Cricket 1910

: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. S e p t . 15, 1910. CRICKET suffered six defeats, whilst eight of their games had not been finished. After the side gained a measure of success more in keeping with the abilities of the players, and of their last six fixtures won three and drew one. Between the third week of June and the 10th of August they had a most disappointing time, not gaining a single victory and being beaten five times. It was in bowling that the team were weak. A good slow bowler would have been most welcome, and with more assistance Arnold, Cuffe and Burrows would in all probability have gained better figures. The last-named worked untiringly and, for the first time during his career, had the personal satisfaction of obtaining a hundred wickets in first-class matches. Bowley and Pearson proved a very useful first-wicket pair, but of the other professionals only Arnold had a satisfactory season as a batsman. Of the Fosters “ W .L .” was not once available, and “ R.E .,” whose appearances were restricted to a match with Yorkshire, then showed that he retained all his old skill by playing an innings of 1B3. “ H.K.” and “ G.N.” played regularly and headed the averages. The former was consistent, but the latter occasionally got out through commencing too brilliantly. G. N. Foster proved himself to be a splendid forcing batsman on all kinds of wickets and possessed of splendid defence and many scoring strokes. Burns hit very hard indeed on a few occasions and his fast bowling was often the means of breaking-up a partnership. BATTING AVERAG ES. Tim es n ot Inns. out. Most in an inns. T otal Runs. Aver. H. K. Foster ............ 23 0 119 845 36 73 G. N. Foster ............ 25 2 129* 758 32 95 B ow ley ... ............ 41 1 157 1158 28*95 A rnold............................. 40 2 109 1090 28-68 W. B. Burns ............ 86 3 104 879 26 63 Pearson ..................... 41 1 113 1056 26-40 G . H . S im p s o n - H ayward .................... 17 2 41* 288 19-20 Burrow s ..................... 36 8 53* 369 13-17 Cuffe ............................. 37 1 83 472 1311 G. L. Crowe ............ 10 1 40 115 12-77 H unt ............................. 5 2 21 * 34 11-33 C ollier............................. 12 1 30 123 11-18 T urner............................. 20 3 49* 178 10-47 W. W . Low e ............ 9 1 34 83 10-37 Bale ............................. 35 14 32 193 9-19 S. E. Busher ............ 4 1 18* 24 8-00 W. H . Taylor ............ 16 5 20 63 5-72 H. G. Bache ............ 10 0 28 52 5 20 H on. C. F. Lyttelton 4 0 12 18 4-50 The follow ing also b atted : R. E. Foster (133 and 8 ) ; W akelin ( 6 ) ; Gaukrodger (0*). Conw ay played once but did not bat. * Signifies n ot out. BOWLING AVERAGES. Overs. M dns. Runs. W kts. Aver. H. G. Bache ............ 6 4 4 2 2-00 H unt ..................... 52-4 14 136 10 13-60 S. E. B u sh e r............ 34-5 2 88 6 14-66 G . H . S im p s o n - H ayw ard ............ 212*3 30 618 36 17-16 A rnold ..................... 312-1 53 868 44 19-72 Cuffe............................. 466 106 1251 55 22-74 B u rro w s.................... 632-4 68 2346 100 23-46 H on.C. F. Lyttelton 48 9 165 6 27-50 W. H. Taylor 93*2 13 403 14 28-78 W. W. Low e ............ 17 0 91 3 30-33 W . B. B u rn s ............ 314-5 31 1*233 40 30*82 Pearson ..................... 1901 29 593 17 34*88 The follow ing also bow led R. E. F o s te r ............ 4 0 34 0 Conw ay ..................... 9 0 46 0 — Turner ... ............ 10 0 57 — H U ND REDS H IT FOR TH E SIDE. Arnold, v. Somerset, at W orcester ..................... 109 Bow ley, v. W arwickshire, at W orcester ........... 157 W . B. Burns, v. M iddlesex, at W orcester............ 104 G. N. Foster, v. Surrey, at Stourbridge ........... 123 G. N. Foster, v. Sussex, at W orcester ............*129 H. K. Foster, v. Lancashire, at W orcester ... 112 H. K. Foster, v. Ham pshire, at W orcester ... 119 R. E. Foster, v. Yorkshire, at W orcester............ 133 Pearson, v. W arw ickshire, at W orcester ............ 104 Pearson, v. M iddlesex, at W o rce ste r..................... 113 * Signifies not out. WARWICKSHIRE. Twelfth among the counties in 1909, Warwickshire have this season descended to fourteenth, though they have much the same record as last year, the only difference being a victory instead of a draw. There were two notable changes in the constitution of the side, Hargreave no longer playing and H. J. Goodwin undertaking tbe captaincy on the retirement of A. C. S. Glover. Their five victories were at the expense of Leicester­ shire, Gloucestershire (twice) and Derbyshire, and it was not until the first week of June that they obtained their initial success, Leicestershire then being beaten at Coventry by 22 runs. Charlesworth, who headed the batting averages, was in fine form throughout, and showed a marked advance upon his doings in 1909, when his figures were 22*28. Quaife, as usual, rendered the side capital service and was almost as difficult as ever to dismiss, and Baker, like