Cricket 1910

3 9 ^ CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. S e p t . 8, 1910. THE COUNTIES IN 1910. T o Kent the honours of the County cam ­ paign clearly belonged, and for the second season in succession and the third tim e in five years they carried off the Championship. T he final positions of the counties are as follow s :— Per- Plyd. Won. Lost. Drn. cent­ age. K en t........................ 25 19 3 3 7600 Surrey ................. 28 16 7 5 57*14 Middlesex .......... 22 11 5 6 50'00 Lancashire .......... 29 14 5 10 48-27 Notts......................... 20 9 4 7 45-00 Hampshire .......... 24 10 10 4 41 ’66 Sussex ................. 25 10 9 6 40’00 Yorkshire................. 27 10 7 10 37*03 Northants .......... 19 7 8 4 36'84 Leicestershire.......... 17 6 11 0 35'29 Essex........................ 17 5 8 4 29-41 Gloucestershire ... 20 5 11 4 25’00 Worcestershire ... 22 5 8 9 22‘72 Warwickshire.......... 19 4 8 7 21’05 Derbyshire .......... 20 2 14 4 10"00 Somerset................. 18 0 15 3 — T he m ethod used to determ ine the order of the sides is known as the “ Lancashire m ethod ” : it causes both drawn and lost games to have an equal value, and the per­ centage is of games won to gam es comm enced. U nder the old system— like the present, far from perfect— the sides would have com e out in the appended order :— Per- P. W. L. D. Pts. centage. 25 19 3 3 16 72*72 29 14 5 10 9 47*36 28 16 7 5 9 39*13 20 9 4 7 5 38*46 22 11 5 6 6 37-50 27 10 7 10 3 17-64 25 10 9 6 1 5-26 24 10 10 4 — — 19 7 8 4 —1 — 6-66 17 5 8 4 —3 — 23-07 Worcester.......... 22 5 8 9 —3 — 23-07 Leicester .......... 17 6 11 0 —5 — 29-41 Warwick .......... 19 4 8 7 —4 — 33-33 Gloucestershire.. 20 5 11 4 — 6 — 37*50 Derbyshire.......... 20 2 14 4 —12 — 75*00 Somerset .......... 18 0 15 3 —15 —100*00 On June 6th the leading sides were :— K ent ............ Lancashire... S urrey............ N otts ............ M iddlesex ... Yorkshire ... Sussex........... Ham pshire Northants ... Plyd. W on. Lost. Drn. cent­ K ent ..................... . . . 4 3 1 0 age. 75*00 Gloucestershire . . . 3 2 0 1 66*66 M id d lesex ............ . . . 3 2 0 1 66*66 Lancashire............ . . . 7 4 3 0 57-14 Leicestershire ... . . . 2 1 1 0 50-00 S ussex..................... . . . 6 3 2 1 50-00 Ham pshire............ . . . 4 2 1 1 50*00 On July 4th the six leading counties were in the following order :— Plyd. W on. Lost. Drn. Per­ cent­ K ent ..................... ... 10 7 2 1 age. 70-00 M idd lesex ............ ... 10 6 2 2 60*00 S ussex..................... ... 10 6 2 2 60*00 Lancashire............ ... 15 7 6 2 46*66 Nottingham shire . . . 9 4 2 3 44-44 N orth a n ts............ . . . 9 4 1 4 44-44 On August 1st Surrey, who were destined to finish second, occupied the third place :— P lyd. W on. Lost. D m . Per­ cent­ K ent ..................... ... 17 13 2 2 age. 76-47 M id d lesex ............ ... 13 7 4 2 53-84 S urrey..................... ... 18 9 3 6 50-00 L ancashire............ ... 20 10 6 4 50-00 H am psh ire.......... ... 16 8 2 6 50-00 Y o r k sh ire ............ ... 18 9 5 4 50-00 The season was very disappointing so far as the weather was concerned, though it cannot be denied that the soft grounds contributed much to the unusually large number of matches finished. Except on rare occasions the play was bright, and if the improvement in this respect may be attributed to any extent to tbe adoption of the Lancashire method of determining the Championship that system, despite its most obvious absurdity in one respect, will not have been conceived in vain. K EN T. F or the third time in five seasons Kent carried off the Championship, and that they deserved the distinction none will deny. Of their twenty-five matches they won nineteen and lost three. Neither in 1906 nor 1909 did they meet with defeat so often, but, on the other hand, they can show three additional victories. Seven of their games were won with an innings to spare, and three by over 800 runs : their only success w hich was not very pronounced was, curiously enough, over Somerset at Taunton, where the m argin in their favour was only 47 runs. Twenty-two different players appeared for the side during the season, but not once was the cdunty represented by a poor team. T hey were at full strength in August, when Mason and Carr were available, and were then as strong as any side has been in m odern times. Carr’s presence made a great difference to the team , for he not only obtained his wickets at a smaller cost but in a shorter time than any other player on the side. Hutchings, though handicapped for some tim e by a damaged shoulder, headed the batting averages and at tim es hit with all his old brilliancy. Seym our and Humphreys also perform ed m ost satisfactorily, each making over 1,400 runs and obtaining three hundreds. W oolley’s all-round cricket was one of the chief features of the county’s cam paign. Playing most consistently, he scored 966 runs and took 124 wickets in Championship games alone : as he is yet only twenty-three years of age he should prove of use to the side alm ost until the season of 1930. F or three m onths D illon led the eleven with marked skill, and throughout the season H uish kept wicket in his best form . BATTING AVERAGES. Times Most not in an Total Inns. out. inns. runs. Aver. K. L. Hutchings ... 