Cricket 1911

Ju n e 17 , 19 1 1. CRICKET : A W EEK LY RECORD OP THE GAME. 257 The Race for th e Thou sand Runs. At the time of writing Tom Hayward looks safe, bar accidents, for the distinction of being the first batsman to reach a four-figure total in big cricket this season. This will be no new experience to the Surrey crack, who won the race in a canter in 1900 (when he scored his thousandth run on May 31st), by a short head in 1901, and quite easily in 1906 and 1908. The only other players who have thus distinguished themselves more than twice are Dr. W . G. Grace, who began totalling thousands at a period when scarcely anyone else except Jupp ever got near that mark, and who has fourteen “ firsts ” to his credit, Robert Abel (four) and John Tyldesley and Mr. C. B. Fry (three each). Here are the placed competitors in the race for the thousand in each season of the present century, with the dates on which each man reached four-figures :— 1910—Tyldesley (J. T.), June 18 ; Hobbs (J. B.), July 4; K. L. Hutchings, July 15. 1909—Hobbs (J. B.), June 5 ; Hayes (E. G.), June 22 ; W. Bardsley, July 5. 1908—Haywaid (T. W.), June 29; Hobbs (J. B.), July 2; Marshal (A), July 6. 1907—Tyldesley (J. T.), June 2G; Hobbs (J. B.), July 2; Hayward (T. W.), July 8. 1900—Hayward (T. W.), June 0; Tyldesley (J. T.), June 26; Hirst (G. H.), June 27. 1905—C. B. Fry, June 6; Denton (D.), June 26 ; M. A. Noble, June 27. 1904—C. B. Fry, June 14; Hayward (T. W.), June 25; Iremonger (J.), June 27. 1903—C. B. Fry, June 18; Hayward (T. W.), June 29; Gunn (J.), June 29. 1902—Abel (R.), June 23; V. T. Trumper, June 26; C. B. Fry, July 14. 1901— Hayward (T. W.), June 11 ; Abel (R.), June 11 ; Tyldesley (J. T.), June 15. It is worth while to note that in 1905 Tyldesley and Hayward, fourth and fifth respectively, were only very slightly behind Noble, who scored his 1,000th run about half-an-hour before lunch, while the Lancastrian was credited with his just before the interval, and Tom of Surrey with his just after it—all on different grounds. A close examination of these details gives to light several curious coincidences. An Australian was third in 1905 and in 1909; Tyldesley reached his 1,000 on June 26 in both 1906 and 1907, Hobbs his on July 2 both in 1907 and 1908; all three placed men in 1908 were members of the Surrey team ; Tyldesley, Hobbs and C. B. Fry each figure four times in the list, Hayward (seven times) alone being ahead of them in this respect. Up to 1882 the attainment of a four-figure total in first-class cricket was a rare feat, of which only eight or nine players had ever proved themselves capable. There were as many as ten batsmen in the 1,000 runs list in 1882, nine in 1883, 12 in 1884, seven in 1885, 13 in 1886. For the next six seasons the number never exceeded nine; but in 1893 it rose to 21, in 1895 there were 28, 1896 39, in 1899 56, and in 1901 61, which remains a record. The “ winners ” for the last twenty years of the nineteenth century may be shown briefly thus : —1881, A. N. Hornby (July 14); 1882, W . L. Murdoch (Australia) (July 14) ; 1883, Ulyett (G.) (July 19); 1884, W . G. Grace (August 7); 1885, Gunn (W .) (July 10); 1886, W. G. Grace (July 29); 1887, W . G. Grace (July 12); 1888, W. G. Grace (July 16); 1889, Barnes (W.) (July 18) ; 1890, Shrews­ bury (A.) (June 26); 1891, Abel (R.) (August 17); 1892, Shrewsbury (A.) (August 4 ); 1893, A. E. Stoddart (June 23); 1894, Brockwell (W. H.) (August 2 ); 1895, W . G. Grace (May 30); 1896, Abel (R.) (June 19) ; 1897, Abel (R.) (June 24); 1898, Tyldesley (J. T.) (July 15); 1899, Brown (J. T .' (June 22); and 1900, Hayward (T. W.) (May 31). Arthur Shrewsbury (1890) was the first man who ever reached four-figures before the end of June. In 1893 A, E. Stoddart put the record three days earlier. Two years later W . G. “ got there ” on May 30, and this last record is one that will need a lot of beating. J. N. P. LONDON SCOTTISH v. EALING.—Played at Ealing on June 10. Score:— L ondon S cottish . E. A. Bennett, c Worsley, b Wigg 22 C. Powell, b Worsley ................... 8 S. Lienard, b J. H. T olk cin ........... 5 !-<. Lienard, c J. H. Tolkein, b Hassan Shah .................................. 52 E. Hogg, c W igg, b Hassan Shah 42 H. R. Bowtell, b Thomas ........... 0 E. A. Homer, c Thomas, b Worsley 40 " " * . — - ^ 4 1 0 17 W. (J. Henderson, b Worsley G. T. Holford, lbw, b J. H. Tolkein R. A. Bennett, not o u t ................. A. Angus Thomas, b J. H. Tolkein B 13,lb 4 ........................... Total......... ... 