Cricket 1908

412 CRICKET THE COUNTIES IN 1908. The honours of the County season of 1908 clearly belonged to Yorkshire, who, for the eighth time since the institution of the com­ petition in 1873, carried off the Champion­ ship. The final positions of the counties were as under :— Per- Played. Won.Lost.Drwn.Pts. centage Yorkshire ........... 28 .. . 16 ... 0 ... 12 ... 16 ... 100-00 Kent ................... 25 .. . 17 ... 3 ... 5 ... 14 ... 70-00 Surrey ................... 29 .. . 13 ... 4 ... 12 .. 9 ... 52-94 Middlesex ......... 19 ... 6 .. . 3 ... 10 ... 3 ... 33-33 Sussex ................... 28 ... 6 .. . 4 ... 18 2 .. 20-00 Worcestershire ... 18 ... 0 ... 5 ... 7 ... 1 ... 9-09 Lancashire ........... 25 .. . 10 .... 9 .. 6 ... 1 . 5 26 Nottinghamshire 20 .. . 6 ..,. 7 ... 7 — 1 ...— 7-69 Hampshire ... ... 22 ... 7 .. . 9 . .. 6 — 2 ...—12-50 Gloucestershire ... 24 ... 8 .... 11 ... 5 — 3 ...—15-78 Essex ................... 22 . 5 ... 7 ... 10 _ 2 ..—16-06 Warwickshire ... 21 ... 5 .. . 9 ... 7 — 4 ...—28 57 Leicestershire 21 ... 4 ... S ... 9 — 4 ...—33-33 D erbyshire........... 22 .. . 5 ... 13 ... 4 — 8 ...—44-44 Northamptonshire 22 ... 3 .. . 14 ... 5 —11 ...—64-70 Somerset ........... 20 .. . 2 .. . 13 ... 5 —11 ...—73 33 The following matches were abandoned without a ball having been bowled, and are therefore not included in the above table: Surrey v. Lancashire, at the O val; Kent v. Middlesex, at Tunbridge Wells; and Warwickshire v. Leicestershire, at Coventry. YO RK SH IRE. For the fifth time in nine years Yorkshire obtained the Championship, and, consider­ ing that that they met all the other first- class couuties with the single exception of Hampshire, accomplished a really great performance in passing through the season without a defeat. In strictly inter-county games their record was the same as iu 1900, namely, sixteen of the twenty- eight matches won and twelve drawn. Their successes were obtained over Surrey, Lan­ cashire, Gloucestershire, and Derbyshire twice each, and Kent, Middlesex, Notting­ hamshire, Leicestershire, Warwickshire, Somerset, Northamptonshire, and Wor­ cestershire once each. The majority of the drawn games were due largely to rain, though in the return match with Kent at Dover lack of enterprise played a leading part in the result. There was nothing remarkable about the batting of the side, though when runs were wanted there was always somebody equal to the occasion. Wilkinson, the left­ hander, showed much improved form and made himself practically indispensable to the side. It was the fielding and bowling which won the eleven their matches. A mere glance at the statistics which follow is sufficient to show how strong the side was in bowling. Furthermore, the highest aggregate innings made against the county was but 309 by Leicestershire at Harrogate and the only individual three-figure score 109 by James Douglas for Middlesex at Bradford, whilst the absence for some time of Haigh, who was irresistible on slow wickets, did not affect the side much. Hirst was at his best as a bowler, his greatest feat being at Worcester early in the season, when the home side were dismissed for 92 runs on a good wicket and beaten by 69. Rhodes, devoting more of his attention to batting, was treated as a change bowler, and so did not obtain as many wickets as usual. Beyond everything else, however, the feature of the Yorkshire season was the success of Newstead, who proved himself an excellent fast-wicket bowler and one who could be depended upon to show his best form when a great effort wss required of him. Hunter, despite his forty-eight years, kept wicket as well as ever and was unlucky in being incapacitated more than once. : A WEEKLY RECORD OF BATTING A V ER A G ES. Times Most not in an Total Inns. out. inns. runs. Aver. Hirst ................ .........41 8 128* 1332 40-36 D enton................ .........44 4 110 1488 37-20 Rhodes ................ ......... 43 1 146 1412 33 61 Wilkinson ..................42 3 99 111 1 28 48 Hardisty ..................i)7 4 84 595 25-86 Newstead ..................35 5 1 0* 733 24-43 Myers ................ .........26 3 43 457 19 86 Rothery................ .........35 1 161 649 19-08 Lord Hawke 22 7 5(1* 274 1826 Bates ................ 34 4 56* 492 16 40 Griaoshaw ... .......... 7 2 24 78 1560 H un ter..........................23 10 38 173 13 30 Haigh ................ ......... 22 5 31 196 11-52 W atson................ ......... 6 2 16* 23 5-75 H. S. Kaye .................. 5 0 15 25 500 Wilson (109), A. W. Lupton (4), and Booth (1) also batted. The following hundreds were hit for the side: — Denton, v. Northamptonshire, at Northampton 110 Flirst, v. Derbyshire, at Chesterfield ....................*128 Vewstead, v. Notts, at Nottingham ....................*100 Rhodes, v. Northamptonshire.at Huddersfield .. 140 Rhodes, v. Leicestershire, at Harrogate ...........122 Rhodes, v. Worcestershire, at Sheffield.................146 Rothery v. Kent, at Dover..........................................161 Wilson, v. Derbyshire, at Leeds ..........................109 •Signifies not out. BOW LING AVER A G ES. Overs. Mdns. Runs. Wkts. Aver. Haigh ........... ... 412.1 11.3 860 71 12 11 Hirst ........... ... 893.5 238 1911 156 12 44 Newstead ... 8'»4.4 221 1700 115 11*78 Rhodes ........... ... 593.1 183 1295 78 16 60 Myers ........... ... 131 31 338 10 33-80 Wilkinson ... 16* 6 36 1 36 00 The following each bowled in one innings :—Bates (2-0-11 0), Rooth (6-::-l0-0), Denton (5-0-16-1), Grim­ shaw (6-2-9-0), A W. Lupton (2-0-15-0), and Rotherv (6.4-0-18-1). KENT. Kent improved considerably upon their record for 1907, advancing from eighth place to second. That they deserved their success is everywhere acknowledged, for the side always showed attractive cricket and played the game in the fullest sense of the term. Although playing fewer matches, they won one game more than Yorkshire, but they were beaten three times. Early in the season they were defeated by Yorkshire at Bradford on a soft wicket, but they did not sustain another reverse until the second week in August when, owing partly to dropped catches, Hampshire beat them after a great struggle by one wicket at Canterbury. They after­ wards failed dismally against Surrey at the Oval, but concluded their season by defeating Middlesex in dramatic fashion at Lord’s a few minutes before time after a draw had appeared certain. The fielding of the side was very good on the whole, but the batting, though strong, was not always reliable. Hutchings, judged by his form of 1906, was a disappointment, S. H. Day and Mason could assist the side only occasionally, and Burnup was not able to play at all. The most improved form was shown by Hardinge, who made two separate hundreds in the match with Essex at Leyton and scored over a thousand runs with an average of 34 32. The team twice made as many as six hundred in an innings, and in the match with Somer­ set at Taunton their total of 601 for eight wickets contained four individual three- figure scores. Blythe did admirable work as a bowler considering the number of hard wickets he played on, and Fielder also enjoyed a successful season, whilst Fairservice often rendered capital service on the slow wickets. Blythe, Fielder and Hutchings were all obliged to stand out of the side at one time or another owing to injuries, and their presence was naturally much missed. GAME. S e p t . io , 1908. B A TT IN G A V E R A G E S. Times Most not in an Total Inns. out. inns. runs. Aver. J . R. M ason.......... ... 9 1 112 416 5200 S. H. Day ........... ... 12 a 114 502 41-83 Seymour ........... ... 39 1 171 1344 35 36 Hardinge ........... ... 38 1 153 1270 34-32 A. P. Day ........... ... 