Cricket 1907

378 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. A ug . 29, 1907. “ W .G .’s ” record was, of course, far greater than it appears on paper, for when he was in his prime great matches were far less frequent than they are now, and runs were not obtained with anything like the ease they are at the present day. N V w s t e a d ’ s bow ling analysis in the second innings of the Kent v. Yorkshire match last week was :— 0 . M. E. W . 17 .. 14 .. 3 .. 2 There is quite an old-time Nottingham flavour about the figures. H obbs ’ fine innings of 110 at Worcester last week, com ing so shortly before his departure for Australia, was a very welcome display. In partnership with Hayward, who scored 127, he made 219, which is the most productive of the eighteen three-figure stands the pair have made for the first wicket of Surrey. Ia 1905 they indulged in three such partnerships, in 1906 in eight, and this year in seven. H obbs’ scoring against Worcestershire during the last two Beasons has been remarkable, his innings being 125, 36 and 162 not out, 28 and 166 not out, and 110 and 2. B r o m l e y , set 222 to win in 90 minutes v. Bickley Park, at Bromley on Saturday, made 231 for two wickets in the time, 0 . G. H ill scoring 101 not out and R . R . Barker 78. Ix is curious that, although Worcester­ shire have not included Wilson in their side this year, the County have ex­ perienced a more successful season than at any previous time since they were given first-class rank in 1899. Their chief strength, with sis players averaging over 30 runs an innings, has been in batting, but Cuffe obtained a hundred wickets for less than 19 runs each, whilst Arnold took sixty - seven and Burrows fifty - seven at a somewhat heavier cost. Worcestershire’s record in County Championship matches is appended:— Year. Won. Lost. Drawn. Total. 1899 ... ... 2 ... 5 5 12 1900 ... . 3 ... 10 9 22 1901 ... . 7 10 ... 4 ... 21 1902 ... . 5 6 ... 11 ... 22 1903 ... ... 8 6 6 , 20 1904 ... ... 3 8 ... 7 ... 18 1905 ... . 5 5 ... 8 .., 18 1906 ... ... 2 ... 8 ... 10 ... 20 1907 ... ... 8 ... 2 ... s 18 Totals ... 43 ... 60 ... 68 ..., 171 The County’s improvement upon their doiDgs iu 1906 has been nothing less than remarkable. There would seem to be no reason why cricket in Worcester­ shire should not continue to flourish for many years to come. We are very slow to attempt new methods or to get out of the old groove, remarks Mr. Poidevin in an article recently contributed to the Express. It is just the same in lawn tennis and other sports. Lately, when almost any county side takes the field, there is a general rush for the ball, and the poor bowler, who is invariably the last to get it, has to wait while, to his dismay, much of the shine is taken off the ball by the weird attempts of some of his comrades to make the ball “ break the other way.” A similar performance goes on at the fall of each wicket, and one might almost be tempted to suggest that the “ googly ” has caught on. But we must w ait; if we are to do any real good with it we must practise it and persevere with it elsewhere than during the fall-of-w icket intervals in a match. A c u r io u s game was played at Secun­ derabad on the 7th inst., between “ A ” Company of the Manchesters and “ S ” Battery R .H .A ., in the first round iu the Kiucaid-Smith Cup Competition. The infantrymen, going iu first, were all put out for 11, H illyer taking nine wickets for 7 runs and Calvert one for 4. “ S ” B ittery made 12 for the loss of two men, and won by eight wickets. T h e matches for the Hastings Festival are as follow s:— Aug. 29, 30 and 31.— Sussex v. Gloucester­ shire. Sept. 2, 3 and 4.—Gentlemen of the South v. Players of the South. The teams for the latter match will b e : — Gentlemen of the South:— G. L. Jessop (capt.), 0 . P. McGahey, P. A. Perrin, S. H. Day, K. N. R. Blaker, 0. L. A. Smith, K. O. Goldie, R , A. Young, J. W . Nason, P. E. May, and A. E. Morcom. Players of the South:—Braund, Langdon, Dennett, Killick, Vine, Eelf (A. E .), Butt, Humphreys, Seymour (Jas.), Fairservice, and Woolley. D uring the remainder of the season those who are interested in averages will be interested in the doings of Fry and Hayward, for on their doings during the next fortnight will depend which of the pair shall occupy first place in the batting table when the season closes. A t the present time their position is as follows : No. Times Most of not Total in an Inns. out. runs. inns. Aver. Hayward ... 49 ... 5 ... 2000 ... 161 ... 40-59 C. B. Fry ... 82 ... 3 ... 1342 ... 187 ... 46-27 In instituting this comparison one must not overlook the fact that Hayward has played 50 per cent, more innings than Fry, and that the latter was very for­ tunate in missing many rain-spoilt wickets at the begiuning of the season. T .R .H . P rin c e s E d w a rd an d A lb e r t o r W a l e s played in a boys’ match for Dropmore v. Rev. E . D. Shaw’s X I., at Dropmore yesterday. The former scored 4 and 2, and the latter 6 and 0. Each was bow led in his first innings and caught in his second. The Rev. E . D. Shaw’s X I . scored 127 and 121 for seven wickets, innings declared closed, and Dropmore 76 and 45. M e s s r s . D ic k in s o n s , of New Bond Street, are about to paint a representative picture in oils of the members of the Surrey County C.C. The pavilion, and part of the ground on the occasion of an important match, will be included. The follow in g are some o f the latest h u n d reds: — AUGUST. 