Cricket 1914

J une 20, 19 14 . THE WORLD OF CRICKET. 257 F or Northumberland C. & G. v. Grange (Edinburgh) on Friday, Clifton, formerly of the Trent Bridge ground staff, twice did the hat trick in one innings. In the first instance all three batsmen were caught at short-ship, and the next man who came in was missed there first ball. In all Clifton took 8 for 7, the first six w ithout a run, and Grange tone man short) were out for 19. They made 254 in their second innings, when Clifton’s figures were 2 for 81. T h e ' sequel is interesting, for Grange won in the end by 48 runs, an unlooked-for result after their early slump. A s t il l more remarkable match was th at between Wellingborough School and Bedford Modern School, played a t Wellingborough on Wednesday in last week. The w icket was easy a t the outset, after heavy rain, and G. T. Carter (200 not out) and A. D. Denton (77), sent up 240 before Denton was dismissed. The innings was declared a t 315 for 2 ; and, w ith the pitch now playing very nastily, the Bedfordians were all out for 20, B. Wright taking 5 for 6. They made 98 in the follow-on. W e have been brought to book b y two or three corre­ spondents (whom we thank, for we like to be corrected when wrong) for pointing out what we thought a mistake in a contemporary (name of contemporary unmentioned, and the Editor of the W orld of C r ic k e t guiltless in the matter— the other man did it). The next hundred or so of bloomers perpetrated in th at particular organ shall go unchallenged by w ay of makeweight. (It won’t take long for them to score the century !) M e a n w h il e , what is this new meal which the P.M .G . mentions ? “ The w icket,” it says, " was very difficult after luffinch.” U gly name ; and, w ith all this fuss about un­ necessary tea intervals, an undesirable innovation. Stay, though— does it mean lunch ? T h e Star on the same day stated that W . P. Robertson “ evidently likes the Warwickshire bowling, for he made a century against the Midlanders last week.” Scorers at fault, doubtless ; they credited the runs to J. W . Hearne ! O n c e or twice lately these pages have been adorned b y specimens of cricket " as she is wrote ” in Canada. Bu t the following specimens are from a London evening paper— ought we to say the London evening paper ? " P. F . W a r n e r also played in favour of C. U . Peat.” Well, one grasps the meaning, but the manner of expression is a thought unusual. “ The newcomer cut the left-hander to the side.” Did he ? Now, if he had cut him straight ahead or behind, the fact would have been worthy of rem ark! F r a n k F o ster is evidently of a retiring disposition. It is said th a t he will retire from county cricket at the end of this season. Seriously, we hope not. Warwickshire could ill afford to lose him. Mr. A. D. T a y l o r points out th at Vine’s appearance for Sussex v. Northamptonshire constituted his four-hundredth consecutive match for Sussex. He has not missed a game since July 2, 1900. V in e has now the record aggregate of runs for Sussex, beating C. B. F ry ’s total of 20,656. When he went in on F riday the Willingdon man needed two to get ahead of this. M r . T a y l o r supplies us with three instances of bowling analyses in which a single w icket cost more than Burrows’s v. Sussex (203) did. Tyler (Somerset v. Lancashire, at Taunton, 1895) was hit for 212 for one ; E. Jones (South Australia v. New South Wales, at Adelaide, 1899) for 210 for one ; and A. W . W right (South Australia v. Victoria, a t Melbourne, 1907) for 222 for one. B ow ler s who have been hit for over 200 in an innings but have taken more than one w icket are, he continues, Tyler (3 times), G. Giffen (3 times), Ellis (C. H.), Santall, E . B . Shine, S. M. J. Woods, Bland, T ro tt (A. E.), Warren, Pennington, J. A. O ’Connor (twice), F. Jarvis, E. Jones, C. J. Eady, and E. A. Windsor. G iffe n holds the record. In the return match between South Australia and Stoddart’s Team in 1894-5 his analysis was 309 for 5, first innings. B ut perhaps the most remarkable instance was th a t of Ellis, the regular wicket-keeper of the Sussex team, who against Surrey at Brighton in 1863, took 7 for 201, for a team which included James Lillywhite, John Wisden, and Richard Fillery. Ellis was only an occasional bowler, though this was not b y any means his one success ; and it is strange th at he should have been kept on so long with his lobs. T he partnership of W. P. Robertson and Tarrant for the first w icket v. Warwickshire on June 9 produced 175. The same batsmen against the same county on the same ground on June 16, 1913, made 178 for the first w icket. M. H ow e ll and D . J. Kn ight have received their blues at Oxford. Neither could well have been looked over. The Cambridge captain has awarded no blues as yet, and it is quite in the cards th at only one will be given. A w icket keeper must come in ; but all the other men playing may be old blues. I t is said— and no doubt it is correctly said— th a t until the other day Essex had not beaten Surrey at the O val since June, 1905. In the match then played they totalled 616 for 5, and declared, Carpenter making 199, C. P. McGahey 173, and E . H. D. Sewell 106*. Surrey’s totals were 188 and 232, John Douglas (6 for 62) and McGahey (6 for 74) being the most successful bowlers. O f those who took part in the more recent match only nine were playing nine years ago— Hayward, Hayes, and Goatly, of the Surrey team, Douglas, Perrin, Carpenter, Fane, Reeves, and Tremlin, of Essex. T h er e have only been seven longer partnerships— b y run measure, not time, that is— in first-class cricket than that of J. W . Hearne and Tarrant at Lords on Monday. T h ese were :— 554 (first wicket), Brown and Tunnicliffe, Yorkshire v. Derbyshire, Chesterfield, 1898. 448 (fourth wicket), Abel and Hayward, Surrey v. Yorkshire, Oval, 1899. 426 (sixth wicket), W. W. Armstrong and M. A. Noble, Australia v. Sussex, Hove, 1899. 411 (sixth wicket), Major R. M. Poore and Capt. E. G. Wynyard, Hants v. Somerset, Taunton, 1899. 398 (second wicket), Gunn (W.) and Shrewsbury, Notts v. Sussex Nottingham, 1890. 393 (fifth wicket), Arnold and W. B. Burns, Worcestershire v. Warwick­ shire, Birmingham, 1909. 391 (first wicket), A. O. Jones and Shrewsbury, Notts v. Gloucestershire, Bristol, 1899. F ou r of the seven were made during the run-glutted season of 1899, it may be noted. Tarrant and Heame have set up a new Middlesex record, beating the 338 (for the fifth wicket) of R. S. Lucas, and Sir Timothy O Brien against Sussex at Hove in 1895. It is al-s0 a record against Lancashire.