Cricket 1905

428 CRICKET A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. S ept 21, 1905. Trumper can learn to restrain himself, and to remember that although from the pavilion a brilliant innings of 40 may seem more attractive than a sound one of a hundred, it does not look as well on paper, he may recover his lost ground entirely, and be the greatest batsman of his day, for he has youth on his side. What is true of Trumper may not be true of Jessop, who, now that he cannot often knock bowlers off their length by unorthodox methods, has ceased to be a terror to them. He may, perhaps, discover new methods which will bring him success, but, of course, if he abandons his ordinary game, he is no longer Jessop. There is just a chance that he may come right to the front again, but a batsman of his style must, if he is to be successful, have unbounded confidence, and be at the very top of his form. As a matter of fact, it is seldom that a man who chiefly relies for success upon some peculiarity lasts for very long. At the beginning of the season one could hardly take up a newspaper without finding some reference in it to the “ Googlie King,” as Bosanquet was known on account of his famous ball which broke from the off when the batsman expected it to come from the leg—or was it the other way about p But Basanquet apparently came under the spell of the theorists who knew exactly how it was done, and the moment that a bowler knows exactly what is the secret of his famous ball, he begins to lose command over it. Hence the disappointment caused by Bosanquet’s loss of form this season. Unfortunately he is not the only cricketer who has lost the secret of his success through listen­ ing to theorists. But there is no need to refer to others here. Trumper, Jessop, and Bosanquet are all great cricketers who will not fail to remember the lessons which they have learned by experience. The odds are that if R. E. Foster, Captain Greig, and A. J. L. Hill had been able to play regularly through the season they would have had even a better record than now, although they may well be satisfied with their doings. Foster is actually at the head of the averages, and on the few occasions on which he played he showed clearly enough that he is still one of the greatest of cricketers. Captain Greig and Hill have both played for an exceedingly •weak team, and as everybody knows, this is about as great a handicap to a batsman as to a bow ler; nevertheless both men greatly distinguished them­ selves, and it is a great pity that they cannot play regularly. Of Denton, H. K. Foster, Iremonger, A. O. Jones, McGahey, Whittle, C. J. B. Wood, E. M. Sprot, L. O. S. Poidevin, Tyldesley, Carpenter, C. O. H. Sewell, R. H. Spooner, A. C. Maclaren, Bowley, Hayes, J. Seymour (Kent), the Rev. F. H. Gillingham, Sharp, Dr. E. M. Ashcroft, and T. S. Fishwick, it is sufficient to say that they have played up to their reputation. Perhaps the most satisfactory point about the season is the way in which young players have distinguished them­ selves. Hobbs, R. A. Young, and A. P. Day made their debut in first-class cricket this season and they all three scored over a thousand runs - a most uncommon feat. Among the other young players who came right to the front in their first season are L. G. Colbeck, thirteenth in the complete average list, G. N. Bignell and C. S. Baker (War­ wickshire). Other young cricketers who with a limited experience in first-class cricket, greatly distinguished themselves, were Lord Dalmeny, A. H. Hornby, J. N. Crawford, A. Biker (Surrey), and Rothery. The veterans have not been as much to the fore as usual. Dr. Grace has played but seldom, and W. L. Murdoch, G. Brann, W. Gunn, Abel, and A. P. Lucas seemed to have dropped out of first-class cricket. L. G. Wright has, however, had a remarkably good season, W. Newham has several times proved that he is still a fine batsman ; and Lord Hawke has again often showed his ability to make runs when his side is in difficul­ ties. University cricket has for so long been under a cloud, that it is pleasing to see how extremely well Cambridge men of 1905 come out in the averages. With E. W. Mann eighth in the complete list, L. G. Colbeck thirteenth, and R. A. Young and M. W. Payne well up, Cam­ bridge has done very well indeed as regards batting, while Napier is sixth in the bowling averages, and May, Morcom and McDonell not low down, Oxford cannot point to equally good results, but W. H. B. Evans has done well with the bat, and E. G. Martin, F. A. H. Henley aud N. R. Udal with the ball. It is much to be regretted that most of these pro­ mising cricketers cannot play regularly in some county team. A word must be said of the men, whose sturdy and obstinate defence has over