Cricket 1910

A p r i l 2 1 , 1 9 1 0 . CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 69 THE M.C.C.’ S TEAM IN SOUTH AFRICA . ( 1 Continued from page 53.) REVIEW and STATISTICS of the TOUR. Inasmuch as the English team lost the rubber in the series of Test matches, their tour must to a certain extent be regarded as disappointing. Before the side sailed from this country, it was generally thought that it would not succeed in winning the majority of the games, for, whilst the bowling at command possessed variety and was of a high standard, the batting was not so strong as could have been desired, considering the strength of the attack to be met. There is, however, no cause for discouragement in the fact that the rubber was lost: it was dis­ appointing, but nothing more. It is beside the mark to suggest that the honours of the series would have fallen to the touring side if fortune had been a little kinder to them. It is sufficient to know that the English side, though beaten, was far indeed from being disgraced, that it always played the game in the best sporting spirit, and that when a great effort was needed at a critical time a plucky, if not always a successful, attempt would be made to accomplish what was desired. It will interest many to know that, whereas South Africa won three of the all- important games to Englaud’s two, the latter could claim an advantage over their opponents of slightly more than a run per wicket for every wicket lost in the five games, the exact figures being England 26 61, South Africa 25*55. Statistics, of course, can be made to prove anything, but one may safely deduce from these that England was not, on the whole, outclassed to any great extent. Beyond everything else, the feature of the tour was the batting of Hobbs. From tba very start he played brilliant cricket, and, without doing anything to merit being called a great hitter, always made his runs at a fine pace. It was the unanimous opinion of the other members of the team that his rate of run-getting was faster than it had ever been in England. One is tempted to emphasise this fact, for it proves that it is possible to obtain runs freely against the South African “ googlie” bowlers even on their own wickets. In Rhodes he found an excellent first-wicket partner: the pair, indeed, performed so well that one dreads to imagine what would have happened if either had proved a failure. One has only to refer to the scores of the matches to realize the extent to which the side was indebted to them. Rhodes, quite rightly, invariably played defensive cricket whilst his partner indulged in the bright game which one has come to associate with his name, and therefore his average does not adequately represent his value as a batsman to the side. Denton, Woolley and Fane failed to do as well as was hoped and expected. The first- named, after a succession of small scores, made three separate hundreds in succession —two of them in one match ; Woolley, who seems liable to succumb to a fast ball early iu his innings, showed some of his best form when the tour was nearly over ; whilst Fane, accustomed to go in lirst, was obviously somewhat out of his element in being sent in later. Still, Hobbs and Rhodes proved such an admirable pair with which to start, that it is impossible to see that anything else could have been arranged in the best interests of the side. M. C. Bird made some good scores, and, moreover, did so generally when runs were needed. The experience gained during the tour should prove very valuable to him, for many thing 3 are less likely than that he will be chosen for some of the representative games during the visit of the Australians and the South Africans td England in 1912. Thompson’s all-round cricket was very valuable, whilst Simpson- Hayward’s lobs were both puzzling and successful. Buckenham also did very well, especially as the ground was, more often than not, too hard to permit a fast bowler to be kept on very long. In estimating the value of what the side accomplished, it should not be forgotten that it took some time for the great majority of the team to become used to the matting wickets, on which the ball gets up higher than on turf. As the batting of Hobbs dwarfed everything else on the English side, so did the splendid all-round cricket of Faulkner on the South African. When he came over here in 1907 he proved himself a very accomplished cricketer, but he has made enormous strides since then, and can now safely be regarded as one of the three best all-rouud players in the world: one might, perhaps, even award him a higher place without doing anyone an injustice. To the cricket of Faulkner and Vogler the South Africans’ successes in the Test matches were primarily due ; only a glance at the averages is necessary to con­ vince one of this fact. It was in bowling that the chief strength of the South