Cricket 1910

3 ° 8 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. A u g u s t 4, 1910. holiday-time, the improvement took place at the most desirable time and followers of the game were not slow to avail themselves of it. On Monday over 48,000 persons pud for admission at Manchester, the Oval and Cant­ erbury alone, and it was estimated that quite 20,000 were present on each of the former grounds and over 12,000 on the last-named. The Canterbury Week, the most delightful of all cricket festivals, always appears to herald the close of the season, an i, writirg this on the second day of the Week, the unwelcome fact forces itself upon one that iu a month’s time not more than half-a-dozen, if iudeed so many, great matches will remain to be decided. The present is the sixty- ninth Week at Cauteibury, and although one is always apt to think that no times are like old times—and even during the last quarter of a centuiy many changes have taken place in conn* ction with the famous Week—it is not possible for any cricket lover to visit the old Cathedral city during its festival without obtaining the maximum of enjoyment. Perhaps I am somewhat biassed in my opinion, but 1 always feel that no cricket is quite like Kent cricket, and fur one to see Kent cricket to perfection one must be present on the St. Lawrence ground when the weather conditions are appropriate to the time of the year. Of all those who played in the first Week only two survive— Emilius Bayley, now the Rev. Sir Emilius Bayley Laurie, Bart., and the Hon. Spencer Ponsonby, now the Rt. Hon. Sir Spencer Ponsonby-Fane. Sir Emilius, now in his eighty-eighth year, had played his great innings of 152 for Eton against Harrow in the previous season, and did well in the two matches at Canterbury—Kent v. England and Gentlemen of Kent v. Gentlemen of England. In the former Kent, after scoring 278 in their first innings, were beaten by nine wickets, being got out by Lillywhite and Dean for 44 wheu they went in the second time. The result was so unexpected that many Kent people thought that the match had been sold, and Alfred Mynn was after­ wards hissed in Maidstone Market. Pilch and Felix, after making 98 and 74 respec­ tively in the first innings—they added 154 in partnership - di I not score a run between them in the second. Emilius Bayley carried out his bat for 5 and 17, in the second innings going right through the side and being the only member of the team to reach double-figures—a great performance seeing that such men as Adams, the Mynns, Pilch, Felix, Wenman and Dorrinton were playing. In the second match he made only 2 and 12, but the Kent side won by 173 runs. The fact that 159 of the 705 runs obtained in the litter game were extras furnishes an inter­ esting commentary on the state of the wickets which were in use in those far-distant days. And both the Beverley and the St. Lawrence grounds weie considered to be smoother than Lord’s - a fact which recalls the remark made by an old Nottinghamshire player some years after he had given up the game, “ Grounds weren't billiard-tables in those days, except so far as the pockets were c o n c e r n e d “ Emilius Bayley,” as he will always be remembered by cricketers, is the only survivor of the first match of the Week of 1842, for Sir Spencer Ponsonby-Fane took part only in the second game. The latter, now in his eighty-seventh year, made 3 not out in his first innings and had scored 13 in his second when Alfred Mynn bowled him. Canterbury may well be regarde I as the home of Kent cricket, seeing that tbe county have played matches there for over 130 years. Not all the games, however, have taken place on the same ground. In the eighteenth century matches were played first in the Old Park and, commencing in 1780, at Sir Horatio Mann’s seat, Bishopsbourne, close by. From 1835 until 1839 cricktt took place in St. Stephen’s Fields, but the County Eleven were never seen there. In 