Cricket 1911

160 CR ICKET : A W EEK LY RECORD OP THE GAME. M a y 20,1911. had snatched more matches out of the fire than any other county during the last fifty years, and then he quoted chapter and verse in confirmation. Yes, he was right. And yet in many seasons how fitful was their form ; but genius is ever a law to itself, and so is not seldom guilty of commonplaceness, not to say stupidity. But of late—indeed, ever since 1893—Yorkshire seldom have belied their great reputation But who could expect them to score 250 on a sun-baked wicket against Mead and Trem- lin ? Yet if Drake could notch 36, the others might have done better. One doesn’t like to see Denton wearing the spectacles : it is eleven seasons since he last took to them, and then only for a solitary match. He must quickly discard them, for they do not improve his personal appear­ ance. But nearly every first-class batsman at one time or other resorts to this sight improver. Of our present day batsmen of ten years’ standing only Jessop, Hayward and Tyldesley have never used i t ; let us hope they will retire before they need it. Douglas promptly acknowledged the compliment his county paid him by making him captain, and, as all captains should, he batted in splendid style in both innings, Fane going one better in the second innings. I rejoice in the revival of Carpenter after a season in the wilderness. His is one of the names that should never disappear from the game. Carpenter and Hayward— what names they once were to conjure with ; household words, on every child’s lips when I first began to follow cricket . And they always ran in couples, just as Humphrey and Jupp did a few years later. And at the same time we had pairs of bowlers, equally inseparable, such as Shaw and Morley, Grundy and Wootton, Freeman and Emmett. And in our own time who is unfamiliar with such cricketing pairs as Brown and Tunnicliffe, Mold and Briggs, Jones and Iremonger, Abel and Brockwell, Webbe and Stoddart, Hayward and Hobbs ? You cannot think of either of these names separately; the one immediately conjures up the other. Famous cricketers have so seldom lived on in their sons that I rejoice greatly to see Carpenter again in the Essex team. The victory of Essex will doubtless do them more good than Yorkshire’s defeat will do them damage. The next match at Leyton ought to be heavily patronised. The same of Warwickshire and Lancashire. The latter can afford to be generous in the hour of defeat. I take it they had far rather be beaten by Warwickshire than by Yorkshire or Surrey. For one thing, many will say that Lancashire didn’t try to win against the Midlanders last week-end, or else they took matters too easily. Why not say out right that for once they were out-classed at every point of the game ? I have lived long enough never to forecast the result of any match ; the unexpected is ever happening ; there are no moral certainties in cricket. But when I saw Warwickshire the other day go down before Surrey with paltry scores of 62 and 87, they looked a third- rate team. But since then wiser counsels have prevailed with their newly-chosen captain, and his presence seems to have heartened all his trusty men. How well Quaife wears, yet he is in his fortieth year; has there ever been a more consistent batsman through so many consecutive seasons ? His failures are a negligible quantity when set off against his numberless successes. I don’t know why he has seldom figured in Test and other representative matches. Perhaps it is because he is more of a match- saviour than a match winner. At Old Trafford last week his partnership with Charlesworth of 185 runs was the re­ deeming feature of the match. Lancashire batting is all righ t; Tyldesley, Sharp and Co. can always be depended upon ; and McLeod, after a year’s absence, will ably support them. It was too early in the season to look for a repetition of their great victories over Notts and Hampshire last year, when they wanted, as in this Warwickshire match, 400 runs in the last innings. But a bowler or two is their pressing need just now. Dean is out-and-away their handy man with the ball, but he is not great enough to win matches single-handed. Are Lancashire looking afield for fresh men ? But Notts has no longer a plethora of great bowlers, as they had forty odd years ago when Bill McIntyre migrated to Lancashire and George ITowett to Middlesex, because