Cricket 1910

S e p t . 1 5 , 1 9 1 0 . CRICKET A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 4 i 3 In bowling, Shipman made a remarkable advance and, always keeping a good length, often made the ball break back in a manner that, in conjunction with his pace, rendered him at times almost unplayable. Jayes had some great days, but Astill, con­ sidering the character of the season, was very disappointing. BATTING AVERAGES. Tim es Most Inns. not out in an inns. Total Runs. Aver. K ing ............................. 4 0 60 146 36-50 C. J. B. W ood ... ... 33 2 99 1129 36*41 Coe ............................. 32 1 156* 1006 32-45 W hitehead (H .) .. 31 1 97 S9S 29-93 V. F. S. Crawford ... 29 3 95 778 29-92 K night .................. .. 33 0 114 851 25*78 Turner .................. .. 19 1 41 361 20-05 A. T. Sharp ... ... 25 4 68 389 18-52 Jayes ............................. 23 1 87 338 15*36 Shipm an .................. .. 29 2 39 381 14*11 Sturm an .................. .. 10 2 39 110 13*75 A s t i ll............................. 30 6 31 266 11*08 Shields .................. .. 20 8 28 90 7*50 Sir A. G. Hazlerigg. .. 20 4 20 102 6*37 The follow ing also b a tted : R. T. Crawford (12 and 2 ) ; H. Thom pson (9 and 1) ; Lord (1) ; and Brown (1*). * Signifies not out. BOW LING AVERAGES. Overs. Mdns. Runs. Wkts. Aver. Shipm an..................... 508*4 68 1766 82 21-53 Jayes ..................... 537-1 81 1750 76 23-02 Coe ............ ... ... 270 3 65 647 25 25 88 K in g ............................. 6 0 27 1 27*00 C. J. B. W ood............ 167-4 25 551 20 27-55 Astill .................... 593 139 1561 56 27-87 Brow n ..................... 20 2 84 3 28 00 Turner .................... 61-1 10 226 6 37 66 The follow ing also b ow led :— J. Shields ............ 0*1 0 4 0 W hitehead (TT.) 5 1 8 0 — Sir A. G. Hazlerigg 2-2 1 11 0 • — V. F. S. Crawford... 9 0 19 0 — R. T. Crawford ... 3 1 39 0 — HU NDREDS1 H IT FOR TH E SIDE. Coe, v. W arwickshire, at Coventry .................... 128 Coe, v. Derbyshire, at L e ic e s te r ............................. 101 Coe, v. Lancashire, at Leicester .............................*156 K night, v. N ottingham shire, at Nottingham ... 114 ESSEX. Essex had a disappointing season, their record of five wins and eight defeats altogether failing to reflect the capabilities of a team which had at its command so many fine players. As usual, dropprd catches contributed to no small«xtent to their \ oor record: Ihe side is admittedly a poor one in respect to fielding and in consequence the bowlers lost much of tbeir effectiveness. Theyenjoyid one vtry great triumph, how­ ever, beating Kent at Leyton in July by 180 runs. On that occasion they wete seen quite at their best, but frequently they obtained an advantage over a side only to let it slip from tbem later. They certainly did better lhau in 1909, when their successes were limited to a couple of wins at tbe expense of Deity shire, for in addition to repeating such victories they also dt-feated Kent, Suss x and York­ shire, all at Leyten. McGahey. who heads the batting avtragts with 30*70, improved considerably upon his figures of the previous year aud Douglas also advanced, but Perrin, who stood out of several games owing to indisposition, was not quite so effective. Gil­ lingham played some fine innings, especially against the Champions at Leyton, but he, too, showed a slight falling-off and averaged uniier twenty. The cousins Gibson were introduced to county cricket with the happiest results, and it is unfortunate that “ A. L.” is returning to Ceylon and will not be available for the side next year. Considering the poor suppoit accorded them in the field, Bucken­ ham, Mead and Tremlin accomplished much good work wiih the ball. All, however, are are getting on in years and, apparently with no new players coming on, the outlook for the county in that respect is not very hopeful. BATTING AVERAGES. Tim es Most Inns not . out. in an inns. Total Runs. Aver. C. P. M cG ahey............ 30 6 89* 737 30-70 M ajor A . J. Turner... 10 2 111 * 212 26*50 J. W. H. T. Douglas.. 34 3 79 792 25-54 P. A. Perrin ........... 21 0 95 529 25-19 Freeman (E. J .) 6 1 63 101 20-20 Rev.F. H. Gillingham 30 1 1-45 567 1955 F. L. F an e.................... 20 0 51 328 16*40 A. L. Gibson ............ 27 2 71 404 1616 K . L. Gibson ............ 21 2 47* 258 13-57 Freem an (J.) ............ 28 2 46 346 13-30 Trem lin .................... 28 11 58 216 12-70 Buckenham ............ 28 7 2S* 260 12*38 Russell (E .) ............ 5 1 17 48 1200 A. H. Read ............ 3 0 28 33 11*00 Reeves............................. 6 0 20 53 8 -S3 Mead (W .)..................... 28 4 28 175 7*29 The follow ing also batted : P. E. M orris (12 and 3) ; Russell (A. C.), (Sand 2); A. D. W om ersley (Oand 9) ; Cooper (0 and 7). M. Townsend played once but did not bat. BOW LING AVERAG ES. Overs. Mdns. Runs. Wkts. Aver. Buckenham ............ 449*5 78 1416 77 18-38 J. W. H. T. Douglas 201*5 32 647 35 18*48 Mead (W .) ............ 