Cricket 1909

436 CR ICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. O c t . 28, 1909. The construction of the Demon Drivers is fully described in The E v o lu tio n of a C ricket B a t , which may be obtained free upon applica­ tion. BUSSEY’S CRICK ETE IWf 30VEP MAKE KEEP THEIR SHAPE-LAS ■' LO Nlhnlffl BALLS C A T A L O dU E UPON A PPLIC ATIO N . CATALO QU E UPON A P PL IC A T IO N . CA TA LOGU E UPON APPL IC A T IO N . EOOIBALLS IMPROVEDMAKE-KEEPTHEIR SHAPE-LASTLONGER AT THE SIGN OF THE WICKET. B y F. S. A sh ley -C ooper . CATALO GU E UPON A P PLIC ATIO N . BU S€= EYS 8 r DEMON D R I V E R S nfa H ARE OUTAMD OUT THE BEST. f O o th er g ra d e . 7 t 6 c 5 * - 4 -fe-- 4 £< 3 / 0 - 3 /- 2 % - * A _ CA TA LOQU B UPON A PPLIC A TIO N ! TO '> GEO. G. BUSSEY & Co., L td . 36 & 38, Queen Victoria St., LONDON. Manufactory — Timber Mills — PBCKHAM, S.E. ELMSWELL, SUFFOLK. A gents all over the w orld. N O T E W O R T H Y E V E N T S O F 1909. I . — T he S ides . It w ill probably come as a surprise to some to learn that during the past season scoring ruled somewhat lower than in 1908, when 23 36 runs were made on the average for every wicket lost. It is true that the low figure of 20-66 recorded in connection with the game in 1907—the most doleful of recent years from a weather point of view—was exceeded, as were also those of 1902 and 1903, but, on the whole, it was a dreary season for cricketers in general and for batsmen in particular. Perusal of the ap­ pended short table w ill show at a glance how the year’s record compares with those of other seasons during the past decade :— Year. Runs. Wkts. Aver. 1900 ... .. 157,480 . . 6,342 . . 24-83 1901 .. 188,716 . . 6,919 . . 27-27 1902 .. 154,037 . . 6,897 . . 22 33 1903 .. 141,358 . . 6,363 . . 22-21 1904 .. 179,264 . . 6,713 . . 26-70 1905 .. 189,170 . . 7,378 . . 25-63 1906 . 180,751 . . 7,159 . .. 7,402 . . 25-24 1907 .. 152,931 . . 20-66 1908 .. 167,288 .. 7,160 . . 23-36 1909 .. 161,677 . . 7,204 . . 22-44 W'hat may be described as official first-class cricket was played on as many as 51 grounds this year, but if - as I think should certainly be the case—the Australians’ matches at Glasgow and Cardiff were so classed the number would be 53. (The games mentioned were surely as importaut as the one between an England Eleven and a side styled Hamble- don which took place in 1908.) On only two grounds— the Oval and Lord’s— were over ten thousand runs made, and in each case the aggregate exceeded thirteen thousand five hundred. The exact figures were:— The Oval, 14,153 runs for 621 wickets (average 22-79) ; Lord ’s, 13,584 runs for 605 wickets (average 22-45). On the former ground the runs were made in twenty matches, and on the latter in twenty-one. The leading sides in the Championship Competition were Kent, Lancashire, York­ shire, Sussex, Surrey and Middlesex in the order named. In all matches in which those counties took part during the season their record was as follow s:— Runs Wkts. Runs Wkts. For. Lost. Aver. Side. Agt. taken. Aver. 10,872 35036-20 Kent ............10,213 514 19-86 8,917 360 24-76 Lancashire ... 7,652 429 17*83 10,384 424 24-49 Yorkshire ... 8,617 456 18-89 10,745 38527 90 Sussex ........... 10,533 450 23*40 13,065 54523 97 Surrey ........... 11,627 561 20 72 6,922 34220 23 Middlesex ... 7,140 311 22'95 If the order had been decided by subtracting “ average D u m b er of runs per wicket against” from “ average number of runs per wicket fo r ” — undoubtedly the best means of ascer­ taining the relative strength of various sides playing a long series of matches— the first fiv e counties would still have been in the order g iv eD , but Notts, Northants, Hamp­ shire and Somerset would have ranked above Middlesex. Kent could claim an advantage of 10 3 runs per wicket over their opponents, Lancashire of 6"9, Yorkshire of 5-6, Sussex of 4 5, and Surrey of 3 2. The figure