Cricket 1914

264 THE WORLD OF CRICKET. J u n e 20, 19 14 . Scores of 200 a n d over in F irs t> c la s s C r ic k e t. S e v e r a l correspondents have asked for a complete list of scores of 200 and over in first-class cricket at home and abroad. Herewith an instalment is given (in order of date), and the list will be continued later as opportunity offers. Some critics m ay object to the inclusion of certain items ; but no hard and fast rule can possibly be laid down as to the earlier scores, and in doubtful instances later on the reasons for inclusion will be given in footnotes. 278, W. Ward, M.C.C. v. Norfolk, Lord’s, 1820. 227, Marsden (T.), Sheffield v. Leicester and Nottingham, Darnall, 1820. 220, Hayward (T., sen.), Cambs v. Cambridge University, Cam­ bridge, 1859. 216, Jupp (H.), Players of South v. XIV Gentlemen of South, Southampton, 1865. 224*, W. G. Grace, England v. Surrey, Oval, 1866. 215, W. G. Grace, Gentlemen v. Players, Oval, 1870. 217, W. H. Hadow, Middlesex v. M.C.C., Lord’s, 1871. 268, W. G. Grace, South v. North, Oval, 1871. 217, W. G. Grace, Gentlemen v. Players, Hove, 1871. 201, T. G. Matthews, Gloucestershire v. Surrey, Clifton, 1871. 205*, W. R. Gilbert, Eleven of England v. Cambridge University Cambridge, 1876. 344, W. G. Grace, M.C.C. v. Kent, Canterbury, 1876. 318*, W. G. Grace, Gloucestershire v. Yorkshire; Cheltenham, 1876. 261, W. G. Grace, South v. North, Prince’s, 1877. • 321, W. L. Murdoch, N.S. Wales v. Victoria, Sydney, 1881-2. 206, H. H. Massie, Australia v. Oxford University, 1882. 286*, W. L. Murdoch, Australia v. Sussex, Hove, 1882. 207, Shrewsbury (A.), Notts v. Surrey, Oval, 1882. 208, Lockwood (E.), Yorkshire v. Kent, Gravesend, 1883. 279*, W. L. Murdoch, Australian Team v. Rest of Australia, Mel­ bourne, 1883-4. 211, F. E. Lacey ( a ), Hampshire v. Kent, Southampton, 1884. 209, Shrewsbury (A.), Notts v. Sussex, Hove, 1884. 211, W. L. Murdoch, Australia v. England, Oval, 1884. 203, Gunn (W.), M.C.C. v. Yorkshire, Lord’s, 1885. 215*, F. M. Lucas, Sussex v. Gloucestershire, Hove, 1885. 204, W. E. Roller, Surrey v. Sussex, Oval, 1885. 224*, Shrewsbury (A.), Notts v. Middlesex, Lord’s, 1885. 221*, W. G. Grace, Gloucestershire v. Middlesex, Clifton, 1885. 227*, Shrewsbury (A.), Notts v. Gloucestershire, Moreton-in-the- Marsh, 1886. 239, P. S. McDonnell, N.S.W. v. Victoria, Melbourne, 1886-7. 236, Shrewsbury (A.), Non-Smokers v. Smokers, East Melbourne, 1 88 6 - 7. 247, W. W. Read, Surrey v. Lancashire, Manchester, 1887. 244*, W. W. Read, Surrey v. Cambridge University, Oval, 1887. 281, K. J. Key, Oxford University v. Middlesex, Chiswick, 1887. 243*, A. J. Webbe, Middlesex v. Yorkshire, Huddersfield, 1887. 267, Shrewsbury (A.), Notts v. Middlesex, Nottingham, 1887. 205*, Gunn (W.), Notts v. Sussex, Nottingham, 1887. 232, Shrewsbury (A.), England v. Victoria, Melbourne, 1887-8. 297*, H. Moses, N.S. Wales v. Victoria, Sydney, 1887-8. 203, G. Giffen, South Australia v. England, Adelaide, 1887-8. 206, Shrewsbury (A.), England v. Australian Team, Sydney, 1887-8. 215, W. G. Grace, Gloucestershire v. Sussex, Hove, 1888. 338, W. W. Read, Surrey v. Oxford University, Oval, 1888. 267, Shrewsbury (A.), Notts v. Sussex, Nottingham, 1890. 228, Gunn (W.), Players v. Australia, Lord’s, 1890. 237, G. Giffen, South Australia v. Victoria, Melbourne, 1890-1. 215*, A. E. Stoddart, Middlesex v. Lancashire, Manchester, 1891. 271, G. Giffen, South Australia v. Victoria, Melbourne, 1891-2. 224, S. W. Scott, Middlesex v. Gloucestershire, Lord’s, 1892. 212, Shrewsbury (A.), Notts v. Middlesex, Lord’s, 1892. 201, H. T. Hewett, Somerset v. Yorkshire, Taunton, 1892. 219, H. Graham ( b ), Australia v. Derbyshire, Derby, 1893. 205, G. Giffen, South Australia v. N.S. Wales, Adelaide, 1893-4. 271, G. S. Patterson (c), G. S. Patterson’s XI v. A. M. Wood’s XI, Philadelphia (U.S.A.), 1894. 228, A. C. MacLaren, England v. Victoria, Melbourne, 1894-5. 201, S. E. Gregory, Australia v. England, Sydney, 1894-5. 219, Ward (A.), England v. South Australia, Adelaide, 1894-5. 217, Abel (R.), Surrey v. Essex, Oval, 1895. 219, Gunn (W.), Notts v. Sussex, Nottingham, 1895. 285, W. G. Grace, Gloucestershire v. Somerset, Bristol, 1895. 257 , W. G. Grace, Gloucestershire v. Kent, Gravesend, 1895. 215, S. M. J. Woods, Somerset v. Sussex, Hove, 1895. 202, Sir T. C. O’Brien, Middlesex v. Sussex, Hove, 1895. 