Cricket 1911

M a y 20,1911. CR ICKET : A W EEK LY RECORD OP THE GAME. 171 for Cambridge v. Oxford. “ Cobden’s Match” was that of 1870. T h e o n ly oth er m atch es betw een M idd lesex a n d the prem ier clu b d u rin g th e last h a lf-cen tu ry— th e sides m et as far b a ck as 1790— w ere p lay ed in 1864, a t L o rd ’s an d the o ld C attle M arket grou n d , Islin gton . G ru n d y an d W o o tto n , tw o sto ck bow lers o f the M .C.C., fou n d a trem en d ­ ous d ifferen ce b etw een th e tw o w ick ets p rov id ed , dism issing the co u n ty fo r 20 an d 154 a t L o rd ’s b u t h a v in g o v e r fou r hu ndred sco red again st th em at Islin gton . T h e M .C .C . w on on th e form er g rou n d b y fiv e w ickets, an d M iddlesex on th e la tter b y an inn ings an d 232 runs. In th e secon d m atch T o m H earn e scored 125 an d M r.— n ow P rofessor— Case 116 w ith o u t either m ak in g a leg h i t ; b u t “ Old G eorge ” H ea rn e, in th e sam e innings, o b ta in ed eig h t for a leg-hit, alth ou gh th e um p ire called on e sh ort. W il l ia m E a s t , whose sensational feat o f taking seven o f the last eight Lancashire wickets at a cost o f only eleven runs is quite the m ost remarkable bow ling perform ance o f the season thus far, is a native o f N ortham pton, and has been playing in the county team for sixteen years, getting his first trial before he had turned nineteen. A useful all-round player from the first, he did not achieve m arked success until 1899, when his batting average jum ped up over 30 per innings, and he headed the county’s batting table w ith 561 runs at 43‘15. H e ow ed his position partly to not outs. Northants was imm ensely strong in batting that year, every regular m ember o f the team averaging double figures, and nine batsmen over 20 . In 1900 East was m ore conspicuous with ball than bat. He had 53 w ickets at between 16 and 17 each ; Thom pson took 80 at 15 e a c h ; and Messrs. L . T. D riflield and W . Pinner practically accounted for the rest, w ith 18 and 13 wickets respectively. A year later Thom pson had 107 at under 34, East 62 at under 19, Mr. Driffield 2 0 ; no one else took m ore than seven. In 1902 Thom pson had 100, East 44, and no one else as m any as t e n ; in 1908 Thom pson had 92, East 70, neither’s average reaching 11, and no one else t e n ; and in 1904 Thompson had 99, East 85 (at under 1 1 each), and no one else ten ! In five successive seasons Thom pson took 478 wickets for the county, E ast 314, and all the other bowlers put on 186 among them . It w ould not be easy to find a parallel to this, one fancies. B oth m en were busy m aking runs during this time, too, Thom pson being m ore prolific than East. Up to the time o f their coun ty’s prom otion Thom pson had totalled 5,290 runs (average 34'12, highest score 186 not out) and taken 789 wickets (average 13’89) for it, and East had totalled 2,770 (average 20‘82, highest score 117) and taken 424 wickets (average 15-84). Besides Thom pson, only Messrs. W . H . Kingston and T. H orton had made m ore runs than East. E a s t ’ s form since then has been a good deal handicapped by lum b a go; but nevertheless he has done his side real good service. Thus far his highest score in first-class cricket is 86 not out v. Lancashire at Northampton in 1908. H e also took 7 wickets for 84 in that match, a m emorable one for his county, since, thanks to the coolness o f H ardy and W ells at the finish, they pulled it off by one w icket. In 1906 East had 81 wickets, but at the high cost o f 26 each ; in 1907 he took 80 at on ly 17 each, and in the tw o succeeding years had over 50 at very moderate cost. M e n t io n o f H ardy, w ho was playing at N orthampton when East brought off his great feat, rem inds one that on the same ground against N otts three years ago he took the last six wickets in 22 balls at a cost of only 1 1 runs—something very like a parallel to what East did. Neither before nor since has H ardy ever done anything to compare for a m om ent with this ; in the season w hich included his 6 for 1 1 his full bow ling record for the county was 11 for 377, so that his other five wickets cost 73 e a ch ! Though perhaps this is hardly a fair system of reckoning. M a n y w ho could not possibly be present in body must surely have been present in spirit at the cerem ony at Kensal Green on Thursday, when the last hom age of grief was paid to Australia’s great leader, the cheery captain o f Sussex, that splendid cricketer and popular fellow, W illiam L loyd M urdoch. D id any o f them recall a match at K ennington Oval, in August, 1884, when at the close of the first day’s play the score stood th u s'? A u stralia . A. C. Bannerman, c Read, b Peate ................................ 