Africans lay. Their batting was decidedly useful, from the opening of the innings to the end, but, apart from Faulkner, they possess no batsman quite of the class of Hobb 3 , Clem Hill, Trumper, Hayward, Ransford or Bards­ ley. The general feeling of those best en­ titled to express an opinion is that South African cricket has not improved during the last few years. A fast bowler of the stamp and stamina of Kotze is badly needed ; but at present there does not appear to be anyone likely to supply the want. There are, how­ ever, players of distinct possibilities. Zulch has created a most favourable imp ession, and is beyond doubt the most able of the younger generation of batsmen ; Pegler is very' promising as an all round player and Samuelson as a “ googlie” bowler, whilst N. O. Norton’s right-hand fast-medium deliveries are well above the average. Camp­ bell proved himself very smart behind the wick­ et, and able to take the “ googlies ” without much apparent trouble. Sinclair did singu­ larly little, and one hopes that his falling-off will prove only temporary, for, at his best, he is the finest natural hitter in the world. One missed Maitland Hatliorn, Shalders, Sherwell, and Louis Tancred, but some of them may have come on again by next season. It has been said that Sherwell kept out of the game this winter so that he can visit Australia during 1910-11 : one hopes such will prove to be the case, and that before the team is chosen Schwarz will have recovered all his former skill as a bowler. At the present time there appears to be an endeavour to induce South African cricketers of exceptional ability, living outside the Transvaal, to settle in or near Johannesburg. Such a policy may prove beneficial to the game in the centre mentioned, but it cannot help being disheartening to the sides deprived of their best players. R esults of all M atcher . Won. Lost. Dwn. Total. Test Matches ... ... 2 3 0 5 Other lst-Class Matches 5 1 3 9 Matches against Odds... 3 0 0 3 Totals ... ... 10 4 3 17 v. Western Province, at Newlauds.—Won by an innings and 133 runs, v. XV. of Griqualand West, at Kimberley. —Won by 200 runs, v. XV. of Orange River Colony, at Bloem­ fontein.—Won by 200 runs, v. The Reef, at Vogelfontein.—Drawn, v. The Transvaal, at Johannesburg.—Lost by 308 runs, v. S outh A frica , at J ohannesburg . —Lost by 19 runs, v. Natal, at Durban.—Drawn, v. Natal, at Pietermaritzburg.—Won by nine wickets, v. S outh A frica , at D urban .— Lost by 95 runs. v. Border, at East London.—Won by four wickets. v. XV. of Queenstown and North-Eastern Districts, at Queenstown.—Won by an innings and 63 runs, v. Eastern Province, at Port Elizabeth.— Won by an innings and 139 runs, v. The Transvaal, at Johannesburg.—Won by 50 runs, v. The Transvaal, at Pretoria.—Drawn, v. S outh A frica , at J ohannesburg . —Won by three wickets, v. S outh A frica , at N ewland 3.— Lost by four wickets, v. S outh A frica , at N ewlands .— Won by nine wickets. After the team’s arrival at Cape Town a practice game was arranged for the side against XVI. Western Province Colts. As tbis was an extra match, and did not form part of the tour proper, it is not tnken into account in any of the summaries which -follow. E N G L IS H B A T T IN G A V E R A G E S IN T E S T M A T C H E S. Times Most Not in an Total Inns out. injis. Runs. Aver. H obbs . 9 1 187 539 67.37 T h om p son . 9 1 63 267 33.37 W oolley . 9 1 (59 256 32.00 1 101 240 26.66 R h odes .10 1 77 226 25.11 H. D . G. L .-G ow er . . 6 2 31 95 23.75 M. C. B ird . .10 0 57 185 18.50 F. L . Fane . . 9 0 39 148 16.44 G. H . S .-H ayw ard . . 8 1 29* 105 15.00 B lyth e .. . . 3 3 1* 7 *7.00 S trudw ick . . 9 1 18 51 6.37 B uckenham . . 7 0 17 43 6.14 N . C. Tufnell (14) played on ly one innings. * Signifies n ot out. E N G L IS H B O W L IN G A V E R A G E S IN T E S T M A T C H E S. Overs. Mdns. Runs. Wkls. Aver. M. C. B ird 20.1 7 14 5 8.80 B lythe .. 83 32 168 12 14.00 G. II. S .-H ayw ard 119.4 18 420 23 18.26 Th om p son 221.5 64 628 23 27.30 B uckenham 197 25 593 21 28.23 W oolley 91 24 251 7 35.85 R hodes 59 16 138 2 69*00 H obbs 31 9 76 1 76.00 S O U T H A F R IC A N B A T T IN G A V E R A G E S IN T E S T M A T C H E S. Times Most not in an Total Inns.out. inns. Runs. Aver. G. A . Faulkner . .10 1 123 545 60.55 S. J. Pegler . . 2 1 28 39 39.00 G. C. W h ite . . . . 8 0 118 284 35.50 M. Bisset . . 2 1 2 1* 31 31.00 S. J. S nooke . .10 0 53 259 25.90 A. D . N ourse . . . .10 0 69 232 23.20 J. W . Zulch . . . . 10 1 43* 197 21.88 R . O. S chw arz. . . . 8 3 44 108 21.60 A. E . V ogler . . . . 9 1 65 154 19.25 T. A . Cam pbell . . 7 2 48 87 17.40 M. C om m aille . . . . 10 0 42 155 15.50 J. H . Sinclair .. . . 8 0 37 104 13.00 C. E . F loqu et . . . . 2 1 11* 12 12.00 L. Strieker . . 7 0 31 80 11.42 S. V . Sam uelson . . 2 0 15 22 11.00 N . O. N orton . . 2 0 7 9 4.50 * Signifies n ot out.