Cricket 1908

S e p t . io, 1908. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 4i3 averaging a trifle less than in 1907, enjoyed another very successful season, and Crawford was seeii to advantage on many occasions in the early part of the season, his great feat being a score of 232 against Somerset at the Oval. He also took 88 wickets at a cost of 20*72 runs each, but he scarcely did so well iu bowling as was expected. Perhaps not having had a thorough rest since 1906-7 proved too great a strain for him. Smith (W.C.), who heads the bowling statis*ics, proved of great service early in the season but did not keep his place in the side. Yerv little was seen of Knox, but Le^s worked hard and took eighty-five wickcts. E. C. Kirk, the left-hander, showed form which m °kes one wish he was seen more often in gL'j r. matches, whilst Hitch, who possesses grea« pace, enjoyed more than one triumph. BATTING AVERAGES. T mes Most not in an Total Inns out. inns. runs. A ver. Hayward ........... .. 40 0 175 1874 46*85 J . N. Orawford ... .. 33 3 232 . 1212 40-10 M arshal.................. .. 43 -) 176 1(555 40*36 Hobbs .................. .. 39 I 161 1507 39*65 Ducat .................. .. 11 1 77* 327 32*70 Goatly..................... .. 8 2 51 181 30*16 Holland.................. .. 30 8 89* 61)8 27*63 H.D G. Leveson-Goiver 25 9 78* 388 24*25 Lord Dalmeny ... .. 6 0 71 145 24*16 Hayes .., ........... ... 37 0 136 848 22 91 Davis ................... ... 17 2 55 332 22*13 Spring .................. ... 12 1 53 239 2172 Lees.......................... ... 29 4 41* 371 14 84 Blacklidge .......... ... 4 0 45 51 1275 Smith (W .O .) ... ... 17 4 39* 159 12*23 c apt. II. S. Bush K O K irk ........... ... 9 0 47 91 10* 11 ... 5 0 21 50 10*00 Hitch ................... ... 12 1 30 98 8*90 S'rudwlck .......... ... 32 10 55 1.9 7*22 N. A . K n o x ........... ... 5 1 16* 21 6*00 The following also batted Rushby (0*, ?, 6*, 0*, and 30), PJatt (26 and 4), V igar (16 and 8), II. S. Altham (35), Smith (F. E.) (4*), and Stedman (12;. The following hundreds were hit for the side J . N. Crawford, v. Somerset, at the Oval ...........232 .1. N. Orawford, v. Derbyshire, at Derby ...........104 J . N. Crawford, v. Hampshire, at Portsmouth ... 121 Hayes, v. Sussex, at the Oval ......................................136 ITayward, v. Essex, at t‘ie Oval ..........................109 Tlayward, v. Warwickshire, at the Ov.il ...........124 1 layward, v. Sussex, at the Oval ..........................101 Hayward, v. Sussex, at Br gliton ..........................175 Hobbs, v Hampshire, at the O v a l.............................101 Hobbs, v. Notts, at Nottingham ............................*117 Hobbs, v. Northamptonshire, at Northampton... 125 Hobbs, v. Kent, at Hlackheath......... .....................106 Hobbs, v. Kent, ai the Oval ......................................155 Marshal, v. Worcestershire, at Worcester ..............175 Marshal, v. Northamptonshire, at Northampton 113 Marshal, v. Middlesex, at tho Oval..............................108 Marshal, v. Kent, at the O v a l......................................167 * Signifies not out. BOW LING AVERAGES. Overs. Mdns. Runs. Wkts. Aver. Smith (W. O.) ... 356 105 806 56 14*3l> E .G . K irk .......... 100 48 384 21 1600 M arsh al.................. 362.5 112 891) 47 1912 Smith (F. E .) ......... 35 8 98 5 I9 60 le e s .......................... 741.1 .3) 172*) 85 20*23 Hitch ... .. 353 5 nS 12«>2 58 2072 .1. N. Orawford ... 624 121 18.*4 8S 20*72 Haves .. ........... 216.3 55 671 31 21*61 P latt.......................... 42 5 16 111 5 22*20 Rushby ................... 156 42 365 15 24:53 Hobbs .................. 33.4 7 98 4 2 1 * 51 . Blacklidge ........... 33 4 84 3 23*00 Spring .................. 142.5 41 361 13 2800 N. A. Knox ........... 