Cricket 1907

330 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. A ug . 8, 1907. do not love cricket, but merely want to be amused at a cricket match in much the same way as in a circus if it could be announced in so many words that Mr. Jessop would make 240 against Sussex on such and such a day. It is that, and that only, which the new cricket spectator is waiting for, and no doubt he will get it in time. But cricket will not be the gainer. A cornet - p l a y e r enlivened pro­ ceedings at the Oval on Bank Holiday by playing appropriate airs from time to time. Wlien the Notts team took the field, they did so to the strains of “ See the Conquering Hero comes,” whilst Hayward’s early retirement was greeted with “ Good-bye, Tommy.” O ne of the largest innings of the sea­ son was played by K. R. B. Fry at Cuck- field last week. It was a matter of 330 not out for Sussex Martlets against Cuckfield. and was a goodly proportion of the 553 runs which were made for five wickets. The following is the score of the inniDgs :— At Cuckfield, July 29 and 30. S ussex M artle ts . E. A. Insdale, b Attwater .. .. 0 K. E. B. Fry, not out .............. 330 L.D.Brownlee, c Phillips,b Knowles 65 Rev. T. H. Williams, c Knowles, b Woodcock .. ................. 28 G. H. Baker, b Knowles .. .. 6 F. A. Phillips, st Rowe, bKnowles 105 A. O. Snowden, not out.............. 3 Byes, &c................................... 16 Total (5 wkts)..............*553 * Innings declared closed. R. Simpson, W. G. Edwards, T. H. Chappie, A. Humble-Crofts did not bat. Cuckfield scored 102 and 145, and were defeated by an innings and 306 runs. K. R. B. F r y , who scored so largely in the above match, was born in the Bombay Presidency on March 15th, 1883, and was educated at Cheltenham and Cambridge, being in the former eleven three years and playing against Oxford in 1904. He has appeared for Sussex on a few occa­ sions, and is cousin of C. B. Fry. I t is one of the tragedies of modern cricket that Mr. James Douglas is unable to play regularly in first-class matches, for he is beyond doubt one of the best of present day amateur batsmen. Beiog a master at Dulwich College, however, prevents him from assisting his County before August, but when he does appear he invariably causes many bowlers to be painfully aware of the fact. He was bom at Norwood Green, Southall, in January, 1870, and played for Dulwich College from 1885 to 1889, and for Cambridge from 1892 to 1894. As he made his debut for Middlesex in 1893, his County career has already been a somewhat long one. His great innings at Taunton on Monday was full of vigour, as reference to the account of the match on page 334 will show. He never more plainly showed how valuable a man he is than in August, 1896, when on three occasions within a fortnight he and Stoddart made over 150 together for the first Middleeex wicket, scoring 178 v. Yorkshire, at Bradford, 158 v. Nott­ inghamshire, at Trent Bridge, and 166 v. Kent at Lord’s. The Sportsman remarks that it is a curious coincidence that two Public School captains, M. C. Bird, of Harrow, and J. I. Piggott, of Cheltenham, should be cousins, barn on the same day, March 25th, 1888. They are both to be con­ gratulated on finishing their school career in so brilliant a fashion. Piggott had hard luck in being brilliantly caught at cover-point on Friday, when seeming well set for bis century. I t so rarely happens that two brothers exceed the hundred in the same innings for a county that Suffolk’s score against the second eleven of Kent at Felixstowe on Monday and Tuesday last is worthy of a place in “ Gossip ” : — S uffolk . Quaife, run out ........................ ... 19 Capt. F. Wilson, b Troughton ... ...145 H. L. Wilson, c Bassett, b Morfee ...138 F. H. Mustard, not out................. ... 57 A. H. Lang, not out ................. ... 17 Byes, etc............................... ... 35 Total (3 wkts.) *411 ♦Innings declared closed. K. Raynor, H. A. Groom, S. Rowbotham, C. Catch- pole, H. F. Steel, and L. C. Smith did not bat. The match was drawn, Kent scoring 157 and 137 for three wickets. Few finer innings have been played this year than W. Payton’s 149 against Surrey at the Oval this week. It would, in any circumstances, have ranked as a capital display, but, as he made his runs at a critical time, and placed his side in a very favourable position after it had seemed likely they would be considerably in arrears on the first in n iD g s, his per­ formance was worthy of the greatest praise. Payton is still quite a young man—he was born on February 13th, 1882—and it was only in the latter part of the season before last that he was given a trial in the County Eleven. In seven completed innings that year he made 150 runs with an average of 21-42, his highest score being 6 6 not out against Derbyshire on the Derby ground. Last season he obtained 753 runs for Notting­ hamshire and averaged 25 10, hig largest innings being 131 