Cricket 1910

S e p t . 2 2 , 1 9 1 0 . CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. THE FIRST-CLASS SEASON OF 1910. B y j. N. PENTELOW. In spite of a wretched summer from a climatic point of view, one sees some reason to believe that the slump in public interest in first-cla^s cricket has received a check. Enthusiasts for the “ Lancashire scheme” may consider that it should be given the credit for this. Perhaps it did help to produce more exciting finishes. But there is something radically wrong with any system that penalises the drawing a game equally with the losing it. No amount of argument will make a loss and a draw the same thiDg. Dealing with the individual side of the seafon’s play rather than with ma'cli results and county records, one must yet offer to Kent hearty congratulations on a distinction that has never been better deserved by any county. The averages which follow are given in a more complete form than has ever been attempted in the past, except in some few issues of the red Lillywhite. For purposes of comparison, no doubt, the general system is the best, and one realises the object of the qualifications by a certain number of innings played or of wickets taken, without endorsing the arbitrary limitations involved. Here, every man who took part in first-class ciicket during the season has his doings placed on record, and one will not have to seek in vain for the figures of some famous player because he happens to have played only six or seven innings. In all 457 players took part in tbe season’s cricket, as compared with 503, including all who played in the matches of the Australian tour, in 1909. Among the 457 there were five who did not even get an innings, 13 who batted once or oftener but failed to make a run, 11 others whose total was the modest single, and 31 more who did not total double­ figures, besides just on 150 whose totals ranged between 10 and 100. Of the 269 players who bowled, too, 66 failed to take a wicket at all, 27 only had one capture each, nine secured two victims, and close on 60 took between 2 and 10. On the other side of the account it may be mentioned that 43 batsmen totalled over a thousand runs, and 18 bowlers secured over a hundred wickets. Seventy-seven batsmen registered among them 142 centuries. These figures compare with those of 1909 ar.d the three years preceding thus : Season. No. of batsmen scoring ,000 runs. i t ! 0 M5 a CO ^ 0 . ©’S'S 0-£ O £ £ -2 8 0 § w O 1910 ... ... 43 .. 18 .. 142 ... 77 1909 .. ... 43 ... 19 .. . 1G0 ... 84 1908 ... ... 52 .. 17 . 1S3 ... 95 1907 ... ... 35 .. . 22 .. . 126 ... 76 1906 ... ... 50 ... 20 ... 1S6 ... 91 There are six newcomers in the 1,000 runs list—M. C. Bird, H. P. Chaplin, C. V. L. Hooman and A. C. Johnston, with Baker (C. S.) and Charlesworth. There are as many as seven new names in the 100 wickets table—those of P. R. Foster, Burrows, Hitch, Morton, Newman, Smith (W. C.) and Woolley. Eleven batsmen who had never registered a a century in English first-class cricket until this year appear—H. P. Chaplin, Capt. L. P. Collins, F. H. Knott, P. B. Le Couteur, E. S. Litteljohn, L. Oliver, C. L. Tudor, N. C. Tufnell, Brown (G.), Hearne (J. W.) and Warren (A. R.). Capt. Collins, by the way, made a century for the M.C.C. Team v. Eleven of New York in 1907, and I should consider this as first-class—hence the quali­ fication “ English.” Mr. Chaplin scored 144 for Bombay Presidency v. Parsis in 1906, and here the same remark applies. John Tyldesley alone made over 2,000 runs, and “ Razor ” Smith has been the only man to secure 200 wickets. This is the fifth time Tyldesley has passed the second thousand. The following table will show something as to tbe representation of the sides. The number of players tried by Somerset, Glouces­ tershire and Derbyshire is a striking feature. But more remarkable is the fact that seven Sussex players took part in every match of the county’s long programme. Players Matches taking Played in every County, played. part. Match. Derbyshire 22 . . 32 ... Morton, Needham, Warren. Essex ........... 19 . . 22 .. Buckenham,Mead, Tremlin. Gloucestershire 20 . . 35 .. Board, Dennett. Hants .......... 24 . . 24 .. Llewellyn, Mead. K ent.................. 29 . 24 .. Humphreys, Sey­ mour, Woolley. Lancashire 30 . . 22 .. Tyldesley (J. T.). Leicestershire.. 19 . . 18 .. Astill,Coe, Knight, C. J. B. Wood. Middlesex 22 . . 25 .. Heame (J. W.), Murrell,Tarrant. Northants 20 . . 19 .. Seymour (Jno.), S. G. Smith, Thompson. Notts................... 21 . . 21 .. Gunn (J.), Hard­ staff, Iremonger, A. O. Jon es, Payton. Somerset........... 18 .. 38 .. Braund, Hardy, Lewis, Robson. Surrey ........... 33 .. 28 .. (None). Sussex ........... 29 .. 