Cricket 1907

S e p t . 5, 1907 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 395 reason to believe that he will prove a success on the hard, smooth wickets o f Australia. The wish, too, is certainly father of the thought. T he follow ing are some of the latest hundreds: — AUGUST. Thomas, Vancouver (B.C.) v. Oak Bay W. J. Fleury, Toronto v. St. Albans ......... W. Whitaker, Mimico Asylum v. St. Albans G. K. Papillon, Woodbrook v. Na Shuler... D. G. Humble, Staten Island v. Yonkers... Sergt. Sutcliffe, Depot, R.M.L.I. v. St. George’s, Ramsgate............................... S. E. Busher, Barne3 v. Royal Garrison Artillery (Dover) ....................... ... tl. H. Mylne, 1st Border Regiment v. Eastern Telegraph Company (Gibraltar) E. J. Metcalfe, Free Foresters v. County Wicklow ............................................. P. R. Earnshaw, Barnes v. Hythe ......... Capt. H. S. Bush, Woolwich Garrison v. West K e n t............................................. Col. H. L. E. White, Woolwich Garrison v. West K e n t............................................. C. G. Hill, Bromley v. Bickley Park......... A. E. Pullen, Ealing Park v. Norwood Green ... ...................................... H. Laurie, Sevenoaks v. Westerham.......... L. G. A. Collins, Folkestone v. Band of Brothers ... ...................................... D. Jennings, Marlborough College Servants v. Malvern College Servants................. R. D. Slater, North Devon v. Somerset Stragglers ............................................. A. P. Day, Band of Brothers v. Folkestone J. S. Douglas, H. Vizard’s XII. v. J. Hardy’s XII. (at Sherborne School) ................. A. P. Duke, Bognor v. 2nd Sussex Vol. P. D. Geall, Bognor v. 2nd Sussex Vol. Kinneir, W. G. Quaife’s England XI. v. United Services (Mount Wise) ......... Quaifc (W.G.), W. G. Quaife’s England XI. v. United Services (Mount Wise)......... H. B. Etheridge, Finchley v. Hampstead... E. Matheson, Eastbourne v. Blue Mantles A. Sims, London County v. XV. Penge Tradesmen............................................. C. B. Grace, Mansfield Electricity Works v. Chesterfield Electricity Works G Langridge, Hayward’s Heath v. L. B. Schlesinger s XI...................................... C. Lavender, Hayward’s Heath v. L. B. Schlesinger’s XI...................................... Capt. Goodwyn, Devon Dumplings v. Som­ erset Stragglers...................................... Cadman, Derbyshire v. Denaby & District G. L. J essop , G loucestershire v . S ussex ( at H astings ) ...................................... J. N. C rawford , S urrey v . K ent ( at the O val ) .................................................... R. Truner, Tewkesbury v. Pershore ......... E. Arnold, W. G. Quaife’s England XI. v. Penzance XV.......................... ................ W. S. Bird, Stoke Edith v. Mrs. Leigh’s XI. S. J. S nooke , S outh A fricans v . S omerset ( at B ath ) ............................................. S. Brutton, Sidmouth v. Somerset Strag­ glers .................................................... G. Knowles, Worthing v Sussex Martlets... A. D. Goodwin,Worthing v. Sussex Martlets R. G. Couves, Enfield v. Upper Clapton ... W. Hunt, Albert Institute v. University Press (Cambridge) ............................... F. Webster, Burwell v. Cambridge Y.M.C.A. Munds, Kent Club and Ground v. Band of Brothers ................ ........................ Brydone, Wanstead v. Tottenham ......... N. Miller, Streatham v. Hampstead ......... French, Catford v. Alleyn ........................ M. R. Seymour, Upper Tooting v. Epsom... S. G. Etheridge, Barnet v. Honourable Artillery Company............................... J. Charnock, West Kent Wanderers v. Blackheath............................................. Wilson, L. & N. W. Railway v. St. Pancras J. Bowstead, Pallingswick v. Waldegrave Park .................................................... Cocke, Pallingswick v Waldegrave Park .. C. S. Wilkinson, London County v. Sutton H. Z. Baker, Beckenham v. Barnes ......... W.Harris, Crofton Park v. Derrick W’derers 109 101* 144 100* 110 101* 129 112 100 140 103* 104 101* 100* 112* 101 140 140 138 115* 108* 113 117 135 122 130 101 102* 137* 111 103* 103 126* 175 114* 157 132 118* 107 131* 100* 100 122 104* 137* 107* 106 151 110* 103* 112* 100 131 147 131* SEPTEMBER. 1. A. Ii. Kemp, Playgoers v. Coningsby......... 2. P. A . P e rrin , G entlem en o f South v. P layers of S outh ( at H astings ) 3. G. L. J essop , G entlemen of S outh v . P layers of S outh ( at H astings ) 3. H ayes , S urrey v . L eicestershire ( at the O val ) ................................................................ 