Cricket 1908

O c t . 29, 1908. CR ICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 435 The construction of the Demon Drivers is fully described in 'Ihe Evolution ot a Cricket Bat, which may be obtained free upon applica­ tion. CATALOGU E UPON APPLIC ATION . CATALOGU E JPON A P PL IC A T IO N . CATALO GU E UPON APPLIC ATIO N . FMTBALLS IMPROVEDMAKE-KEEPTHEIR SHAPE-LASTLONCERl S Tj CATALOGUE UPON APPLIC ATION . S ^DEMON D R IV ER S 7 f e ARE OUTAND OUT THE BEST, J O nTHEH GRADES 7 - 6 - 5 '~ 4 re-4-'-3r6 - 3 r- 2 ,G -Z /- CA TA LOGU E UPON APPLIC ATION TO GEO. G. BUSSEY & Co.. L td .. 36 & 38, Queen Victoria St., LONDON. Manufactory — Timber Mills — PECKHAM, S.E. ELMSWELL, SUFFOLK. Agents all over the world. AT THE SIGN OF THE WICKET. By F. S. A s h le y -C o o p e r . NOTEWORTHY EVENTS OF 1908. I . — T he S id e s . During the season of 1908 there were 167,288 runs scored in first-class cricket for the loss of 7,ICO wickets, which yields an average of 23-36 runs for every wicket lowereJ. Compared with the figures of the previous nine years, the season's record was, on the whole, satisfactory:— Year. Runs. Wkts. Aver. 1890 160,341 6,513 26-00 1000 157,480 6,342 24‘83 1001 188,716 6,010 27 27 1002 154,037 6,807 22*33 1003 141,358 6,363 22*21 1004 170,264 6,713 26*70 1005 189,170 7,378 25*63 1006 180,751 7,150 25*24 1007 152,031 7.402 20*66 1908 167,288 7,160 23*36 It will at once be seen that scoring ruled higher during 1908 than in the previous season, but that, although practically the same number of wickets fell as in 1906, 13,463 less runs were obtained. On only two grounds—Lord’s and the Oval—were over ten thousand runs made, and in each case the aggregate exceeded fifteen thousand. The exact figures are:—Lord’s, 15,551 runs for 682 wickets (average 22*80);the Oval, 15,511 for 603 (average 25*72). On the former ground the runs were scored in twenty-two matches ; on the latter in twenty-one. The three leading sides in the Championship Com­ petition were Yorkshire, Kent, and Surrey, in the order named. In all matches in which those counties took part during the season their record was as follows :— Runs. Wkts. Runs. Wkts. For. Lost. Aver. Side Agt. Taken. Aver. 11.430...413...2767...Yorkshire... 8,025...520...15*43 10.604.. .381...*28*06...K en t.......... 9,526...494...19*28 12.724...431...20.52...Surrey ...11,148.. 536 . 20*70 A simple calculation shows that Yorkshire can claim an advantage of 12 24 runs per wicket over their opponents, Kent one of 8*78, and Surrey of 8*72. The superiority of Yorkshire over their nearest rivals is here very plainly shown, and the fact is made evident that they owed their success far more to their out-cricket than to their batting. During 1908 the number of total scores of 400 or more was fifty, nineteen of which exceeded the fifth hundred. The largest aggregates were:— 615, Kent v. Derbyshire, at Derby. 601-8, Kent v. Somerset, at Taunton. 506, Middlesex v. Somerset, at Lord’s. 589, Oxford University v. Gentlemen of England, at Oxford. 573-9, Essex v. Northants, at Northampton. 561, Kent v. Northants, at Gravesend. 566-8, Warwickshire v. Worcestershire, at Wor­ cester. 556, Worcestershire v. Warwickshire, at W or­ cester. Three of these large innings were compiled by Kent, whilst two of them were made against Somerset bowling and two at the expense of Northamptonshire. No such score was made either for or against the Champion County. The heaviest-scoring matches of the year were :— 1351 runs for 28 wickets, Worcestershire v. War­ wickshire, at Worcester. 1287 runs for 36 wickets, H. D. G. Leveson-Gower’s XI. v. Oxford University, at Eastbourne. 1262 runs for 26 wickets, Essex v. Kent, at Leyton. 1257 runs for 33 wickets, G. J. V. Weigall's XL v. Cambridge University, at Eastbourne. 