110 20 352 9 39 11 Goatly (4-0-7-0) bowlei in two innings. The following bowled in one innings only : -Lord Dalmeny (0.5-0-4-1), Davis (4-2-1-0), Ducat (7-0-21-0), Hayward (1-0-2-0), H. D.G. Leveson-Gower( 1.1-0-7-*'). M IDD LESEX . Only nine of the twenty matches arranged by Middlesex were completed, six being won and three lo st: of the remaining eleven ten were drawn and one—agaiust Kent at Tun­ bridge Wells—abandoned. The three defeats sustained were at the hands of Yorkshire, Kent—both at Lord’s —and Surrey. Middle­ sex gave the Champions two excellent games, being beaten by only three wickets at Lord’s and almost pulling off the match against time at Bradford. They were successful in both their matches with Notts and Gloucester­ shire and also beat Lancashire and Somerset. Their meetings with Gloucestershire produced two very finely-contested matches, Middlesex winning by three wickets at Lord’s and by two ruus, after the game had been a tie on tho first innings, at Bristol. It was in bitting that the side was so strong. Warner, who performed excellently on all kinds of wickets, was de-ervedly first in the averages, with over 54 runs an innings. In the absence of MacGregor he led the side, but the cares of captaincy did not appear to handicap him in the least. Bosanquet, who played rather more frequently than usual, was at his best and scored 661 runs with an average of 50*84: his innings of 100 against Lancashire at Lord’s was oue of the finest played during the whole season. Moon made 400 runs in his first four innings, but naturally could not maintain such form, and eventually wound up with an average of just under 40. The side was much strengthened in August by the re-appearance of James Douglas, who had the distinction of playing the only three-figure innings of the year against Yorkshire. Tarrant showed splendid all-round form, and, although he generally batted very steadily, more than once showed that he could hit freely when he wished: especially was this the case at Bradford, when he and Douglas gave the Yorkshiremen a great fright. In strictly inter-county matches Tarrant scored 1,206 ruus and took 93 wickets. Taken altogether, the bowling of the side was rather expensive. Trott showed a great falling off, and Hearne, apart from one day in the York­ shire match at Bradford, had few successes. Mignon, however, was kept out of the side for some time by an injury, aud little was seen of Hunt. Iu the absence of MacGregor, the wicket-keeping was shared by Moon and Murrell. BATTING AVERAGES. Times Most not in an Total Inns. out. inns. runs. Aver. P. F. Warner .......... 2 3 2 120 1298 54*08 B. J . T. Bosanquet... 15 2 133 001 50-84 Tarrant .................. 28 3 157 1200 48-24 L. J . Moon.................. 23 0 135 914 39 73 J. Douglas.................. 14 1 109 501 38*53 0. C. P ago................. 23 2 104* 087 32-71 W. P. Harrison......... IS 4 50* 401 28 04 C A. L. Payne....... 10 0 71 231 23*10 J . H. Hunt ........ 10 0 6> 214 21*40 E. S. Litteljohn ... 13 0 57 202 15-53 Murrell .................. 14 5 22 122 13*55 Trott .......................... 24 1 49 203 11-43 C. M. Wells .......... 11 2 27 88 9 77 Mignon .................. 15 0 34 80 9‘55 Hendren ................. 9 1 35 70 9-50 Hearne (J. T .) ........... 15 0 22* 78 8-00 S. J. Etheridge......... 8 1 22 00 8*57 P. A. II. Henley ... 5 C 11 33 0.00 The following also batted : Hon. C. N. Bruce, 30 and 1 1 ; L. G. Colbeck, 8 and 7* ; J. T. Dixon, 7 and 0; G. L. Hebden, 35* aud 0; A. R. Litteljohn, 0 and 0; W. S. Bird, 5 ; V. O’Connor, 0. * Signifies not out. The following hundreds were hit for the side:— B. J. T. Bosanquet, v. Somerset, atLord’s ... 135 1J. J. T. Bosanquet, v. Lancashire, atLord’s ... 100 J. Douglas, v. Yorkshire, at Bradford.................. 109 L. J. Moon, v. Somerset, at Lord’s .................. 135 L. J . Moon, v. Sussex, at Lord’s .......................... 110 C. C. Page, v. Somerset, at Lord’s ..................*104 Tarrant, v. Hampshire, at Lord’s ......................... 157 Tarrant, v. Notts, at Lord’s .................................. 103 Tarrant, v. Lancashire, at Lord’s.......................... 113 Tarrant v. Gloucestershire, at Bristol.......... .. 152 Tarrant, v. Notts, at Nottingham..........................*144 P. F. Warner, v. Hampshiie, at Lord's .......... 110 P. F. Warner, v. Essex, at Leyton .................. 120 P. F. Warner, v. Somerset, at Taunton ... ... 