1840 the Beverley Ground come into use and seven years later tbe St. Lawrence—the present— Ground was first utilised. A little research shows that since 1777 Kent have played 132 matches on the various grounds mentioned. The names of some of their opponeuts will seem curious to those whose knowledge of the game is confine.1 to what has occurred during recent years : Maidstone, for instance, were met as far back as 1777, and in 1780 a match was played with the White Conduit C.O., which has been dead for over a hundred years. The Australians, Philadelphians and South Africans have all appearei at Canter­ bury, as well as the famous old Hambledon Club, which flourished long years before the M.C.C., now in 124th year, was established. M atches played by K ent at C anterbury . Date Won Lost ofFirst by by Against Match. Kent. Kent. Dwn. Tot. Australians................ 1882 5 5 1 11 England (XI. v. XI.)... 1S41 5 1ft 1 16 England (XI. v. XIII ) 1863 2 4 ft 6 England (XI. v. XIV.) 1861 2 0 0 2 England (XI. v. XVI.) 1860 1 0 0 1 England, Gents, of ...1881 1 0 0 1 Essex ....................... 1901 2 0 3 5 Gloucestershire.......... 1889 1 0 2 3 Hambledon................ 1781 1 4 0 5 Hampshire............... 1789 2 2 0 4 Lancashire................ 1879 2 4 5 11 Leicesteruhire .......... 1908 1 0 0 1 Maidstone ................ 1777 1 1 1* 3 M.C.C.......................... 1860 4 10 1 15 Middlesex ................ 1859 3 4 1 8 Notts ....................... 1845 1 3 2 6 Philadelphians.......... 1908 1 0 0 1 Somerset ............... 1894 0 1 0 1 South Africans.......... 1904 1 0 0 1 Surrey ....................... 1788 3 4 3 10 Sussex....................... 1S42 4 1 1 6 Warwickshire .......... 1894 1 0 1 2 White Conduit C.C. ...1786 0 1 0 1 Worcestershire .......... 1900 3 0 0 3 Yorkshire ....................................................... 18S5 1 4 4 9 Totals ......... 1777 48 58 26 132 * Result of match unrecorded. Kent did not play at Canterbury between 1789 and 1841. It is somewhat curious that Hampshire’s four appearances should cover a period of 120 years ; they were made in 1789, 1877, 1908 and 1909. Surrey did not play there between 1788 and 1862, Sussex between 1844 and 1906, nor Nottinghamshire between 1845 and 1877. In this c »lumn list week I gave particulars of an iunings of 419 played at Winchester College by Samuel Charles Bostock - not P. C. Bost' ck, as there stated. Further particulars have since reached me which may prove of interest to cricketers generally. Bostock made 28 luns (4, 4, 6, 6, 2, 6) off one over and 25 (4, 4 4, 4, 6, 3) off another. He is a right-handed batsman with a remarkably long reach and has many strokes. Generally a free scorer from the start, he is a strong driver on both si Ie3 of the wicket, has a good stroke past cover- point, and can hook well. He is also a medium-paced right-handed bowler, breaking both ways and at times swerving slightly from the off : in the field he is generally point or slip. Before obtaining his 419 he had made several good scores, including 125, 80, 72 and 80. For the Rev. A. G. Bather’s 2nd XI. this season his batting figures were 8 - 0 —419—623—77*87, whilst with the ball he took thirty-seven wickets for four runs each. He was born at Walton Heath, Surrey, in April, 1894. WARWICKSHIRE v. SURREY. Played at Edgbaston on July 28, 29 and 30. w. g . quatfe ’ s benefit . Surrey won by 42 runs. Business was responsible for the absence of Hay- ward from this match, but otherwise both sides were well represented. The game had been allotted as a benefit to Quaife, who had scored 19,668 runs and taken 344wickets for the county. Play on the opening day went somewhat in favour of Warwick­ shire, who, after dismissing Surrey for 241, replied with 145 for four wickets. Harrison and Hobbs were out for 22, but Hayes and Capt. Bush added 101 together in 65 minutes. The latter played the highest innings of the day, but was missed when 