Cricket 1908

J u l y 23, 1908. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 3«>3 CORNWALL v. DEVON. Played at Camborne on Ju ly 17 and 18. and won by Devon by 151 runs. Score and analysis :— D e v o x . First innings. Second innings. J . H. Carroll, b Whiting ... 26 c Whiting, b Tresawna ... 23 J . F. Orchard, b Whiting... 13 b Trevarthen ... 15 C. V. L. Hooman, c Coad, b Trevarthen ...............27 b Trevarthen .. 12 W. F. Sturt, c and b Whitins .......................... 0 b Trevarthen .. 1 Light, b Trevarthen ... 18 st Bickford-Smith. b Tresawna ... 15 J . G. Shelly, b Whiting ... 0 c Trevarthen, b Tresawna ... 2 Davis, c Hosking, b c Hosking, b Whiting .......................... 0 Trevarthen ... 3 Hawksworth, not out ... 42c Tresawna, b Trevarthen ... 6 L. Tamworth, st Bickford- Smith, b Trevarthen ... 1 b Whiting ... 20 Lieut. F . Christian, b c Bickford-Smith, Whiting ...............13 b Trevarthen... 39 Aston, b W h itin g ...............26not o u t .....................6 E xtras.......................... 9 Extras ... 13 T o t a l................175 C o r n w a ll . First innings. H. Tresawna, b Aston ... 5 W. Coad, b A sto n ................ 1 8 Hosking, b Aston ... J . C. Bickford-Smith, c Hawksworth, b Christian 37 A. B. Lubbock, c Carroll b Hawksworth .............. 1 Trevarthen, b Aston ... 14 E. Hawken, b Aston B. Bennetts, b Light G. Escott, b Christian J. Pascoe, c Carroll, Christian .............. Whiting, not out ... E xtras............... Total ...155 Second innings. run out ............... 0 c Hooman, b Aston .. ... 4 c Aston,b Hawks­ worth ...............15 b Aston . ... 0 c Aiton,b Hawks­ worth ............... 2 c Carroll, b A s t o n ............. 4 b A sto n ...............0 b A sto n .............. 8 not o u t .............. 25 c Tamworth, b Aston .............. 0 c Sturt, b Light 26 Extras ... 8 Total... .. 87 Total ... 92 D e v o n . First innings. Second innings. O. M. R. W. O. M. R. W. Whiting ... 24 2 80 7 ... 13 2 36 1 Tresawna ... 8 1 23 0 ... 13 0 55 3 Trevarthen ... 13 0 50 0 ... 25 8 51 6 Hosking ... 2 0 12 0 C o r n w a l l . First innings. Second innings. O. M. R. W. O. M. R. W. Hawksworth 12 3 31 1 ... 12 0 37 2 Aston ........... 12 3 32 5 ... 13 4 42 6 Light ......... 3 0 18 1 ... 5 0 5 1 Christian ... 2 1 4 3 Aston bowled one no-ball. BUCKINGHAMSHIRE v. SU RREY 2nd XI. Played at Aylesbury 011 Ju ly *21, and completed in a day, Surrey 2nd XI. winning by an innings and 87 runs. Score and analysis B ucks . First innings. Second innings. J. D. Montague, b Rushby 0 run o u t ................ D. Mackey, b Smith ... 0 st Stedman, b Sm ith ............... 2 R. W. Orton, st Stedman, b Smith ...........................17 b Rushby ... 0 A. W. Johnson, b Rushby... 1 c Stedman, b Rushby ... 6 Wright, c Davis, b Sm ith... 3 b Rushby ... 0 Page, c Platt, b Smith ... 6 c Stedman, b Rushby W. F. Lowndes, c and b Rushby .......................... 0 b Rushby ... 11 G. M. Faulkner, not out ... 7 c Baker, b Smith W. Wheeler, b Rushby ... 0 st Stedman, b S m ith .............. Golding, c Hitch, b Rushby 2 c Davis, b Smith Yickerstaffe, b Smith ... 1 n o t o u t ................ Byes ........................ 5 Byes, &c. ... Total........................ S u r r e y Goatley, b Wright ... 30 Hitch, st Montague, b Wright ............. 61 Baker, b Faulkner ... 3 H. S. Wrinch, b Faulkner .............. 1 Davis, st Montague, b Wright ...............25 Platt, c Wright, b Orton......................... 1 A. W. F. Rutty, c Vickerstaffe, b Wright .............. 18 Total .. 42 2 n d X L Blackledge. c and b Wright ............... 3 Smith(F. E.)cLowndes, b Wright ............... Rushby, st Montague, b Wright ... ... 10 Stedman, not out ... 9 Byes B u c k s . First innings. Second innings. O. M. R. W. O. M R. W. Rushby ... 15 7 16 5 ... 9 3 23 5 S m ith .............. 14 7 21 5 ... 8 2 19 4 S u r r e y 2 n d X I . O. M. R. W. O. M R. W. Faulkner ... 16 0 68 2 Wright ... 15 3 45 8 Vickerstaffe 5 0 40 0 , Golding .. 