31 2 144 1222 42*13 Seymour(Jas.)...‘ .. 41 4 193 1457 39-37 Humphreys ........... 41 2 200* 1483 38*02 F. H. Knott ......... 10 1 114 332 36 88 J. R. Mason .......... 11 3 121* 286 35*75 A. P. D a y ................. 12 1 111* 355 32*27 C. V. L. Hooman ... 22 2 73 567 28-35 Woolley .................. 38 2 120 966 26’83 Hardinge ......... . . 8 2 41* 158 26*33 E. W. Dillon ........... 32 0 138 824 25*75 Hubble .................. 23 3 84 465 23 25 Fielder .................. 19 11 17* 122 15-25 Fairservice.................. 23 4 37* 273 14-36 Blythe......................... 28 3 37 324 12*96 D. W. Carr.................. 10 4 21* 73 12-16 Huish......................... 37 5 44* 384 12 00 C. E. Hatfeild.......... 4 0 15 39 9‘75 Preston ................. 9 3 18 38 6*33 Morfee........................ 8 2 10 36 6 00 The following also batted : Jennings (0 and 18), L. H. W. Troughton (2 and 6), S. H. Day (15). * Signifies not out. BOWLING AVERAGES. Overs. Mdns. Runs. Wkts. Aver. K. L. Hutchings ... 2 0 5 1 5‘00 D. W. Carr .......... 271-2 67 730 60 12-16 Woolley .................. 632-3 158 1630 124 13 14 J. R. Mason ......... 44*3 8 122 9 13-55 Blythe .................. 858*1 228 2042 149 13 70 Fairservice ......... 224*3 56 555 31 17*90 Fielder .................. 430*1 82 1302 68 19*14 Preston ................. 106 22 266 13 20*46 Morfee .................. 108*1 21 362 16 22*62 Humphreys .......... 36*5 12 74 3 24*66 The follow ing also bow led :— E. W. D illo n ............ 2 0 2 0 — H ardinge.................... 1 0 4 0 — A. P. Day ............ 6 0 23 0 — HU NDREDS H IT FOR TH E SIDE. A. P. Day, v. M iddlesex, at L ord’s .................*111 A. P. Day, v. Lancashire, at Tunbridge W ells... 109 E. W. Dillon, v. M iddlesex, at Lord’s ................ 115 E. W . Dillon, v. Yorkshire, at D ew sbury ... 138 Hum phreys, v. Lancashire, at Tunbridge Wells *200 Hum phreys, v. Gloucestershire, at Cheltenham 162 Hum phreys, v. Ham pshire, at Dover ... .. 130 K. L. H utchings, v. Northam ptonshire, at N orth am p ton ........................................................104 K. L. H utchings, v. Derbyshire, at D erby ... 122 K. L. H utchings, v. Leicestershire, at Tonbridge 109 K. L. H utchings, v. Sussex, at H astings ... 144 F. H. Knott, v. W orcestershire, at D over ... 114 J. R . Mason, v. Gloucestershire, at Cheltenham *121 Seym our, v. Derbyshire, at Derby ................ 124 Seym our, v. M iddlesex, at C a n terb u ry................ 193 Seym our, v. Ham pshire, at Dover ................ *155 W oolley, v. M iddlesex, at L ord’s .............................. 120 W oolley, v. Sussex, at H a s t in g s ............................. 117 W oolley, v. Som erset, at Taunton ................ 102 * Signifies not out. SURREY. In finishing second to Kent, Surrey gained a position which they fairly earned, but ODly in the latter part of the season did they do themselves justice. The change in their fortunes occurred in the last week of July, and in the following five weeks they won nine matches out of ten and in all probability would have been successful in the other— with Yorkshire—if rain had not prevented play on the third day. During the period mentioned the side played excellent cricket, a great feature of their play being their fielding, a department in which Hitch, one of the most improved all-round players of the year, was most prominent and brilliant. Surrey beat Northants, Warwickshire and Somerset twice, and the only counties they failed to beat were Yorkshire and Sussex, while their seven reverses were experienced at the hands of Yorkshire, Notts, Hamp­ shire,Worcestershire, Gloucestershire, Sussex and Leicestershire. The chief feature of the county’s season was, of course, the admirable bowling of Smith, who took 215 wickets for a fraction over twelve and a-half runs each. Strange to say, although he played his first match for Surrey as far back as 1900 and had assisted the county in every season since, on no previous occasion bad he taken as many as a hundred wickets in a singl year, the impression for some time prevailing that he was of value only on soft wickets. He was most consistent throughout the season, his off-days being very few. Always keeping a perfect length, he obtained many wickets with a ball which came a little with his arm, though, of course, retaining his off-break. If Rushby had been available and E. G. Kirk always able to assist, the Surrey attack would have been very strong indeed : as it was, more bowling of really high class was required, for although Platt, Lees and Hitch worked hard they were rather ex­ pensive. The disappointing feature of Surrey’s cricket was the batting, which, even allowing for the wet wickets, was weaker than it had been for many years. Hayward, whilst making some good scores, had, for him, only a moderate season, and Hobbs failed to show the form he exhibited in South Africa. Hayes, however, was at his best and was most unfortunate in being kept out of the side for several matches by a bad leg. Ducat and Bird were brilliant