20 3 118 568 3341 Woo le y ................. ... 38 3 152 1120 3200 Humphreys........... ... 34 4 149 919 3063 C. H. B. Marsham ... 35 2 128 960 2909 K. L. Hutchings... ... 32 0 132 887 27*71 (). S. Hurst .......... ... 3 0 46 70 2333 F airservice........... ... 25 7 55 393 21-83 E. W. Dillon.......... ... 16 0 93 342 2137 Huish ................... .. 32 5 31 366 13*55 Blythe .................. ... 27 5 27* 231 10*50 F ie ld e r.................. ... 20 11 22* 92 1022 The following also batted Preston, 1*, 2’ ,,and 8: Hubble, 19* and 0; Munds, 29; L . H. W. Trough- ton, 22. The following hundreds were hit for the sid e: — A. P. Day, V. Somerset, at Taunton ..................... 118 S. H. Day, v. Sussex, at Canterbury ......................114 Hardinge, v. Derbyshire, at Derby............................. 127 Hardinge, v. Essex, at Leyton (1st innings) ... 153 Hardinge, v. Essex, at Leyton, (2nd innings) ... 126 Humphreys, v. Leicestershire, at Leicester........... *111 Humphreys v. Somerset, at T aunton..................... 149 K. L. Hutchings, v. Northamptonshire, at Gravesend ................................................. 132 K. L. Hutchings, v. Derbyshire, at Derby ..............102 0 . 11. B. Marsham, v. Gloucestershire, at Ton­ bridge ........... .....................................116 O. H. B. Marsham, v. Essex, at Tonbridge............. 128 J . R Mason, v. Somerset, at Dover ..................... 112 Seymour, v. Derbyshire, at D erb y............................. 171 Seymour, v. Somerset, at Taunton............................. 129 Seymour, v. Leicestershire, at Canterbury..............137 Woolley, v. Northamptonshire, at Gravesend ... 152 Woolley, v. Somerset, at T au nton .............................105 * Signifies not out. BOW LING A V ER A G ES. Overs. Mdns. Runs. Wkts. Aver. Blythe .................. 113 1 330 2753 167 1648 W oolley.................. 403 1 7 1017 58 17 53 Faiivervice ........... 559 173 1385 75 1846 Fielder .................. 568.1 151 1506 76 19 81 J R. Mason .......... 150 44 351 16 21 93 Preston .................. 51.3 19 135 6 22 50 Seym our.................. 72 15 229 9 25 14 A. P. D a y ................. 67 10 210 8 26 :*5 Humphreys ........... 165.4 41 463 II 3307 Hardinge.................. 22 3 93 2 16 50 E. W. Dill n .......... 7 1 20 0 — K . L. Hutchings (5-2-16-1) also bowled in three innings, and C. 11. B. Mu-sham i2.2-l-7-0) aud O. S. Hurst (2-J-12-0) once each. SU R R E Y . Winning thirteen and losing four of the twenty-nine matches played, Surrey advanced from fourth place to third. Fixtures having, to everyone’s satisfaction, been renewed with Somerset, all the other first-class counties were met twice, though, owing to rain, it was found impossible to bowl a ball in the return match with Lancashire at the Oval. Surrey were beaten by Yorkshire at Leeds on a soft wicket in May, but did not again suffer defeat until the end of July, when Kent, after being outplayed in the first part of the match, beat them at Blackheath. They afterwards went down against Yorkshire at the Oval and Gloucestershire at Bristol, but only the former County and Kent were ahead of them in the Championship table. As usual, the side were seen at their best on hard wickets, and, despite their four reverses, they accomplished several good performances, including their single innings victories over Lancashire. Kent, and Middlesex. In batting Haywaid, as for several years past, was the mainstay, and his aggregate of 1,874 and average of 46 85 represent much excellent work; he made four hundreds and also scored over 90 twice. Marshal, with increased confidence, proved himself the best all round man in the side. His batting was at times brilliant in the extreme, his bowling was often very successful, and his fielding was always of a high standard. Hobbs, though