Charlesworth, improved considerably on his record for the previous year. Kinneir, however, was not so effective, although he played some good innings and was fairly consistent. Lilley, after acting as the county’s wicket-keeper for twenty-two seasons, handed over the gloves to Smith, who has been a most useful understudy. Relieved of his duties behind the wicket, Lilley was able to devote more attention to run-getting: frequently he opened tbe innings and twice he passed the hundred. F. R. Foster, who was chosen for the Gentlemen, became recognized as one of the best all-round amateurs in the country. In bowling, however, he was second to Santall, who enjoyed a very successful season and took eighty wickets for 20-45 runs each. Field also did well, but the attack of the side needs strengthening. BATTIN G AVERAGES. Tim es Most not in an Total Inns. out. inns. Runs. Aver. Charlesworth .......... . 36 2 216 1196 35*17 Q uaife............................ . 35 4 124 1034 33-35 B a k e r ............................ . 34 4 155* 1000 33-33 L ille y ............................ . 26 2 114 680 28-33 K inneir ................... . 35 3 94 849 26*53 H. J. G oodw in .......... . 19 1 81 354 19*66 F. R. Foster .......... . 32 1 77 574 18-51 Santall ................... . 30 6 64 372 15-50 F. E. Taylor .......... . 8 0 44 112 14.00 Sm ith (E. J .) .......... . 31 6 39* 306 12-24 C. L. B r e e d o n .......... . 8 1 27 80 11*42 Field ............................ . 31 15 27 169 10-56 W. W. M e ld o n .......... 5 0 27 45 9 00 Lieut. C. F. Cowan.. . 9 0 34 79 8-77 R . G. Pridm ore . 6 0 22 44 7-33 J. H . P h illip s .......... . 5 0 16 34 6-80 W. C. H ands .......... . 6 2 10 17 4-25 C. K. L a n g le y .......... 4 0 7 8 2-00 The follow ing also batted : J. F. Byrne (42 and 20); Bates (0 and 2 ); W. H. H olbech (0 and 0 ); M. C. Parry (10); G. W. Stephens (17). *’Signifies not out, BOW LIN G AVERAGES. Overs. Mdns. Runs. W kts. Aver. Santall ............ ... 654-5 157 1636 80 20*45 F. R. Foster ... ... 719-5 159 2002 91 2 - 2-00 C. K. Langley ... 13 2 50 2 25-00 Field ............ ... 614-5 118 2052 75 27-36 Quaife ............ ... 197*5 19 673 20 33*65 H. J. Goodwin ... 71*4 14 243 7 34-71 W. C. Hands ... ... 56 15 165 4 41 -25 Charlesworth... ... 142 27 457 10 45-70 Bates ............ ... 14 1 53 1 53*00 W. W. M eldon ... 21 3 95 1 95 00 J. H. Phillips ... 30 2 113 1 113*00 The follow ing also bow led :— F. E. Taylor ... ... 1 0 5 0 — M. C. Parry ... ... 3 0 16 0 — L illey ............ ... 7 2 16 0 — Baker ............ ... 6 0 24 0 — F. G. Stephens ... 2 0 29 0 — C. L. Breedon ... 7 2 29 0 — K in n ie r ............ ... 7 0 33 0 — H U ND REDS H IT FOR TH E SIDE. Baker, v. W orcestershire, at W orcester ............*155 Charlesworth, v. Derbyshire, at Blackw ell ... 216 Charlesworth, v. Gloucestershire, at Edgbaston 105 Charlesworth, v. W orcestershire, at Edgbaston 133 Lilley, v. Sussex, at L eam ington ............................. 104 Lilley, v. Hampshire, at Southam pton ............ 114 Quaife, v. Sussex, at Leam ington ...................*109 Quaife, v. Yorkshire, at Huddersfield..................... 124 * Signifies not out. DERBYSHIRE. It cannot be said that Derbyshire ex­ perienced other than a disastrous season, the only side below them being Somerset and the only set-off against fourteen defeats being two successes at the expense of Leicestershire. Two of their matches away from home—with Surrey and Sussex—are not taken into account as, owing to the death of King Edward, one was abandoned and another curtailed. One of the best perfor­ mances on the part of the side was the manner in which they saved the game with Warwickshire at Blackwell, J. Chapman (the old Uppinghamian who suceeded A. E. Lawton in the captaincy) and Warren adding 283 together—a record partnership for the ninth wicket in first-class cricket. Neither L. G. Wright, for so many years a tower of strength to the team, nor Bestwick, whose services the Committee had decided to dis­ pense with, played in a single match, but T. Forester, who had appeared as a professional for Warwickshire, made some good scores and Needham obtained 889 runs with an average of 21'68. G. Curgenven and B. Sale, the Oxonian, headed the batting averages, but neither, unfortunately, could play regularly. Morton and Cadman were the all-round men of the tfam. The former, who took 116 wickets, often bowled extremely well and would have done still better for a stronger side. He and Cadman and Warren prac­ tically shared the attack between them, the three taking between them 268 of the 296 wickets obtained for the side. BATTIN G AVERAGES. T im es Most Inns. not out. in an inns. Tctal Runs. Aver. G. Curgenven ... ... 11 0 109 371 33-72 R. Sale.................... ... 8 , 1 69 207 29-57 T. Forester ... 16 4 78 297 24-75 Needham ............ ... 42 1 159 889 21-68 J. Chapman ... 36 2 165 713 20-97 M orton ............ ... 41 3 89 773 20 34 Cadman ............ ... 40 1 84 753 19-30 N ew ton ............ ... 23 3 87 333 16-65 Warren ... „. ... 41 4 123 610 16-48