Page:Jubilee Book of Cricket (Second edition, 1897).djvu/382

360 might have happened. As it was, he scored an invaluable 41 before he fell to the arm of the all-conquering Berkeley, and Woods, as aforesaid, just landed the Cantabs. winners by a short head. Five wickets for 20 runs was Berkeley's analysis in this fragmentary innings.

Oxford won in '92, but Cambridge had ample vengeance next year. K. S. Ranjitsinhji was included in the side, but only scored 9 runs in all, and, with the exception of F. S. Jackson, who played admirable cricket for 38 and 57, two most attractive innings, and of P. H. Latham, who made 21 and 54 almost equally well, the crack bats of the side were disappointing, though a merrier partnership than that of T. N. Perkins and L. H. Gay in the second innings can hardly be imagined, and it came as a welcome relief after some rather dull cricket. Curiously enough, each man scored 37. The Cambridge first innings, then, only amounted to 182. Had not L. C. V. Bathurst sent J, Douglas back by an absolutely marvellous catch, when well set, there might have been a difference. Still, so badly did the Oxford men, except L. C. H. Palairet (32), shape to the bowling of C. M. Wells, H. R. Bromley-Davenport, and E. C. Streatfield, that 9 wickets were down for 98. Here the Oxford batsmen consulted, and Wells, conceiving the idea that they proposed to deliberately lose a wicket so as to ensure a "follow-on," bowled a four-wide and a four-no-ball, thereby frustrating the intention. The incident caused much discussion, of a more or less acrimonious kind, but, curiously enough, was repeated, and again by a Cambridge bowler, in 1896. However, the results proved that the Cambridge total of 182 was sufficient to give them an innings victory, as in their second "hands" the Light-blues totalled 254, and Oxford could only retort with a paltry 64 (C. B. Fry 31). No less than four bowlers were put on during this brief innings, in which Jackson had 3 wickets for 22, Wells 2 for 27, Streatfield 2 for 9, and Bromley-Davenport 3 for 2! The Cambridge majority was 266.

Oxford won easily in 1894, but Cambridge made it "all square" in 1895, her majority being 134. Yet so powerful was the Oxford eleven, and so great its reputation for big scoring, that even when the Oxonians went in to score 331 runs in the last innings, many thought that the feat was not beyond their strength. Both sides were exceedingly strong, especially in batting, but Oxford was certainly the favourite. F. Mitchell, W. G. Grace, jun., and R. A. Studd made a good start for Cambridge, and W. G. Druce and W. M'G, Hemingway (whose