4 P. S. McDonnell, c Ulyett, b Peate .................................................. 103 W. L. Murdoch, n oto u t......................................................................... 145 H. J. H. Scott, not out ........................................................ 101 Extras ................................................................................. 10 For two wickets .......................................................... 3(53 And did any of them remem ber that P ercy M cD onnell and “ Tup ” Scott had preceded their old leader into the silent land ? No fewer than twelve o f the twenty-tw o who figured in that match are dead, and one of the two umpires (Pullin) has also paid the last great debt o f m ortality. M idwinter, Palm er, B oy le—W alter Bead, Barnes, Scotton, Shrewsbury, Ulyett, and Peate— all have gone ! C r ic k e t e r s everywhere w ill have heard w ith the greatest concern and regret that D r. E . M . Grace has again broken down in health, and will wish him a speedy and complete recovery. News received concerning him as we go to press is not reassuring, but the fact that he pulled through a serious illness a year ago enables one not to abandon hope. T h e follow in g are som e o f the latest hu ndreds ob ta in ed in m in or c r ic k e t :— April 8.—C. Armstrong, St. Kilda v. East Melbourne *121 ,, 8.—G. Cheswass, Northcote v. Fitzroy . . . . 107 ,, 8.—H. Bracher, North Melbourne v. Prahran. . *105 ,, 8.—A. Kenny, South Melbourne v. University.. 104 ,, 8.—T. Wame, Carlton v. Bichmond................... 100 May 6.—H. P. Grant, Kingston Town v. Putney St. Mary’s ....................................................*101 ,, 9.— Capt. Trotman, Royal Marine Artillery v. 2nd Battalion Lincoln Regt (Eastney). . *112 ,, 10.—E. Mathieson, South Lynn v. Eastbourne . . *100 ,, 10.—G. J. Willans, Masters v. Boys (Framling- h am )............................................................103 ,, 10.—Sergt. Graves, Royal Artillery (Dover) v. Folkestone ........................................... 107 ,, 10.—G.Wynne-Finch, Folkestone v. Royal Artillery (Dover) ...................................*136 „ 10.—E. G. Forbes-Adam, King’s College v. Jesus College (Cambridge) .................. *114 ,, 11.—O. Hughes, Clare College v. Christ’s College (Cambridge) ........................................... 100 ,, 11.—L. W. Bridges, Selwyn College v. Fitz- William Hall (Cambridge) .................. 119 ,, 11.—R. H. Twining, Magdalen College v. Exeter College (Oxford) ...................................119 ,, 11.—G. T. B. Harvey, Corpus College v. Peter- house (Cambridge)...................................*107 ,, 12.—E. L. Kidd, Pembroke College v. St. John’s College (Cambridge) ........................... 112 ,, 12.—S. E. Baker, Sidney College v. Selwyn College ................................................... *101 ,, 12.—C. L. Bruton, Keble College v. Merton College (Oxford) ...................................105 ,, 12.—G. G. Newman, Keble College v. Merton College (Oxford) ...................................110 „ 13.—Donaldson, Hampstead v. Ealing .. .. 140 ,, 13.—Birley, St. Thomas’ Hospital v. Chiswick P a r k ........................................................... I l l ,, 13.—Powell, Lloyd’s Register v. NewJBeckenham 132 ,, 13.—C. S. Hurst, Beckenham v. Upper Tooting. . *110 ,, 13.—R. R. Sandilands, Upper Tooting v. Beck­ enham ................................................... *116 ,, 13.—H. Millett, Sharnbrook v. Pyghtale Works (B ed ford )................................................... 116 ,, 13.—Cox, Alleyn v. Union Castle........................... *175 ,, 13.—S. J. Goodall, Dulwich v. Forest Hill. . .. 115 ,, 13.—Marsh, Derrick Wanderers v. Buckhurst H i l l ...........................................................*112 ,, 13.—C. R. Browne, South Lynn v. Eastbourne United B a n k s ...........................................123 ,, 13.—C. Gluyas, Boston Park v. Brixton . . .. 107