Cricket 1905

Nov. 30, 1905 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 453 Lancashire v. Yorkshire, at Manchester, June 12th, 13th and 14th. — During his innings of 109 R. H. Spooner, -when 37, had his off-stump hit, without a bail falling, by a ball delivered by the Hon. F. S. Jackson. In the second innings of Yorkshire Hallows (J.), at mid-off had a fainting fit, and, when he recovered, was helped off the field by Cuttell (W. R.) and Radcliffe (G.). Leicestershire v. Australians, at Leicester, June 12th, 13th and 14th.—In the first innings of the former C. E. de Trafferd made 63 out of 69 in 40 minutes, the other six runs being 4 leg-byes and 2 to C. J. B. Wood. De Trafford made all the first 56 runs (in 36 minutes) obtained by the side from the bat. In the Becond innings of Leicesteishire, P. M. Newland keeping wicket, as many as 30 of the first 97 runB made were extras. Nottinghamshire v. Surrey, at Nottingham, June 12th, l£th and 14th.-—In the second innings of Surrey, Lees (W. S.) made 47 in 30 minutes, only two other runs from the bat—by Baker (A.)—being obtained w h ilB th e was in. Derbyshire v. Yorkshire, at Derby, June 15th and 16th.—Derbyshire won by nine wickets, this being their first victory over Yorkshire since 1895. England v. Australia, at Lord’s, June 15th, 16th and 17th. —In the first innings of Eng­ land, Hayward (T.) at one time batted 30 minutes without adding to his score. As many as 24,002 paid for admission on the first day, the gates being closed at 3.10 p m., after which hour between five and six thou­ sand people were refufed admission. Middlesex v. Surrey, at Lord’s, June 19th, 20th and 21st.—In the first innings of Sur­ rey the bowling was started by Tarrant (F. A.) and Hearne (J. T.), and, after five maiden overs, Rawl'n (J. T.) took Tarrant’s place, no runs having been made, whilst with tho score at 6 Tarrant replaced Rawlin. In the same innings Smith, W. C. (31) and Strudwick (H.) added 34 runs for the last wicket, of which number the latter made but one. Gentlemen of England v. Cambridge Uni­ versity, at the Crystal Palace, June 19th, 20th and 21st.—For the latter, M. W. Payne (91) at one time made 57 out of 63 in 37 minutes, E. W. Mann (61) at one period batting 35 minutes without adding to his score. L. G. Colbeck hit 120 out of 179 in 75 minutes, reaching 50 in 40 minutes, and 100 in 70. The Cambridge total was (aken from 200 to 300 in 40 minutes. Colbeck made 22 (6, 4, 4, 4, 4) off the last five balls of an over delivered by E. M. C. Ede. Yorkshire v. Nottinghamshire, at Sheffield, June 19th, 20th, and 21st.—In the first innings of Yorkshire, Grimshaw (0. H.) batted 35 minutes without making a run. Northamptonshire v. Derbyshire, at Northampton, June 19th, 20th, and 21st.— In the second innings of Derbyshire, Storer (W.) batted 30 minutes ere he scored. Worcestershire v. Lancashire, at Worcester, June 22nd, 23rd and 24th —In the first inn­ ings of Worcestershire, W. Brearley bowled W . B. Burns with a ball which sent a bail forty-eight yards. L. O. S. Poidevin’s 168* was his 83rd hundred in all kinds of cricket. Sussex v. Cambridge University, at Brighton, June 22nd, 23rd, and 24th.—M. W. Payne, of the latter, was dismissed by the first ball he received in each innings. M.C.C. and Ground v. Cambridge Uni­ versity, at Lord’s, June 26th and 27th.—In the first innings (109) of Cambridge, six men were dismissed without scoring, but none made a pair of spectacles. In their second innings L. G. Colbeck made 51 out of 69 in 60 minuteB. Nottinghamshire v. Lancashire, at Notting­ ham, June 26th, 27th, and 28th.—On the first day R. H. Spooner (164) made as many as 103* before lunch. In tho Lancashirs innings of 627 there were four partnerships of over 100, Spooner and Heap, J. S. (58) making 167 for the first wicket, and Tyldesley J. T. (250) taking part in each of the re­ maining three, adding 104 for the sccond with Spooner, 105 for the fifth with Sharp, J. (49), and 141 for the tenth with WorJey, W. (37*). Allelevenof Nottinghamshire bowled during the long Lancashire innings (627). In the first innings of Nottinghamshire Oates (T.) was run out in an unfortunate manner, for Gunn (J.) drove a ball straight back which glanced off the hand of the bowler, L. O. S. Poidevin, into his wicket whilst ho was backing up. Gloucestershire v. Somerset, at Bristol, June 26th, 27th, and 28th.—For the former, G. L. Jessop made 234 out of 346 in 155 minutes, reaching 50 in 40 minutes, 100 in 80, 150 in 105, and 200 in 130. Yorkshire v. Sussex, at Leeds, June 26th, 27th, and 28th.—For Sussex, Vino (J.), in his innings of 25, at one time batted 58 minutes for a single—35 minutes’- without a run. During his display, half-an-hour before he was out, and with his total 25, he received from Hirst (G. H.) a ball which sent the stumps askew without dislodging the bails. Gloucestershire v. Australians, at Bristol, June 29th, 30th, and July 1st.