Cricket 1908

4 H CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. S e p t . i o , 1908. Relf (A. E.), v. Gloucestershire, at Gloucester. Relf (R. R.), v. Leicestershire, at Eastbourne, Vine, v. Middlesex, at Lord’s ........................ Vine, v. Nottinghamshire, at Nottingham R. A . Young, v. Warwickshire, at Brighton , * Signifies not out. BOWLING AVERAGES. Overs. Mdns. Runs. Wkts. Relf (A. E.) ...........1031-2 337 2084 100 Cox ( G .) .................. 742-4 234 1780 80 Killick ................... 378-3 88 1148 51 Vincett ................... 402*3 86 1144 40 H.H. the Jam of Nawanagar............ 27 7 70 3 Leach ................... 308-4 02 045 34 Relf (R. R.) ............ 175 41 400 10 V in e........................... 333-4 110 814 24 Dwyer ......... . ... 95*1 24 200. 5 The following each bowled in one innings: W. Nason (4*1-1-10-1), H. L. fcimms (9-0-49- J . V. Young (5-0-28-0). 138 128 119 * 120 107 Aver. 19*11 22*30 22-50 *23-34 30*02 33*91 63*20 J. W. 2), and W O RCESTERSH IRE. Inasmuch as in 1907 they tied with York­ shire for second place among the Counties, Worcestershire’s record for the past season must be considered disappointing. Not once, however, were they asssted by R . E . Foster and his absence was severely fe lt; it is much to be regretted that so fine a batsman should be unable to spare the time to appear for his County. One of Worcestershire’s best per­ formances was in their home match with Surrey, when, set 307 runs to win, they made 292 and were beaten by only 14 iuns. Less than three weeks later they went down on the same ground against Yorkshire by 69 runs after obtaining a substantial lead on the first innings, and these two reverses practically ensured a less successful season for the side than in the previous year. It was in batting that their chief strength lay, notwithstanding the absence of R. E . Foster. H. K. Foster, who averaged 52*57, was as good as ever and his brother G. N. proved of great assistance after the University match. Bowley and Pearson were of great service though their form was scarcely equal to that of 1907, but. as though to atone for their falling-off, Arnold and Cuffe showed a corresponding improvement. The side gave eloquent protff of their batting strength early in August on the Worcester ground when they obtained 235 runs in their second innings against Lancashire and won by nine wickets. Cuffe, although he took seventy-one wickets, showed a falling-off as a bowler and Pearson was very expensive, his fifteen wickets costing just under 46 runs each. Simpson-Hayward, fortunately able to p’ ay more frequently than in 1907, took fifty-eight wickets with his lobs for 18*84 runs a piece. The home fixtures were not well supported by the public and, in consequence, there is a proposal on foot to move the Club’s headquarters to Dudley. BATTING AVERAGES. Times Most not in an Total Inns. out. inns. runs. Aver. IT. K . Foster ........... 20 1 215 999 52*57 G. N. Foster .......... 19 1 154 815 45*27 Arnold.......................... 28 5 100* 837 30*39 Cuffe ........... ........... 28 3 120 814 32*50 W. B. Bum s .......... 28 0 120 807 28*82 Pearson ................... 29 2 110* 088 25*48 Bowley ................... 31 0 123 773 24*93 Major W. L. Foster... 4 0 56 86 21*50 Gaukrodger ........... 16 7 45* 170 18*88 A. W. Isaac .......... 7 0 50 131 18*71 Burrows ................... -27 4 41 399 17*31 G. H. Simpson-Hay­ ward.......................... 23 5 42 265 14*72 R. S. Swalw.ell.......... S 1 25 82 11*71 M. K. Foster ........... 3 0 20 34 11*33 Hunt ................................18 0 19* 10*2 8*50 Bale .................................. 9 3 9* 41 6-83 S. E. Busher .......... 3 0 0 8 2-G6 The following also batted : H. G. Bache, 22 and 5 ; Bird, 1 and 2 ; B. S. Foster, 4 and 6 ; lion. C. F. Lyttelton, 18*, The following- hundreds were hit for the side Aruold, v. Somerset, at Taunton.......................... 