Cricket 1907

J une 6, 1907. CRICKET A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 179 Full details of the construction of the Demon=Drivers and other information of interest to GricKeters, w ill be foundiuin the booklet entitled The Evolution of a Cricket Bat, which m ay be obtained upon application, and from which the following extracts are taken s— D OUBTLESS buyers frequently wonder why it is that some bats are sold as low as 5a ., while others cannot be bought for less than 27s. 6d., both being made of similar material. The reason is very simple. The higher-priced bats, which must relatively be few in number, have to provide for the loss incurred in manufacturing the lower- priced bats, which are necessarily numerous. The figures here given approximately show the proportions of the various grades for 1,000 bats. They are based upon the average results produced in the ordinary course of manufacture. First or Best Division. / ■ ' \ 1st grade 2nd grade 3rd grade 4th grade 20 50 100 150 Second or Common Division. 5th grade Lower grades 260 430 1,000. It will thus he seen that the manufacturer who intends to meet the ever-increasing demand for really good cricket bats must carry an enormous stock of timber. The stock held by Geo. G. Bussey & Co., Ltd., represents 100,000 hats. The question is sometimes asked why the “ Demon Drivers ” are not more associated with the names of leading cricketers. It may be said, without presumption, that the answer involves a question of ethics which it iB not intended to enter into beyond mentioning the fact that Geo. G. Bussey & Co., Ltd. (or their predecessors, Geo. G. Bussey & Co.) have never published a testi­ monial relating to a cricket bat not purchased and paid for in the ordinary way of business. Cricketers all over the world are informed that orders for Bussey’ s goods should he placed with Dealers on the spot. Their manufactures are graded according to a properly devised system, which provides for cricketers purchasing from the dealers in the provinces or colonies receiving the same selection as if sent direct from the Factory, which is the largest and most up-to-date for the manufacture of Requisites for Sports and Games. GEO. G. BUSSEY & GO,, LTD, 36 & 38, Queen Victoria St., LONDON. Manufactory: Timber Mills : PEOKHAM, S.E. ELMSWELL, SUFFOLK. AT TH E SIGN OF THE W ICKE T , by F. S. A shlby -C oopbr . Perhaps the greatest disappointment caused by the weather this season has been the ab indonment of the match between Notts and Yorkshire at Trent Bridge. On the form previously shown by the two sides, it was thought that Notts would have stood an excellent chance of winning, for they could boast an unbeaten record, and were every­ where acknowledged to be a strong side, whereas Yorkshire had performed disappoint­ ingly on more than one occasion, and were suffering—dare I say it?—from anno domini. Like the Surrey team of a hundred years ago, many of the leading members of the York­ shire eleven are simultaneously getting perhaps just a trifle older than the average for heavy and continuous cricket work, and, although the side may do better when the warmer weather comes, it is very doubtful if they will ever again show such fine form as they did repeatedly a few seasons ago. It is as far back as 1891 since Notts defeated Yorkshire at Trent Bridge, but, this fact notwithstanding, Notts have won fifteen of the twenty-nine matches which have been played to a finish there, as the following table will show: Date of Won Won . 10 First by by c Ground. Match. Yorks. Notts Drawn. H 10 Bradford ... . . 1863 ... 1 ... 2 .. 4 .. 7 Nottingham 1863 ... 14 '.. 15 ... 15 .. 44 10 Dewsbury ... . . 1868 ... 0 ... 2 ... 1 .. 3 Sheffield ... . . 1869 ... 11 6 ... 10 .. 27 10 Prince’s ... . . 1872 ... 0 ... 1 ... 0 .. 1 Huddersfield . 1873 1 ... 1 ... 0 .. 2 10 Leeds .............. . 1894 ... 3 ... 0 ... 1 .. 4 Scarboro’ ... . . 1900 ... 0 ... 0 ... 1 .. 1 Hull .............. . 1902 ... 1 ... 0 .. 0 . 1 10 In Yorkshire . 1863 ... 17 ... 11 ... 17 .. 45 10 In Notts.............. . 1863 ... 14 ... 15 ... 15 .. 44 Neutral Ground . 1872 ... 0 ... 1 ... 0 .. 1 10 Grand Total . . 1863 ... 31 ... 27 ... 32 .. 90 10 Has any other match ever produced so many interesting struggles between bowlers? During the first twenty years of the fixture so much talent was found on each side that the match became known as 4 ‘ the battle of the bowlers,” and one has but to recall the names of some of the old players to understand how appropriate the title was. The match was not played during the time that Clarke flourished, but for Notts, such fine bowlers as Chris. Tinley, Jackson— “ a corkscrew at one end and a cannon at the other” — Wootton, G-rundy, Howitt, Alfred and J. C. ^haw, Martin McIntyre, and Attewell brought many a victory to the side, whilst Yorkshire could boast such giants as Slinn, Hodgson, Emmett, Freeman, Atkinson, Allan Hill, Ulyett, Peate, and Peel. All the above were very famous in their time, but only a few now remain with us, namely, Wootton, Attewell, Allan Hill, and