Cricket 1913

304 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. Jun e 14, 1913. Silverdale’s four bowlers all got wickets, C. F. Rushton, with 4 for 43,doing most damage. From our Lincolnshire correspondent came the following notes : One of the closest matches in Lincolnshire on Saturday was that at Skegness, where a Spilsby and District team met Skegness and District. On each side the batting was very regu­ lar, and to the 114 of Skegness Spilsby replied with 112. W. R. Morton (39) for the winners and H. W. Bidgood (27) for the losers were the chief contributors. An exceptionally keen game was played on the London Road ground, Grantham, the visiting team being Blackwell Colliery. Blackwell batted first, and the respectable score of 137 was made. Burnham, who the previous Monday scored 100*, was again in good form, and made 33, while Haslam was top scorer with 42. Grantham’s start was poor in the extreme, two batsmen— and good ones too—being out before a run was scored. Improve­ ment followed, but so close was the bowling of Miller and Wid- dowson that no less than 7 of the wickets were down with only 25 runs on, a heavy beating thus seeming in prospect. However, Appleby and Shaw gave the figures a decided lift, and when they were separated the score-book showed 60. The ninth wicket fell at the same total, but with Appleby and the pro. (Allen) together a capital stand was made for the last wicket, Appleby at length being caught after a well-played 30, and the total being 88. The game was well attended, and the cricket all round was smart. Amongst the visiting team were Simmonds, of the Sheffield United, F. C. Birch, of Queen’s Park Rangers, and Jones, of Rotherham. Not for several years had a Grantham team beaten Bottesford at Bottesford, but the feat was accomplished on Saturday, Grantham II. making 67 to Bottesford’s 57. Henson’s 23 was the great factor in Grantham’s innings, and with the ball Colling- wood again added to his fine record. A fortnight ago he took 4 wickets in 5 balls ; last Saturday he went one better— 4 in 4 balls ! Lincoln Lindum II. were again in good batting form. 162 (F. L. Howitt 50, J. R. Brailsford 33,G. T. Jessup 22) was their total, but they found their opponents, Collingham, in even better rungetting trim, 198 being made against them. One of the late comers, W. E. Cooper, it was who did most of the damage, his 69 being the best effort of the afternoon. There were seven double-figure innings for Collingham. Heavy scoring was seen in the fixture— Bolsover Colliery v. Grimsby Rovers. The home team (Bolsover) went in first, and at 250, with only 5 wickets down, cried, “ Hold ! enough ! ” But it was not nearly enough, for the Rovers gallantly responded, and when time came they had only lost 5 wickets, and had 213 runs up. ----------- T h e C e n t u r y L is t . M a y 31. Mead (C. P.), 100 (ret.), Mr. A. P. Boissier’s XI. v. R.N.C., Osborne. J u n e 2. A. C. Edwards, 104, Folkestone v. Dover College. Relf (A. E.), 117 (ret.), M.C.C. v. Wellingborough School. J u n e 3. J. W. H. T. Douglas, 105, Essex C. and G. v. Ilford. J u n e 4. Dutnall, 104, Kent C. and G. v. St. Lawrence, Canterbury. E. J. Metcalfe, 148, Eton Ramblers v. Eton College. C. W. Pepper, 148, Eastbourne v. Seaford. P. A. Perrin, 102*, M.C.C. v. Ipswich and E. Suffolk. W. E. Parke, 133*, 2nd Dhm. L.I. v. 1st East Lancs. Regt. Rev. E. B. Brutton, 104, Devon Dumphry’s v. Exeter. R. E. Hancock, 110, Exeter v. Devon Dumphry’s. J. J. Kearney, 104, Royal Agr. Coll. (Cirencester) v. Monkton Combe School. R. Kenward, 140, Wanderers v. Pallingswick. — . Boucher, 117, Pallingswick v. Wanderers. R. A. D. Brooks, 121, Dover Coll. v. Dover Wednesday. M. W. von Winckler, 105, Wadham v. Exeter. R. A. Clarke, 100*, Allhallows School v. Sidmouth. J u n e 5. Hearne (J. W.), 122*, M.C.C. v. Winchester College. Hatton, 107, Royal Naval Barracks v. Royal Marines (Devon- port). Goatly, 113, Surrey C. and G. v. Richmond. Abel (W. J.), 125, Surrey C. and G. v. Richmond. Col.