Cricket 1913

J u ly 12, 1913. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 397 nearly 200, but owed almost everything to Haywood and to | stands of 51 and 41 by Seymour and Thompson and Seymour and Walden respectively; the latter was out both times l.b.w. to Rhodes. Seymour hit three 6’s and six 4’s in his 75, and made 107 in fhe match. Haywood was in an hour and a-half for 58, including a 6 and four 4’s. Booth, in taking 7 for 64, did pretty much what Rhodes had done in the first innings. Moreover, he had the distinction of being the first bowler of the year to reach 100 wickets, a feat which was loudly applauded. With 233 for victory, the T ykes now started what proved an exciting struggle. The game looked lost with Rhodes, Denton, Wilson, and Booth all out for 54, but then in ninety minutes Kilner and Hirst restored the fight by adding 74. Nevertheless, they still wanted 57 on Wednesday, with five men in hand. On Wednesday, with Hirst out l.b.w. after batting admirably, this, effort proved ever so slightly beyond their powers, and Northants had the distinction of winning a sporting gam e by just 20. Kilner has perhaps never played so well, and his 91 deserved to win the match. There were no fewer than four l.b.w. decisions in the last innings, three of them to Thompson, who finished the gam e in start­ ling fashion. First Innings. N o rth a m p to n sh ire . Second Innings. Robert Relf putting up 159 for the second partnership in little more than two hours. Relf hit only three 4’s in his 62, to W ilson’s fourteen 4’s, but both were outshone by A. Relf, who by beautiful driving reached his 50 in forty minutes, and in all scored eleven 4 ’s. Vine, by way of con­ trast, perhaps, batted 135 minutes for 28. Tuesday’s close found Sussex six ahead, with,only half their men out. Vine and Jupp were out quickly on Wednesday before the rain came down at 332 for 7. The inevitable draw now loomed large; and the match petered out during an uninteresting afternoon. It will be seen that Geary bowled with judgment towards the finish, and that Mr. “ E x tra s” was a heavy con­ tributor to the big Sussex total of 413. L e ic e ste r sh ir e . First Innings. G. H. Salmon, c and b Relf (A. E.) Geary, not out ............... J. Shields, c Jupp, b Vincett B. 15, l.b. 2, n.b. 1 Total ................ 18 306 W. H. Denton, c Dolphin, b Hirst 9 b Booth ................ 5 Woolley (C. N.), b Hirst ................ 0 c Dolphin, b Booth ... 1 Haywood, b Booth ... ... 36 b Booth 58 S. G. Smith, c Hirst, b Rhodes ... 11 b Booth 5 Thompson, st Dolphin, b Rhodes ... 30 b Hirst ................ 9 J. S. Denton, Ibw, b Rhodes 2 c Rhodes, b Booth ... 20 Seymour (John), b Rhodes ... 32 c Denton, b Rhodes 75 Walden, lbw, b Rhodes ................ 4 lbw, b Rhodes 8 Freeman, c Booth, b Rhodes ... 7 not out 3 Buswell, not out 4 c Dolphin, b Booth ... 0 Murdin, c Wilson, b Rhodes 7 b Booth 2 L e g -b y e s............................ 3 B. 5, l.b. 3 ... 8 Total • •• 145 Total ... 194 First Innings. Y o r k s h ire . Second Innings. Rhodes, c Buswell, b Thompson ... 2 b Smith ................ 21 Wilson, b Thompson 12 c W. H. Denton, b Thompson l 12 1 )enton, b Thompson ................ ... 19 b Smith 8 Kilner, lbw, b Thompson ... ... 12 e Thompson, b Smith 9 1 Booth, e and b Smith ................ 16 lbw. b Thompson 1 Drake, b Smith ............................ ... 14 c Walden, b Smith ... 20 Hirst, b Thompson 3 lbw, b Murdin 3 ° Holmes, b Thompson ................ ... 10 not out ................ 19 Birtles, not out ............................ ••• 3 lbw, b Thompson 5 Sir A. W. White (capt.), st Buswell. b Smith i b Thompson ... 0 Dolphin, run out ............................ ... 6 lbw, b Thompson 1 B. 2, l.b. 7 ............... ... 9 Leg-byes ... 4 Total ................ ... 107 Total ... 212 Y o rksh ire B o w lers ’ A n a ly sis . O. M. R. W. O. M. R. W. Hirst ............................ 22 6 42 2 ... 16 4 40 1 Booth ... ... ... 13 2 34 1 ... 29 9 84 7 Rhodes ... ... ... 15*1 4 45 7 ... 17 4 86 2 Drake ... ... ... 7 1 21 0 ... 2 0 8 0 Kilner ... ... ... — — — 7 0 N o rth am pton sh ire B o w ler s ’ A n a lysis . O, M, K. W . O. M. R. W. Thompson L ...........................23 6 56 6 ... 45-2 20 76 5 Smith ... ... ... 22‘3 9 32 3 ••• 54 26 72 4 Woolley ... ... — — — ... 9 2 17 0 Murdin ............................— — __ — ... 6 1 30 1 Seymour ............................ — — — 4 0 13 0 Umpires : Barlow and Webb. C. J. B. Wood, c Keif (A. E.), b Cox 108 Whitehead, c Jupp. b Vincett ... 6 2 King, c Cartwright, b Jupp ... 63 Mounteney. b Vincett ...* ... 1 Astill. c Jupp. b Relf (A. E.) ... o W. N. Riley, c Street, b Rell (A. E.) 18 Coe, lbw, b Relf (A. K.) ... ... 8 Shipman, c Street, b Vincett ... 27 | S e co n d In n in g s. —C. J. B. Wood, b Roberts. 3 ; Whitehead, not out, 18 ; King, c Cartwright, b Roberts. 4 ; Mountenetf, not out, 11; b. 1, n.b. 2, 3—Total (for 2 wickets), 39. S u sse x . Relf (R.), c Shipman, b Coe ... 66 P. Cartwright, bGeary ................. o H. L. Wilson, b Coe ... ... 92 Vine, c Shields, b Shipman ... 32 Relf (A. E.), b Coe ... ... ... 64 H. P. Chaplin, c Shields, b Geary 4 Jupp, b Geary ......................... 37 Cox, b C o e ......................................... 37 Vincett, c Salmon, b Geary Roberts, b Shipman Street, not out ................ B. 14, l.b. 11, n.b. 8 Total S u ssex B o w ler s ’ A n a lysis . L eiceste r sh ir e B o w ler s ’ A n a ly sis . O. M. R. W. 0 . M. R. W. O. M. R. W. Roberts .. • 13 1 35 0 ... 9 1 21 2 Geary ■ 44 11 87 4 Relf (A. E.) 18 8 46 4 - 8 4 10 0 Astill 26 9 58 0 Cox . 32 10 73 1 ... — — — — King 15 1 48 0 Vincett • 36*3 14 98 4 ... — — — — Shipman 29 7 79 2 Jupp • 14 5 36 1 ... — — — — Coe 22-1 5 66 4 Cartwright — — . 0 5 0 Riley 3 1 '7 0 Vincett delivered one no-ball in the first innings. Wood 4 0 16 0 Roberts delivered two no-balls in the second Salmon ... 2 0 9 0 innings. Umpires : Atfield and Brown. Astill delivered six no-balls and King two no-ball s Lancashire v. Surrey. Sussex v. Leicestershire. At Hove, July 7, 8, and 9. Rain limited Monday’s play to about four hours, but the pitch, though slow, was never difficult, and Leicestershire did excellently in running up 241 for only three men. They had the satisfaction of scoring 142 for the first wicket, whereof Whitehead’s share was 62 in two hours ten minutes, including a 6, seven 4 ’s, and no chances. Wood notched his first hundred of the season, his only mistakes in four hours being faulty strokes at 43 and 4b. King batted better than either, his 63 out of 94 for the second w icket containing delightful drives. In striking con­ trast was Tuesday’s play, when Leicestershire, with the wicket at its worst, adopted forcing tatties. In fifty minutes the outstanding batsmen all fell for the addition of 65, Albert Relf delivering seven overs for 32 runs and 4 wickets. He was hit for five 4’s by Shipman, and Riley hit up 18 in ten minutes. Sussex made a splendid response, Wilson and At Manchester, July 7, 8, and 9. The pitch was dead when Surrey (still without Smith) started, and at 5 and 13 respectively Hobbs and Hayes were out to splendid catches. Then young Sandham stayed with old Tom Hayward to add 59 in fifty-five minutes. The veteran’s effort of 57 out of 90 in n o minutes w as especially valuable in the circumstances. Bird was twice missed in getting 24, but his forcing tactics were good value, and well contrasted with Harrison’s patience. O f the bowlers Dean was punished, but Huddleston’s 5 for 59 represented capital work. The visitors did wonderfully well in getting Hornby, Makepeace, and both Tyldesleys out for 48 on a drying pitch, so that on Monday night Lancashire were 164 in arrear. Twenty-one wickets fell on Tuesday for 256. Goatly (4 for 48) and Rushby (4 for 41) polished off the innings in eighty minutes. Ernest Tyldesley’s 36 occupied him the whole of that time. Holding a lead of 105, Surrey went in again on the tricky wicket, to fare badly. Hayward again batted steadily, but Bird’s dashing cricket was the feature. In sixty-five minutes he scored 54 out of 73, including a 6 and five 4’s, and Strud­ wick helped him to a valuable stand for the eighth wicket. Dean, though more expensive than Huddleston, had the satisfactory analysis of 7 for 70. Wanting 228 to win, the home eleven were literally a beaten side on Tuesday night, having lost five of their best run-getters for 75. Next day Ernest Tyldesley and Heap were both unhappily run out when making a great effort for their side. The former was top scorer in either innings with 36 and 27. Surrey won quite comfortably by 108. Spring has seldom bowled better than in this final innings, for he hit the wicket no fewer than five times. tt.h„'^'lNT£?’_^Volurae? of C ricket for ,88S. 1890, and 1894. State condition, s u ^ i i r L s . ' s s s ^ priceasked’ toMi"iagero<cr,cket' 25-whitc