16: ten 4’s were included in his free display. Hayes, more subdued in his methods, took 130 minutes to score 67: he hit seven 4’s. Subsequently Smith made 38 by nine 4s and two singles, his first seven hits being boundaries. By consistent batting Warwickshiremade 145forfourwickets beforestumps were drawn, Quaife (31) and Foster (26) carrying out their bat at the end of the day. On the second morning the total was taken to 180, when both Quaife and Breeden were lbw. Foster, seventh out (at 222), played vigorous cricket for 77, for which lie batted 110minutes : he hit seven 4’s. Santall shaped well, but the others did little and Warwickshire’s lead amounted to 10 only. The wickets of Smith, the most successful bowler, cost over sixteen runs each. Harrison and Hobbs, in Surrey’s second innings, made 62 together for the first wicket, and the former and Hayes 33 for the second. Harrison scored 63 out of 166 in 150minutes, and hit five 4’s. Ducat failed, but Bush and Bird played freely, and at the end of the day Abel and Hitch added 62 with­ out further loss, Surrey, when play ceased, being 2S5 runs on with three wickets iu hand. On Satur­ day the innings closed for 330, leaving the home side 321 to win. Abel batted 85minutes for 49, but was let off on three occasions. Warwickshire lost Kinneir at 34, but at lunch had only one wicket down for 70. Lilley, however, was out immediately after the adjournment, and, despite an admirable innings by Foster, half the side were out for 161: the latter hit six 4’s during the 100 minutes he was in. Baker and Smith afterwards played well, but Surrey pulled off the game by 42 runs. Score and analysis:— S urrey . First innings. Second innings. Hobbs, c Foster, b Santall 10 cFoster,bCharles- worth .........40 Harrison, lbw, b Field ... 2 lbw, b Foster ... 63 Hayes, st Smith, b Quaife 67 b Field............... 16 Capt. H. S. Bush, b Field... 71 b Quaife .........45 Ducat, b Quaife............... 0 b Foster ......... 4 M. C. Bird, b Foster......... 7 c Smith, b Field 30 Abel (W. J.), b Santall ... 1 c and b Goodwin 49 Smith (W. C.), c Charles- c Charlesworth, b worth, b Field............... 38 Field ........... 4 Hitch, st Smith, b Quaife... 5 b Field .........40 Platt, c Goodwin, b Quaife 17 c Baker,b Santall 10 Strudwick, not out ......... 4 notout............... 0 B 10, lb5, w 1, nb3... 19 B17,lb9,wl,nb2 29 Total ............... 241 Total.........330 W arwickshire . Lilley, c Hayes, b Smith ... 10 lbw, b Smith ... 41 Kinneir, c Bush, b Smith... 29 c Hayes, b Smith 9 Charlesworth, c Hobbs, b Platt ............................ 30 lbw, b Platt ... 16 Quaife, lbw, b Smith.........37 b Hitch .......... 6 Baker, run out ... ... 5 c Hayes, b Smith 47 F. Ii. Foster, c Hayes, b c Harrison, b Hitch .............................77 Platt................ 68 C. L. Breeden, lbw, b Smith 0 c Bird, b Platt ... 2 Santall, not o u t............... 22 c Hayes, b Hitch 9 H. J. Goodwin, c Bird, b Hitch............................ 5 lbw, b Smith ... 16 Smith (E. J.), b Hitch ... 9 b Platt............... 31 Field, b Smith ............... 0 notout.............. 18 B 16, lb 5, w 4, nb 2... 27 B6,lb6, wl,nb2 15 Total........ 278 Total ............... 251 S urrey . O. M. R. W. O. M. R. W. Foster ......... 12 3 36 1 ......... 30 859 2 Field ......... 21 2 82 3 .......... 15 172 4 Santall ......... 11 2 48 2 .......... 21 556 1 Charlesworth. 2 0 15 0 ......... 9 118 1 Quaife ......... 11 0 41 4 .......... 22 380 1 Goodwin......... 6 1 16 1 Fieldbowled fourno-balls and Quaife one, and Santall and Charlesworth each one wide. W arw ickshire . Hobbs ......... 2 2 0 0 ......... Smith ......... 40 11 84 5 ......... 35 692 4 Hitch ... .. 25 4 76 3 .......... 26 596 2 Abel ......... 6 0 23 0 ......... 6 028 0 Platt ......... 14 5 27 1 ......... 14-4 5 31 4 Hayes ......... 2 0 8 0 ......... 3 016 0 Bird ......... 2 0 6 0 ......... Hitch bowled four no-balls and four wides and Abel one wide