Cricket 1913

232 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. M ay 24, 1913. put out Oldham for 27, Brook taking 8 wickets for 9 runs, and this after the home side had run up 235 for 9 (Holt 76), and had declared. For Rawtenstall v. Bacup George Leach took 8 for 51. For Rishton v. Church Newstead had 7 for 29. F. Cotterell (Crompton v. Glossop) took 8 for 45. Vost (Royton v. Heywood) had 7 for 28, In the North Yorkshire and South Durham League Guis- borough dismissed Stockton for 47 (H. D. Chapman 5 for 23, Bulmer 5 for 24), and the first Guisborough wicket did not fall till 65 had been posted. Brydon (5 for 24) and R. W. Lowson (5 for 48) bowled all through North Ormesby’s innings v. Bishop Auckland, and their side won a low-scoring match by 3 wickets. Thornaby beat Norton-on-Tees by one wicket, G. Nevison taking 7 for 23, while G. E. Pinder had 6 for 31 for the losers. Redcar went down heavily to West Hartlepool, for whom Smith took 6 for 20. Darlington was the only side to score at all heavily. Alfred Common (58), R. F. Turner (60), and R. Healey (43) all did well for them. Further south Holmes, the Yorkshire colt, again put up a century for Paddock. For Lascelies Hall v. Kirburton A. Pol­ lard took 8 for 28. J. Elms had 6 for 28 for Sheffield United v. Scarborough. A. Crowther played a fine century innings for Heckmondwike v. Cleckheaton. The latter had declared at 223 for 9, but Crowther, helped by W. H. Crossley and H. Rhodes, brought off a splendid victory for the home team within a minute of time. E. King (Elland v. Halifax) took 7 wickets for 12, the first 5 while only 3 were being scored off him. Walter Lees, on the opposite side, had 5 for 44. Hepworth (Morley v. Spen) took 5 for 8. F. Horner, for Skipton, had 6 for 44 at the expense of Harrogate. F. W. Elam’s 88 (Leeds v. Brighouse) and Oyston’s 7 for 30 for the same side, with Shaw’s 7 for 24 in opposition, must not be overlooked. Rogers made 88* for Brad­ ford v. King Cross, and Baxter 68* for King Cross v. Bradford. Auty scored 74 and took 6 for 49 for Birstall v. Dewsbury and Savil'e. Our Lincolnshire correspondent writes : Matches between Lincoln Lindum and Grantham have been played for many years, and are always full of interest. On Saturday two teams of each Club were engaged-—the first elevens at Lincoln, and the second at Grantham, and in each case the visitors had by far the better of the game. The principal match, at Lincoln, saw the Lindum with a strong j eleven, while Grantham were a man short. Lindum batted first, \ and though all but one of the team contributed, the sum total, 1 110, was far short of the estimate of such a fine eleven. E. Pul- lein's 21 was top score. Grantham set about their task in brisk fashion, Rooksby in particular playing dashing cricket, one hit carrying the ball well into the next field, and this though the Lindum ground is not ; by any means a small one. His 47 was one of the best of his many good efforts. No one else reached 20 ; but the Lindum total was easily passed, and Grantham won by 7 wickets. Those who decry cricket as a “ slow ” game ought to have been on the London Road ground, Grantham, on Saturday after­ noon ! As many as 297 runs were scored in a little over three hours. The Lincoln Lindum II. showed us really bright cricket. T. G. Baker made a fine 63, and with A. Bavin (27), R. H. John- j ston (26*), L. Pennell (25), the goodly total of 215 had been raised at the fall of the 9th wicket, when the closure was applied. This 215 included no less than 45 extras, which is certainly too great a proportion. Cooke (7 for 45) bowled very well indeed for Grantham. Grantham, after starting so steadily that they appeared | certain to save the game, crumpled up badly, and the ninth wicket fell some few minutes before the allotted time for 82 runs. One player had had such perfect confidence in his team’s saving the game without him that he had changed