Cricket 1914

408 THE WORLD OF CRICKET. A ugust 8, 1914. possible advantage of its peculiarities, a fact which largely accounts for this. Altogether in first-class cricket at home and abroad he took ten wickets in an innings once, eight 9 times, seven 25 times, six 44 times, five 52 times, and four 94 times. The Second=CIass Counties. N in e o r M o re W ic k e ts in a M a tch . W . R . Match. 15 for 187, Mdx. v. Sx., Lord’s, 1901. 13 for 88, Mdx. v. Glos., Clifton, 1900. 13 for 125, Mdx. v. Leic., Lord’s, 1899. 13 for 140, Mdx. v, Sy., Lord’s, 1899. 13 for 140, Mdx. v. Notts, Lord’s, 1901. 13 for 170, Mdx. v. Phila., Lord’s, 1897. 13 for 170. Eng. v Yorks., Lord’s, 1901. 13 for 178, Mdx. v. Notts, N’ham, 1898. 13 for 183, Thornton’s XI v. Yorks., Scarboro’, 1899. 13 for 213, Mdx. v. Lancs., Lord’s, 1900. 12 for 158, Mdx. v. Smt., Taunton, 1900. 12 for 168, Mdx. v. Lancs., Lord’s, 1899. 12 for 200, Mdx. v. Sx., Lord’s, 1899. 11 f9r 31, Mdx. v. Smt., Lord’s, 1899. 11 for 83, Mdx. v. Yorks., Leeds, 1898. 11 for 88, Mdx. v. Glos., Bristol, 1902. 11 for 103, M.C.C. v. Wore., Lord’s, 1899. 11 for 107, Mdx. v. Notts, Lord’s, 1899. 11 for 108, Mdx. v. Sx., Lord’s, 1898. 11 for 113, M.C.C. v. Sx., Lord’s, 1899. 11 for 125, M.C.C. v. Leic., Lord’s, 1902. 11 for 138, Viet. v. Tas., Melbourne, 1893-4. 11 for 138, Mdx. v. Ex., Lord’s, 1901. 11 for 140, Eng. v. Transvaal, Joh’b’g, 1898-9. 11 for 151, H.Bay v. Cant., Christchurch, 1901-2. 11 for 153, Mdx. v. Leic., Lord's, 1898. 11 for 160, Mdx. v. Smt., Lord’s, 1898. 11 for 162, M.C.C. v. Oxf. U., Lord’s, 1899. 11 for 191, Mdx. v. E>sex, Lord’s, 1900. 10 for 54, M.C.C. v. Dby., Lord’s, 1907. 10 for 69, M.C.C. v. Leic., Lord’s, 1899. 10 for 77, M.C.C. v. Yorks., Lord’s, 1907. ’ 10 for 86, M.C.C. v. Oxf. U., Lord’s, 1897. 10 for 108, M.C.C. v. Ex., Lord’s, 1897. 10 for 108, M.C.C. v. Oxf. U., Lord’s, 1907. 10 for 119, P. of Sth. v. G. of Sth., B’mouth, 1904. 10 for 123, Mdx. v. Glos., Clifton, 1899. 10 for 123, Mdx. v. Ex., Lord’s, 1909. 10 for 155, Mdx. v. S. Africa, Lord’s, 1904. 10 for 171, Mdx. v. Kt., Tonbridge, 1901. 10 for 192, M.C.C. v. Oxf. U., Lord’s 1896. 9 for 59, Mdx. v. Phila., Lord’s, 1908. 9 for 89, M.C.C v Leic., Lord’s, 1911. 9 for 97, M.C.C. v. Dby., Lord’s, 1905. 9 for no, Eng. v. S. Africa, Joh’b’g, 1898-9. 9 for 113, M.C.C. v. Dby., Lord’s, 1897. 9 for 124, M.C.C. v. Kt., Lord’s, 1899. 9 for 133, Mdx. v. Notts, N’ham, 1900. 9 for 134, Mdx-. v. Kt., Beckenham, 1902. 9 for 136, L.C.C.C. v. Dby., C. Palace, 1900. 9 for 151, M.C.C. v. Camb. U., Lord’s, 1902. 9 for 153, Mdx v. Sy., Lord’s, 1898. 9 for 165, Mdx. v. Notts, Lord’s, 1906. 9 for 167, Players v. Gents., Oval, 1901. 9 for 171, Viet. v. N.S.W., Melbourne, 1895-6. 9 for 173, Mdx. v. Leic., Leicester, 1900. 9 for 178, Mdx. v. Leic., Lord’s, 1900. 9 for 179, Mdx. v. Smt., Lord’s, 1902. 9 for 181, Webbe’s XI v. Oxf. U., Oxford, 1898. 9 for 183, Mdx. v. Kent, Lord’s, 1900. 9 for 189, Mdx. v. Smt., Lord’s, 1900. 9 for 208, M.C.C. v. Camb. U., Lord’s, 1899. 9 for 228, Mdx. v. Yks., Lord’s, 1899. S in g le I n nings A n a lyse s in M atch es in W h ich H e T ook F ew er than N in e W ick e t s . W . R. Match. 8 for 43, Aust. v. Eng., Adelaide, 1894-5. 7 for 20, Mdx. v. Smt., Lord’s, 1907. 7 for 28, M.C.C. v. Camb. U., Lord’s, 1903. 7 for 37, M.C.C. v. L.C.C.C., Lord's, 1903. 7 for 84, M.C.C. v. Dby., Lord’s, 1902. 7 for 117, M.C.C. v. Notts, Lord's, 1901. 7 for 122, L.C.C.C. v. Sy., Oval, 1900. 7 for 136, H. Bay v. Otago, Dunedin, 1901-2. 7 for 204, Mdx. v. Sx., Hove, 1900. 