19 .. H.P.Chaplin. Cox, Killick, Relf (A. E.), Relf (R. R.), Vincett, Vine. Warwickshire.. 20 .. 25 . Baker, Charles­ worth, Field, Kinneir, Quaife, Santall. Worcestershire. 23 . 24 . . Arnold, Pearson. Yorkshire 31 .. 22 . Haigh, Hirst, Myers. With no colonial team present, London County defunct, and the M.C.C. matches lessened, there were fewer additional fixtures than in most recent years. Derbyshire, Gloucestershire, Hants, Lancashire, Middle­ sex, Northants, Somerset and Warwickshire played no matches at all outside their cham­ pionship programmes; Kent (their match with the M.C.C. being cancelled owing to King Edward’s death), Surrey, Sussex and Yorkshire had three each, Essex, Leicester­ shire, Notts and Warwickshire one each. Space does not allow of anything like a regular review of the performances of the more prominent players. Of those who played pretty regularly in 1909 several were absent altogether—L. G. Wright, A. C. S. Glover, W. T. Greswell, C.' L. A. Smith, T. S. Fishwick, J. N. Crawford, K. G. McLeod, Hargreave, Bestwick and Rushby among them. Of these Rushby returns to Surrey next season, and Crawford may not be lost for ever; but we can hardly expect to see any of the others turning out regularly again. Of more occasional players Middlesex lost a whole eleven in M. W. and C. A. L. Payne, C. C. Page, J. H. Hunt, C. Palmer, C. B. W. Magnay, R. V. Buxton, J. H. Stogdon, G. L. Hebden, L. J. Moon and C. M. Wells, all of them absent throughout this year, though in 1909 each played some first-class cricket. W. H. Kingston dropped out of the Northants side. M. K. and W. L. Foster disappeared from the Worcestershire tables. R. A. Young did not turn out for Sussex, and water on the knee kept that fine young batsman, H. E. W. Prest, from assisting eilher his University or his county. F. A. Phillips, Hardisty, E. Olivier and Mark Cox were among the others whose names do not appear at all in the list. Hallam dropped out of the Notts team during the season, and now it is said that Clifton also leaves the county club. Wor­ cestershire and Gaukrodger parted company Newstead is leaving Yorkshire. Alan Marshal has gone back to Australia. Trott may not be quite done with yet, but Middlesex has young players coming on, and Jack Hearne’s startling recovery of form helped to keep his old comrade out. But the tale of the season is far from being entirely one of loss. The public schools gave F. H. Knott to Kent, I. P. F. Campbell to Surrey, and others who show promise, though they have yet to win their spurs, to other counties. Several University bowlers—A. G. Cowie, F. N. Tuff, N. J. Holloway, and J. L. S. Vidler—did very well indeed. Among the other men quite new to first-class cricket one picks out the Hon. R. Anson, R. V. Bards-ley, G. E. V. Crutchley,E. L. Kidd, J. I. Piggott, S. H. Savile, R. H. Twining, H. W. M. Yates. Newton of Derbyshire, Morfee of Kent, and Whysall of Notts, as likely to make names for themselves in the future. Then, among the men who have played before, M. C. Bird, W. M. Brownlee, D. C. Collins, F. R. Foster, C. V. L. Hooman, E. C. Kirk, R. O. Lagden, P. R. Le Couteur, R. Sale, Booth, Brown of Hants, Lawrence Cook, J. T. Hearne, Hitch, Jupp of Sussex, Parker, Platt, Riley, Shipman, and the Tyldesleys (Earnest and William) all end the season with distinctly enhanced reputa­ tions ; and, taking those who bad already established their ability, Baker of Warwick­ shire, H. P. Chaplin, Crowther Charlesworth, Hardy of Somerset, Alfred Hartley, A. C. Johnston, Morton and Newman, have all done better than ever before. Chaplin’s batting for Sussex was, indeed, one of the best features of the county’s season ; and, keen asH. P. is, his best friends could hardly have expected that he would do such big things. He was making runs from the start, and wound up with a total of over 1,100, an average of nearly 28, and two excellent centuries to his credit. He also proved a real success as captain. Floreat! The manner in which Morton rose to the occasion, and more tban filled the burly Bestwick’s place was also remarkable. Morton took 116 wickets against a highest total of 53 in any previous year, and batted as well as ever he had done in addition. Baker, who had totalled 956 runs in 1905, his first season, 992 in 1907, and 985 in 1908, at last reached four figures, though but barely. His comrade in the Warwickshire team, Charlesworth, has never been in any­ thing like the same form before. Hardy, who has not in previous seasons had a regular place in his county team, did nothing sensa­ tional, but put in a lot of hard work under depressing conditions, and should do better when Somerset has better luck. Alfred Hartley was in great form, and looks fit for the highest honours. A. C. Johnston has never batted more consistently, and