515-2 118 1422 75 18-96 T re m lin ..................... 427*5 85 1241 62 20-01 Reeves .................... 24*4 6 66 3 22 00 A. H. Read ............ 20*5 2 105 4 26*25 C. P. M cGahey ... 47*2 11 160 6 26-66 Morris ..................... 5 2 4 0 — Cooper ..................... 7 0 34 0 — H U ND REDS H IT FOR TH E SIDE. Rev. F. H . Gillingham , v. K ent, at Leyton ... 145 M ajor A. J. Turner, v. N ottingham shire, at N ottingham ........................................................*111 * Signifies not out. GLOUC ESTE RSHIRE. In 1909 Gloucestershire won only one match and were beaten thirteen times : this season they gained five victories and were defeated on eleven occasions. Doubtless their best peiformance this year was accom­ plished in June, when they beat Surrey at the Oval for the first time for thirteen seasons, but they were successful in both their matches with Worcestershire, and, in addi­ tion, beat Northamptonshire and Somerset. On the other hand, they were defeated twice by Hampshire, Kent, Middlesex and War­ wickshire. If Gloucestershire could have enjojed the regular aid of the best men qualified, they would have had a much more successful s- ason, but C. L. Townsend did not play in a single match and Sewell and F. H. B. Champain only occasionally. Jessop obtaiued 1,052 runs with an average of just under 34 and exceeded the hundied four times. Probably his best innings was 124 against Surrey at Cheltenham, when he almost succeeded in winning the match for his side. Langdon, despite a few failures in August, had, on the whole, a successful season, and, next to Jessop, was the main­ stay of the t-ide in batting. F. B. Roberts, owing largely to his 157 against Worcester­ shire, averages 27*30, figures, however, which are thirteen less than those he secured in the previous season. Brownlee, who did not go into residence at Oxford as was expected, proved a most useful member of the team, but Board was not so consistent a batsman as in 1909. Upon Dennett and Parker fell the brunt of the bowling, and both worked hard and came through with an average of less than twenty. The form of the others was only moderate, and, with the batting always somewhat uncertain, the county could not look for a large measure of success. BATTING AVERAGES. Tim es Most not in an Total Inns. out. inns. Runs. Aver. C. O. H. Sew ell... ... 4 0 62 152 38*00 G. L. Jessop ... 32 1 165 1052 33-93 D. C. R obinson... ... 4 0 53 124 31-00 Langdon ............ ... 33 1 156 938 29-31 F. B. Roberts ... ... 10 0 157 273 2730 W. M. Brownlee 11 1 68 213 21-30 H. J. M errick ... ... 6 2 46* 78 19-50 B o a rd .................... ... 36 0 77 697 19*36 H uggins .......... ... 21 2 82 352 18*52 R. T. Godsell ... ... 6 1 81* 88 17-60 M ills ..................... ... 33 1 58 532 16 62 D. L. Priestley ... 6 0 51 94 15-66 N. S. Cornelius... 7 1 40 92 15*33 T. M iller ............ ... 10 0 33 143 14*30 M. G. Salter ... 12 l 68 153 13-90 E. B arnett............ ... 8 0 37 102 12*75 C. S. Barnett ... ... 15 2 59 165 12*69 Parker.................... ... 33 9 48 291 12*12 Cranfield (L .) ... ... 3 0 22 36 12*C0 W. H Row lands ... 6 0 21 69 11*50 D ipper.................... ... 4 1 14 34 11*33 A. H . J. Haines 7 1 23 64 10*66 W. E. M eyer ... ... 3 0 15 26 8-66 D ennett ............ ... 33 13 48 169 8*45 G. W. H ollow ay ... 4 0 11 24 *006 W. S. A. Brown ... 9 0 19 53 5*88 A. W. Roberts ... ... 6 1 26* 26 5-20 N ott ..................... ... 8 0 6 21 2-62 Tho follow ing also batted : F. H. B. Champain (6 and 30); R. J. H ew lett (4 and 4 ); J. N. H orlick (7); Hon. H . F. Charteris (1 ); W. S. Yalland (1 ); T. A. Trum an (0 and 0); S. L evy i0 and 0). * Signifies not out. BOW LING AVERAGES. Overs. Mdns. Runs. W kts. Aver. W. S. A. Brown ... 36 12 94 6 15*66 C. O. H. Sewell ... 5 0 35 2 17*50 Cranfield... .. ... 61 18 134 7 19*14 D e n n e tt............ ... 856 223 2309 120 19*24 Parker ............ ... 487-5 138 1314 66 19-90 W. M. Brownlee ... 152*5 31 552 20 27-60 H u g g in s............ ... 277 58 864 29 29-79 M ills..................... ... 285-1 58 900 29 31 03 Langdon ............ ... 13*2 0 78 1 78-00 T. M iller............ ... 22 3 80 1 80 00 The follow ing also bow led :— T. A. Trum an ... 1 0 1 0 _ R. T. Godsell... ... 02 0 8 0 _ G. L. Jessop ... ... 4 2 21 0 — F. B. Roberts ... 12 0 61 0 — A. W . Roberts ... 20 4 108 0 — HU NDREDS H IT FOR TH E SIDE. G. L. Jessop, v. W orcestershire, at Stourbridge 165 G. L. Jessop, v. N ortham ptonshire, at N orth­ am pton ............................................... *........... 162 G. L. Jessop, v. Som erset, at B r is to l.................... 103 G. L. Jessop, v. Surrey, atC heltenhnm ............ 124 Langdon, v. Surrey, at the O v a l............................. 156 F. B. Roberts, v. W orcestershire, at Cheltenham 157 WORCESTERSHIRE. For a side of such undoubted strength, Worcestershire experienced a very poor season. Until the middle of August they had won only two of their matches and