12. H. T. C. Blackwood, Stade Framjais v. Beaulieu .............................................. 108 12. J. Lambert, Old Charlton v. Thanet Nomads ............................................. 132 13. M. W. Ireland, H. L. Horsfall’s XI. v. Starston Place ..................................... 131* 13. W. C. Kisliugbury, Nondescripts v. West­ ward Ho ! ............................................ 120 13. H. H. Marriott, Free Foresters v. S. H. Cochrane’s XI.......................................... 105* 14. A. Bromley Davenport, WaveneyWanderers v. Starston Place ............... ......... 108 15. J. Burrough, Free Foresters v. Hampshire Hogs ..................................................... Ill 15. J. M. Quinton, Free Foresters v. Hamp­ shire H o g s ............................................. 112 16. F. S. Lewis, Marlborough Blues v. A. Millcr-Hallett’s XI.................................. 170 10. F. W. Romney, Incogniti v. Exmouth... 116 16. E. J. Dobson, Incogniti v. Exmouth. 103 17. L. J. Moon, Nondescripts v. North Devon..115 17. A. A. Coles, Old Charlton v. Thanet. 137* 17. G. R. J. Round, Marlborough Blues v. A. Miller-Hallett’s XI.................................. 109* 17. MajorAshby, Priory Park v. Standard A.C., Paris ..................................................... 134 17. N. Miller, Streatham v. Bickley Park ... Ill* 17. T. E. Hodgson, Bickley Park v. Streatham 105 17. C. Wills, Polytechnic v. Finsbury Borough Officers..................................................... 104* 17. H. Hayler, Hellingly Asylum v. E. A. Jones’ XI.................................................. 119 19. Munds, Tonbridge v. Granville (Lee)......... 131 19. M. C. Parry, Herefordshire Gentlemen v. Shropshire Gentlemen ........................ 130 19. S. E. Busher, Barnes v. R.G.A. (Dover) ... 129* 19. S. M. Tovne, Hampshire Hogs v. Somerset Stragglers (1st inns.) ........................ 110 20. S. M. Toyne, Hampshire Hogs v. Somerset Stragglers (2nd inns.) ........................ 102 21. H. Lott, Major A. D. Richards’ XI. v. Eastbourne........................................... . 134 21. G. Fowler, Somerset Stragglers v. Quixotics 147 21. A. H. Du Boulay, Royal Engineers v. N.C.O.’s and Sappers ........................ 147 21. E. D. Bisgood, Richmond v. Holloway Sanatorium............................................. 100 21. P. R. Earnshaw, Barnes v. Hythe ......... 146 21. B. P. Dobson, Incogniti v. Seaton ......... 119 21. C. A. E. Greene, Incogniti v. Seaton......... 104* 21. F. H. Gresson, Sussex Martlets v. J. F. Hope’s XI................................................. 132* 21. P. Cartwright, Lewes Priory v. Old Brightonians ...................................... 112 22. G. Marsden, Bourton Vale v. Eton Ramblers 111 22. R. Kenward, Wanderers v. Bexhill .......... 101 22. W. N. Bernard, Quixotics v. Somerset Stragglers .............................................. 144 22. A. Hartley, Lancs. 2nd XI. v. Hertford­ shire ... ............................................ 123 22. H ayward , S urrey v . W orcestershire ( at W orcester )... ...................................... 127 22. H obbs , S urrey v . W orcestershire ( at W orcester )............................................. 110 22. Dr. A. E. Hobbs, Three Counties’ Asylum v. Camberwell ...................................... 170 22. Capt. F. S. Nisbet, 2nd Manchester Regt. v. Grange (at Guernsey)........................ 214 22. S. G. Etheridge, L. Niederheitmann’s XII. v. W. P. Harrison's XII. (Finchley) ... 143 23. J. Stone, Hampshire Hogs v. United Services ............................................. Ill 23. G. C. W hite , S outh A fricans v . G louces ­ tershire ( at B ristol ) ........................ 162* 23. H. K. F oster , W orcestershire v . S urrey ( at W orcester ) ...................................... 137 23. Montgomery, Leighton v. Quixotics......... 100 23. J. Stow, Hampshire Hogs v. United Services.................................................... Ill 23. H. D. Harben,Warnliam Lodge v.Warnham 142 23. A. C. Havers, Tunbridge Wells v. Lancing Old BOys ............................................. 142 23. P. R. Johnson, M.C.C and Ground v. Devon Dumplings............................................. 117 24. A. M arshal , S urrey v. W orcestershire ( at W orcester )...................................... Ill 24. Pullen, Ealing Park v. Norwood Green ... 100* 24. T. J. Wheeler, Private Banks v. Herne Hill 102* 24. S. W. Fuller, Dorking Working Men v. Denbies..................................................... 103* 24. Williams, London Joint Stock Bank v. Alleyn ..................................................... 112* 24. J. G. Donaldson, Hampstead v. Nonde­ scripts ..................................................... 104* 24. S. Whitaker, Swindon v. Stroud................. 103* 24. Capt.H. S. Bush, Blackheath v.OldCharlton 172 24. C. B. Baker, M.C.C. and Ground v. Devon Dumplings ... ...................................... 102 24. J. Bowstead, Pallingswick v. Mill Hill Park 119* 24. Still, Bromley v. Bickley Park ................. 101* 24. Paris, L. & N.-W. Railway v. Brookfield ... 101* 24. Lieut. G. Harrison, •United Services v. Hampshire Hogs ... .......... ... ... 105