Cricket 1906

THE FINEST BAT THE WORLD PRODUCES, M a t 24, 1906. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 147 BUSSEY’S BUSSEY’S A T TH E S IG N OF T H E W IC K E T ’ By P. S. A s h ie y -C o o ph b . One of the most meritorious performances of the past week was the wicket-keeping of Oates in the Notts, v. Leicestershire match at Trent Bridge. A glance at the score will show that he allowed neither byes nor leg- byes in either innings of his opponents, although all twenty wickets fell. This feat is much more seldom accomplished in these days of large scores than when run-getting was still of reasonable proportions. It was in 1897 that Oates played his first match for Nottinghamshire—againstNorthamptonshire, at Trent Bridge, when he accounted for five of the seventeen wickets lost by his opponents, catching two and stumping three. In 1899 he joined the ground-staff at Lord’s, and during the past few seasons has been recog­ nised as one of the most capable wicket­ keepers in the country. In all first-class matches up to the 24th inst. he has caught 210 and stumped 46, total 256. He has now kept wicket in sixteen completed innings without allowing byes or leg-byes, as the short table appended will show :— Total. Match. Ground. Year. 161 .. Notts, v. Mdsx. .. Lord’s . 1902 91 .. Notts, v. Glouces. Bristol . 1902 90 .. Notts, v. Sussex.. Nottingham . . 1902 81 .. Notts, v. Derby .. Nottingham . . 1902 83 .. Notts, v. Glouces. Nottingham . . 1902 60 .. Notts, y. Essex .. Nottingham . . 1902 401 .. Notts, v. Essex .. Nottingham . . 1903 88 .. Notts, v. Glouces. Nottingham . . 1903 177 .. Notts, v. Surrey.. Oval . 1903 136 .. Notts, v. Kent .. Gravesend . . 1904 182 .. Notts, v. Surrey .. Nottingham . . 1904 32 .. Notts, v. Derby .. Chesterfield . . 1904 229 .. Notts, v. Yorks. .. Bradford 1904 101 .. Notts, v. Surrey .. Nottingham . . 1905 104 I 166 i Notts, v. Leices... Nottingham. . 1906 Oates, it is believed, is some relation to W. Oates, who kept wicket for Yorkshire five times in 1874 and once in the following year. That he can, at times, prove of use as a bats­ man he made evident at Lord’s last year when, in the first innings of his county against Middlesex, he hit up 57 out of 74 in 32 minutes, reaching 50 in 25 minutes. He was bom on August 9th, 1875, so should prove of service to the county for some years to come. A few days ago it was my good fortune to meet a famous old cricketer, whose active days are now over, but who is as full of enthusiasm for the game as he formerly was of runs, which is saying a great deal. When discussing the question of the toss, he remarked how much may depend upon a lueky guess, and recalled the well-known facts that Sussex once lost the toes fourteen times in succession, that Alfred Shaw called correctly in all four of the test matches played in Australia in 1881-82, and that the Hon. F. S. Jackson won the toss for England in each of the five corresponding games of last year. Without in any way venturing to suggest that it would eliminate the question of luck, he considered that occasionally the advantage gained by winning the toss would be considerably lessened if the side calling correctly were compelled to take first innings, instead of being able to send their opponents in first. It is, however, so seldom that a captain, upon winning the toss, is venture­ some enough to send the other side in, that it is doubtful whether it would be worth while to seriously entertain the proposal made. At the same time, it would occasionally prevent a captain from making a serious error of judgment such as Marsham did last year at Canterbury, when, after putting Lancashire in, he had the mortification of seeing them run up a score of 479, and of eventually winning by eight wickets. Although the season is still quite in its infancy, much interesting cricket has been seen. Perhaps the most remarkable item was that furnished on Friday by Bailey, in the Somerset v. Warwickshire match at Taunton. After being hit for four, he obtained six wickets for a couple of runs, at one time taking three in four balls. His analysis for the innings was six for six, and his bowling the chief cause of Warwick­ shire being disposed of for the smallest total they have ever made in a first-class match The twenty-five thousand pages of Scores and Biographies and Wisden contain particulars of other remarkable analyses, a selection of which is appended :— Analysis. Year. 6 for 1, S. Oosstick, Victoria v. Tasmania, at Melbourne .................................................1869 9 for 2, G. Elliott, Victoria y . Tasmania, at Launceston.............. ..................................1858 7 for 3, F. E. Spofiorth, Australians v. An Eng­ land XI., at Birmingham............................1884 6 for 3, H. F. Boyle, Australians v. M.O.O. and Ground, at Lord’s ...................................1878 6 for 3, A. Penn, Kent v. Surrey, at Tunbridge Wells ........................................................ 1878 Gfor 3, E. G. Barlow, Lancashire v. Derbyshire, at Derby .................................................1881 6 for 4, F. R. Spofforth, Australians v. M.O.O. and Ground, at Lord’s ............................1878 6 for 4, J. Briggs, Lancashire v. Derbyshire, at Manchester ... ...........................................1888 6 for 4, W. Rhodes, Yorkshire v. Notts, at Nottingham.................................................1901 8 for 5, E. Peate, Yorkshire v. Surrey, at Holbeck 1883 6 for 5, O. Reid, Victoria v. Tasmania, at Mel­ bourne ............................ ...........................1871 6 for 5, A. Watson, Lancashire v. Warwickshire, atEdgbaston ..........................................1890 7 for 6, F. Morley, M.O.O. and Ground v. Oxford Univ., at Oxford ... ...................................1877 6 for 6, J. Grundy, U.E.E. v. Oxford Univ. XV., at Oxford ... .......... ...................................1856 6 for 6, H. M. Plowden, Oamb. Univ. v. Players engaged at Cambridge, at Cambridge 1862 6 for 6, A. E. Bailey, Somerset v. Warwickshire, at Taunton .................................................1906 In matches of less importance, Tarrant took 7 for 0 for England v. XXII. of New South Wales, at Sydney, in 1864 ; W. Caffyn 7 for 1 for U.E.E. v. XVIII. of Ireland, at Phoenix Park, in 1856 ; and H. R. Bromley-Daven- port 6 for 3 for Gentlemen of England v. St. Kitts, at St. Kitts, in 1895. In these days of bustle and confusion, it i« pleasing, if one can find sufficient breathing space, to glance through the records of the dead past and so see how our grandfathers, and great grandfathers, disported themselves a hundred years ago, in the comparatively peaceful and leisurely days “ when George the Third was King.” The late Mr. Arthur Haygarth, in Scores and Biographies, gives the full scores of thirteen important eleven a-side matches, and of one single-wicket game wherein three of Surrey beat three of England. In those far-away days Lancashire and Yorkshire were names unknown in the cricketing world, the game being almost confinedtothe South. Lord’sandthe M.C.C. had been in existence for nineteen years, and practically all the important matches of the period were arranged or, at least, promoted by members of the Club. The scores of only three Marylebone matches played in 1806 have been preserved, namely those of two against Homerton and one againstWoolwich. All were played at Lord’s, and all were won by the Club, which about that time possessed several first-rate amateur players. In fact, so many of the latter were there that, for the first time in the history, of cricket, a match was arranged between the Gentlemen and the Players. It was decided that William Beld­ ham and William Lambert, two of the greatest professionals of that time, should