Cricket 1906

A ug . 30, 1906. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 371 BUSSEY’S “DEIHON DftlVEflS.” TRADE ( ^ r* n n ✓ /A Li Li L» \\ ) MARK GEO, G. BUSSEY & CO,, LTD,, B eg to in fo rm C rick eters all ov er th e w orld th a t th e ir n ew P eck h am F a ctory , th e la rg est an d best equ ip p ed o f its k in d , is n o w com p leted . P ro v isio n has b een m ade fo r a still fu rth e r in crease in o u tp u t and th e ca rry in g o f a fin ished sto ck o f TWENTY THOUSAND BATS. G eo. G . B u ssey k C o., L im ited , m u ch reg ret th a t fo r som e tim e past th e su p p ly o f th e FAMOUS “ DEMON DRIVERS ” has b een q u ite inadequate to m eet th e dem and, b u t d u rin g the p eriod o f re-b u ild in g , w h en the ou tp u t w as n ecessa rily restricted , th e finest stock o f WILLOW TIMBER has b een accum u la tin g , a n d n ow rep re ­ sen ts ab ou t 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 BATS. C rick eters m ay th e refo re re ly u p on BUSSEY’S “ DEMON DRIYERS” b e in g th e ch oicest selection from th is en orm ou s stock and THOROUGHLY SEASONED. T h e fle x ib ility o f th e H a n d les is ju st w h a t B a tsm en desire, a n d th e special fo rm o f h a n d le co v e rin g is th e adm ir­ a tion o f a ll p layers w h o use “ BUSSEY’S DEMON DRIYERS.” C a ta lo g u e o n a p p lica tio n to — GEO.G. BUSSEY & CO., L I M I T E D , 36 & 38, QUEENVICTORIA STREET, L O N D O N , O f Provincial and Colonial Dealers. FACTORY— TIMBER MILLS— PECKHAM, S.E. ELMSWELL, SUFFOLK. AT THE SIGN OF THE WICKET. B y F. S. A s h lb y -C o o fe b . The exciting finish at Bristol on Saturday last, when Yorkshire were defeated by one run, will for some time to come form the chief topic of conversation in cricketing circles. That Gloucestershire would he able to give their powerful opponents a good game was generally anticipated, hut that they would succeed in overcoming them, even hy so small a margin as a run, seemed too much to expect. But cricket is full of surprises, and once again did the unexpected happen. For Gloucestershire to defeat Yorkshire, im­ mediately after the latter had beaten Surrey, was a splendid performance on the part of the Westerners. “ He slew Hector who had vanquished Patroclus.” The fact, too, that the result of the match caused Kent to rise to first place in the Championship table made the victory the more popular. In so close a finish the losing side generally merits sympathy, and the case in point proves no exception. It is, to say the least, unfor­ tunate for a side to lose the Championship by a single run, especially when the side had been beaten only by that margin after a fine uphill fight, for it is one of the glaring defects in the method employed for determin­ ing the Championship that a defeat by a single run affects a side as much as a reverse to the extent of an innings and 500 runs would have done. Gloucestershire’s success, it is pleasing to see, was hy no means due to the efforts of one man, for the hatting of Champain and Board and the howling of Dennett and Jessop were all very important factors in bringing about the result. The last-named’s analysis of four for 63 does not appear very much on paper, but it represents a capital piece of bowling at the most critical point of the match. Nine years ago Yorkshire were beaten by Essex at Huddersfield by one run, Hirst and Bairstow, the last two men to be dismissed, being run out and l.b.w . respectively, whilst, by a curious coincidence, the last wicket fell in last week’ s match as the result o f an appeal for obstruction. It was at Harrogate in the same year— 1897—that Gloucestershire had gained their last success over Yorkshire, Jessop playing a wonderful innings of 101 in the first innings, and C. L. Townsend scoring 109. Jessop made his 101 out of 118 in 40 minutes without a mistake, and Gloucestershire won by 140 runs. Of the sixty-nine matches played between the two sides Yorkshire have won thirty-six and Gloucestershire sixteen, the remaining seven­ teen being left drawn :— RESULTS OF ALL MATCHES PLAYED BE­ TWEEN GLOUCESTERSHIRE & YORKSHIRE. Date of W on W on Ground. first by by Match. Glos. Yorks. Dm . Total. Sheffield ... ,... 1872 ... 5 ... 8 ... 3 ... 16 Olifton........... ,... 1873 ... 5 ... 0 ..,. 1 ... 6 Cheltenham 1876 ... 2 ... 3 .. . 5 ... 