Cricket 1907

A ug . 8, 1907. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 329 hat woven with a hand-painted ribbon, with three rabbits on the front and four rabbits on the back, to commemorate his double hat trick in the match against Somerset at Lord’s. I n their two-day match against the Blue Mantles at Tunbridge Wells on Wednesday and Thursday last week, the Old Oliftonians made 427 for seven wickets after being 106 behind on the first inniogs. F. G. Robinson (18S) and B. Meakin (150) put on 310 runs together for the third wicket. A n alteration in the programme of the Scarborough “ Week ” has been decided upon, the match between Gentlemen and Playerj, which was down for decision on September 5tb, etc., beiDg substituted for one between North and South. A. E. S treet , the old Surrey cricketer, took all ten wickets ia an ianiogs for Lord Eglinton’s X I. against Civil Service (Dublin), at Eglintoa, on Tuesday of last week. N ot the least welcome feature of the cricket of the past week has been the success of Hirst as a bowler. Against Leicestershire, at Hull, he took eight wickets for 25 runs in the first innings and fifteen for 63 in the match. His chief successes with the ball in this country are now as follows: — W. R. Year 6 for 16, Yorkshire v. Sussex, at Sheffield ... 1892 5 for 12, Yorkshire v. Derby, at Leeds ... ... 1892 4 for 11, Yorkshire v. Notts, at Nottingham... 1893 5 for 9, Yorks, v. Somerset, at Huddersfield.. 1894 4 for 7, Yorkshire v. Surrey, at Oval .......... 1895 7 for 16, Yorkshire v. Essex, at Harrogate ... 1895 8 for 59, Yorkshire v. Warks., at Edgbaston... 1896 6 for 14. North v. South, at Hastings .......... 1896 13for149c |Yorks, v. Australia, at Bradford ... 1899 8 for 35, Players v. Gentlemen, at Scarboro’... 1900 5 for 11, Yorkshire v. Sussex, at Bradford ... 1901 7 for 21, Yorkshire v. Leicester,at Scarboro’... 1901 7 for 12a i 5 for 176 [ Yorkshire v. Essex, at Leyton ... 1901 12 for 29cJ 5 for 9, Yorkshire v. Australians, at Leeds... 1902 4 for 10, Yorkshire v. Glouces., at Sheffield ... 1903 7 for 21, North v. South, at Hastings .......... 1904 14 for 97, Yorkshire v. Notts., at Dewsbury ... 1906 7 for 18, Yorkshire v. Leicester, at Leeds ... 1906 5 for 15, Yorkshire v. Worcester, at Hull ... 1906 lg |Yorkshire v. Leicester, at Hull ... 1907 a Signifies 1 st innings, b second, and c both. Daring his long career—he made his debut for his county as far back as 1889 —Hirst has performed the hat-trick only twice in great matches, and on each occasion at the expense of Leicestershire. The first time was on the Leicester ground in 1895, the second at Hull last week. On Saturday, whilst takiDg part in a Huddersfield Leaguematch between Kirk- heaton and Linthwaite Hall, he again took three wickets in three balls, thus doing the hat-trick twice in three days. O. W . K. P fe iffer took four wickets with consecutive balls for Belsizs v. Hail- sham on Saturday. M r . K en neth L o th ering to n H utch ­ in g s ’ very pronounced success at Wor­ cester last week was most welcome for a variety of reasons. Followers of the game will be unanimous in hoping that his double-hundred performance will prove to be the first of several brilliant batting feats for, at his best, he is the most attractive batsman in the whole country to watch. Evidence of his form coincided with the news that he had been asked to visit Australia as a member of the M.C.C.’s team and that he would in all probability accept the invitation. As, like Braund and Humphries, he has definitely decided to make the journey, those of us who remain in the old country can confidently look forward to large scores from his bat, for the hard, true wickets of Australia should prove to his liking. In the Middlesex match at Tonbridge last year, he scored 125 and 97 not out, failing to obtain the double-hundred by three runs only. In the recent Worcestershire match, however, he was more fortunate, makiDg 109 and not out 109. M r . H utchings is a member of a cricketing family. Two of his brothers have, like himself, played in the Ton­ bridge Eleven and for Kent. His father made many a hundred in local matches iu the Southborough neighbourhood about thirty years ago, and was a slashing hitter. One of his uncles, the Rev. E. L. Colebrooke, was in the Oxford Eleven in 1880, whilst another, Mr. H . L. Cole­ brooke, was captain of Tonbridge in the eighties. T h e Worcestershire match, however, was noteworthy apart from Hutchings’ superb cricket. For