3. K n ight, L e ice ste rsh ire v. S u rre y (at the Oval) .................................................... TH E SOUTH AFR ICANS . 29th M atch .— v . M.C.C. AND GROUND. Played at Lord’s on September '2, 3 and i. M.C.C. and Ground won by an innings and 9 runs. Much interest was naturally taken in the las^ appearance of the South Africans in London, and it was extremely unfortunate that rain should have restricted the play on the opening day to about three hours. The previous match between the two sides had been won by the tourists by three wickets, and it was only natural that the club should make a great effort to avenge their defeat. Very strong sides were available, though a mistake was made in including both Knox and Buckenham in the home side, and making Mead twelfth man. Fry was an absentee, but it cannot be said that he was greatly missed, for Basil Foster, who took his place, played a very good innings. Except that Smith appeared for Nourse, the South Africans had practically their best team doing duty. No play was possible owing to the rain until shortly before one o’clock, and there were three interruptions in the afternoon. The M.C.C. made a promising start, Warner and Douglas remaining together until 38, when the latter was caught at the wicket for 20, made in thirty-five minutes. Payne, after helping to add 30 for the second wicket, played on to White, who, with Schwarz, was bowling well and causing the batsmen much trouble. Tarrant, who followed in, was bowled by a full-pitch the second ball he received, whilst at 77 Braund returned a ball to Vogler, who brought off an easy caught-and-bowled. With four wickets down, the game was none too promising from the M.C C.’s point of view, but Hardstaff played a useful innings of 21, and helped Warner to put on 34 in twenty minutes for the fifth wicket. Upon his dismissal, Lawton came in, and at once settled down to confident cricket, bringing on a double change of bowling. Shortly afterwards Schwarz dismissed Warner leg-before-wicket for a steady and sound innings of 44, made out of 139 in one hundred and ten minutes. Six wickets were then down for 139, and, as it happened, the South Africans met with no further success during the day, Lawton and Foster remaining together until the close, and putting on 124 for the seventh wicket in sixty-five minutes without being separated. Both men played very attractive cricket, though Foster took some little time to settle down. Lawton reached 50 in fifty-five minutes, and carried out his bat for 72, whilst Foster, who was not out 51, batted an hour and five minutes for his runs. Play stopped just beforo 6 o’clock owing to bad light, six wickets being down for 263. On the second morning Lawton and Foster remained together until their stand for the seventh wicket had lasted eighty-five minutes and realised 169—the most remunerative against the South Africans during the whole of their tour. Lawton, having hit a dozen 4’s, was then caught at point for a vigorous innings of 89, which took him only one hundred minutes to compile. He hit splendidly all round the wicket. Shortly afterwards Foster was also sent back, by a catch in the slips, for a praiseworthy score of 86 made out of 178 in ninety-five minutes: his chief strokes wore a 5 and nine 4’s. The innings closed for 318, White having taken six of the wickets for 91. The visitors commenced their innings badly. At 14 Sinclair was caught off a skier, 3 later S. J. Snooke was caught at point, whilst at 19 Faulkner met with a similar fate. At this point Tarrant had taken three wickets for 13. White remained in Whilst only 13 were added, and following his dis­ missal Hathorn batted twenty-five minutes for 2. Schwarz, missed by Warner at point, helped to put on 20 before being finely run out by Lawton. Tancred completed his 50 out of 100 in two hours, and, when the innings closed for 135, was left to carry out his bat for a chanceless 61, included in which were a 5 and four 4’s. Mention should be made of the fine running catch made by Hardstaff which dismissed Sherwell. The South Africans were called upon to follow-on, 183 behind, and made a better start than in their first innings, Tancred and Sinclair scoring 40 together before a wicket fell. The former played another good innings, forsaking his usual steady methods, and making 42 out of 89 in fifty-five minutes. At quite the end of the day Knox disposed of S. J. Snooke and White, the South Africans, when stumps were drawn, being still 44 behind with six wickets in hand. During Tuesday night there was much rain, and, although it was found possible to resume play yesterday just before twelve o’clock, the wicket was greatly in favour of the bowlers. Hathom made only half-a-dozen before being caught at slip, and Schwarz was stumped without having scored. Five minutes later Faulkner fell to a capital catch in the slips for a well-played 36, and Vogler gave little trouble. Tarrant proved almost irresistible,and during the morning took five wickets for 11 runs in 75 balls. Score and analysis : M.O.O. and G round. P. F. Warner, lbw, b Schwarz ......... 