Cricket 1906

446 ORICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. O ct . 25, 1906. C R IC K E T CHAMP IONS : No. 2. By t h e R e v . H a r o i,d A. T a te . “ You may bowl your best at Heyward, and whatever style youtry Will be vanquished by the Master’s steady handand certaineye.” These words of Prowse’s incomparable cricket poem are no less applicable to the Hayward of 1906 than they were to his great relative in the sixties. Hay­ ward has this year gone one better than in 1904, when he also overtopped the 3,000. This year he has beaten Abel’s record aggregate. He has, too, been far more consistent than in 1904. very rarely failing, and being nearly always to be relied on for a good score. He alone, amongst batsmen, has twice scored over 3,000 runs. It seems odd to find him so frequently referred to as the “ Surrey veteran,” as he is nomore aveteran than MacLaren, Hirst, F. S. Jackson, Fry, Jessop and others of 35 or thereabouts, most or nearly all of whom have played first-class cricket quite as long as Hay­ ward, and none of whomhas so far ever thus been referred to. Excepting MacLaren, who has been steadily on the down line the last few years, and, in lesser degree, Jessop, all the above may be considered as good as ever theywere. Even in the old days, when so much more activity was de­ manded of men when batting and in the field, men were not classed as veterans at 35, as such instances as those of Pilch, Mynn, Parr, Caffyn, Daft and Jupp prove, and for a batBman, qua batsman, to be at his very best at 35 is nothing strange. If Hayward bowled as well as batted as he used to a few years ago for Surrey it might be different with him. Richard Daft wai quite at his best at 35; so was Shrewsbury, who in the wet season of 1891 played many wonderful innings. So were A. N. Hornby, I. D. Walker, Gunn, Barnes, and many others of the best. It would be otherwise with fast bowlers. How many of those who bowl at express speed keep up their pace and form until 35 ? Tom Emmett was one of the fastest, but in 1878 he had slackened to medium pace, and though in his later years he got faster again, yet he never reoovered the pace of the days when Freeman and he were the terror of Yorkshire’s opponents. But good tlow bowlers are by no means veterans at 35. Indeed, most of Alfred Shaw’s great deeds were done after he attained that age. It was in 1875, when 33, that Shaw’s very best time commenced, but in ’78, ’79 and ’80 his performances were truly marvellous. And even in 1894, when 52 years of age, with five balls and not four to the over, Alfred’s deliveries had to be treated with the same care as in the days of his zenith. I remember how the papers of that date commented on the respect thedashing A. E. Stoddart showed to Shaw’s bowling—Stoddart, who, the same year, could crack the fast bowling of Lockwood and Richardson all over the field. The caseof good oldJemmySoutherton, too, readily occurs. He played first for Sussex in the 50’s. I have one of old Lillywhite’s match-cards of Surrey v. Sussex in 1854, when he played on the side of Surrey, and he represented both counties until the time he had to choose between one or other, when he threw in his lot with Surrey. Southerton was first a fast bowler, but his best days were between the ages of 40 and 52. “ What would Surrey do without Southerton?” was the old cry. Let his doings for Surrey and Sussex in the late sixties and early seventies be referred to for its justification. He had a graceful action, cantering up to the wicket and keeping the ball low. As a bowler of maiden overs he ranked second only to A. Shaw, and one can recollect the rounds of cheers with which the Oval would resound after Southerton had deliveredperhaps a dozen consecutive maidens to some crack bats­ man. Once I asked Harry Boyle, the great Australian bowler, “ Do you remember Southerton’s bowling ? ” “ Do I remem­ ber his throwing ? ” Boyle replied. To watch Southerton between the wickets it really appeared as if he threw, but standing behind him one could see that his delivery was quite fair. He crooked his arm as a man throwing slow might do, and then seemed to push the ball across to the wicket. Instances will be remembered in recent years of slow bowlers being no-balled. Umpires were qnite as particular in Southerton’s time. Of more recent slow bowlers, Briggs and Peel may be cited at having been still at their best at 35. Some years ago a capital cricket song appeared in Cricket, to be sung to the tune of “ Wrap me up in my old stable jacket.” One verse ran: — O ! Would I couldtrundle like Lohmann, Or like little Briggs or like Peel, Thenwhenever I went ona-bowling, Hownervous the batsmenwould feel! How few slow bowlers there are at the present time, whom good batsmen and evenhitters of the Jessop type would be nervous to meet. Shaw, Southerton, Briggs and Peel could all send down medium and even fast balls. Masters of strategy, able to alter pitch aud pace without the knowledge of the batsman, they would soon have effected the down­ fall of any man good for nothing but hitting. But to return to Hayward’s aggregate. It is average, not aggregate, which counts, some may say. Yes, but aggre­ gate is something to be considered too. The man who plays uninterruptedly all through the season, generally speaking, deserves greater praise for a high average than the man who has only played half the season. For this reason, Hayward’s average, though below that of Burnup’s, is really more meritorious than that of the plucky little Kentiah- man. W. G.’s in 1895 was more so than MacLaren’s, though fractionally less, as MacLaren played only half as much that year and was indebted to his 424 v. Somerset for his large average. In 1888 W.G. did really better than W. W. Read, whose average was a point or two higher, because “ Walla Walla” was mainly assisted by his 338 v. Oxford University. In 1878 W.G.’s recordwas really superior to that of Selby, and in 1875 to that of Barlow for the same reason, that he batted so much more frequently. At the same time, men of established reputation, who for various causes {e.g., Jackson this year) play little in a year, and do little, of such it may be said, that they would have done better had they played more. To show, moreover, that “ one swallow does not make a summer,” the case of Major Poore occurs to mind. Who would rank him amongsi the immortals of the game? Yet his average of 91 in 1899 is actually the highest ever chronicled for a considerable number of inniDgs. He played at Lord’s that year for Gentlemen v. Players, and the writer witnessed the match. People marvelled at his apparent stiffnessandwant of ease, and found it hard to believe that this was the batsman who had beenpiling up such huge scores for Hampshire. But then there always have been plajers who in matches not the highest rank could con­ sistently score largely, whomnevertheless you would not select for such contests as England v. Australia, just as, on the other hand, there are others who, despite many failures (e.g., William Barnes of Nottingham) you would feel conscious ought to be selected in Test matches for their proved ability to come to the fore and do themselves justice on great occasions. Major Poore in 1899 played enough to be included in the tables, but whether if he had batted as often as Abel his average would not have come down a good deal, may be doubted. The same may be said of Shrewsbury’s great years of 1887 and 1891. He usedtobe charged with avoiding bad wickets, and crying off at the last moment when rain seemed imminent. One would prefer to believe that health considerations influenced Shrewsbury whenever he decided not to play. His leg play, too, was urged against the merit of his big averages. But Dr. Grace said he believedShrewsbury would have BCOredjust as largely if he had not stopped ;balls with his pads, instead of playing them. He could have played them, but he did not. Daft was his master and mentor, and Daft often played thus: “ RichardDaft, the cool and cautious, with his safe andgraceful play.” And surely the attributes of safeness and gracefulness be»t apply to Shrewsbury’s play also. In Australia Shrewsbury did many of his best performances, where in 1886-7 and 1887-8 the writer often saw him on the Sydney and Melbourne grounds, and remembers his 236 on the Jolimonter’s ground for Non-Smokers v Smokers and his 232 on the Melbourne ground. It always seemed as if it were hopeless to try to get him out, or as if it were by accident when he was dismissed. In 1891 I saw Shrewsbury make 67 on a bowler’s wicket at Old Trafford against