Cricket 1910

412 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. S e p t . 15, 1910. THE COUNTIES IN 1910. ( Continued from page 399.) YORKSHIRE. The doings of the Yorkshire team this year showed a marked falling off and gave rise to little enthusiasm. They sustained more reverses than in any season since 1895 and occupied so low a position among the counties as eight. They opened fairly well, their first half-dozen games producing three wins and three draws, but afterwards Kent and Essex beat them in the course of a week, and in the first three weeks of August they played three unfinished games and were beaten on three occasions. Meeting all the other counties with the exception of Gloucestershire, Yorkshire defeated Derby­ shire (twice), Surrey, Middlesex, Sussex, Hampshire, Northamptonshire, Worcester­ shire, Somerset and Warwickshire; they drew with Notts (twice), Lancashire, Hampshire, Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Surrey, Essex, Sussex and Somerset, and lost to Kent (twice), Essex, Northampton­ shire, Lancashire, Leicestershire and Middlesex. The side is undoubtedly in need of new blood, but the young players who have been tried have not been so successful as was hoped. There is, too, a marked dearth of amateur talent, and the only gentleman player who appeared at all regularly proved painstating rather than skilful. For Hirst, however, the season proved nothing less than a triumph. He played his first match for the county in 1889 and now, in his thirty-ninth year, scores 1425 runs and takes 134 wickets in Champion­ ship games alone and heads both batting and bowling averages. A great deal of work fell to his share and he did all that was expected, and even hoped, of him : in fact the more imp>rtant the occasion, or critical the situation, the better he seemed to do. Rhodes anl Denton also made over a thousand runs, the former in addition obtaining seventy-seven wickets for just under eighteen runs each. Haigh likewise rendered the side excellent service with both bat and ball, but was overshadowed by his two brilliant colleagues. Wilson at times batted very well indeed, and three times made over a hundred, but he had several off days. Of the younger players accorded a trial during the year the most promising was Booth. BATTING AVERAGES. Tim es Most Inns. not out. in an inns. Total Runs. Aver. H irst ............................„ 45 1 137 1425 32-38 Rhodes ................... 49 4 111 1282 28-48 D enton ..i ........... . 39 1 182 1019 26*81 W ilson............................ . 29 3 115 678 26-07 H a ig h ............................ . 41 8 87* 788 23-87 R othery ................... . 25 1 134 547 22-79 W ilk in son ................... . 22 3 95* 428 22-52 M y e rs............................ . 45 6 63 790 20-25 Bates .............................. 25 3 59* 396 18-00 B o o t h ..................... .. . 25 6 54 326 17-15 O ldroyd ................... . 0 2 33* 64 16-00 D ra k e ............................ . 33 4 43 377 13-00 N e w s te a d .................. .. 17 2 35 177 11-80 E. J. Radcliffe ... ... 37 5 36 347 10-84 Capt. A. D. L ega rd. 4 0 15 39 9-75 Turner ..................... 8 0 37 76 9.50 D olphin ..................... 26 8 69 126 7-00 W atson .................. .. 10 3 2 * 3 0-42 Also b atted : J. E. Cooper (0 and 0); H artington ( 6 ). ♦Signifies not out. BOW LING AVERAGES. O vers. Mdns. Runs. W kts. Aver. H irst ..................... 837-4 200 2017 134 15-05 Bates ................... 7 0 32 2 16-00 Rhodes .................... 522-5 121 1384 77 17-97 D o lp h in .................... 6 0 18 1 18-00 Drake ..................... 200-3 55 490 26 18-84 H aigh ..................... 545-2 119 1373 68 20-19 Booth ..................... 356 3 75 1041 49 21-24 W ilkinson ............ 47 7 179 8 22-37 Newstead ............ 271 67 634 27 23-48 H artington ............ 24-2 3 102 4 25-50 M yers ..................... 309 53 969 27 35-88 O ld r o y d .................... 10 2 51 1 51-00 E. J. Radcliffe 11 0 73 1 73-00 Capt. A . D. Legard 8 1 26 0 — W ilson ..................... 14 1 71 0 — H U N D REDS H IT FOR THE SIDE Denton, v. Derbyshire, at Chesterfield ............ 182 H irst, v. M iddlesex, at L ord’s ............................. 137 H irst, v. W arw ickshire, at H uddersfield............ 103 Rhodes, v. Sussex, at Brighton .............................. I ll Rothery, v. Derbyshire, at Chesterfield ............ 134 W ilson, v. N ottingham shire, at S h effield ............ 108 W ilson, v. W orcestershire, at W orcester ............ 115 W ilson, v. Sussex, at Brighton .............................. 