4 1 13 0 T H E C R I C K E T C R I S I S The following letter from Capt. W . E. Denison, who was President o f ihe M C .C . in 1892, appeared in the Times of Friday last :— Sir,—Representing Nottinghamshire on the Advisory Committee, I was much surprised at the passing of a motion, asserting so strongly as it did the great desire of the counties for this triangular contest, but am not at all surprised at the ex­ pressions of dissent which have subsequently appeared. On enquiry I found that several members of the Committee had been simply directed to support the M.C.C. and voted accordingly, but are by 110 means in agreement with the deductions which the M.C.C. have drawn, from their votes. The counties are represented as being enthusiastic in the m atter; I believe the.entire reverse to te the case. When the proposal was first brought forward our opinion in this country was that we did not care about it at all, but that, if it were the general wi*h of cricketers as represented by the M.C.C. that this contest should take place, we would loyally co-operate. Our position was one, not of. approval, but of acquiescence. I have enquired from several other leading counties and find that,they held identical views. 1 was surprised to hear on going to Lord’s that the M.C.C., unbiassed in the matter them­ selves, believed that they were carrying out the fervent desire of the counties. We have, I think, been at cross purposes through­ out, the M.C.C. promoting this scheme under the idea that it was the strong wish of the counties, while the counties acquiesced under the idea that they were obliging the M.C.C. I find it difficult to reconcile the position taken up by the M.C.C. with their statement to the Australian Board of Control that an objection on the part of the latter to a triangular contest should not be a reason for refusing a visit from them in 1909. I am quite certain of one thing, which is, that •there is a practically unanimous feeling that, if only one team come over to this country in 1909, that team should be the Australian one.—Yours faith­ fully, W. E. D e n iso n . Ossington, Newark, Nottinghamshire, Ju ly 15. On Thursday The Sporting Chronicle pub­ lished the following lrom its correspondent with the Lancashire team :— The announcement that Lancashire favour another meeting of the Advisory County Cricket Committee to reconsider the position with reference to the Imperial scheme and the virtual withdrawal of the invitation to Australia, except as participants in that triangular tourney, cannot cause the least surprise to anyone who has had knowledge of the tone and temper of Lancashire in reference to the subject. There was a time when Lancashire, Yorkshire, and Surrey entered into an understanding that they would oppose the triangular tournament, but Lanca­ shire have alone remained absolutely faithful to the original compact.. ‘ Mr. Horner, of Stockport, the treasurer to Lanca shire, has been the representative of the Palatinate on the Advisory Committee, and I am in a position to state on authority that Lancashire, Notts, and Essex voted against the all-important resolution at the meeting at Lord’s on Ju ly 3. Mr. C. E. Green, who is a past President of the M.C.C., has always vetoed the idea of this triangular test, suggested by Mr. Abe Bailey. I believe that at the last meeting of the Advisory Committee Mr. Horner asked “ Who is Abe Bailey—at any rate, who is he in the world of cricket ? ” Yes, that is the position. Why should the resources of Lancashire, Yorkshire, and Surrey—the three more concerned than any other shires—be taxed to carry out some cock and doodle fancy of a millionaire who has not even all the South African cricketers at his back? , Lancashire have always been antagonistic to this scheme. 1 believe that the Hon. Stanley Jackson is anxious that Mr. Leslie Poidevin should agitate for another meeting of the Advisory Committee, but Mr. Poidevin, when interviewed, said ;— “ Why should I agitate 1 It is a matter for the English counties to settle among themselves. I sent a long cablegram to the Australian Board of Control 011 Saturday night. That, of course, I cannot divulge, but 1 feel sure that the attitude of the M.C.C. is calculated to do Australian cricket a lot of harm and to undermine the authority of the Board of Control formed at the suggestion of the M.C.C. “ You know the Australians do not recognise the Advisory Committee. They know nothing of the Advisory Committee. They recognise the M.C.C. and look to them to keep their promise, implied or expressed. “ In reference to an invitation for 1909, I do not know what the Lancashire Committee have decided, but they have never favoured the tri­ angular business, and Mr. A. N. Hornby has both wired and written me saying that he favours Stanley Jackson’s attitude. Why should I agitate ! There is a strong feeling among the mem­ bers of the M.C.C. that the matter should be reconsidered, but I do not propose to take any action. The Australians are strongly opposed to the scheme, and it is just possible that, in view of the action of the Advisory Committee, they may not be so keen on coming to England at all next year.” “ M id -O n ,” who was in favour o f the Tournament taking place next year, made the following remarks in the course of an article contributed to the Melbourne A ge o f June 2nd “ The Australian Board of Control having decided not to send a team to England next year to take part in the matches suggested by the Marylcbone club, the question which chiefly concerns the Australian public is—Shall an endeavour be made by some other means to secure Australia’s representa­ tion in the proposed triangular contests of 1909? It will undoubtedly be very much against the desire of the Australian public that a big carnival com­ petition to decide the championship of the British Empire should be blocked and prevented solely through Australia’s refusal to take part in in. That refusal, as decided upon by the Board of Control, is based, like all the actions of that body, 011 financial considerations only, and its result threatens to be the regrettable degradation of Australians as sports­ men in tho eyes of the world. This is a matter of much greater concern to Australia than the question of Board of Control finances, and as that body is not prepared to join with England and South Africa in the proposed British Empire carnival, the possible concurrence of Australia, without the aid or patronage of the Board of Control, is certainly a matter which should be promptly and earnestly con­ sidered for the maintenance of Australia’s reputa­ tion as the home of good sporstmen. The Board of Control has had first offer, and has declined, but there is no reason why the in­ vitation of the Marylebone Club, if made to the cricketers of Australia through the trustees of the Sydney cricket ground or the Melbourne Cricket Club—or, better still, through the two combined— should not be accepted. Such a development would certainly please the people of Australia better than a break in the continuity of the Australians’ visits to England, and it certainly docs not follow that the representative cricketers of Australia should be prevented taking part in this great Empire scheme merely because a dozen individuals—many of whom have never had any prominent connection with cricket—will not support it until they have en­ deavoured to force some arrangement which may promise a better profit. At the present juncture it is beyond doubt that the public of Australia—and of England—would be pleased to hear of the Mary­ lebone Club inviting the trustees of the Sydney cricket ground and the committee of the Melbourne Cricket Club to undei take the arrangements which the Board of Control has seen fit to decline. There need be no doubt concerning the assistance and con­ currence of South Australia and the representative Australian players, who are naturally indignant at the treatment they experienced last season at the hands of impertinent upstart officials. Australian cricket has been allowed to drift amongst the quick­ sands of pettiness and mismanagement, and the sooner it is tugged back into smooth water and its governance re-established on a more dignified basis the better.” A N SW E R S T O C O R R E S P O N D E N T S . B r u c e E. G o r d o n , J. A. W a r d l e , H. A. B e a d l e , and P. E. D e l l —Many thanks for communications. P .L .J.S . (P eck h am ).— Hayward twice—for Eng­ land v. South A frica at the Oval and for Surrey v. Derbyshire on the same ground; Warner not at all. Twenty-two of the Clergy took part in the match at Woolwich on the 9th inst. between Diocese of Southwark (201) and Diocese of London (139). Young, the Essex bowler, took nine wickets for 25 runs in an innings of 71 for M.C.C. and Ground against Hampstead on Saturday.