the home side three of the Foster brotherhood performed iu a style which reminded one of the Graces at their best. Of the total of 456 for seven wickets made on the opening day, R. E. was responsible for 174, H. K. for 123 (retired), and G. N. for 78. On the Friday Mr. Dillon, who was leading the Kent side, refused to allow a substitute to field for Bowley, who was injured, unless he undertook not to bat in the second innings. As no such guarantee could be given, Worcestershire fielded with only ten men. The Kent captain, of course, had no justification whatever for taking up the attitude he did, his action being obviously due to a false impression of one of the laws. No appeal to the umpires to settle the point appears to have been made. A t Quetta last month Lieut. F. W. Townend, R N., scored 39, 204, and 71 in consecutive innings. O ne scarcely knows whether to con­ gratulate or sympathise with Tarrant on his bowling in the second innings of the Gloucestershire match at Bristol last Saturday—-whether to congratulate him upon taking four wickets with successive balls and obtaining an analysis of Dine for 41, or to condole with him upon fail­ ing to take all ten wickets in the innings owing to Hearne obtaining the last after he had lowered all the previous nine. The list of bowlers who have taken four wickets with consecutive balls in a great match is now as follows Joseph Wells, Kent v. Sussex, at Brighton ... 1862 G. Ulyett, England v. N.S.W., at Sydney ... 1878-79 G. Nash, Lancashire v. Somerset,at Manchester 1882 J. E. Shilton, Warwick, v. Leices.,at Edgbaston 1888 J. B. Hide, Sussex v. M.O.O. & G., at Lord’s ... 1890 W. H. Lockwood, Surrey v. Warks., at the Oval 1891 F. Shacklock, Notts v. Somerset, at Nottingham 1893 F. Martin, M.C.O. & G. v. Derby, at Lord’s ... 1895 A. Mold, Lancashire v. Notts, at Nottingham ... 1895 Mr. W. Brearley. Lancs, v. Somst., at Manchester 1905 A. E: Trott, Middlesex v. Somerset, at Lord’s ... 1907 F. A. Tarrant, Middlesex v. Glouces., at Bristol 1907 The feats by the Rev. A. Cazenove and Mr. J. Mack were performed in matches of slightly less impor­ tance than those mentioned above, and have, there­ fore, not been included in the list. I have frequently seen it stated that Tarrant is a nephew of the famous Cam­ bridge fast bowler of other days, but the latter’s full name was George Tarrant Wood, though few people were aware of the fact until it was recorded upon his tombstone. If, then, the Tarrant of to­ day really is a nephew of old “ Tear ’em,” perhaps his surname also is Wood. Can any reader enlighten me upon the point ? T oujours “ W. G.” I On Thursday last the G.O.M. made 102 not out against Cjphers, aDd on Monday 118 at the expense of the Catford bowlers. In each case the runs were made for London County. Can it be that he has his eye on the Test Match, which is to be played at the Oval on Monday week ? M r, J. G. K n a pm a n , of Westcliffe- on-Sea, writes to me as follows :— “ Will you allow me to hring to your notice the remarkable similarity between the scores of the Essex v. Surreymatch at Leyton in 1906 and the match between the same teams concluded at Southend on Saturday ? “ I will quote the scores at the close of each day’s play :— First day. Leyton, 1906 ... Surrey 342 Essex 23-4. Southend, 1907... Surrey 331 Essex 23-2. Second day. Leyton, 1906 ... Essex 145Surrey 300. Southend, 1907 ... Essex 151Surrey 350. Third day. Leyton, 1906 ... Essex 229Surrey won by268. Southend, 1907 ... Essex 178Surrey won by352. “ You will notice that although Surrey led by over 150 runs on the firBt innings in each match Lord Dalmeny did not enforce the ‘ follow-on ’ rule in either case. “ Perhaps the most remarkable feature common to the two matches is that Strud­ wick did not allow a single bye on either occasion. “ Another coincidence is that in the first innings of Essex, at Leyton, Knox took six wickets for 68 , while in the corresponding innings at Southend he got six wickets for 74, the difference of six runs in his analysis being equal to the difference of the Essex scores —145 at Leyton and 151 at Southend.” I n a recent match at Kings Bramley Manor, Lichfield, between I. Zingari and Gentlemen of Staffordshire, Sir T. C. O’Brien took seven wickets for 23 runs in an innings of 57. During all the years he played for Middlesex he bowled in eighteen matches for the County and took two wickets for 272 runs. W h a t a fine thing it would be, says the Sphere, for those oricket-lovers who