199 E a lin g . J. B. Craik, b E. A. Bennett E. M. Martin, b E. A. Bennett ... E. Dunster, b S. Lienard ........... C. Tolkein, c Holford, b E. A. B en nett......................................... Hassan Shah, lbw, b S. Lienard... E. Worsley, b E. A. Bennett J. H. Tolkein, not o u t .................. T. H. Needham, c and b E. A. B en nett.......................................... A. H. Barrett, b E. A. Bennett... A. H. Wigg, c and b Hogg .......... H. H. Thomas, c and b E. A. B en n ett.......................................... Corr^spond^nc^. [The Editor docs not hold himself responsible for the opinions of his correspondents.] THE COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP. To the Editor of C ricket . Sin,—At the risk of being dubbed an anachronism, I submit the following with regard to the change in method of scoring for the Championship. The Lancashire scheme put a premium on wins , that of Somerset puts one on draws (for assuredly the average winner or loser on the first innings will not risk unduly the points, or point, already secured). Both H. P.-T. and the Rev. R. S. Holmes admit the superiority of wins over draws; yet both prefer Somerset’s proposal to Lancashire’s, which, as I (in the unavoidable absence of Euclid) may remark, is absurd. Again, both your contributors base their preference on the fact— or assumption—that a draw is intrinsically more creditable than a defeat; yet both are in the dark as to the reason for awarding one point to the side behind on the first innings. Mr. Holmes asks: (April 29) “ What is the sense?” of this award; and “ H. P .-T .” (May 6) asks why the loser on both innings should receive nothing. These criticisms have a surface justification, but betoken an entire absence of those second thoughts which are proverbially the best. A side that follows-on 300 behind on the second evening and succeeds in its struggle throughout the following day to avert defeat is surely worthy of differentiation from one that collapses a second time without an effort. “ ZUMMEKZET.” Ceylon, 23 May, 1911. STAFFORDSHIRE v. CHESHIRE.—Played at Stoke on June 12 and 18 and won by Staffordshire by 10 wickets. Score and analysis:— C h esh ire . First innings. Smoker, c Hollowood, b Barnes Mason, b Deyes .......................... E. Osborne, b D e y e s .................. K. Rigby, b Deyes .................. H. Horspool, c Briggs, b Deyes Moorhouse, b Deyes .................. F. G. Travers, b Barnes ........... Dr. S. A. Smith, b D eyes........... A. S. Turner, b Deyes ........... F. A. Jones, not out .................. J. Harrison, absent .................. Byes, &c................ Total........... Second innings. 12 c Poole, b Bucknell ... ... 0 12 run out........................... ... 25 14 b Sedgw ick.................. ... 22 2 b Barnes .................. ... 8 10 b Bucknell .................. ... 4 0 lbw, b Barnes .......... 5 16 c Briggs, b Barnes ... 5 0 b Barnes .................. ... 45 0 b Bucknell .................. ... 14 0 c and b Bucknell ... 15 0 not o u t .......................... ... 14 2 Byes, &c............. ... 7 68 Total ... 164 First innings. H. E. Bourne, run out ........... P. Briggs, b Mason .................. Hollowood, c Osborne, b Smith B. Meakin, lbw, b Mason........... H. Ratcliffe, b Sm ith.................. Nichols, lbw, b Turner ........... Barnes, b M ason.......................... Sedgwick, c Smith, b Mason ... Bucknell, c and b M ason ........... J. Poole, b Moorhouse ........... Deyes, not out .......................... Byes, &c............ Total........... First innings. S taffo rd sh ire . ................... 2 ................... 1 ......... 41 ........ 20 ......... 41 ......... 19 ......... 24 ......... 18 ......... 15 ......... 4 not out , Second innings. ...................209 C h e sh ir e . Byes, <&c. Second innings. O. M. R. W. O. M. R. W. Barnes ... ........... 12*3 3 34 2 ........... ........... 23 6 63 4 8 Deyes. ... ........... 12 1 32 7 ........... ........... 13 5 29 0 6 Sedgwick ........... 10 1 29 1 0 Bucknell ........... 15 5 32 4 Nichols ........... 1 0 4 0 0 1 Deyes and Sedgwick each bowled one no-ball. 14 S ta ffo r d sh ir e . 27 First innings. Second innings. 4 O. M. R. W. O. M. R. W. 4 Smoker ... ........... 1 0 7 0 ........... 4 Mason .......... 20 3 60 5 ........... !!! !” 4 0 13 0 Turner ... .......... 11 1 43 1 ........... ........... 35 1 10 0 0 Moorhouse ........... 7 1 32 1 ........... 8 Horspool... ........... 4 0 16 0 ........... Smith ........... 5 0 32 2 ........... Turner bowled one wide and Smith one no-ball