Cricket 1906

J u n e 28, 1906, CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 227 BUSSEY’S BUSSEY’S AT THE SIGN OF THE WICKET. By F. S. A s h lb y -C o o p b r . Bearing in mind the huge scores made during the past decade by the Yorkshire eleven, it is curious that, until last week, no player had succeeded in obtaining two separate hundreds in a match for the eounty. Per­ haps more curious still, however, is the fact that, prior to last Thursday, Denton had never reached three figures in a single innings against Nottinghamshire bowling, although he has been playing county cricket since 1893; by his splendid double, therefore, he has established a record both for himself and his county, and it is not stepping an inch over the crease of truth to say that his success will be popular far beyond the Yorkshire borders. Twenty -two years ago Louis Hall missed obtaining two separate hundreds in a match by 4 runs only, whilst three seasons ago Denton himself came within measureable distance of accomplishing the feat at Old Trafford. The ten best doubles on record in the county’s annals are as follow s:— 107 and 109*, Denton, v. Notts, at Nottingham 1906 96 „ 135, Hall, v. Middlesex, at Sheffield ... 1884 111 „ 92, Hirst, v. Gloucestershire, at Bradford ............................... 19G0 84 „ 167, Brown, v.Australians,atBradford 1899 115 „ 83, F. S. Jackson, v. Middlesex, at Bradford ............................... 1896 203 „ 81*. Brown, v. Middlesex, at Lord’s ... 1896 98 „ 81, Denton, v. Lancashire, at Man­ chester ....................................... 1903 98 „ 82*, Bates, v. Lancashire, at Hud- dersfield ............................... 1885 82 „ 91, Ulyett, v. Sussex, at Brighton ... 1885 85* „ 86, Hall, v. Middlesex, at Lord’s 1889 * Signifies not out. When Hirst scored 111 and 92 at Bradford in 1900, G. L. Jessop made 104 and 139 for the other side. Matches between Notts and Yorkshire are always productive of such keen cricket that Denton’s double is especially noteworthy for being made in one of them. Apart from the old series of matches played between Sheffield and Nottingham, which were practically inter-county affairs, Notts and Yorkshire have met on eighty-seven occasions, as the appended table will show :— Date of Won Won First by by Ground. Match. Yorks. Notts. Drawn. Total Bradford .......... 1863 .. 1 .. 2 ... 4 .. 7 Nottingham ... 1863 .. 14 .. 15 ... 14 .. 43 Dewsbury.......... 1868 .. 0 .. 1 ... 1 .. 2 Sheffield .......... 1869 .. 11 .. 6 ... 10 .. 27 Prince’s .......... 1872 .. 0 .. 1 ... 0 .. 1 Huddersfield ... 1873 .. 1 .. 1 ... 0 .. 2 Leeds................. 1894 .. 2 .. 0 ... 1 .. 3 Scarborough ... 1900 .. 0 .. 0 ... 1 .. 1 Hull ................. 1902 .. 1 .. 0 ... 0 .. 1 In Y ork s.......... 1863 .. 16 .. 10 ... 17 .. 43 In Notts .......... 1863 .. 14 .. 15 ... 14 .. 43 Neutral ground 1872 ... 0 .. 1 ... 0 .. 1 Totals......... 1863 ... 30 .. 26 ... 31 .. 87 The match played at Prince’s in 1872 took place instead of one between England and the combined counties, the England team not being procurable. It is an interesting fact that only once since 1891—at Huddersfield, in 1896, when they won by four wickets— have Nottinghamshire beaten their old oppo­ nents. The cricket seen at Tonbridge during the W eek should have proved very acceptable to Kent enthusiasts, for it proved that the County is still a power in the land as it was in those far-away days when James Love told, in a tediously-long poem, how— “ Fierce Kent , ambitious of the first Applause, Against the World combin’d, asserts her Cause.” It is, by-the-way, an interesting fact that this year’s Tonbridge W eek commenced on the 162nd anniversary of that famous old Kent v. England match of 1744, the score of which is the oldest known to have been pre­ served. Like Sevenoaks and Dartford, Ton­ bridge was one of tbe earliest strongholds of Kent cricket. As far back as 1723 an Earl of Oxford was travelling in Kent, and in one portion of the account of his journey w rote:— ‘ ‘ At Dartford, upon the heath as we came out of the town, the men of Tonbridge and the Dartford men were warmly engaged at the sport of cricket, which of all the people of England the Kentish folk are most renowned for, and of all the Kentish men the men of Dartford lay claim to the greatest excellence.’ ’ To W oolley and Hutchings the recent W eek provided a great personal triumph, the former excelling at the expense of Hampshire and the latter against Middlesex. It is regrettable that the last-mentioned match was not played to a finish, for, when stumps were drawn, Kent, with a wicket in hand, required 39 to win. On the average the last wicket of a side is not good for so many runs, but, in this case, Hutchings was well set, and his partner, Huish, has been scoring well during the last week or two. Had another over been sent down it is probable that Hutchings would have had the personal satis­ faction of playing his second three-figure innings in the match, seeing that at the close he was 97 not out. It must have been a great disappointment to him to fail by three runs only to accomplish the feat, for in each innings he made his runs at a most critical time, showing superb cricket on either occasion. Still, it may be some consolation for him to learn that other great players have failed in a precisely similar fashion, and by an even smaller margin, to w it:— 99 and 133, 0. B. Fry, Sussex v. Hampshire, at Brighton ........................ 1898 99 „ 127*, O. B. Fry, Sussex v. Leicester­ shire, at Brighton................. 1903 99 „ 207*, K. S. Ranjitsinhji, Sussex v. Lancashire, at Brighton ... 1904 98 „ 156, W. Ward, H.C.O. v. Bulling- don Club, at Lord’s ......... 1819 98 „ 147, J. E. Mason, Kent v. Surrey, at the Oval ... ........................ 1900 98 „ 113*, J. B. King, Philadelphians v. Surrey, at the Oval .......... 1903 98* „ 117, A. J. L. Hill, Hampshire v. Worcestershire,at Worcester 1904 97 „ 127, K. S. Ranjitsinhji, Sussex v. Gloucestershire, at Brighton 1900 97 „ 131, Humphreys, Kent v. Notts, at Nottingham ........................ 1904 101 „ 97, Lewis, Somerset v. Hants., at Taunton ............................... 1904 97 „ 201*, O. B. Fry, Sussex v. Notts., at Brighton............................... 1905 97 „ 105, Kinneir, Warwickshire v. Sus­ sex, at Edgbaston................. 1905 125 „ 97*, K. L. Hutchings, Kent v. Mid­ dlesex, at Tonbridge .......... 1906 * Signifies not out. A glance at the above will show that the old Tonbridge boy has “ failed ” in very good company. As many as seventeen other players have made 90 or more but less than 100 in one innings, and 100 or more in tbe other, while 0. J. Bumup, B. E. Foster, and C. H ill have made over 90 in each innings without reaching 100 in either. It can seldom have happened during recent years that, on the same day, both Yorkshire and Lancashire have found themselves in so unenviable a position as they did on Tuesday last. Although Lancashire had the worst of the wicket, Worcestershire’s victory by an innings and 38 runs was a very meritorious achievement. Still better, however, was the splendid fight made by Kent, with a poor side, against the Champion County at Shef­ field. As at Tonbridge, against Middlesex, Hutchings again played superb cricket, and proved the saviour of his side. It would seem as though the reputation which Somerset gained for being “ a team of surprises ” bad fallen to the lot of Kent. In any case, the latter deserve hearty congratulations for their Sheffield performance.