—On the first day V. Trumper (1OS) made all his runs prior to lunch, the Australian total at close of play being 502 for nine wiekets. A. J. Hopkins (93) at one period made 35 runs from two consecutive overs from Dennett (G.), making 14 (4, 4, 6) off the first and 21 (6 4, 6, 4, 1) off the second. 'Worcestershire v. Somerset, at Worcester, June 29th, 30:h, and July 1st.—On the first day 534 runs were made for ten wickets, all by Worcestershire, H. K. Foster (180) obtaining 117 not out by lunch. Leicestershire v. Nottinghamshire, at Leicester, June 29th, 30th and July 1st.—In the first innings of Leicestershire C. J. B. Wood, whilst batting, was struck by a ball from Wass (T.) and fainted in the field. Lancashire v. Sussex, at Manchester, June 29th, 30th and July 1st.—In the first innings of Sussex K. O. Goldie made 47 out of 56 in 25 minutes, all his first seven scoring hits being 4’s. M.C.C. and Ground v. Oxford University, at Lord’s, July 3rd and 4th.—On the first day W . H. B. Evans (139 not out) made as many as 129 not out before lunch, for Oxford. Just prior to the interval he and G. T. Branston (20) added 49 in ten minutes, 36 coming from E. G. Wynyard in three overs (19 from one). Derbyshire v. Leicestershire, at Chester­ field, July 3rd and 4th.—In the first innings (36) of Derbyshire six men were disposed of without a run. Lancashire v. Somerset, at Manchester, July 3rd and 4th.—In the first innings (65) of Somerset W. Brearley and Heap (J. S.) bowled unchanged, although the latter took but one wicket (for 15 runs). A. H. Hornby (106) and Heap (J. S.) added 40 runs for the eighth wicket in 12 minutes, and, on the first day, Hornby and W. Findlay (31 not out) 99 not out for the ninth in 25 minutes; altogether, the two last-named added 113 in 30 minutes. Hornby made 106 out of 153 in 45 minutes, scoring on the first day 93 not out out of 139 in 40 minutes. (To be continued.) T he AU S T R A L IAN TEAM of 19U5. From the Sydney Referee. The Australian EUven returned from England in 1902 as heroes of one of the wettest cricket seasons ever inown, with many personal and collective triumphs and records, and happy in possessing “ the ashes.” The 1904 team has been beaten in only one match more than its predecessor, and is returning with personal and collective triumphs and records, too, yet failure is the one dampening word above all others which people use in summing up the tour. It seems paradoxical that two teams having general results, on figures so uniform, should have such a tremendous gap between the public estimates of their merits reasonably and fairly ba^ed on the cricket of the five Test mate’ ea. Viewed from the point of England v. Australia, the team has to be ranked far below the standard of 1896, 1899, and 1902. That the colossal eclipse by England has been partly due to an un­ exampled share of the luck which, more or less, is always connected with cricket is admitted by that Col s s j s of “ the ashes ” campaign, the captain of England, Hon. F. S. Jackson. There ia, neverthe­ less, no doubt that Australia, as repre­ sented by this team, has been outplayed in the international matches. By com­ parison with England, the batting, bowling, wicket-keeping, and fielding ia the air have been wanting in reliableness and, in some degree, in class, the only point of play in which England has not been greater being grou- d fielding. The fact of the Australians having been beaten once only in addition to the two England defeats suggests that either they p’.ayed above their form against the counties or below it against England. We who hava not seen the Test matches fiud it difficult to follow^rith the mind’s eye some of the cricket. But it is generally believed here that in the county fixtures the Australians did not play above themselves; that in the Test matches they played below their form. It is certain that, as far as batting in the Test matches is concerned, the English public did not see anything like the best fighting cricket that was in this team. Batsmen of the quality of Trumper, Hill, and Noble rarely fail in a series of matches, yet they failed in the latest series of Tests. They represent our best, and when they fail, what is there to say ? If this famous trio had in each of the five matches got runs with their cus­ tomary success, Australia could not have won the rubber, though the fight in that case would have been more worthy of International cricket than it has been. The bowliog was sadly wanting in great­ ness, yet, while its failure in the Test matches appears to have been absolute, it was rather more successful in the tour generally than we were justified in an­ ticipating from the displays given out here. Australian eleven bowling has, however, to be gauged by the best possible standard, and accordingly that of 1905 will go down into history as one