Cricket 1908

Nov. 26, 1908. CR ICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 45 1 The construction of the Demon Drivers is fully described in 7 he Evolution ot a Cricket Bat , which may be obtained free upon applica­ tion. n jlEET ffi CRICKET IMF ROVEDMAKE-KEEP THEIR SHAPE LAS r LONGER CATALO QU E UPON APPLICATION . CATALO GU E UPON APPLIC ATIO N . CATAIOCUE ON APPLICATION. CATALO GU E UPON APPLIC ATION . BUSSEY'S g i g FOOTBALLS IMPROVEDMAKE-KEEPTHEIR SHAPE-LASTLONCER C ATALOGU E UPON APPLICATION . 8 ' 6 /„DEMON DRIVERS ARE OUT AND OUT THE BEST. _ , ! GRADES T -fi'-S t- A ’e -A r-3'e-3'-2 '< S -Z '- n CA TA LO GU E UPON APPLIC ATION TO GEO. 6. BUSSEY & Co.. L td .. 36 & 38. Queen Victoria St., LONDON. Manufactory — Timber Mills — PECKHAM, S.B. ELMSWELL, SUFFOLK. Agents all over the world. AT THE SIGN OF THE WICKET. By F. S. A shley -C oofer . NOTEWORTHY EVENTS OF 1908. (Continued from page 1*36.) I I I.— T he B ow lers . The fact that scoring ruled heavier during 1908 than in the previous season will have prepared one for the statement "that bowling triumphs were not so numerous as during the campaign of 1907. Hearne (J. T .) was the only player who succeeded in obtaining as many as nine wickets in an innings —a number he secured for 78 runs for Middlesex against Yorkshire at Bradford—and only Wass can claim to have taken more than fourteen in a match; the latter, in the match at Trent Bridge between Notts and Essex, dismissed sixteen of the latter at a cost of 103 runs—a feat which would have been noteworthy in any case, but which was rendered remarkable by the fact that he obtained all the wickets in the course of a single day’s play. From a figure point of view the following must rank as the most prominent performances of the season:— Wkts. Runs. 8 for 23, Cox (G.), Sussex v. Gloucestershire, at Brighton. Fairservice (W. J.), Kent v. Lancashire, at Manchester. Fairservice (VV. J.), Kent v. Phila­ delphians, at Canterbury. Haigh (S.), Yorkshire v. Surrey, at Leeds. 18, Hallam (A. W.), Notts v. M.C.C. and Ground, at Lord’s. Hardy, Northants v. Notts, at North­ ampton. Harry (F.), Lancashire v. Leicestershire, at Manchester. ) Hirst (G. H.),Yorkshire v. Northants, \ at Northampton. Mead (C. P.), Hampshire v. Northants, at Southampton. Newstead (J. T.), Yorkshire v. Leices- shire, at Leicester. Rhodes (W.), Yorkshire v. Leicestershire, at Leicester. 13, G. H. Simpson-Hayward, Worcestershire v. Oxford University, at Oxford. Woolley (F. E.), Kent v. Middlesex, at Lord’s. Hirst’s analyses at the expense of North­ amptonshire were little less than extra­ ordinary, the weakness of his opponents notwithstanding, but perhaps the best of the performances chronicled above was that of Woolley, who obtained his six wickets for eight runs in twenty-seven balls and thereby won the match for his side against time. The hat-trick was recorded on four occasions, the instances being as follows :— 0 , 14, 6 , 12, 6 , 13, 6 , 6 , U, 6 , 18, 6 12a 6 7 b 12 19c 7 , 186 8 , 21c 7 , 186 10 , 29c 6 , 17, 0 , 13, G » 8» Leicestershire W. W. Odell ... -I v. Northants, ( at Leicester. 1 Surrey v. Hants, at the Oval. Tarrant (F. A.) M.C.C. & G. v. ] J. Reunert. Cambs. Univ., [ C. E. Lucas, at Cambridge.) R.T.H.Mack L. T. Driffield. Hardy. F. T. Manning. A. J. L. Hill. Capt. W. N. White. E. M. Sprot. enzie. Buckenham (C.P.) Reeves (W.) Benham (C.) ) Notts, v. Essex, at Nottingham. There were also four instances of two bowlers being unchanged through both completed innings of their opponents:— Haigh (S .).............\ Yorkshire v. Northants, at Hirst (G. H .) ... / Northampton. Hallam (A. W.)... \Notts. v. Essex, at Notting- Wass (T.) .................. J ham. Lees (W. S.)