Cricket 1909

S e p t . i 6 , 1909. CR ICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 4*3 THE COUNTIES IN 1<J09. (Continuedfrompage 399.) H A M P S H IR E . During 1909 Hampshire advanced from ninth place to eighth, winning seven and losing seven of the 22 matches played com­ pared with seven wins and nine defeats in the same number of games in the previous year. Surrey, Kent, and Northamptonshire beat them twice, and their other reverse was at the hands of Sussex at Biighton. Early in the year it was definitely announced that C. B. F ry would throw in his lot with the side, and, although not playing at all regularly, he headed the \ atting averages with 47 runs an innings for an aggrega'e of 658. Both Lewellyn and Mead made over a thousand runs and occupied second and third place respectively. Of the eleven hun­ dreds made for the County Llewellyn claimed four, two of them being against Sussex at Brighton. Bowell played a couple of three- figure innings, but his batiing was not con­ sistent and he had to rest content with an average of 25 94, compared with one of 28 G4 iu 1908. Capt. White and Stone showed a marked advance and W . H. B. Evans proved a decided acquisition on the few occasions upon which he played. In addition to aver­ aging 25-90 with the bat, the last-named took twenty-eight wickets for 1871 runs each. Llewellyn, however, was the best all-round cricketer in the side, but his 53 wickets were obtained at rather a heavy cost. McDonell, able to play only occasionally, took forty- three wickets and followed Evans in the averages, whilst Newman, after commencing well, did not quite succeel in maintaining his form. Brown, also, did not do quite so well as expected as a fast bowler, but he made more than one useful score and should devtlop into a good all-round player. Stone quite maintained his form as a wicket-keeper. BATTING AVERAGES. W O R C E S T E R S H IR E . Times Most not in an Inns. out. inns. Runs. Aver. 15 1 132 058 47-00 36 8 130 1096 39-14 38 2 114 1352 37 55 24 1 160* 850 30 95 35 3 109 869 2715 36 2 149 882 25-94 11 0 80 2S5 25 90 27 1 138 575 22 11 5 2 43* 62 20-66 32 3 75 522 18-00 11 1 30 132 13-20 7 2 40* 65 13 00 31 9 51 285 12-95 14 0 43 160 11-42 7 0 21 63 9 00 11 1 28 69 6-90 23 9 12 73 521 5 0 9 24 4-SO C. B. Fry .................. L lew ellyn .................. Mead (C. P.) ........... Capt. W. N. White ... Stone .......................... Bowell........................... W. H. B. Evans .. E. M. Sprot .......... H. A. II. Smith Brown.......................... A. J. L. D ill .......... Remnant ................. Newman (J.) .......... II. C. McDonell A. K. Campbell II. W. Persee ......... Kennedy ................. F. II. Bacon .. .. The following also batted: E. J. Tolfree, 6, 11*, and S ; Rev. W. V. Jephson, 5 and 0 ; Commander B. S. Evans, 3 and 8; G. Wilder, 0 and 13 ; Harold, 0: A. J. Evans, 51; G. L. Cole, 5; andM. B. Lawson, 0*. BOWLING AVERAGES. Overs. Mdns. Runs. Wkts. Aver. W. H. B. Evans ... 1S8 II. C. McDonell K ennedy........... Newman (J.) ... Brown ........... A. J. L. Hill ... Llewellyn Bowell ........... Mead (C. P.) ... H. W. Persse ... G. Wilder (10 3-25-3), M. B. Lawson (13-3-54-2), and E. J. Tolfree (23-2-04-0) bowled in two innings, and C. B. Fry (1-0-11-0), A. J. Evans (6-1-17-0), Remnant (2-0-17-0), Stone (S-O-77-1), E. M. Sprot (0-3-0-8-0), Capt. W. N. White (05-0-8-0), and Harold (1-0-7-0) in one. 34 524 28 18-71 277-2 45 899 43 20*00 2411 43 081 31 21*96 505-5 121 1760 80 22 00 252 31 962 3S 25-31 22 4 76 3 25 33 439-5 78 