Cricket 1906

C R IC K E T : a w e e k ly r e c o r d o f t h e game. SEPT. 20, 1908, f e f c —U e8—€ Z D ie $ c _ 0 K - ' ">Mc Z 3 = 8@ 6— n | | H : “ T o g e th e r jo in e d in C r ick e t ’ s m a n ly t o i l . ” — Byron. no. 7 3 6 . v o l . x x v . THURSDAY, SEPT. 20, 1906. p r i c e 2 a. CR ICKET CHAMPIONS. B y the E e v . H aro ld A . T ate . Hayward’s record aggregate and Hirst’s 2,000 runs and 200 wickets rank as the most noteworthy events of the season of 1906. It is a record year—on paper. To get at the real merits of a performance we making so bold as to rank Hirst as the greatest cricketer ever seen, greater even than W. G. Grace. Why so ? Seemingly because Hirst had made his number of wickets this season into 200. Of course, last year was Hirst’s greatest batting year, when his average was sufficiently high to entitle him to compare with some of the Champion’s best seasons. And last year Hirst took rejuvenescence, when probably Mr. Bosanquet was a spectator of some of the remarkable innings he played in the early part of that season, and when in May he scored more than 1,000 runs and averaged over 100. But Lord Harris, writing in Wisden, has said thatW. G.’s form when in his prime was quite different from his style as a veteran, and the famous old Kentish captain’s remarks REST OF ENGLAND TEAM. The above is the Eleven which met Kent at the Oval; last'.week. [Photo by Half-Tone, Ltd. R. H. SPOONER. HAYWARD. TYLDESLEY. F. L. FANE. HIRST. P. F. WARNER (capt.). RHODES. BUCKENHAM. LEES. HAIGH. HUMPHRIES. have to dig deeply into the past, and compare not only players of the present with those of the past, but also to con­ sider how a man stands, or stood, with his contemporaries. Comparisons are odious, it is true, but necessary for cricket statisticians and historians. We lately had Mr. B. J. T. Bosanquet in the pages of a daily newspaper over 100 wickets. But this year, whenhe has a much-diminished batting average, we find Mr. Bosanquet coming out with the above statement. If Hirst’s total of wickets had stopped at 199 presumably Mr. Bosanquet would not have so written. Mr. Bosanquet was not even bom in the best years of W. G., which ended with 1876. In 1895 W. G. had a are indeed, as might be expected from so great a batsman, captain, and judge of the game, perfeotly true. For in his prime W. G. seemed hardly ever to play back. His great reach and wonderful suppleness enabled him with ease to place the ball between fieldsmen as he chose, and though many thought him lucky, as he frequently sent the ball in the air through several slips, his wonder-