Cricket 1907

Nov. 28, 1907. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 451 GEO, G. BUSSEY & CO., LTD., 36 & 38, Queen Victoria St., LONDON. Manufactory: TimberMills: PEOKHAM, S.E. ELMSWELL, SUFFOLK. AT THE SIGN OF THE WICKET. By F. 8. A s h lb y -C o o p b r . NOTEWORTHY EVENTS OF 1907. I . — T he S ides . During the season of 1907 only 152,931 runs were scored for the loss of 7,402 wickets, which yields an average of but 20*66 runs for every wicket lowered. Compared with the previous half-dozen years, the season’s record in this respect can scarcely be considered satisfactory — Year. Runs. Wkts. Aver. 1901 . . 188,716 .. 6,919 . . 6,897 . . 27-27 1902 . . 154,037 . 22-33 1903 . . 141,358 . 6,363 . . 22-21 1904 . . 170,264 .. 6,713 . . 26-70 1905 . . 189,170 .. 7,378 . . 25-63 1906 . . 180,751 .. 7,159 . 25-24 1907 . . 152,931 .. 7,402 . . 20-66 In all parts of the country matches were sadly interfered with by rain—or, as Bell18 Life once expressed it, “ the slippery state of the weather”—and, in consequence, several of the County clubs experienced a serious financial loss. Especially was this the case with Yorkshire, two of whose matches could not even be started on account of the un­ favourable conditions; and it was owing to the same cause that, at the end of May, Derbyshire were idle on seven of nine successive days on which they were supposed to play. The extent to which cricket was interrupted was almost unprecedented, and it was quite a relief when a season which was bound to furnish every player and regular follower of the game with memories of leaden skies and dreary waits in pavilions came to an end. For the South Africans, who considered, and not without good cause, that they stood a very fair chance of beating England on a good wicket, the weather experienced was especially unfortunate, for in not one of the Test Matches was it found possible to play the game to a finish under the conditions they desired. The doings of the visitors dwarfed everything else during the season, and the form they showed was so superior to what had been anticipated by the great majority of followers of the game over here, that it was only natural the side should be compared with the last team—that of 1905—which visited us from Australia. In all first-class matches the South Africans could claim an advantage of 6*22 runs per wicket over their opponents : the correspond­ ing figure of the Australians two years a?o was 9*05. With this data one can easily ascertain what an advantage of 9-05 in 1905 would be equivalent to in 1907 by using the following equation :— Average runs per wicket in 1905 : 9*05 ’• Average runs per wicket in 1907 : x. The short calculation necessary shows x to be 7*29, or that, roughly, the strength of the last Australian team was to that of the South African as 100 is to 85. It is not claimed that this represents the true facts of the case otherwise than from a simple manipulation of figures, but from whatever standpoint the statement is judged it cannot be far from expressing the real facts of the case. During 1906 as many as 10,000 runs were obtained on five different grounds—Lord’s, the Oval, Nottingham, Leicester, and Leyton —but last season such an aggregate was made on only the two first-named, 14,915 runs being scored for 714 wickets (average 20.88) at Lord’s, and 16,844 for 651 (average 25-87) at the Oval. In 1907 the South Africans, Surrey, and Sussex made over 10,000 runs each, the two county sides being in addition the only ones against which such an aggregate was obtained. Of the 30 scores of 400 or more registered, six exceed the fifth hundred :— 596, Kent v. Hampshire, at Tonbridge. 567-9, Worcestershire v. Kent, at Worcester. 552, Middlesex v. Somerset, at Taunton. 536, Worcestershire v. Hampshire, at Portsmouth. 515, Yorkshire v. Leicestershire, at Leicester. 505, Warwickshire v. Worcestershire, at Worcester. It is worthy of remark that Kent, who made the largest aggregate of the season, had the next best compiled against them. The heaviest-scoring match of the year was that at the Oval between Surrey and Middlesex, wherein 1215 runs were made for thirty-four wickets, and the only other which produced as many as 1200 was the previous matchbetween the same sides at Lord’s, in which 1201 were scored for the loss of twenty-eight wickets. The smallest aggregate obtained in a com­ pleted match was 229 for thirty wickets in the Yorkshire v. Leicestershire game at Hull, and the second lowest 264 for thirty in the Derbyshire v. Surrey match at Derby. A record for first-class inter-County cricket was set up whenGloucestershire dismissed North­ amptonshire, on the Gloucesterground, for 12; the same side also collapsed for 35 (one man absent) against Leicestershire at Northamp­ ton, and for 39 v. Kent on the same ground. Worcestershire, although disposed of for 28 by Yorkshire, at Bradford, never­ theless won by 30 runs, the totals being Worcestershire 155 and 28, Yorkshire 62 and 91. The third smallest total of the year was furnished by Sussex, who collapsed for 29 against the Lancashire attack at Manchester. The visit of Leicestershire to Lord’s to meet M.C.C. and Ground produced a tie, ten runs being required when the ninth county wicket fell in the second innings. The South Africans, after a splendid up-hill game defeated Kent by 2 runs, at Catford, whilst on three occasions a side triumphed by a single wicket, the closest margin possible, Leicestershire beating Northamptonshire, at Leicester, Essex defeating Sussex, at Leyton, and Lancashire, after declaring their first innings closed with seven wickets down, just getting the verdict against Leicestershire, at Blackpool. The heaviest defeat was that by an innings and 243 runs administered by Kent to Sussex, at Brighton, whilst at Bath the South Africans beat Somerset by 358 runs, and at Southend-on-Sea Surrey defeated Essex by 352 runs. II.— T he B atsmen . There were one hundred and sixty-eight partnerships of 100 or more runs during the season, the following being the most remunerative:— 303 for 3rd., R. E. Foster (174) and H. K. Foster (123*): Worcestershire v Kent, at Worcester. 274 for 1st., H. K. Foster (152) and Bowley, F. L. (110): Worcestershire v. Hampshire, at Ports­ mouth. 232 for 1st., P. F. Warner (149) and J. Douglas (79): Middlesex v. Surrey, at the Oval. 230 for 5th., Seymour, Jas. (164) and J. R. Mason (119*) : Kent v. Somerset, at Taunton. 228 for 5th., Lilley, A. (171) and Baker, C. S. (105): Warwickshire v. Worcestershire, at Worces- 225 for 2nd., Hayward, T. (105*) and Tyldesley, J. T. (99): An England XI. v. South Africans, at Scar­ borough. 222 for 2nd., Tyldesley, J. T. (114*) and P. F. Warner (113*) : England v. Nottinghamshire, at the . Ova). 220 for 4th., Tyldeslcy, J. T. (209) and Sharp, J. W. (174*): Lancashire v. Warwickshire, at Edgbas- ton. 219 for 1st., Hayward, T. (127) and Hobbs, J. B. (110) : Surrey v. Worcestershire, at Worcester. 214 for 1st., Hardinge, H. T. W. (129) and Woolley, F. E. (99) : Kent v. Sussex, at Brighton. * Signifies not out. There was no three - figure partnership recorded for the tenth wicket, but in point