10 Gloucester... ... 1883 ... 1 ... 2 .. . 2 ... 5 Bradford ... ... 1883 ... 0 ... 6 ... 2 ... 8 Moreton-in-Marsh 1884 ... 0 ... 1 ,. 0 ... 1 Dewsbury ... ... 1887 ... 1 ... 1 .... 1 ... 3 Halifax ... ... 1888 ... 0 ... 1 ... 0 ... 1 Bristol........... ... 1890 ... 1 ... 9 ... 2 ... 12 Huddersfield ... 1893 . .. 0 ... 2 .. 0 ... 2 Leeds ................... 1894 . .. 0 ... 2 .. .. 1 ... 3 Harrogate ... ... 1897 . .. 1 ... 0 ..,. 0 ... 1 Hull ............... ... 1901 . .. 0 ... 1 . .. 0 ... 1 Played in Yorkshire ... ... 7 ... 21 .. 7 ... 35 Played in Gloucestershire. .. 9 ... 15 .. . 10 ... 34 Totals ,... 1872 ... 16 ... 36 .. . 17 ... 69 Prior to last week’s game seventeen matches in succession had been played between the two sides without Gloucestershire proving successful in one, Yorkshire winning thirteen, and the remaining four being drawn. A glance, too, at the above synopsis of results will show that Yorkshire had never before been defeated in Bristol. Kent’ s success over Middlesex has prac­ tically assured the Championship again coming south, for only in the event of Kent being defeated in the match against Hampshire, which commences to-day at Bournemouth, would it be possible for Yorkshire to head the table. When stumps were drawn at Lord’ s on Monday Kent appeared in danger of defeat, as, with only three wickets in hand, they were 14 runs behind, and would be obliged to have fourth innings on a wicket which promised not to wear well. Should Kent, as appears most probable, evade defeat at the hands of Hampshire, and so, for the first time, secure the Championship, their success would be most popular. It may well be doubted whether the close of any previous season has produced such keen and interesting cricket as that seen during the past few weeks. It has, in many ways, been an ideal struggle, and has made appear most ludicrous the contentions of those persons who, in the early part of the season, endeavoured to prove that but little interest remained in the game, and that the amount which did would gradually disappear altogether! How­ ever, at such a moment as the present one can afford to be generous in not dwelling upon the amusing lamentations of middle- aged croakers. To Lord Harris, more than to any other person, will Kent’ s many triumphs have proved particularly gratify­ ing, for his Lordship has played a delightfully prominent part in the cricket history of the county for well over thirty years. In view of the importance which attached to the match which ended at Lord’s yesterday, it will prove an opportune moment to tabulate the RESULTS OF ALL MATCHES PLAYED BETWEEN KENT AND MIDDLESEX. Date of Won Won First by by Ground. Match. Kent. Midd. Drawn. Total Lord’s ................ .. 1796 ... 6 ... 13 ... 5 ... 24 Southgate ... ... 1859 ... 0 . ... 1 ... 0 ... 1 Canterbury ... ... 1859 .. . 1 ... 4 ... 1 ... 6 Gravesend ... ... 1868 ... 2 . ... 1 ... 1 ... 4 Islington ... ... 1868 .. . 0 . ... 1 ... 0 ... 1 Maidstone ... ... 1885 .. . 2 . ... 0 ... 0 ... 2 Tonbridge ... .... 1890 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... 9 Beckenham ... ... 1891 .. . 1 ... 1 ... 0 ... 2 Blackheath ... ... 1892 .... 0 ... 1 ... 0 .... 1 Catford ................ .. 1898 .. . 1 ... 1 ... 0 ... 2 Tunbridge Wells ... 1903 ... 0 . ... 0 ... 1 ... 1 In Middlesex . . 6 ... 15 ... 5 ... 26 In Kent ... . . 11 . .. 11 ... 5 ,... 27 Totals ... 1796 ... 17 ... 26 ...10 ... 53 Except for two matches played in 1859 and two in 1868, the sides did not meetbetween 1796 and 1882. Prior to yesterday, Kent had not defeated Middlesex at Lord’s since 1893, losing seven and drawing four of the eleven matches played in the meantime. The substitute question has again been brought prominently before cricketers by what took place in last week’ s match between Sussex and Warwickshire at Hastings. Briefly, Dwyer, after bowling five overs, was injured, and the captains agreed that his place should be filled by J. W . Nason, a young local amateur of much promise. After the outcry that was raised two years ago, owing to a similar proceeding in a Gentle­ men v. Players’ match, it is, to say the least, surprising that another case should so soon occur, especially as the Committee of the M.C.C. have stated that such an action con­ stitutes an infringement of Law 37. It is not improbable that the matter will be