Manchester, whilst the hat trick was per­ formed by J. W. H. T. Douglas, W. H. B. Evans and Wilson. Four wickets in five balls were taken by Thompson, and five in eight (without a run) by J. W. H. T. Douglas. The only instance of two players bowling unchanged through two completed innings of a match was furnished by Thomp­ son and H. B. Simpson, who performed the feat for Northamptonshire v. Leicestershire at Leicester. Five bowlers obtained over 150 wickets during the season, Rhodes taking 182 at a cost of 16 95 runs each, Lees 193 (average 18*01), W. Brearley 181 (average 19*25), Dennett 163 (average 20*98), and Cox 170 (average 21*87). IV.— T h e W ic k e t - K e e p e r s . Several instances occurred during 1905 of a wicket-keeper allowing neither byes nor leg-byes in a completed innings, the most notable case being perhaps that of Lilley, who gave away no extras whatever during Leices­ tershire’s innings of 276 against Warwick­ shire at Edgbaston. On his first appearance for Notts—v. Oxford University at Oxford— J. D. Barnsdale allowed neither byes nor leg-byes during his opponents’ innings of 115, whilst Burchell, when making his debut for Sussex (against Cambridge University at Brighton), disposed of seven men—Bix caught and one stumped—accounting for five, all caught, in one innings. Curiously enough, after distinguishing themselves so much, neither Barnsdale nor Burchell was asked to play again, the idea probably being “ to encourage the rest.” There were ten occasions upon which a wicket-keeper dis­ missed as many as five men in an innings, Humphries, of Derbyshire, doing so against Essex, at Leyton, in an innings wherein only nine wickets fell. Huish, for Kent v. Glou­ cestershire, at Catford, accounted for eight wickets (seven caught and one stumped), this being the largest number obtained in a match by any wicket-keeper during the year. At one period of the season Huish dismissed as many as twenty-two men in three consecu­ tive matches—five caught and two stumped v. Worcestershire at Tunbridge Wells, and v. Notts at Trent Bridge, and seven caught and one stumped v. Gloucestershire at Cat­ ford. (In the Tunbridge Wells match only nineteen wickets fell.) The largest number of extras allowed in an innings was 52 (39 byes) by Butt, for Sussex v. M.C.C. and Ground, at Lord’s, and by the Rev. F. H. Gillingham and C. P. McGahey (41 byes), for Essex v. Sussex, at Leyton, whilst for a whole match the record was 109 (82 byes) allowed by Huish and Butt in the M.C.C. and Ground v. Sussex match, at Lord’s. The performances of the chief wicket-keepers of 1905 may be summarised as follows :— Matches Total Per“ kept ” wkts. cent­ in. Ct. St. Total. fell. age. Huish, F.H . ... 27 ... 54 ... 24 ... 78 ... 416 ... 18-75 A. E. Davis .. . 4 ... 11 ... 0 ... 11 ... 60 ... 1833 Butt, H. R. .. . 32 ... 68 ... 18 ... 86 ... 497 ... 17-30 Gaukrodger,G.A. 6 ... 13 ... 5 ... 18 ... 105 ... 17*14 G.MacGregor.. . 12 ... 13 ... 18 ... 31 ... 190 ... 16-31 Whiteside, J. P. 16 ... 28 ... 7 ,... 35 ... 219 ... 1598 O. Robson . 5 ... 9 .. . 1 ... 10 ... 63 .. . 15-87 Board, J. H. ... 24 ... 42 ... 16 ... 58 ... 377 ... 1538 Wheldon, F. ... 4 ... 10 ... 0 ... 10 ... 66 ... 1515 Oates, T.......... . 22 ... 41 ... 8 . 49 ... 329 ... 14-89 Humphries, J. 24 ... 49 ... 6 ... 55 ... 372 ... 14-78 Hunter, D, ..., 30 ... 56 .. . 19 ... 75 „ 514 ... 14-59 Matches Total Per- “ kept ” wkts. cent- in. Ct. St. Total, fell. age. Smith, E. J. ... 