139(5 53 20-33 87-3 12 267 8 33-37 258’5 54 773 23 33-60 112 20 376 10 37-00 Worcestershire, although they fell from sixth place to eighth, had a somewhat event­ ful season. They won eight and lost eight of their 20 matches, but the mere statement of that fact quite fails to give one a true idea of what they did. They were the first sidvj to lower the colours of Yorkshire, Kent and Middlesex and they also beat Lancashire at Manchester. They won bot'i their matches with Yorkshire—at Worc( ster by 12 runs and at Harrogate by six wickets but went down twice before Hampshire. They were not consistent in their play, but when at their best were a match for any side. Both Arnold and Pearson, who lipad the avevages, made over a thousand runs and W. B. Bums and Bowley who follow failed to do eo only by 78 and 70 runs respectively. R. E. Foster did not play on a single occasion and the figures of the others were disappointing. Simpson-Hayward bowled lobs very success­ fully, heading the averages, but, on the whole, the attack of the side lacked sting. BATTING AVERAGES. Times Most not in an Total Inns. out. inns. Runs. Aver. Arnold.......................... 3-1 5 200* 1184 40-62 Pearson .................. 37 1 161 1105 30-09 W. B. Burns .......... 34 3 196 922 29-74 Bowley (F.) ........... 37 0 114 930 25-13 Major W. L. Foster... 0 0 41 140 2433 M. K. Foster .......... 18 2 07 382 23-87 G. H. Simpson- Hayward 25 4 53* 461 22-09 H. K. Foster .......... 29 1 90 580 20-71 Cuffe .......................... 36 2 75 092 20 35 G. L. Crowe .......... 4 0 56 80 20-00 II. G. Bache ........... 8 1 36 88 12-57 Burrows .................. 26 2 40* 264 n-oo A. W. Isaac ........... 4 1 17* 32 10-66 Gaukrodger ......... . 13 0 10* 71 10-14 Turner.......................... 13 3 19 91 9-10 Bale .......................... 18 8 31* 89 8-90 W. II. Taylor .......... 6 1 19 41 8-20 Hunt .......................... 7 1 11* 29 4-83 Hickton .................. 9 0 17 41 4-55 Ilon. C. F. Lyttelton. 5 1 9* 12 3-00 The following also batted: Stringer, 0 and 0* ; R. S. Brinton, 0 and 1; Bird, 2 and 0 ; and B. S. Foster, 9. * Signifies not out. BOWLING AVERAGES. Overs. Mdns. Runs. Wkts. G. H. Simpson- Hayward 315-3 43 925 48 19-27 Hon. C. F. Lyttelton 82-4 21 182 9 20-22 B u rrow s................. 280-1 51 840 34 24-70 Cuffe.......................... 744-4 183 1877 75 25 0-2 Arnold .................. 549-1 145 1364 51 26-74 Pearson .................. 280 53 947 35 27-05 W. B. B u rn s.......... 274 44 970 35 27-71 M. K. F oster.......... 14 1 61 2 30-50 H iek ton .................. 32 7 104 2 52-00 Turner .................. 9 0 SO 1 80-00 Hunt .................. 12 2 41 0 — N O T T IN G H A M S H IR E . part of the attack and headed the averages, but their wickets were obtained at rather a heavy cost. Irernonger (J.) also proved expensive and took fewer wickets than in 1908, whilst Gunn (J.) took only twenty-one wickets and at a cost of 29 runs each. BATTING AVERAGES. Times Most The following bowled in one innings: Stringer, (23-2-103-1), II. G. Bathe, (0-2-29-1), W. II. .Taylor, (20-0-93-3), and Bird (9-0-34-0). Notts, first among the Counties in 1907, dropped to eighth place in the following year and to the tenth this season. This being so, their work cannot be iegarde.1 as other than disappointing. Of the nineteen matches played— that with Derbyshire at Trent Bridge was abandoned without a ball being bowled —they won six and lost eight, which compares most unfavourably with their record of two years before, when they went through the season without a defeat. The batting of the side, without being particularly strong, could not be held responsible for the falling-off, although Hardstaff was frankly disappointing. It was the bowling which proved the chief source of weakness. Hallam and Wass were entrusted with the greater not in an Total Inns. out. inns. Runs. Aver. Iremonger (J .).......... 