... \Surrey v. Lancashire, at Man- . . . / C h e ste r. ^Middlesex v. Philadelphians, at Lord’s. over one hundred Rushby (T.) Tarrant (P. A.). Trott (A. E.) . Nine players obtained and fifty w'ickets during the season, Hirst taking one hundred and seventy-four (average 14-05), W. Brearley one hundred and sixty- three (average 10*17), Tarrant one hundred and sixty-nine (average 16*08), Blythe one hundred and ninety-seven (average 1 0 * 88 ), Relf (A. E.) one hundred and fifty-one (average 17*53), and Dennett one hundred and fifty-three (average 20*57). IV.— T h e W ick e t-K e e p e rs. To Huish fell the distinction of being the only wicket-keeper who, during the season, allowed neither byes nor leg-byes in the two completed innings of a match—a feat he performed at Catford in the match between Kent and Worcestershire, when the latter’s totals were 103 and 75. The largest number of extras allowed in an innings was forty- nine by J. R. C. Gannon for M.C.C. and Ground v. Leicestershire, at Lord’s—a match in which as many as 127 extras (73 byes) were chronicled. It is worthy of record that in the next great match played on the same ground, between M.C.C. and Ground and the Philadelphians, 80 extras (58 byes) were allowed, and that, there­ fore, two hundred and thirteen extras were scored in two consecutive games at headquarters. “ Mr. Extras’” partiality for Lord’s was very marked, as earlier in the season he had scored 93 (58 byes) in the match between M.C.C. and Ground and Cam­ bridge University, 79 (55 byes) in Gentlemen v. Players, and 89 (55 byes) in Middlesex v. Lancashire. These large totals recall the top-hat period when grounds were rough and extras naturally far more plentiful than in these days of pads and gloves and hard, smooth wickets. On no occasion during the season did a wicket-keeper dismiss as many as six men in an innings, but there were seven instances—two furnished by Huish—• of five batsmen being so disposed of. To the player named also fell the distinction of securing the largest number of dismissals in a match—eight (six caught and two stumped), for Keut v. Somerset, at Taunton—and it is worthy of remark that in the Tonbridge Week he brought about the downfall of thirteen men—six caught and one stumped against Gloucestershire, and four caught and two stumped against Essex. The only other players who disposed of as many as seven wickets in a match were Board, Gaukrodger, Murrell, Oates, and Phillips : Humphries, however, took seventeen in three successive games, although only forty-eight wickets of his opponents fell. The performances of the chief wicket-keepers of 1908 may be summarised thus:— Matches “ kept ” in. Caught. t J ft a 02 Total. Total Wkts. Fell. Per­ centage. Stedman (F.) ... ... 3 12 3 15 60 25-00 Freeman (J.) ... ... 4 10 3 1:5 54 24-07 Murrell (H. R.) 9 18 11 29 151 19-20 Bale (E.) ........... ... 9 21 7 28 151 18*54 Chidgey ........... ... 8 18 3 ■21 114 18-42 Watson ........... ... 9 19 2 21 114 18-42 Gaukrodger (G. A.) 11 25 6 81 178 17-41 Smith (E. J.) ... ... 6 13 3 16 92 17-39 Huish (F. H.) ... ... 29 57 29 86 514 16-73 Butt (H. R.) ... ... 31 55 16 71 442 16-06 Humphries (J.) ... 29 57 8 65 405 16-04 Board (J. H.) ... ... 26 40 25 65 408 15-93 L. J. Moon ... 8 12 6 18 113 15-92 R. E. H. Baily... ... 8 15 7 22 139 15-82 A. E. N ewton... 7 13 0 13 87 14-94 Oates (T.)........... ... 21 48 4 52 852 14-77 Stone (J.).......... ... 24 37 16 53 369 14-36 Phillips .......... ... 6 10 3 13 91 14-28 Strudwick (H.) ... 29 52 11 63 460 13-69 Russell (E.) ... ... 10 i<; 5 21 154 13-63 D. C. Robinson 7 12 1 13 99 1313 J. Shields.......... ... 21 33 8 41 317 12-93 Hunter (D.) ... ... 25 46 6 52 405 12-83 Worsley (W.) ... ... 18 36 3 39 305 12-78 A. G. Pawson... ... 5 7 4 11 87 12-64 Lilley (A. A.) ... ... 20 21 16 37 304 12-17 C. H. Winter ... ... 6 5 7 12 108 1111 Buswell (W. A.) ... 21 18 8 26 264 9-84 Only those players who obtained ten or more wickets are mentioned above.