100 Arnold, v. Gloucestershire, at Worcester.......... *100 Bowley, v. Surrey, at W orcester.......................... 1*23 Bowley, v. Hampshire, at Southampton ........... 100 W. B. Burns, v. Somerset, at Taunton ... ... 108 W. B. Burns, v. Gloucestershire, at Bristol ... 120 Cuffe, v. Lancashire, at Worcester ................... 126 G. N. Foster, v. Sussex, at Worcester................. 154 H. Iv. Foster, v. Surrey, at Worcester .......... 174 11. K. Foster, v. Warwickshire at Worcester ... 215 rearson, v. Lancashire, at Worcester.................. *116 ^Signifies not out. BOWLING AVERAGES. Overs. Mdns. Runs. Wkts. Aver. S. E. B u sh e r.......... S3*3 It 200 13 15*38 G.H . S.-Hayward... 378*4 51 1093 58 18-84 Burrow s.................. 271*2 34 9S0 42 23*33 Arnold .................. 502*3 113 1345 5*2 25*86 W. B. B u rn s.......... 99*3 7 421 16 26 31 Cuffe.......................... 743*1 159 1925 71 27 11 Hunt .................. 138*5 21 461 13 35*46 Pearson .................. 190*3 27 089 15 45-93 B ir d .......................... 25*2 0 5S 1 58*00 The following each bowled in two innings: Hon. C. F. Lyttelton (45-3-143-4), G. N. Foster (0*3-2-24-2), B. S. Foster (4-0-20-0). LANCASH IRE. Inasmuch as of the twenty-six matches ai ranged for 1908 Lancashire won only ten and lost nine, it cannot be said that the county enjoyed a very successful season. They oid not, owing p irtly to accidents, play a regular side, and to this fact their poor record may in a measure be attributed. Tyldesley, who had the personal distinction of making the highest score of the season— 243 against Leicestershire in mid-August— headed the averages and made over 1,500 runs. Sharp was a most consistent run- getter and could generally be relied upon at a crisis, whilst A. Hartley, in his first full year of county cricket, had the satisfaction of making over a thousand runs. Poidevin rendered useful service, but he was not seen very often in the side as he frequently pre­ ferred lawn tennis to cricket. MacLaren played a few useful innings but was little more than a shadow of his former self, and Spooner appeared in only one match. The most pleasing feature of the season, from the county’s p< int of view, was the discovery of B<)lph Whitehead, a young all-round player of far more than usual promise. He made a hundred in his first county match and scored a second at the end of the season, and, in addition to occupying third place in the batting averages, took eighteen wickets, though at somewhat heavy cost. In his first match exception was taken to his delivery by one of the umpires, but it was understood that the opinion whs not shared by any of the players who took part in the game. Brearley once again assisted the side regu­ larly, the foolish quarrel which had kept him out of county cricket having been made up. His bowling was quite one of the features of the English season. He worked very hard and had his reward, his record being 148 wickets at a cost of 15-27 runs each. Dean continued to show steady improvement and bowled well on all kinds of wickets, and Huddleston obtained 56 victims at reasonable cost. BATTING AVERAGES. Times Most not in an Total Inns. out. inns. runs. Aver. Tyldesley (J. T.) ... 37 2 243 1522 43*48 Sh ari)................... ... 42 2 136 1473 3G*82 Whitehead (R.) ... 22 4 131* 623 34*61 L. O. S. Poidevin ... 14 2 80* 347 28*91 Heap ........... ........... 8 1 82* *200 28*57 A. H artley.................. 44 3 109 1053 25*68 AV C. MacLaren ... 13 1 51 302 25*10 Makepeace................... 21 3 59 407 22*61 K. G. Macleod ......... 16 3 46 285 21*92 A.: H. H orn by........... 35 5 80 631 21 *03 A. F. Spooner ........... 29 1 83 450 16*^7 H. D. Stanning ... 6 0 24 81 13*50 t Times Most ,, ......... not in an Total Inns. out. inns. runs. Aver. Tyldesley (W .)........... 13 0 33 146 11*23 C. R. Hartley ........... 