against the West. Indians at Trent Bridge. He has very strong defence and a neat style, and, a* he showed on Tuesday, can hit well all round the wicket. He certainly appears to be a young player to whom no place in the world of cricket should prove beyond reach. One’ s sympathies are naturally with the weakest Bides, and therefore one hails Derbyshire’s triumph—it was nothing less—over Hampshire with much satisfaction. The winning side showed the finer cricket in all departments of the game, and thoroughly deserved their success. A pleasing feature of the match was the fine all-round cricket of Cadman, who played an innings of 40 and took nine wickets. In County Championship matches last season his batting average was 18-70, whilst his 40 wickets were taken at a cost of 38-40 runs each. B y his successful hitting at the Oval yesterday afternoon, Hayes came within an ace of making two sep irate hundreds in a match, and considering that he made his runs against the good bowling of Notts., his performance is one of which he may be pardonably proud. His scores were 95 and 104, which reminds me that against Sussex, at Brighton last year, he made 97 and not out 105. The present season, I may add, is bis twelfth as a member of the Surrey Eleven. The following are some of the latest hundreds: — JULY. 6 . F. A. Slade, Manhattan v. Montolan........ 100* 13. S. N. Chothia, Elpliinstone College v. Bom­ bay Gymkhana...................................... 109* 18. F. C. Evans, St. Albans v. Mimico Asylum 129 18. Capt. Greig, Poona Gymkhana, v. Com­ bined Colleges ...................................... 105 19. J. E. Mellon, Old Leysians v. St. John’s College, L.V.C.......................................... 141 22. E. A. C. Druce, J. Le Fleming’s XI. v. Jersey Leopards...................................... 104 22. S. E. Huntley, VV. W. Gill’s XL v. Hythe... 130 22. Munds, Hythe v. W. W. Gill’s XI............. 100* 22. H. J. Goodwin, Cambridgeshire Gentlemen v. Old Leysians...................................... 105 23. E. A. C. Druce, J. Le Fleming’s XI. v. East Surrey Regiment ............................... 132 24. B. H. Holloway, The Leys School v. Old Leysians ............................................. 103* 24. P. H. Slater, W.W. Gill’s XI. v. Shorncliffe Garrison ............................................. 135 25. A. C. Edwards, Folkestonev.W.W.Gill’s XI. Ill* 25. E. Swindale, Pelham v. Newquay ....... 103 29. C. J. Robinson, Rev. F. C. Timins’ XI. v. Wye College .......... ........................ 132 27. L. Stephens, Townley Park (3) v. Honor Oak ( 3 ) ..................................................... 185* 27. F. C. Festing, Depots R.M.L.I. v. Chatham Division R.M.L.I.................................... 121 27. A. S. Millward, Leyton Wesleyans v. Rom­ ford ..................................................... 100 ' 27. Hearne (G. G.), M.C.C. and Ground v. Goddingten............................................ 109* 29. L. F. O. S. Honey, Judde House v. Ferox Hall (Tonbridge School)........................ 107 29. K. R. B. Fry, Sussex Martlets v. Cuckfield (at Cuckfield) ...................................... 330* 29. F. A. Phillips, Sussex Martlets v. Cuckfield (at Cuckfield) ...................................... 105 29. G. Edwards, Coldstream Guards v. North Staffordshire Regiment...................... 122 29. C. V. L. Hooman, Longford v. Bulwell ... 116* 30. Capt. H. C. Baird, Band of Brothers v. R.A., Woolwich...................................... 101* 30. E. J. T. Robertson, Band of Brothers v. R.A., Woolwich ............................... 138' 30. A. U. M. O'Brien, R.A.,Woolwich v. Band of Brothers............................................. 108* 30. C. T. Mannes, Lord Eglington’s XI. v. Civil Service (Dublin) ........................ 113 30. Welford, Lord Bglington’s XI. v. Civil Service (Dublin) ............................. 112 30. G. Edwards, Coldstream Guards v. The King’s Regiment ............................. 174 30. A. Butcher, Bushey v. Herts. C. & G. ... 101 30. Lieut. E. 1). Matthews, R.G.A., Dover v. Lancing Old Boys ............................. 149 30. C. H. Cole, Old Shirbumians v. Chetnole Chappies (Sherborne) ....................... 200* 31. H. Teesdale, Old Wykehamists v. C. E. Hambro’s XI.......................................... 100 31. J. Leslie, Old Wykehamists v. C. E. Hambro’s XI.......................................... 107 31. Munds, Kent 2nd XI.v. Middlesex 2nd XL 144 31. G. B. Sanderson, Free Foresters v. Shrop­ shire Gentlemen ............................. 104 31. D. R. Dangar, Ealing v. Shepherds Bush... 114 31. H. J. Sharpe, H.A.C. v. M.C.C. and Ground 115 31. C. B. Wood, Norbury Park v. White House 105 31. W. N. Roe, Chetnole Chappies v. Sherborne 121 31. A. U. M. O’Brien, R.A., Woolwich v. I. Zingari... ............................................ 107 31. P. Cartwright, Brighton Brunswick v. North of Thames ... ...................... 100*