105 P. F. Warner, v. Essex, at Lord s ........ ... 117 P. F. Warner, v. Hampshire, at Bournemouth *104 * Signifies not out. BOWLING AVERAGES. Overs. Mdns. Runs. Wkts. Aver. J. H. Hunt ......... 115-3 37 250 13 19'23 Tarrant ................. 732-2 20S 1820 93 19*50 Mignon ................. 297*5 51 1025 50 20*50 C. M. Wells ......... 208 29 602 27 24*51 Hearne (J. T.) ... 343*1 98 876 33 26*54 B. J. T. Bosanquet 70*1 7 300 11 27*27 Trott......................... 490*1 140 1363 41 33*24 F. A. H. Henley ...- 54*2 4 229 3 76*33 Hendren.................. 88*3 17 28S 3 96*00 G. L. Hebden ... 21 4 94 0 — The following each bowled in one innings: V. O’Connor (15-2-62-1), J . T. Dixon (5-0-22-0), W. P. Harrison (3-0-23-0), L. J . Moon (3-0-11-0). SU SSEX . There was practically nothing of interest in connection with Sussex cricket apart from the re appearance of R^njitsinhji, who, as H.H. the Jam of Nawanagar, assisted the side in ten matches and heade I the batting averages. At times he showed all his old form with the bat, but increased weight caused him to lose a good deal of his activity in the field. He scored 200 against Surrey at the Oval an 1 153 not out at th*>expense of Middlesex at Lord’s, and averaged a fraction over 65 for thirteen innings. Little was seen of Fry, who did not play until the end of June and took part iu only eight matches. In his absence the side was led by C. L . A. Smith, and, in the latter part of the seasou, 11. A. Y'oung. There can be no doubt that the lack of a regular captain handicapped the side a great deal, aud the Committee would be well advised to guard against such an element of uncertainty entering into the cricket in future. A great deal of res­ ponsibility rested on Vine, Killick, and the brothers Keif, and each made over a thousand runs, the two first named with an average of over 30. The elder Iielf, in addition to his successful batting, took 109 wickets at a cost of under 20 runs each. He leceive I useful support from C j x , Killick. and Vincett, but Leach was veiy expensive an I Dwyer quite lost his form. Vincett gave evidence of developing into a very useful all-round player, and Butt coutinued to give much satisfaction as wicket-keeper. Only ten of the twenty-eight matches played were com- ple'ed, six being won and four lo-*t. Somerse1- and Derbyshire we e each beaten twice and Lancashire .aud Worcestershire once, whilst the defeats were sustained at the hands of Kent, Nottinghamshire, Hamp­ shire and Leicestershiie. The remaining eighteen matches were unfinished. ' BATTING AVERAGES. Times Most not iu an Total IT. H. The Jam of Inns. out. inns. runs. Aver. Nawanagar ........... 13 2 203 716 05 09 G. Whitfeld ........... 5 2 71*. 191 03*60 O. B. Fry ................... 10 0 214 598 59*80 Vine .......................... 41 4 120 * 1490 37*25 R. A. Young ........... 10 0 107 593 37*00 J . V. Young ........... 5 0 84 " 105 21-00 Killick .................. 1 \ 2 10 1 * 1326 3157 Relf (A .E .) ........... 41 1 138 1130 27*50 Relf (R. R.) ........... ■\ i 1 128 1019 26 1*2 J. W. W. Nason 15 2 72 207 20 53 Cox (G.) .................. 38 13 51 449 17-96 Leach............................ 37 0 ' 09 521 10-80 Vincett .................. 80 8 4-2* 44-2 15*78 Dwyer .................. 12 ' 0 34 177 * 14-75 C. L. A. Sm ith........... 18 *’ 2 71 214 13-37 Capt. H. E. Trevor... 4 1 22 * 39 13 00 Butt .......................... 37 13 50 308 12-83 H. L. Simms ........... 15 0 43 173 11-53 Capt. A. C. G. Luther 11 1 33 100 10-00 The following also batted : H. I. P. Edwards, 7 and 15 : W. K. Ramsbotham, 9 and 3. The following hundreds were hit for the side C. B. Fry, v. Lancashire, at Manchester.......... 120 C. B. Fry, v. Somerset, at Brighton ................. n o C. B. Fry, v. Worcestershire, at Brighton ... 214 H.H. the Jam of Naw.magar, v. Middlesex, at Lord’s..................................................' ... ■............ +153 H.H. the Jam of Nawanagar, v. Surrey, at the Oval .......................... ...................... ... ... 200 Killick, v. Middlesex, at Lord’s ........................