Cricket 1913

258 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. M a y 31, 1913. being the two highest scores on the side. W . E. Blackburn for Liverpool bowled excellently, his figures of 7 for 39 telling their own tale. It should be noted th at Sefton played Curtis (Leicestershire), their professional, though their rivals elected to dispense with professional aid. Tw enty years ago these clubs used to fulfil their fixtures with amateur talent only and some rare good games have I witnessed. Once Liverpool appeared a t Sefton Park — from memory it would be 1890 or ’91— with half a county te am ; at least it included four of the brothers Steel, A . G., D. Q., F. L., the late H. B ., with A. T. Kemble, most plucky of wicketkeepers— who does not remember him always standing right up to Mold’s expresses ?— E. C. Hornly and others of slightly less note. They only got 50 odd, the Seftonians winning easily, principally owing to good bowling on the part of Fred Jones, the best amateur fast bowler this district has ever possessed. --------- -— Stanley, a famous old club, beat Garston in handsome style, principally owing to forceful batting by Tosswill, one of the Liverpool footballers, who notched 72, and the good length bowling of Shirley Moore, 4 for 34. Waterloo Park were dis­ appointing, Liverpool Police beating them, owing to superior batting. Y et I cannot believe the result is a true reflex of the strength of the teams, for Waterloo Park are more powerful now than at any period in their history. Blackmore— recently home from India— is an acquisition to the batting strength of the side, and I look forward to better results in the future. Litherland beat Gateacre in a low scoring game— 75 to 41— principally owing to good bowling b y Kerr and W right, the former securing 6 for 18 and the latter 3 for 21. Leek for the losers batted in capital form. — --------- In the Birmingham League Mitchell and Butler’s, thanks mainly to J. F. Stevenson (58*), Wilkinson (58), H. G. Powell (42), and H. J. B ayley (31), passed Moseley’s total of 205 with only 6 wickets down. G. W. Stephens hit eleven 4’s in his 60 for the beaten side. Aston Unity declared at 268 for 5 v. West Bromwich Dartmonth. B. N. Davies (90, including thirteen 4’s) and th at old warrior C. R. Durban (39) put on 100 together for the first wicket, and George hit up 64*. The Dartmouth men could only make 130. A t Kidderminster the home side | drew with Handsworth Wood. F. M. Tomkinson (57), Capt. I Davidge (56) and S. J. Gethin (45) all did well for Kidderminster ; j for Handsworth Wood G. W. Field (57*), H. Harper (53*), and j J. H. Ccoper (6 for 51) distinguished themselves. Walsall put | out Dudley for 87, P. B. Pearman-Smith taking 5 for 24, and themselves scored 172 (A. T. Lyons 49). George Leach was again on the war-path in Lancashire, and | took 7 for 35 for Rawtenstall v. Nelson. J. Pollard, a slow left- j hander, for Enfield v. Accrington, had 6 for 17, and also made top score of the match, though th at was only 25. Run-getting in Lancashire generally did not rule high on Saturday. W. Hargreaves (6 for 36, Haslingden v. Bacup), Smoker (6 for 18, Colne v. Church), Parkin (6 for 33, Church v. Colne), Norbury | (7 for 17, East Lancashire v. Rishton), and E. Bowden (8 for 25, j Littleborough v. Crompton) were among the stumps. In the North Yorkshire and South Durham League the big thing of the day was the partnership of 155 for the first wicket of West Hartlepool v. Thornaby b y T. Kinch (86) and A. B. Horsley (56). A. L. Ford (5 for 27) helped Hartlepool to win ( easily. Bulmer (65 and 4 for 27) and H. W. Chapman (5 for 22) j v/ere the chief figures in the victory achieved by the champions, | Guisborough, over Redcar. K . Healey (53) and R. F. Turner (6 for 47) enabled Darlington to beat Bishop Auckland. Stock­ ton defeated North Ormesby, T. I.inton making 65, A. Barrow- cliff 59*, while C. Barrowcliff took 5 for 51. Norton and Salt- burn drew. Shaw (7 for 21, including the hat trick, Y ork v. Castleford), Bailes (6 for 25, Chickcnley