Peel. Somebody once told me—I believe it was John Jackson—that when Grundy married, the united ages of his wife and himself amounted to only 32. Although the season has so far been a deplorable one so far as concerns the weather, there has certainly been more than the average amount of incident in connection with the play. On Wednesday last week Kent gained a brilliant victory over Derby­ shire at Chesterfield, and on Saturday proved successful at Northampton in an even more remarkable manner. Continuing their innings of 212 for four wickets, they scored 254 and afterwards disposed of Northamptonshire for totals of 60 and 39. The pitch was altogether to the liking of Blythe, who took all ten wickets for 30 runs in the first innings and, in the whole match, seventeen for 48. Only once before— b y the late Edmund H inkly, at L ord’ s in 1848— had any bowler taken all the wickets in an innings for Kent, and never had anyone obtained as many as seventeen in a match for the County. For the sake of reference a list is appended of the best instance* upon record of all ten wickets having been taken in an innings. A few of the cases cited— e.g., those by R . Holden, Lawrence, A . Cazenove, Slinn, Shaw (J. C.), etc.— did not occur in matches strictly first- class, but they are w orthy of mention. Wkts. Runs. Year. 10 for * , R. Holden, Gentlemen of England v. M.C.O.. at Lord’s .................... al818 * , Clarke, W., Nottinghamshire v. Leicestershire, at Nottingham... 1815 *, Hinkly, E., Kent v. England, at Lord’s ........................................ 1818 53, Lawrence, O., XXII. of Scotland v. The England Eleven, at Edin­ burgh ......................................... 1849 * , Wisden, J., North v. South, at Lord’s ..........................................31850 * , A. Cazenove, Oxford University v. Oxfordshire, at Oxford ............ 1853 74, V. E. Walker, England v. Surrey, at the Oval ...................................cl859 69, E. M. Grace, M.O.C. v. Gentlemen of Kent, at Canterbury .............^1862 23, Slinn, W., XXII. of Scarborough v. All England Eleven, at Scar­ borough ........................................ 1862 10 „ 37, V. E. Walker, Gentlemen of Mid­ dlesex v. Gentlemen of Kent, at Maidstone ................................ 1864 * , Wootton, G., All England Eleven v. Yorkshire, at Sheffield ........... 1865 104, V. E. Walker, Middlesex v. Lan­ cashire, at Manchester .......... 1865 66, W. B. Money, XIX. of Godalming v. U.S.E.E., at Broadwater ... 1867 46, Hickton, W., Lancashire v. Hamp­ shire, at Manchester ................ 1870 20, Shaw, J. O., XVI. of Nottingham­ shire v. England, at Eastwood Hall ............................................. 1870 38, S. E. Butler, Oxford University v. Cambridge University, at Lord’s 1871 129, Lillywhite, Jas., jun., South v. North, at Canterbury................. 1872 73, Shaw, A., M.O.C. and G. v. North, at Lord’s ...................................... 1874 43, Barratt, E., Players v. Australians, at the Oval ...............................el878 36, O.T.B. Turner, XXII. of Pathurst v. England, at Bathurst .......... 1881 66, G. Giffen, Anglo-Australian XI. v. Combined Australia, at Sydney 1884 49, W. G. Grace, M.O.O. and G. v. Oxford University, at Oxford .../1886 59, Burton, G., Middlesex v. Surrey, at the Oval ............................... 1888 69, S. M. J. Woods, Cambridge Univ. v. O. I. Thornton’s XI. at Cam­ bridge *..................................... 1890 10 „ 45, Richardson, T., Surrey v. Essex, at the Oval ...................................... 1894 32, Pickett, H., Essex v. Leicester­ shire, at Leyton ........................ 1895 49, Tyler, E. J., Somerset v. Surrey, at Taunton...................................... 1895 28, W. P. Howell, Australians v. Surrey, at the Oval ................. 1899 48, Bland, C. H. G., Sussex v. Kent,at Tonbridge ............................... 1899 55, Briggs, J., Lancashire v. Wor­ cestershire, at Manchester......... 1900 42, Trott, A. E., Middlesex v. Somer­ set, at Taunton ................. . 1900 90, Fielder, A., Players v. Gentlemen, at Lord’s ......................................#1906 40, Dennett, G., Gloucestershire v. Essex, at Bristol ........................ 1906 10 „ 30, Blythe, C , Kent v. Northants, at Northampton............................... 1907 ♦ No analysis preserved. a .—The arrangement was that Mr. Holden should bowl throughout from both wickets. b .—All bowled down, at a cost of scarcely 30 runs. c. —Mr. Walker scored not out 20 and 108,and took ten wickets for 74 (Jackson and Bickley bowling from the other end) and four for 17. d.— Mr. E. M. Grace, who was not qualified for the M.C.O., scored 192 not out, carrying his bat through the innings, and took ten wickets for 69 in the second innings of Kent, lt was a XII. a-side match, and one man was absent in the County’s second innings. “ E. M.” also took five wickets in the first innings. e .—Not one of Barratt’s wickets was bowled down. f.— Dr. W. G. Grace scored 104, and took two wickets for 60 and ten for 49. On the first evening