4 0 24 41 10*25 Harry ........................... 13 1 2S 120 10 00 Huddleston ........... 23 3 29* 185 9*25 Dean .;........................ 40 13 27 244 9*03 Kermode ................... 3 0 14 20 8*07 F. H. Mugliston ... S 0 24 05 8*12 Cook (L.) ................... 9 3 17 47- 7*83 W. Brearley ........... 27 3 38 165 6*87 Phillips ........... . . 1 0 1 IS 46 5*11 Wdrsley • ................... 21 6 14* -63 4*20 The following also batted : Blomley (2*, 1 *, 4*. and 1), Crabtree (7 and 12), .T. S. Cragg (1 and 9), R. H. Spooner (5 and 33), I'Anson 0. The following hundreds were hit for the side:— A. Hartley, v. Somerset, at Bath........................... 109 Sharp, v. Warwickshire, at Edgbaston ........... 102 Sharp, v. Somerset, at Liverpool ................... 136 Sharp, v. Essex, at Manchester ......... . ........... I ll Tyldesley (J. T.), v. Northamptonshire, at Man­ chester .................................................................. 166 Tyldesley (J. T.), v. Warwickshire, at Edg­ baston.......................................................................... 118 Tyldesley (J. T.), v. Worcestershire, at Worcester *101 Tyldesley (J. T.), v. Leicestershire, at Leicester 243 Tyldesley (J. T.), v. Worcestershire, at Man­ chester .................................................................. 132 Whitehead (It.), v. Notts, at M anchester...........*131 Whitehead(R:), v. Leicestershire, at Manchester 104 * Signifies not out. BOWLING AVERAGES. Overs. Mdns. Runs. Wkts. Aver. W. Brearley.......... 759 152 2261 14S 15*27 Huddleston........... 404*4 118 974 5G 17*39 Harry .................. 184*5 05 403 23 17*52 Dean .................. 1007*5 315 2314 124 18*66 K. G. Macleod ... 72 12 240 9 26*66 Sharp .................. 159*1 26 554 20 27*70 Whitehead (R.) ... 100*3 34 541 IS 30*05 Cook (L.) .............. 90*4 20 259 8 3*2*37 Makepeace ............. 14 1 05 2 32*50 Kermode ............. 79 18 217 5 43*40 L. O. S. Poidevin 26 4 89 2 44*50 Heap ..................... 09*1 18 209 4 52*25 Tyldesley (W.) ... 30 5 111 2 55*50 I’Anson (8*4-2-23-3) bowled in two innings, and the following bowled in one innings only : Crabtree (3-0-20-0), A. Hartley (1-0-5-0), A. H. Hornby (1-1-0-0), Tyldesley (J. T.) (1-0-7-0). NOTTINGHAMSH IRE; No side gave a more disappointing display during 1908 that Nottinghamshire, who, although playing the same side as in the previous year, dropped from first place to eighth. The batting did not prove so strong as was expected, neither George Gunn, Payton, nor Hardstaff quite proving the success anticipated. Jones, for years one of the most consistent run-getters on the side, was still' feeling the effect of the severe illness he went through in Australia and, in consequence, had a poor season—in thirty- two completed innings he scored only 740 runs with an average of slightly over 23. Iremonger obtained what was for him a very moderate amount of success with the bat, but he came on wonderfully as a bowler and headed the averages, his fifty-seven wickets costing 17*71 runs each. Wass also proved a success with the ball and took 116 wickets for 18*66 runs apiece, but he was not to be feared so much as in 1907. Hallam fell off considerably, taking less than half the number of wickets that he did in the previous year and at double the cost, whilst John Gunn, owing to an injury, was away from the side for over six weeks. The fielding of the eleven was occasionally poor and, altogether, the cricket of the side quite failed to compare with their displays during 1907, when they went through the season without a reverse. BATTING AVERAGES. Times Most not in an Total Inns. out. inns. runs. Aver. Gunn (G .)................... 35. 2 129 1130 34 24 Hardstaff ................. * 36 1 113 1114 31*82 Gunn ( J . ) .................. 22 2 144* 598 29-90 Iremonger ( J.).......... 31 5 90 840 28-96 Payton 35 5 91* 830 27*66