v. Spen), Knutton (7 for 15, B rad­ ford v. Brighouse), Hutchinson (6 for 16, Morley v. Heckmond- wike), King (6 for 43, Elland v. Batley), Elms (7 for 59, Sheffield United v. Ossett), and N. Fisher (5 for 21, Mirfield v. Dewsbury and Savile) were among the most successful bowlers in Yorkshire Council Cricket. Among the leading batsmen were P. E. Cooper, j who has been tried for Yorkshire (101*, fourteen 4's, for Rother­ ham v. Scarborough), C. Mackwood (95, Scarborough v. Rother­ ham, J. Chapman, the Derbyshire amateur (83*, Barnsley v. | Rastrick), and Robinson (82, Wakefield v. Keighley), In the Tyneside League there was a big surprise, Tynemouth defeating the County Club by nine runs. C. G. Arkwright (53) and G. L. Hunting (50) made bigger scores for the losers than any made on the winning side, but bad fielding at a critical period cost the crack team the match. Another one wicket victory was th at of Tynedale over Wallsend, following on a slump by the latter side after a good total had appeared likely. Milne (7 for 29) was again prominent for Benwell Hill, who beat their local rivals, Old Benwell, b y 40 runs before over 3,000 spectators. For St. George’s v. North Durham C. M. Skinner took 6 for 38, and H. S. Robinson hit up 100* (two 6’s, seventeen 4’s). M. C. Hill scored 58, and St. George’s won easily. South Northumberland (236 for 9, declared— W . Harrison 67, A. Blacklock 62) defeated Backworth Percy ; and R yton score] their first victory of the season, making 131 for 9 (r. Cau ‘licy 50) against 127 by the Old Novooastrians. C EN TU R Y LIST. May 17— E. H. Bourne, 112, Horley v. Reigate Hill. ,, 19— G. H. M. Cartwright, 102, M.C.C. v. Aldershot Command. „ 19— W . M. Wallace, 108*, K ing’s v. Trinity Hall (Camb.). „ 21— Lord B. Gordon-Lennox, 116, H. Bridgade v. R.A. „ 21— W. E. Parke, 145, Durham L.I. v. R .F .A . (Col­ chester) . „ 21— Spring, 147, Surrey C. and G. v. Purley. ,, 21— C. E. Dalton, 137, Vampires v. Ealing. ,, 21— A. H. Williams, 105, Dulwich v. Dulwich College. „ 22— H. R. G. Rhys, 174*, Shrewsbury School v. Shrews­ bury. „ 22— G. H. Heslop, 148, Lancing Coll. v. Hurstpierpoint Coll. „ 22— G. E. Palmer, 163, Lancing Coll. v. Hurstpierpoint Coll. ,, 22— S. H. Evershed, 159, Burton-on-T. v. Repton School ,, 22— Hon. J. S. R. Tufton, 125*, Folkestone v. Ashford. ,, 22— A. D. Whatman, 113, Easton Ramb. v. Gordon Highlanders. „ 22— P. Cartwright, 108, Brighton Brunswick v. Hastings. ,, 23— Capt. F. T. D. Wilson, 120, Aldershot Command v. R.M.C. „ 24— M. P. Bajana, 129, Shepherd’s Bush v. Cobham Village. „ 24— J. R. Bowstead, 100*, Pallingswick v. Upper Clapton. ,, 24— D. H. Butcher, 173, Upper Tooting v. Wimbledon. ,, 24— R . H. D. Bolton, 107, Blackheath v. Streatham. ,, 24— H. W. Weston, 143*, Walham Green v. Ealing Park. ,, 24— C. H. B. Blount, 106, R.M.C. v. Aldershot Command. „ 24— F. W. England, 100*, Parson’s Green v. Westbourne Park Wanderers. ,, 24— H. Z. Baker, 104, Beckenham v. Bickley Park. ,, 24— W . Adams, 100, Slough v. Ealing. ,, 24— S. S. Harris, 104, Sussex Martlets v. Lewes Priory. ,, 24— F. F. Boles, H2, Spencer v. Private Banks. „ 24— W. D. Bradley, 112, L.C. and W. Bank v. Streatham. „ 24— A. Snell, 134, Wanstead v. Finchley. ,, 24--------. Wyman, 129, Napsbury v. Architectural Assocn. „ 24— — . Gray, 101*, Hampstead Montrose v. Mill Hill. „ 24—-Barber. 109*, Longton v. Norton. „ 24— P. E . Cooper, 101*. Rotherham v. Scarborough. ,, 24—-G. S. Selmes, 110, Soutlibourne v. Eastbourne Trade Branch. ,, 24— W. Grevett, 104, Southbourne v. Eastbourne Trade Branch. ,, 24— A. J. Jempson, 101, E ye v. Brentzett. „ 24— A. M. Harrison, 104*, Worthing v. St. Peter’s (Brighton). „ 24— Rev. F. G. J. Page, 107, Mountfield v. Battle. „ 24— A. P. Hunter, 109*, Barnes v. H.A.C. ,, 24— H. S. Robinson, 100*, St. George’s v. North Durham. „ 24— C. W. Go lia r 1 , 110, Mr. C. W. Goddard’s X I . v. Norbury Park Wanderers. „ 24— C. W. Pollock, 143*, Durham Univ. v. Sheffield Univ. „ 24— C. R. Bridgnell, 113, Framlingham Masters v. Leiston. „ 24— H. M. Laines, 136, H \the v. Folkestone.