6 for 19, Mdx. v. Sy., Oval, 1903. 6 for 44, Mdx. v. Sy., Oval, 1900. 6 for 48, M.C.C. v. All Ireland, Lord’s, 1902. 6 for 53, M.C.C. v. Sx., Lord’s, 1901. 6 for 54, M.C.C. v. Oxf. U., Oxford, 1900. 6 for 59, M.C.C. v. Camb. U., Lord’s, 1896. for 59, Mdx. v. Lancs., Lord’s, 1904. 6 for 60, Mdx. v. Kt., Tonbridge, 1900. 6 for 60, Mdx. v. Kt., Lord’s, 1902. 6 for 66, Mdx. v. Sy., Lord’s, 1903. 6 for 69, Mdx. v. Yorks., Bradford, 1902. 6 for 73, Eng. v. Cape Col., Cape T., 1898-9. 6 'io r 87, Mdx. v. Sy., Lord’s, 1898. 6 for 88, 6 for 96, 6 for 103, N.S.W., Sydney, Yorks, Lord’s, Eng. 1902-3 M.C.C. 1898. Viet. v. Eng., Melbourne, 1894-5. 6 for 118, Mdx. v . Yks., Lord’s, 1900. 6 for 123, Mdx. v. Notts., N’ham, 1899. 6 for 142, Players v. Gent., Lord’s, 1900. 5 for 17, H. Bay v. Wellington, W’ton, 1901-2. 5 for 22, Mdx. v. Glos., Lord’s, 1899, 5 for 25, Mdx. v. Camb. U., C’bridge, 1906. 5 for 27, Mdx. v. Sy., Lord’s, 1900. 5 for 33, M.C.C. v. Lancs., Lord’s, 1901. 5 for 34, Mdx. v. Yks., Lord’s, 1908. 5 for 40, M.C.C. v. Wore., Lord’s, 1901. 5 for 46, Mdx. v. Lancs., Lord’s, 1906. 5 for 49, Mdx. v. Ex., Leyton, 1904. 5 for 55, Viet. v. N.S.W., Melbourne, 1894-5. 5 for 61, Mdx. u.^Kent, Lord’s, 1899. 5 for 61, Mdx. v. Glos., Bristol, 1908. 5 for 73, M.C.C. v . Lancs., Lord’s, 1902. 5 for 83, Mdx.. v. Smt., Lord’s, 1903. 5 for 93, Mdx. v. Smt., Lord’s, 1901. 5 for 94, Mdx. v. Lancs.. L’pool, 1902. 5 for 97, Mdx. v. Notts, Lord’s, 1909. 5 for 106, Mdx. v. Glos., Lord’s, 1901. 5 for 173, M.C.C. v. L.C.C.C., C. Palace, 1902. 4 for 7, Mdx. v. Yorks., Lord’s, 1904. 4 for 7, Mdx. v. Lancs., M’chester, 1907. 4 for 19, Eng. v . S. Africa, Cape T., 1898-9. 4 for 21, Mdx. v. Kt., Tonbridge, 1907. 4 for 22, Mdx. v. Lancs., Lord’s, 1903. 4 for 24, Viet. v. S.A., Melbourne, 1894-5. 4 for 27, Mdx. v. Lancs., Lord’s, 1905. 4 for 28, Mdx. v. E x ., Lord’s, 1902. 4 for 28, M.C.C. v. Dby., Lord’s, 1906. 4 for 29, Mdx. v. Glos., Lord’s, 1907. 4 for 30, M.C.C. v. Sx., Lord’s, 1898. 4 for 30, Mdx. v. Glos., Bristol, 1904. 4 for 35, M d x . 1899. + Lancs., M’chester, J.N.P. G u i s b o r o u g h beat O rm esby; Norton defeated Stockton ; and West Hartlepool whacked Saltburn in the North Yorkshire and South Durham League. Redcar (170) and Darlington (138 for 9) drew their match. I n c l u d e d in West Hartlepool’s total of 2 3 0 for 6 were scores of 69* by J. C. Bennett and 59* by G. Middlemiss. B u l m e r (Guisborough), Pestell (7 for 56, Darlington v. Redcar), S. Dickson (Stockton), and N. S. A. Harrison (Norton) were among the leading bowlers of the day. S in ce the article of a fortnight ago w as w ritten the chief happening in the second-class com petition has been the defeat of Staffordshire b y K en t II— apparently a much b etter side this year than last, for th ey have since adm inistered a w hacking to Lincolnshire, and up to A ugust 1 inclusive had scored 14 points of a possible 25, whereas in 1913 th ey on ly achieved 10 of a possible 40. The loss of their unbeaten certificate did not d au n t Stafford­ shire. T h ey w ent to the O val to p u t Surrey II (who beat them there last year b y 4 wickets) through the m ill. Sedgw ick did great w ork, and in the tw o m atches (at G ravesend and the Oval) took 17 w ickets, quite eclipsing Barnes for the tim e being. M eakin and T aylor m ade a cen tury each. B oth are good enough for an y first-class county. And in Staffordshire th ey do say th at Sedgw ick and D eyes are better th an m ost of the bowlers Y orkshire have retained. Scarcely