44 J. Douglas, c Sherwell, b White ................ 20 M. W. Payne, b White 17 Tarrant, b White 2 Braund, c & b Vogler 4 Hardstaff, c Sherwell, b V o g le r................ 21 A.E.l .awton.cTancred, b W h ite.................89 B.S.Foster,c Schwarz, b White .................86 Buckenham, run out 0 Trott,b W hite.......... 2 N. A. Knox, not out... 1 B 23, lb 9 ..........32 Total ..318 S outh A fricans . First innings. L. J. Tancred, not out J. II Sinclair, c Douglas, b Tarrant........................ S. J. Snooke, c Douglas, b Tarrant ........................ G. A. Faulkner, c Douglas, b Tarrant........................ G. C. White, run ou t......... M. Hathorn, c Braund, b Tarrant ........................ R. O. Schwarz, run out ... W. A. Shalders, b Trott ... A. E. Vogler, c Buckenham, b B raund........................ P.W. Sherwell, c Hardstaff, b Tarrant ........................ H. E. Smith, b Braund B 11,1b 1, nb 1 .......... Second innings. 61 b Buckenham ... 42 7 b Buckenham ... 27 3 c Payne, b Knox 25 c Braund, b Tar- 0 r a n t ................36 6 c Trott, b Knox 0 2 c Trott, b Tarrant 6 12 st Payne, b Tar­ rant ................. 0 4 lbw, b Tarrant... 3 c Buckenham, b 22 Trott .......... 3 5 notout................. 6 0 c Foster, b Tar­ rant ................. 5 13 B 4, lb 7 ... 11 Total .................135 Total ...174 M.O.O. and G round. O. M. R, W. O. M. R. W. Vogler ... 20 6 82 2 Faulkner 6 0 44 0 Schwarz... 20 1 57 1 Sinclair.. 2 0 12 0 White ... 22.5 3 91 6 S outh A fricans . First innings. Second innings. O. M. R. W. O. M. R. W. Tarrant ... ... 29 8 65 5 ... ... 233 2 57 5 Trott ... ... 16 6 28 1 ... .. 12 6 21 1 Knox ... ... 2 1 5 0 ... ... 7 1 21 2 Buckenham .,.. 4 1 9 0 ... ... 11 2 38 2 Braund ... ... 6.3 1 15 2 ... ... 8 1 26 0 Knox delivered a no-ball. SURREY v. LEICESTERSHIRE. Played at the Oval on September 2, 3, and 4. Surrey won by 156 run?. In this, the last County Championship match of the season, play was possible for only two hours and a-half on the first day, rain greatly interfering with the game. Leicestershire gave a trial to E. Wood, a professional wicket-keeper, aged 40, who made a couple of catches, but missed Hayes when that player had made only 18. No start could be made until a quarter to one, and then Jayes, coming very quickly off the pitch, bowled with such effect that in three- quarters of an hour Surrey had lost half their wickets for 50. Hobbs was bowled at 9, Hayward caught and Crawford bowled at 22, Lord Dalmeny bowled by Odell at 47, and Marshal caught at the wicket three later. With the total 3i), Hayes, with 18 to his credit, was missed by Wood (E.), and the mistake had very serious consequences for the visitors. In partnership with Holland, 100 were added for the sixth wicket in an lioiir and a-quarter, the latter, who was then caught at mid-off, being content to keep his wicket up whilst Hayes hit. The latter made runs all round the wicket, and reached 50 out of 88 in seventy minutes, and 100 out of 144 in an hour and three- quarters. After Holland’s dismissal, Lees remained in with him whilst 43 runs were added without further loss. When rain brought the day’s play to a close, six wickets were down for 193, Hayes having made 115 out of 184 in 135 minutes. On Tuesday morning Lees was bowled before another run had been made, whilst Spring and Strudwick were dis­ missed before reaching double figures. When Smith went in, last man, some fierce hitting was witnessed, he and Hayes adding 62 in twenty minutes. Hayes was then caught at mid-off for a freely-hit innings of 157 made out of 272 in three hours. He made twenty 4’s, and, in addition to the chance already mentioned, might have been caught at mid-off when 140. When Leicestershire went in against a total of 281, a capital stand was made. Knight, missed twice in the slips when 9, and later (at 75) at long-off, made 34 in partnership with C. J. B. Wood, 20 with Whitehead, and 119 (in an hour and a-half) with King. He made 50 in two hours, 100 in 150 minutes, and, in all, 109