Cricket 1905

C8 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. A pril 20, 1905. this, their first match of the season, Surrey were led by K. J. Key. The side was s ibsequently captained hy the following :— H. B. Chinnery, Lord Dalmeny, W . G. M. Sarel, H. D. G. Leveson-Gower, D. L. A. Jephson, L. V. Harper, and J. E. Raphael. M.C.C. and Ground v. London County, at Lord’s, May 2nd, 3rd, 4th.—In the first innings of M.C.C. and ( j round, VV. W. Odell howled his last 58 halls for 9 runs and seven wickets. M.O.C. and Ground v. Notts., at Lord’s, May 5th, 6th.—In the first innings of Notts., Day (J. W.) batted 40 minutes ere he made a run. Surrey v. London County, at the Oval, May 5tb, 6th, 7th.—In the first innings of London County, Lees (W. S.) at one time obtained five wickets in 42 halls for 7 runs, viz., those of W. G. Grace, VV. L. Murdoch, A. C. MacLaren, L. 0. S. Poidevin, and Sewell (E. H. D.). In the second innings of London County, Lockwood (W. H.) at one period bowlei 12 balls for 5 runs and four wickets. Surrey v. Hampshire, at the Oval, May 9th, 10th, 11th.—In the first innings of Hampshire, Lees (W. S.) at one period sent down 55 halls for 7 runs and five wickets, and in the second innings Smith (W. C.) at one time delivered 37 balls for 9 runs and six wickets. Leicestershire v. Lancashire, at Leicester, May 9th, 10th, 11th. On the first day 523 runs were made for twelve wickets, Lancashire making 381 for ten and Leicestershire 142 for two. M.C.C. and Ground v. Kent, at Lord’s, May 16th, 17th.—In bowling C. H. B. Mar- sham in the second innings of Kent, H. Hesketh Prichard broke the centre stump. In the second innings of the M.C.C. five players made 7 each. Gloucestershire v. Somerset, at Bristol, May 16ih, 17th, 18th. — In the second innings of Gloucestershire G. L. Jessop (61) scored 28 runs (4, 4, 6, 4, 4, 6) off an over delivered by Braund (L. C.) and 12 from the next over from the same howler, making 40 runs off the two overs. He made 45 in ten minutes, receiving 14 balls, off 12 of which he scored, reaching 50 in fifteen minutes, and, altogether, making 61 out of 73 in twenty-four minutes, receiving 24 balls, off 19 of which he scored. He hit two sixes and nine fours. His hits were: 3 4 1 0 4 0 1 4 4 6 4 4 6 0 4 4 2 0 2 4 1 10 2. Oxford University v. York-hire, at Oxford, May 19th, 20th, 21st.—During his innings of 201 for the ’Varsity, J. E. Raphael, at one time, whilst in with VV. S. 1ird, scored 44 runs out of 44 in twenty minutes. Hirst (G. H.), for Yorkshire, made 25 in ten minutes, 50 in 21 minutes, 100 in 75 minutes, and, in all, 153 out of 228 in 140 minutes. He and F. Mitchell (63) added 112 for the fourth wicket iu 55 minutes. Middlesex v. Sussex, at Lord’s, May lQth, 20th, 21st.—The score of 32 made for Sussex hy Killick (E. H.) was composed entirely of fours —seven boundaries and one all run. Middlesex v. Somerset,at Lord’s, May 23rd, 24th, 25th.—Heame (J. T.) took the last three wickets in four balls in the first innings of Somerset, at one time delivering 31 balls lor 9 runs and six wicket*. Warwickshire v. Worcestershire, at Edg- baston, May 23rd, 24th, 25th.—In the first innings of Warwickshire, T. S. Fishwick (70), in attempting to drive Arnold (E.), brol e his bat, and the ball, which would in all probability have gone to the boundary, was caught by Bowley (F.) at point. In the first innings of Worcestershire, Bowley (F), Gaukrodger (G. A.), and Wilson (G. A.) made 233 of the 242 runs obtained from the bat. Notts v. Surrey, at Nottingham, May 23rd, 24th, 25th.—In the first innings of Notts, A. O. Jones scored 63 out of first 75 runs scored and was then dismissed. Sussex v. Gloucestershire, at Brighton, May 23rd, 24th, 25th.—In the first innings of Gloucestershire Cox (G.) took his last five wickets for 3 runs in 64 balls. In the first innings of Sussex, Vine (J.), K. S. Ranjit- sinhji, and C. B. Fry claimed 279 of the 297 runs obtained from the hat. Middlesex v. Gloucestershire, at Lord’s, May 26th, 27th, 28th.—Owing to rain, P. F. Warner (47) and G. W. Beldam (46) batted on each of the three days. Lancashire v. Surrey, at Manchester, June 2nd, 3rd.—In tho first innings of Surrey Abel (R.) was caught by Tyldesley (J. T.) off a ball which rebounded from the finger, and then the knee, of short-slip. Hampshire v. Kent, at Southampton, June 2nd, 3rd, 4th.—In the first innings of Kent (142) the last six wickets fell for 3 runs. Middlesex v. Yorkshire, at Lord’s, June 2nd, 3rd, 4th.