-Sergt. Reed, 131*, Royal Berks Regt. v. Folkestone. C. E. Saunders, 115, Boston Park v. M.C.C. A. S. Ling, 165*, Boston Park v. M.C.C. Capt. O. Tritton, 114, Gent, of Warwickshire v. Gent, of Shrop­ shire. A. C. Williamson, 104*, Rev. E. Peake’s XI. v. Bradfield College. L. Woodroffe, 101*, Old Hall Master^ v. Wolverhampton. S. De Saram, 139*, Richmond v. M.C.C. J u n e 6. P. F. Quinlan, 169*, Dublin University v. Woodbrook. J u n e 7. H. Hargreaves, 133*, Richmond v. Barnes. E. W. H. Beaton, 102*, Hampstead v. Beckenham. Capt. K. R. McCloughlin, 135*, Beckenham v. Hampstead. A. J. Whyte, 119, Forest Hill v. Nat. Prov. Bank. T. J. Balkwill, 100, Forest Hill v. Nat. Prov. Bank. A. Jeacocke, 142, White House v. Battersea. J. R. Mason, 130*, Blackheath v. Incogniti. E. G. Read, 154, Heathfield v. Boston Park. H. C. Boden, 102*, Roehampton v. Finchley (E.). T. G. Grinter, 188*, S. Woodford v. Malden Wanderers. P. Kemp, 104, North London v. Highgate. J. S. Higgs, 116, Parson's Green v. Ealing Park. Dr. E. S. Littlejohn, 147*, Cane Hill Asylum v. King’s College, O. G. Norman, 100, L. C. & W. Bank v. Sutton. W. L. Meicznikowski, 105, Honor Oak v. Crofton Park. C. H. Titchmarsh, 103, Harpenden v. North Middlesex. W. S. Whiting, 127, Bath v. M.C.C. L. H. Strachan, 122*, Charterhouse v. Old Wykehamists. — . Chambers, in * , Northumberland v. Grange C.C. H. C. James, in * , Jesus College v. North Oxford. A. Clarkson, 101*, King Cross v. Halifax. J. Tate, 108*, Chester-le-Street v. Hendon. W. Micklethwaite, 100, Rotherham v. Hull. Rudston, 101*, Hull v. Rotherham. L. Wyatt, 103, Stalybridge v. Littleborough. — . Wilson, 114, Boughton Hall v. Northern. W. Sevenoaks, 109*, Lessness Park v. Sidcup. Golding, 118, Bushey v. South Hampstead. C. L. C. Clarke, 103*, Silwood Park v. Aldershot Command. C. L. Fabel, 138, Upper Tooting v. Charlton Park. T. Bowring, 184, Bruton Nomads v. Sherborne School. Capt. Greswell, 101, Old Buckenham Hall v. Carrow. N. C. Jacks, 107*, Teddington v. West Sheen. B. H. Holloway, 104, Sussex Martlets v. Westminster School. T. W. Morland, 137, Thornton Heath v. Guard’s Depot. H. Clegg, 102*, Thornton Heath v. Guard’s Depot. H. E. W. Prest, 103*, Old Abbeians v. Uppingham Rovers. BLANCO For Cleaning and Whitening White Buckskin and Canvas Shoes, Cricket Pads, and all other articles of a similar nature. It is prepared in a v e r y careful manner, and extra pre ca u tion s are taken t o en su re an eve n n ess of colour. It con ta in s n oth in g that w ill in any w a y Injure the article to w h ich it is a pplied, and if used as directed , a Splendid W h ite of a glossy, sa tin -lik e appearance and so ft silk y surface is ensured, w h ich will n o t readily rub off. “ BLANCO” CLOTH & LEATHER BALL For cleaning Suede, Ooze Calf, and Cloth Boots and Shoes, Cord Breeches, Suede Gloves, Cloth Spats, Leather and Cloth Leggings. Made in various shades of Colour. Sold by Athletic Dealers, Ironmongers, Oilmen, Stores, Boot and Shoe Dealers & c.