3-2 4 130 971 34 07 Gunn ( G .) .................. 33 2 138 1042 33*01 Payton.......................... 33 5 142* 808 28-85 Gunn (J) .................. 33 4 110* 830 28*82 A. O. Jones .......... 24 1 85 65S 28 60 Hardstaff .................. 33 2 111 775 25-00 lremongcr (A.).......... 7 I 00* 138 23-00 Alletson .................. 28 1 81 520 19-25 Oates .......................... 28 3 44 340 13-00 Hallam .................. 20 8 28 *231 12-83 Jam es.......................... 9 1 24 S4 10-50 Wass .......................... 24 8 29* 140 9-12 Taylor ( B .) ................. 3 0 11 15 5 00 N. C. V. Turner 7 0 7 24 3-42 Riley .......................... 10 2 7* 24 3-00 Clifton.......................... 3 0 0 0 2-00 The following also batted: Barnes (J.), 0 and 12 and G. T. Branston, 1 and 2. * Signifies not out. BOWLING AVERAGES. Ilallam ........... Wass................. Riley.................. Iremonger (A.) Iremonger (J.) Taylor (B.) ... Gunn (J.) A. O. Jones ... The following bowled only once :—Clifton, (44-4-162-4), Barnes (J.) (20-0-43-1), and Gunn (G.) (8-0-10-0), G. T. Branston (17-1-89-2) and Alletson (1-1-0-0). )vers. ‘Mdns. Runs. Wkts. Aver. . 055-4 215 1412 71 19-88 . 040-2 135 1730 85 20-11 . 181-1 48 478 21 22-70 . 93-5 19 252 10 25-20 . 494-4 105 999 39 25-01 . 75 15 245 9 27-22 , 234-5 43 009 21 29-00 . 130 1 21 413 14 29-50 SO M ER S E T . Somerset, last among the Counties in 1908, rose to eleventh place this year, when four of the sixteen matches were won and seven lost. The side was rarely at full strength, but J. Daniell, the captain, made the most of the material at command and to him personally a good deal of the credit for the improved record must be given. He headed the batting averages and of the six hundreds hit for the side he claimed two, making 103 against Hampshire at Southampton and 121 not out v. Lancashire at Bath. Robson, Lewis, W . T. Greswell and Braund were the all-round men of the team, but the latter’s bowliug was very expensive and responsible for only twenty-Mx wickets. W. T. Greswell proved a decided acquisition, as perusal of the averages which follow w ill show, and it is to be regretted that so ac- comp iahed a player is to be lost to the game. H is great feat was to score 100 in 75 minutes against Middlesex at Lord’s— one of the most brilliant innings of the entire season. Somerset’s victories were over Gloucestershire both at Taunton and Bristol, Middlesex at Lord’s, and Surrey in Lew is’ benefit match at Tauntoa. The side saved their home match with Kent iu capital style, scoring 402 for eight wickets in their second innings after being 286 behind on the first: Lewis made 201 and was undefeated at the close. BATTING AVERAGES. Times Most not in an Total Inns. out. inns. Runs. Aver. J. D an iell........... ... 22 5 121* 0-20 30-47 F. A. Phillips ... 7 1 71* 187 31*10 Braund .......... ... 29 2 118 832 30-80 Robson ........... ... 28 2 103 087 20-42 L e w is .................. ... 24 5 201* 500 26-31 H ardy......... ... 12 0 70 270 23-00 P. R.' Johnson ... ... 14 0 05 319 22-78 V. T. Hill ........... ... 10 0 70 221 22-10 W. T. Greswell .. ... 24 3 100 415 19-70 Hon. M. Herbert ... 10 0 78 307 19-18