109 NORTHAMPTONSHIRE. On the whole Northamptonshire have experienced a satisfactory season, without, perhaps, doing quite so well as was expected after the form they showed during the latter part of 1909. They fell, indeed, from seventh place to ninth, winning seven matches, losing eight and drawing four, against a record of nine wins, tight defeats and one draw in the previous year. They started their season with three defeats, losing to Yorkshire, Leicestershire and Kent before obtaining a victory at the expense of Notts Subsequently their form varied considerably, but at their best they were capable of making a pood fight with almost any side. Their chief strength lay in bowling, but even Thompson, who headed the averages, did not secure his wickets for less than seventeen- and-a-half runs each. Both in batting and bowling the side appeared to lean rather heavily on four or five players and if the services of two other first-class men were available the team would be changed from an ordinary one into a match-winning one. S. G. Smith, who performed so well with both bat and ball in 1909, was somewhat disappointing. It is true that he headed the batting figures, but he was brilliant occa­ sionally rather than consistent and owed his position largely to his innings of 184 and 204 in the second week of July. In bowling he showed a marked falling-off, taking only forty-one wickets for 25 63 runs each as against ninety-four at a cost of 18 a-piece. Thompson rendered excellent all-round assis­ tance, sending down almost twice as many overs as any other member of the side and frequently making runs when a collapse appeared to be possible. Hawtin’s figures improved considerably, but Pool, Vials and Manning (the latter especially) showed a falling-off. Neither Seymour nor Haywood met with as much success as was hoped, but both are young men and in the ordinary way should have many years’ cricket before them. Northamptonshire is a team of great possibilities, whose doings will be anticipated with interest by many who have no connec­ tion with the county. BATTING AVERAGES. Tim es Most not in an Total Inns. out inns. Runs. Aver. S. G. Sm ith ............ 39 1 204 1228 32-31 A. P. R. Hawtin . 11 0 80 287 26-09 C. J. T. Pool ............ 32 2 83* 703 23-43 T h om pson ................... . 39 5 101 747 21-97 G. A. T. Vials ........... . 37 3 100 725 21-32 East ............................ . 33 10 50* 452 19-65 Seym our ................... . 38 0 50 527 13-86 H ayw ood ................... . 30 4 49* 340 13 07 J. S. Denton .......... . 27 4 32 275 11-95 W ells ............................ . 28 5 44 225 9 78 T. E. M anning............ 18 2 38 155 9-68 W. H. D e n to n .......... . 13 2 28* 94 8-54 Falconer ................... 7 2 12 * 25 5-00 Ellis ............................ . 26 10 18 61 3-81 E. M. Crosse ........... . 11 1 17* 38 3-80 Buswell ................... . 3 0 0 0 o-oo The follow ing also batted : C. J. Tyler (10 and 37); R. F. K night (4 and 6 ) ; W alden (7 and i). * Signifies not out. BOW LIN G AVERAGES. Overs. Mdns. Runs. W kts. Aver. Thom pson ... 683*5 143 1926 109 17-GO Seym our............ ... 194-1 34 607 34 17-85 F alcon er............ ... 54-1 22 138 7 19-71 W ells ............ ... 396-4 63 1403 70 20-04 E a s t.................... ... 390-3 110 1016 45 22-57 S. G. Sm ith ... ... 351-1 72 1051 41 25-63 The follow ing also bow led :— H aywood .......... ... 8 1 33 0 — J. S. D enton ... ... 19 2 113 0 — H U ND REDS H IT FOR TH E SIDE. S. G. Sm ith, v. Ham pshire, at Portsm outh ... 1S4 S. G. Sm ith, v. Gloucestershire, at N ortham pton 204 Thom pson, v. Ham pshire, at P ortsm outh............ 101 G. A. T. Vials, v. Yorkshire, at Sheffield ............. 100 LEICESTERSHIRE. Leicestershire, although rather low in tbe list of tbe counties, enjoyed several triumphs during the season. When at their best they were very formidable as is proved by the fact that they gained victories over Kent, Surrey, Lancashire and Yorkshire. On the other hand there were times when their form was decidedly po>r, and in addition to going down in Loth matches with Nottinghamshire and Sussex they supplied Derbyshire with their only two successes of the season. In obtaining their three most remarkable wins the side played capital all-round cricket, and for their triumphs were to no extent indebted to luck. For their varying form occasional inconsistency in batting was responsible. Wood and Coe were the most reliable run- getters, and when they failed a complete breakdown had at times to be chronicled. Wood’s value to the team was even greater than his figures would suggest, inasmuch as they necessarily fail to show the worth of his steadying influence. Coe played several excellent innings, and, by his brilliant 156 (not out) in his first innings, had much to do with his county’s success over Lancashire. An accident which happened to him before the season opened kept King out of the team until the second week in August, and his absence was naturally severely felt. White­ head showed better judgment than before in picking the right ball to hit, and after being droppedwhen Leicestershire went to Brighton, returned to the team and afterwards did well. V. F. S. Crawford drove with all his well-known power, and played some brilliant innings, and Knight, without being quite so consistent as in 1909, had, on the whole, a good season. Turner was accorded a good trial, and may develop into a useful player.