and gone off home ! Spalding Town were at Peterborough, and these met with a 1 rather severe defeat, the scores being Peterborough Town 141, Spalding Town 70. While it may be true that one man cannot play an eleven by himself, this match showed what a single player is capable of. H. Baynes, of Peterborough (who, if I mistake not, is a player of many years’ experience and a football referee— I dare not write that he is an old player, for cricketers never grow old !) was in great form. He made the highest score (42), and took all ten wickets at a cost of only 26 runs. Gainsborough Second team were in fine form on Saturday, beating their opponents—Retford St. Swithin’s— decisively. Retford only made 27, Clifton taking 5 of the wickets at very small cost, and Guyler 4. Gainsborough quickly hit off the re­ quired runs, and eventually made 171 for 9, the chief scorers being W. Newburn (54), A. White (33), and G. Hirst (30). Some centuries of the week :— May 12- —R. S. Tomkins, 131*, Pembroke II. v. Caius II. (Camb.). ,,14— R. D. Clark, 123, Sutton v. Wanderers. ,, 14— Alwin, 151, Young Surrey Players v. Kingston Town. ,, 15—W. Fenwick, 116, Emmanuel v. Sidney (Camb.). ,, 16— R. A. Lloyd, 103, Liverpool v. Cheltenham College. ,, 16— L. A. L. Slocock, 105, Liverpool v. Cheltenham College. ,, 16— J. N. Buchanan, 111, Free Foresters v. Household Brigade. ,, 17— A. Crowther, 118*, Heckmondwike v. Cleckheaton. ,, 17— Arthur Read, 109, Sutton v. Dulwich. ,, 17— P. B. Wyes, 101, Cyphers v. Ibis. ,, 17—A. C. Higgs, 141*, Parson’s Green v. Roehampton. ,, 17—R. W. Martyn, 127*, Pembroke v. Jesus (Camb.). ,, 17—-T. Murray, 190, Hill’s Plymouth v. Newport. ,, 17—M. A. S. Sturt, 175, Incogniti v. Charterhouse School. ,, 17— Lashbrooke, 127*, Werneth v. Middleton. ,, 17— P. Holmes, 102, Paddock v. Kirkheaton. ,, 17—•— . Gidden, 135, Union Castle v. Chartered Co. ,, 17—Mason, i n , Young Surrey Players v. Mitcham. ,, 17------. Mitchell, 105*, Bexley Heath Asylum v. North­ brook. ,, 17-------. Wayman, 100*, E. Molesey v. Malden W. ,, 17—R. E. Westmacott, 103*, Richmond v. Leatherhead. ,, 17-------. Tibbies, 143*, Leavesden Asylum v. Edgware. ,, 17— E. E. Thompson, 153*, Thetford G.S. v. Thetford. ,, 17—P. Smith, h i , Mount Pleasant v. Jarvis Brook. ,, 17— E. L. D. Lake, 116, Bury and West Suffolk v. Sudbury. ,, 17— F. T. Mann, 128, Mott Park v. Maidstone Church Institute. ,, 17— P. C. Parkin, 100*, Mott Park v. Maidstone Church Institute. ,, 17— B. E. Baker, 139, Haileybury College v. Mr. C. E. Winter’s XI. „ 17— A. A. M. Durand, 118, R.M.A. v. S.M.E. (Chatham). ,, 17— A. W\ Pegram, 101*, Gravesend v. Charlton Park. -------------------- --------------------------- Several correspondents have asked for the inscription on Shrewsbury’s tomb. It runs thus :— To the Memory of A rth ur S h r ew sbu r y for 28 years a member of the Notts County Cricket X I. and a renowned Cricketer. This monument was erected to perpetuate The esteem and regard of his relatives and friends. Born April n th , 1856, died May 19th, 1903. “ Our days on the earth are as a shadow, and there is no abiding.” Erected 1905. ONCE TRIED , ALWAYS U SED . THE “ PATTISSON ” HORSE BOOTS. S implest! Strongest!! Most E c onom ica l! Used in the R oyal and in Thousands of the Principal Gardens, and by the leading Cricket and G olf Clubs. SILVER MEDALS Royal Horticultural Society, 1904. Royal International Horticultural Exhibition, 1912. 1. H U N D RE D S OF TESTIM ON IALS. T h e F ie ld says :— “ As good as anything that could be devised.’ * D r. W . G. G ra ce writes “ The Best.” M r. S. A p te d (The O v a l):— “ The best I have ever used.” E X C L U S I V E L Y U S E D AT T H E OVAL FOR T H E LAST 1 0 YEARS. ---------------------------- .Fig. U. Illustrated Price Lists, with Testimonials, f -orn H. PATTISSON & CO., 4 -0 , Greyhound Lane, Streatham , S .W . --------------------------------------- -— —— ---------------------