and over again been of the greatest value to their side, although by some their efforts are regarded with pious horror. To the doings of Quaife reference has already been made. Chief among the other “ stonewallers ” is Vine, whose consistency is quite re­ markable ; his services have been of inestimable value to Sussex this season. C. J. T. Pool’s first season in first-class cricket has shown him to possess a very sound defence. G. W. Beldam has not played regularly, but he has often been as effective aseverin keeping up his wicket. Among other very steady players who have done good service are R. T. Godsell, Kinneir, and Alec. Hearne. It cannot be said that many of the bowlers with established reputations have given very much cause for satis­ faction this year. On the other hand several new bowlers of great promise have appeared, and their future will be watched with much interest. Among the best of them are N. A. Knox, Bailey, Cook, N. R. Udal, Jayes, and E. M. C. Ede. Some of these had previously played a few matches in first-class cricket, but practically they are all the product of the past season. Knox has met with really wonderful success for a young bowler, and all the other men seem likely to improve very much as time goes on. Last year, W. C. Smith, the Surrey bowler, was fourth in the season’s averages ; this year he is third, and doubtless he will have a more exten­ ded trial next season. Yorkshire with Haigh, Rhodes, Ringrose, Myers, Hirst, and the Hon. F. S. Jackson are even more to the front than usual, while Surrey is not far behind them with Smith, Lees, R. T. Crawford, and N. A. Knox. Without much question W. Brearley was the best fast bowler of the year, although Knox ran him close, in the opinion of many people. Few will deny the claims of Lees to be considered the best medium paced right hand bowler of the year, or will question that Cox is at least the equal of any other left hand bowler. Among the other bowlers who distinguished them­ selves most are Dennett, Wass, Thomp­ son, J. T. Hearne, Hallam, Blythe, Kermode, Killick, and Relf. Fewer men than usual have spoiled their bowling by toying with the swerve, but there is plenty of room for a few men who will dare to experiment after the manner of George Lohmann. The wide ball to the leg has fortunately not become popular with English bowlers, and the equally wearisome wide ball to the off seems to have become less common, probably because many batsmen have found the way to make runs off it. But although there is promise for the future, there is no really great bowler at the present day, sued as Richardson, Lohmann, or Trumble. W.A.B. LEA D IN G A V E R A G E S SINCE 1864. (TEN COMPLETED INNINGS.) Date. Completed Batsmen. Innings. Runs 1905. O.B.Fry .......... ... 40 ... 2801 1904. K. S. Ranjitsinhji ... 38 ... 2077 1903. O.B.Fry .......... ... 33 ... 2683 1902. Shrewsbury (A.) ... 25 ... 1250 1901. O. B. Fry .......... ... 40 ... 3147 1900. K. S. Ranjitsinhji ... 35 ... 3065 1899. R. M. Poore ... 17 ... 1551 1898. Quaife (W. G.) ... ... 20 ... 1210 1897. N. F. Druce ... 20 ... 928 1896. K. S. Ranjitsinhji A. O. Maclaren... ... 48 ... 2780 1895. ... 24 ... 1229 1894. Brockwell (W.)... ... 39 ... 1491 1893. Gunn (W .).......... ... 48 ... 2057 1892. Shrewsbury (A.) ... 30 ... 1260 1891. Shrewsbury (A.) ... 22 ... 1071 1890. Shrewsbury (A.) ... 38 ... 1568 1889. Gunn (W .).......... ... 34 ... 1260 1888. W. W. Read ... ... 39 ... 1414 1887. Shrewsbury (A.) ... 21 ... 1653 1886. W. W. Read ... ... 43 ... 1825 1885. Shrewsbury (A.) ... 20 ... 1130 1884. A. G. Steel.......... ... 25 ... 967 1883. W. W. Read ... ... 33 ... 1573 1882. O. T. Studd ... 38 ... 1249 1881. A. N. Hornby ... ... 37 ... 1531 1880. W. G. Grace ... ... 24 ... 951 1879. W. G. Grace ... ... 25 ... 880 1878. Selby (J.) .......... W. G. Grace ... ... 30 ... 909 1877. ... 37 ... 1474 1876. W. G. Grace ... 42 ... 2622 1875. Barlow (R.) ... 10 ... 388 1874. W. G. Grace ... ... 31 ... 1658 1873. W. G. Grace ... ... 30 ... 2139 1872. W. G. Grace ... 26 ... 1485 1871. W. G. Grace ... 35 ... 2739 1870. W. G. Grace ... 33 ... 1808 1869. W. G. Grace ... 23 ... 1320 1868. I. D. Walker ... ... 19 ... 651 1867. Oharlwood (H.)... ... 10 ... 371 1866. W. G. Grace ... ... 15 ... 640 1865. E. M. Grace ... 17 ... 719 1864. O. G. Lyttleton... ... 17 ... 728 Avg. ... 7002 ... 74-17 ... 81-30 ... 50-00 ... 78-67 ... 87-57 ... 91-23 ... 60-95 ... 51-10 ... 57-44 ... 51*50 ... 38-90 ... 42-41 ... 42-00 ... 48-15 ... 41-10 ... 38-70 ... 36-10 ... 78-15 ... 42-16 ... 38-10 ... 38-17 ... 47-22 ... 32-33 ... 41-14 ... 3915 ... 35-50 ... 30-90 ... 39-31 ... 62-18 ... 38-80 ... 53-15 ... 71-90 ... 57-30 ... 78-90 ... 54-25 ... 57-90 ... 34-5 ... 371 ... 42-10 ... 42-29 ... 4214