of merit, if one may so term it, of the Australians was 5-0, compared with 8 6 in 1899, 8 5 in 1902 and 9-0 in 1905 : in Test matches it was 3'5, which means an advantage of 70 runs in a match wherein lorty wickets fall. From these figures it would be possible to draw various interesting deductions, and, for the benefit of those who care to do so, it may be added that during their recent tour the Australiaus made 12,397 runs for 468 wickets (average 26-48) and had 11,865 made against them for 554 wickets (average ‘21-41). These figures, of course, refer only to those matches which are officially regarded as first-class. During 1909 there were thirty-eight total scores of 400 or more, thirteen of which exceeded the fifth hundred. The largest innings were:— 742, Surrey v. Hampshire, at the Oval. 609 for six, Australians v. Essex, at Leyton. 593, Kent v. Gloucestershire, at Catford. 592 for nine, Lancashire v. Worcestershire, at Stour­ bridge. 578 for six, Worcestershire v. Warwickshire, at Edgbaston. 577, Oxford University v. Surrey, at Reigate. 567, An England X I. v. Australians, at Blackpool. 555, Kent v. Worcestershire, at Stourbridge. Two of these large scores, as w ill be seen, were made at Stourbridge, where 2,078 runs were obtained in the couple of matches played for the loss of only twenty-nine wickets. The heaviest-scoring matches of the year were:— 1,283 runs for 27 wickets.—An England Eleven v. Australians, at Blackpool. 1.158 runs for 34 wickets.—Essex v. Lancashire, at Leyton. 1.158 runs for 35 wickets.—Essex v. Gloucestershire, at Leyton. 1,144 runs for 33 wickets.—Gloucestershire v. Hamp­ shire, at Bristol. Seven others produced over eleven hundred runs each. The lowest-scoring match of the year was that between Gloucestershire and Middlesex, at Bristol, wherein thirty wickets went down— in the course of a single day— for 259 runs, the visitors, owing to Tarrant’s wonderful all-round cricket, winning by an innings. There were half-a-dozen instances of a side being dismissed for 50 or less:— 26.—Yorkshire v. Surrey, at the Oval. 33.—Gloucestershire v. Middlesex, at Bristol. 44.—Gloucestershire v. Notts, at Gloucester. 47.—Middlesex v. Sussex, at Lord’s. 48. —Gloucestershire v. Sussex, at Brighton. 49.—Leicestershire v. Northants, at Northampton. That Gloucestershire should collnpse in such fashion three times in a season is noteworthy, and attention deserves to be drawn to the fact that in their match with Surrey at the Oval Yorkshire were dismissed for the smallest total in their history, which dates back to 1833. There were more close finishes than usual. Four matches were decided by a single wicket and others by 5, 8, 9 and 10 runs. Fuithermore, when the Australians beat Somerset at Bath they did so nominally by two wickets but in reality by only one, for, owing to illness, W hitty was absent and so would have been unable to go in had the ninth wicket fallen. In the fir.-t match between Essex and the Australians 15 minutes remained when Mead (W.) went in, last mau, and joined Freeman (J.): the pair played out time, the last five overs were maidens, and when the game was given up the couuty still required 117 runs to save the innings defeat. Set 132 to win in 50 m inut‘ s v. Gloucestershire at Portsmouth, Hampshire scored 119 without loss in that time, Mead (C. P.) and C. B. F ry in. When “ time ” arrived in the match between Sussex and Middlesex at Brighton, the latter, with one wicket in hand, required 47 runs to w in : when Mignon (E.) (7 not out) went in, last man, and joined Murrell (H. R.) (57 not out) 25 minutes remained for play. Northants beat Derbyshire on the Derby ground by eight wickets one minutes before time. When stumps were drawn in the match at Bray (Ireland) between an England Eleven and the Australians the former, with four wickets in hand, required only 6 runs to win. The heaviest defeat was by an innings