6 ... 13 ... 1 ... 14 ... 99 ... 14*14 Stedman, F. ... 9 ... 18 ... 5 ... 23 ... 163 ... 14*11 W. S. Bird ... 13 ... 21 ... 7... 28 ... 202 ... 13*86 Strudwick,H.„. 24 ...47 ... 7 ... 54 ... 395 ... 1367 Lilley, A. A. ... 27 ... 38 ... 17... 55 ... 404 ... 13 61 Russell, E. ... 17 ... 28 ... 4 ... 32 ... 236 ... 13*55 W. M. Payne ... 13 ... 18 ... 8 ... 26 ... 207 ... 12*56 W. Findlay ... 17 ... 33 ... 2 .. 35 ... 282 ... 12*41 Worsley, W. ... 10 ... 14 ... 5 ... 19 ... 165 ... 12*25 Ainley ..........10 ...15 ... 3 ... 18 ... 154 ... 1168 Stone, J ............ 23 ...28 ... 8 ... 36 ... 314 ... 11*45 H.Martyn ... 19 ... 14 ... 9 ... 23 ... 203 ... 11*33 B.C. Smith ... 13 ... 18 ... 1... 19 ... 168 ... 11*30 P.M.Newland... 9 ...10 ... 3 ... 13 ... 143 ... 9 09 J. J. Kelly ... 22 ...19 ... 7 ... 26 ... 306 ... 8*49 O nly those players who obtained ten or m ore wickets are m entioned above. The position of the two Australian wicket-keepers iu the list provides food for thought. V .— A ll - round P erformances . Six Englishm en succeeded in scoring over a thousand runs in addition to securing more than a hundred wickets, the particulars being as follows :— Runs. Wickets. Arnold, E........... ... 1,148 ... ... 115 Gunn, J.............. ... 1,366 ... ... Ill Hirst, G. H. ... 2,266 ... ... 110 Killick, A. E. ... ... 1,392 ... ... 108 Relf, A. E........... ... 1,386 ... ... Ill Rhodes, W. ... 1,581 ... ... 182 For the second time during his career Hirst made over 2,000 runs besides taking more than 100 wickets, his record for the previous season having been 2,501 runs and 132 wickets. No other player has ever succeeded in accomplishing this feat a second time, and only W . G. Grace, C. L. Townsend and G. L. Jessop had previously performed it once. (In all matches for the Australians during 1905, W. W. Armstrong’s record was 2,002 runs and 130 wicnets. In these figures are inclu Ied his doings in the matches played at Cardiff and Dublin, which did not rank first-class). The greatest all-round performance of the year was by B. J. T. Bosanquet, who, in the Middlesex v. Sussex match, at Lord’s, scored 103 and not out 100 and gained analyses of three for 75 and eight for 53. Alan Marshal, the young Queenslander who will, in 1907, be qualified for Surrey, made a very successful first appearance in first-class cricket in England; playing for Gentlemen of England against Oxford University, at Oxford, he took seven wickets for 87 runs (2 for 37 and 5 for 50), and scored 0 and 94, whilst Tarrant, on the occasion of his debut for Middlesex v. Somerset, at Lord’s, took four wickets for 27 in the first innings, and six for 20 in the second, besides playing an innings of 53. A M ATTER FOR LEG ISLAT ION . A point that calls for legislation is that which provides for a batsman being “ stumpable ” if he leaves one wicket, and not the other, through retirement brought about by mistaking the umpire’s decision, or believing to be out and not waiting for a decision. There have been many cases in which a batsman has lost his wicket because of the position of the pavilion, one of the most remarkable being C. M’Leod’s dismissal in a test match on the Sydney Cricket Ground. He was bowled by Richardson ; the um­ pire had called “ no ball,” which the batsman did not hear, and he advanced from the crease to the pavilion ; then he was run out. Had the pavilion been on the other side of the ground, so that