less noticeable than the K en tish win w as th at of plu cky little Cheshire— a t last reaping the reward of sticking to it— over Durham . F or the second tim e this season Sm oker took 9 w ickets in an innings, and H ope, the new skipper, showed once again th at he is a real cricketer. F ifteen points ou t of 25 puts Cheshire higher than ever before in the com petition. Som ebody who evid en tly does not know a great deal about m inor cou n ty cricket cavilled a t the inclusion of Morris in the eleven w hich represented the second-class lot again st M .C.C. There are not m any first-class counties, if indeed there is one, th at would be slow to find a place for Morris in their team s were he eligible. L ast year he took 88 w ickets a t a little over 14 each, and this season he has a bag of over 50 for 7 m atches. B ucks easily b eat Dorset, b u t the losers had a v ery unrepre­ sen tative side. T h ey lacked F. A . S. Sewell, C. J. B . W ebb, G. M. Gordon, R. D. B usk, and others. R. N . H am ilton, one of the m idland cou n ty’s new men, is a W ykeham ist, and real good value, one hears. Lincolnshire cannot get together their best side. R iley and D ay were not available v. K en t II because it was a week-end m atch, and th ey have league engagem ents. W . E . Thom pson has not played a t all y et, nor has G. H em ingw ay ; and A. E . Gibson has on ly appeared in one gam e. T h ey b eat Suffolk w ithout m uch difficulty ; bu t Suffolk are still greater sufferer? for w an t of their best m en’s help, and do not need m uch beating a t present. One hopes to see them do better soon. W ith the A ugust B an k H oliday m atches grow very numerous, and a w eek w ill give far more m atter for comm ent th an a fo rt­ night does now. M eanwhile here is the table of results up to A ugust 1 inclusive. It w ill suffer m any changes before th e w eek’s end, no doubt. THE SECOND-CLASS COUNTY CHAMPIONSH IP TA BLE . (To August 1, inclusive.) COMP. Mw FIRST INNS. POINTS. PER RESULTS. P. YV. L. W. L. POSS. OBT. CENT. Cambridgeshire ........... 1 1 o o o 5 5 ioo-oo Staffordshire ............... 8 6 1 1 o 40 33 82-50 Hertfordshire* ............. 3 1 o 1 o 10 8 80 00 Devon ............................ 3 2 1 o o 15 10 66-66 W iltsh ire........................ 3 2 1 o o 15 10 66-66 Cheshire.......................... 5 3 2 o o 25 15 6o*oo Kent II* ........................ 6 2 1 1 1 25 14 56-00 Monmouthshire* ......... 5 1 1 1 o 15 8 53-33 Cornwall ........................ 4 2 2 o o 20 10 50 00 Bedfordshire................. 3 • 1 1 o o 10 5 50-00 Buckinghamshire . . . . 2 1 1 o o 10550-00 Norfolk .......................... 3 1 o o 2 15 7 46*66 Surrey I I ........................ 4 1 1 1 1 20 9 45-00 Glamorgan* ...........•... 7 1 1 2 2 30 1343*3 D urham .......................... 7 2 3 1 1 35 14 40*00 Essex II ........................ 3 1 i o 1 15 6 40*00 Lincolnshire ................. 5 2 3 o o 25 10 40*00 Northumberland ......... 5 1 4 o 0 2 5 5 20*00 Dorset ............................ 1 o 1 o o 5 o — Berkshire........................ 2 o 2 o o 10 o — S u ffo lk ............................ 4 o 4 o o 20 o — * Monmouth 2 matches, no result on first innings ; Beds, Glamorgan, Herts, and Kent II one each. -------+ ---------------------- F or Medomsley v. Bumhope (N.W. Durham League) T. R. Howarth took 8 for 18. For Kimblesworth v. Langley Park W. Falkner had 7 for 19 . G. A. G ray hit up 156* (6 sixes, 16 fours) for Percy Main r. Back- worth Percy II in the Tyneside League, Second Division.