226, W. L. Murdoch, Sussex v. Cambridge University, Hove, 1895. 264*, G. J. Mordaunt, Oxford University v. Sussex, Hove, 1895. 424, A. C. MacLaren, Lancashire v. Somerset, Taunton, 1895. 206*, C. Hill, South Australia v. N.S. Wales, Sydney, 1895-6. 210*, Peel (R.), Yorkshire v. Warwickshire, Birmingham, 1896. 231, Abel (R.), Surrey v. Essex, Oval, 1896. 229*, Hayward (T. W.), Surrey v. Derbyshire, Derby, 1896. 203, Brown (J. T.), Yorkshire v. Middlesex, Lord’s, 1896. 243*, W. G. Grace, Gloucestershire v. Sussex, Hove, 1896. 201*, W. Newham, Sussex v. Somerset, Hove, 1896. 207*, Gunn (W.), Notts v. Derbyshire, Derby, 1896. 220, Sugg (F. H.), Lancashire v. Gloucestershire, Bristol, 1896. 292, L. C. H. Palairet, Somerset, v. Hampshire, Southampton, 1896. 268, Capt. E. G. Wynyard, Hampshire v. Yorkshire, Southampton, 1896. 301, W. G. Grace, Gloucestershire v. Sussex, Bristol, 1896. 226*, A. C. MacLaren, Lancashire v. Kent, Canterbury, 1896. 274, Davidson (G.), Derbyshire v. Lancashire, Manchester, 1896. 220, Lieut. A. I. Paine, Western Province v. Griqualand West, Johannes­ burg, 1896-7. 268*, J. A. Dixon, Notts v. Sussex, Nottingham, 1897. 227*, N. F. Druce, Cambridge University v. C. I. Thornton’s XI, Cambridge, 1897. 260, K. S. Ranjitsinhji, Sussex v. M.C.C., Lord’s, 1897. 250, Abel (R.), Surrey v. Warwickshire, Oval, 1897. 311, Brown (J. T.), Yorkshire v. Sussex, Sheffield, 1897. 234, Baldwin (C.), Surrey v. Kent, Oval, 1897. 244, A. C. MacLaren, Lancashire v. Kent, Canterbury, 1897. 215, Abel (R.), Surrey v. Notts, Oval, 1897. 225, Brockwell (W. H.), Surrey v. Hants, Oval, 1897. 230, Gunn (W.), Notts v. Derbyshire, Nottingham, 1897. 200, C. Hill, South Australia v. England, Adelaide, 1897-8. 236*, Gunn (W.), Notts v. Surrey, Oval, 1898. 219, Abel (R.), Surrey v. Kent, Oval, 1898. 300, Brown (J. T.), Yorkshire v. Derbyshire, Chesterfield, 1898. 243, Tunnicliffe (J.), Yorkshire v. Derbyshire, Chesterfield, 1898. 315*, Hayward (T. W.), Surrey v. Lancashire, Oval, 1898. 200, Tyldesley (J. T.), Lancashire v. Derbyshire, Manchester, 1898. (a) Some people say Hants were not first-class. But see Lillywhite , Wisden, and files of Sportsman. ( b) Not officially first-class. But in earlier years all the Australians’ matches on even terms were reckoned so, and Derbyshire were promoted in 1894. (c) A doubtful instance. But most of the best players in Phila­ delphia took part in the match— a three-day one. (To be continued.) — — ■+------------- Overseas C r ic k e t C h a t . UN ITED STATES. Philadelphia (193) easily beat Merion (123) in a Halifax Cup game on May 30. For the winners, A. J. Henry (Editor of the American Cricketer) scored 40 ; J. B. King, 36 ; and H. W. Middleton, 34. C. C. Morris (45), for the losers, made the top score of the game, however, and he had the bowling of King (who took 7 for 50) to meet. Germantown (183-— R. P. Anderson 69), heavily defeated Frankford (51, and 41 for 7) in the same competition. For the winners P. H. Clark took 6 for 19, E. A. Green 4 for 21 ; the other 11 runs were extras. W. P. O'Neill had all 7 wickets in the second innings. Some of the totals in minor games in Philadelphia on the same day looked like baseball scores— for example, Tennyson Independents, 11, v. Edward V II ; W est Philadelphia, 19, v. Robin Hood. Alfred the Great could muster but five men for their match with Southwark in the St. George’s League, but played it, nevertheless, and lost by only 10 runs—-the true Saxon sp irit! In a Philadelphia Cup match there were good individual scores by J. R. Stewart (78 and 67 for Germantown B) and L. E . Wood (57 for Merion B). E. H. L. Steinthal was again to the fore in New Y ork cricket on the same date, with 99 for Staten Island (173) v. Bensonhurst (147). W. P. Woodruffe scored 70 for the losers. Brooklyn (J. L. Poyer 68) scored 202 v. K ing’s County, who could only make 34. Manor Field ran up 297 v. Bridgeport (Connecticut), G. Scott Dalgleish hitting a six and 23 fours in his dashing 149. Bridgeport totalled 115. For Manhattan B v. Bensonhurst B. H. Shanholdt took 4 wickets with 4 consecutive balls. Haverford (209— E. N.Grosman 61, S. E. Stokes 46) easily beat New, Y ork Veterans (118) at Haverford. The All New York V. AH Philadelphia matches have been revived, and will be played on July 16 (at Livingston, Staten Island) and September 3 (at Philadelphia).