—In the first innings of York­ shire, Trott (A. E.) delivered his last 12 balls for no runs and four wickets, all bowled down. Kent v. Worcestershire, at Maidstone, June 6th, 7th, 8th.—In the second innings of Kent, Seymour, Jas. (136*), and lielder, A. (37), added 103 runs for the tenth wicket in 35 minutes. (To be continued.) THE SITUAT ION . [ a CONVERSATION WITH MR. CHUCKERUP, AN UMPIRE WHO OFFICIATES FOR A THRIVING “ w EAX-MEUIU m ” CLUB.] “ Good evening, Mr. Chuckerup. What do you think of the coining Aus­ tralian team ? ” “ Ah ! I rather fanjy I ’ve been asked that question before. It seems sort of familiar-like, but since you arsk me, it’s my opinion that the Orsteralans knows their own business best, an,d you may bet lyour life they’ve got the best lot they could.” “ But do you thiuk they are likely to win the test ma'ches ? ” “ Well, that’s as may be. Their bowlers are a pretty oldish lot and they ain't likely to have come on much. But there’s that chap Cotter, and a g >od deal depends on him. He may be a Moody or a Sankey and stir up the crowd like anything, but he’s inor<j likely to be a Torrey or a Alexander; and if he is, where’s the stirring up to come from, I want to know ? ” “ Then you think their chances of victory are doubtful ? ” “ There ain’ t no tellin’. The Orster- alians iu ordinary knows how to take care of tbeirselves, and they generally has all the luck that’s goin’ . But if the luck should be a bit against ’em— well, there has been Orsteralian tours which hasn’t panned out much.” “ That’s true. But never mind the Austrilians. What do you think about the prop j S-4 to all JW the fielding side to provide a new ball at any time on giving notice to the batsmen P” “ I dessay it might be all right for flrst-class cricket—or it might not, as the case may be—but I know what would happen in a good many club matches when it come to a question of time. If time was a object to the field­ ing side they’d give notice to the batsmen bef. re every ball — you could waste a ’andsome lot of time by sending in to the pavilion six times a over for a new ball, and if you tock a couple of new balls with you you could work it easy.” “ But in first-class matches this would not be done? ” “ Wouldn’ t it? Well, perhaps not quite in the same way, but I have heard of time being wasted, even iu first-class matches when it was a near thing, and it don’t seem to me to be advisable to encourage that sort of thing.” “ A t any rate you can have nothing to say against the proposal to add the words, ‘ unless otherwise arranged ’ to that part of Law 1, which says that ‘ the choice of innings shall be decided by tossing.’ ” “ I don’t know so much about that. It appears to me it would be the old mistake of legislatin’ only for first-class matches.” “ I don’t quite understand.” “ Perhaps you don’t. And I don’t suppose the M.C.C. does. But it’s this way, you see. My club 4otherwise arranges’ with an opponent team that they should bat first on our ground and us on theirs. They bats first on ours and we wins. What hippens when the return comes and we has to b it first? Why, we finds the wicket accidentally overwatered just enough to make things bad for us ! ” “ But that wouldn’ t always happen, would it ? ” “ Bless you, no. There’s lots of other ways. Suppose, for instance, that we ‘otherwise arranges’ with a opponent team that we should bat first on their ground and them on ours. We bats first on their ground and finds it over watered. S j when their turn comes we naturallv reciprocates, and what’s the result ? Why, of course, they doesn’t turn up, but sends a wire, ‘ Impossible raise team.’ Give me the sensible old plan of tossin’ I s»y.” “ At anyrate the id9a would work all right in first-alass matches.” “ Don’t you be too sure abxit that! There’s black sheep among first-olass cricketers, and don’ t you forget it. And besides, there’s thouiands of ordinary clubs to every first-class one, and why shouldn’t they be considered ? ” “ Perhaps the authorities havm ’ t thought of what might happen in minor club matches. And perhaps they think that small clubs would still toss for innings.” “ Oh, would they ? You may take it from me that if a thing is done iu first- class cricket the clubs will do it too. for the sake of being in the swim and O.K. And it seems to me that if you ‘ other­ wise arranges ’ one law, you are getting