1212 runs for 29 wickets, Hants, v. Worcestershire, at Southampton. Two of the three matches played at East bourne (the Saffrons) produced over 1,200 runs each, whilst Brighton, alone of the grounds upon which first-class cricket took place during the season, can claim to have had a four-figure aggregate reached in each of three consecutive games. The lowest- scoring match of the year was that between Middlesex and the Philade-phians at Lord’s, which was completed in a day, aud which produced only ‘229 runs for the loss of thirty- two wicke's. There were eight instances of a side bt ing dismissed for 50 or less :— 15/>. Northants v. Yorkshire, at Northampton. 27a. Northants v. Yorkshire, at Northampton. 33. Somerset v. Lancashire, at Manchester. 37. Philadelphians v. Kent, at Canterbury. 42. Northants v. Derbyshire, at Derby. 46. Kent v. Yorkshire, at Bradford. 49. Gentlemen of Ireland v.Yorkshire, at Dublin. 50. Essex v. Notts., at Nottingham. a signifies first innings ; b second. Northants, it will be seen, were twice disposed of in one match for an aggregate of 42 : one man was absent in each innings, so the total mentioned was made for the loss of eighteen wickets. The names of Northants and York­ shire are prominent in the above table, but not for identical reasons. There were several close finishes. Northamptonshire beat Lan­ cashire on the Northampton ground by one wicket, and Hampshire defeated Kent at Canterbury by the same margin. At Bristol, Middlesex got home with a couple of runs to spare in their match with Gloucestershire, after each side had made 278 in their first innings. In the match at Glossop between Derbyshire and Lancashire, the latter, when stumps where finally drawn, required two runs to win and had one wicket in hand. At Trent Bridge Gloucestershire beat Notts by 59 runs almost on the stroke of time, Wass being bowled by Dennett in what would in any case have been the last over of the day. The heaviest defeat was that by an int.ings and 321 runs administered by Yorkshire to Leicestershire on the latter’s ground, though it should be mentioned that at the Oval Surrey, after declaiing with three wickets in hand, beat Kent by an innings and 318. Lancashire, after closing their second innings against Somerset at Manchester with eight wickets down, won by 385 runs, and Surrey defeated HampsLire at the Oval by 342 runs after declaring with three wickets in hand. II.— T h e Batsm en. There were one hundred and ninety-seven partnerships of 10 0 or more runs during the season, the fol owing being the most remun­ erative :— 338 for 1st, T. Bowring (228) and H. Teesdale (108) ; Oxford University v. Gentlemen of England, at Oxford. 308 for 5th, J. N. Crawford (232) and Holland (87) ; Surrey v. Somerset, at the Oval. 206 for 4th, Woolley (152) and K. L. Hutchings (132) ; Kent v. Northants, at Gravesend. 240 for 4th, King (142) and Coe (127); Leicestershire v. Northants, at Northampton. 248 for 7th, Humphreys (140) and A. P. Day (118); Kent v. Somerset, at Taunton. 247 for 2nd, Hayward (164) and Hayes (136); Surrey v. Sussex, at the Oval. 246 for 7th, J. F. Ireland (123) and K. G. Macleod (119 not out); Cambridge University v. G. J. V. Weigall’s XI., at Eastbourne. 240 for 3rd, Seymour (171) and K. L. Hutchings (10*2); Kent v. Derbyshire, at Derby. 239 for 3rd, Marshal (167) and Hobbs (155); Surrey v. Kent, at the Oval. 237 for 1st, H. Teesdale (149) and Hon. C. N. Bruce (105); Oxford University v. H. D. G. Leveson- Gower’s XI., at Eastbourne. 236 for 4th, C. P. McGahey (230) and Major A. J. Turner(ll7); Essex v. Northants, at Northampton. 236 for 6th, V. F. S. Crawford (170) and Jayes ^77); Leicestershire v. Hampshire, at Leicester. 235 for 5th, B. J. T. Bosanquet (214) and Tarrant(82) ; England v. Yorkshire, at the Oval. *230 for 3rd, Llewellyn (154) and Thompson (01); M.C.C. and Ground v. Worcestershire, at Lord’s. 227 for 3rd, B. J. T. Bosanquet (135) and L. J. Moon (135); Middlesex v. Somerset, at Lord’s. 225 for 2nd, Tyldesley, J. T., (243) and A. Hartley (76); Lancashire v. Leicestershire, at Leicester. 221 for 3rd, II. K. Foster (215) and Cuffe (87); Wor­ cestershire v. Warwickshire, at Worcester.