no room could be found for them in the county of their birth. Later on Lancashire lured away the greatest bowler North­ amptonshire ever had—Arthur Mold. Indeed, of all the leading counties, Lancashire have bred the fewest bowlers of class ; Watson and poor Briggs were both foreigners. No sooner had A. G. Steel proved himself to be the greatest slow bowler of his day than he had to retire from county cricket. Th ■mention of his name recalls a question recently addressed to me. I was asked to name the six greatest all-round cricketers in the last thirty years, three to be amateurs, three professionals. At once so many famous names occurred to me that a final choice is no easy matter. The three amateurs one can name with perfect confidence ; they are W. G. (of course), A. G. Steel and F. S. Jackson— a matchless trio, all of them not only great as batsman, bowler and fielder, but great as captain too, the very men to inspire confidence in all who served under them. Steel and Jackson won their spurs at school, then at Cambridge, then for the Gentlemen, for their respective counties, and lastly for England. I am not unmindful of the all-round claims of such distinguished amateurs as C. T. Studd, Sam Woods and Jessop ; but they rank just below W. G., Steel and Jackson. By-tlie-by cannot the latter be pre­ vailed upon to come out of his shell and captain England next year? We all remember his re-appearance atsScar­ borough after an absence of two years in South Africa, and his glorious century against the Players in his initial match. I have seldom seen a more masterly display ; it was difficult to believe that he was so short of practice. I am not forgetting that he is no longer young, nor that eleven years have elapsed since his Scarborough triumph ; but he is only now in his physical prime ; golf has kept his muscles supple and his sight keen. He is the one man England will want. Let him be captain and we need not fear the result of the triangular struggle of 1912. Only convince him that he is indispensable, and I feel certain he will consent. But who are the three professional cricketers ? Unhesi­ tatingly I name poor Lohmann and George Hirst, both of them among the kings of cricket of all time ; men who never knew what it was to lose heart, greatest in the most crucial matches. The third place I cannot so readily fill. On their day TJlyett and Briggs had no superiors as all­ round cricketers, nor has Rhodes to-day, and many would urge the claims of Woolley. There would probably be no consensus of opinion here ; but let us shake hands all the same. May difference of opinion never sunder those who love cricket and are jealous of its fair name. I have just obtained sundry County Annuals, all of which have an interest for an enthusiastic collector. My regret is that a county like Lancashire has never issued an official handbook. Theirs is a history to be proud of, and worthy of being chronicled in an octavo volume. And surely their members would also welcome a year-book on similar lines to that issued by Yorkshire annually since 1893 L O N D O N SC O T TISH v. E A L IN G .— P layed a t B rondesbury on M ay 13. Score :— L ondon S cottish . E . A. B ennett, c H . Thom as 7 H . G. V H om er, c H . Barrett, 0 . Pow ell, c H . B arrett, b H . b H . W i g g ................................. 1 B a z e ll........................................... 0 E. H ogg, n ot o u t ....................... 23 S. Leinard, b H . W igg . . . . 59 A. H . R ead, e Craik, 1* D unslei 7 L . Leinard, c Craik, b H . R . A . B ennett, e & b H . Bazell 0 B a z e ll........................................... 9 A. A. Thom as, <• Brow n, l> JI. E. A . H om er, c N eedham , b 0 J. Craik ................................. 27 B 4, lb 3 ....................... 7 G. R . H olford, b J. Craik . . 10 — T o t a l ....................... 150 E alin g . First Innings Second innings. J. B . Craik, b E . A . B ennett 6 c R ead,b E. A .H om er 10 H . W edd, b S. L e in a r d ....................... 2 b H . G. V . H om er . . 5 S. Faber, b S. L e i n a r d ....................... 4 2 1 H . N eedham , c R . A . Bennett, b S. Leinard ........................................... 0 b H .G .V . H om er .. 0 A . B radberry, b E . A . B ennett . . 13 15 A. Barrett, c & b S . Leinard 0 W . Brow se, c & b A . H . R ead . . 1 1 H . W igg, c & b S. Leinard 3 H . Bazell, b S. L e in a r d ....................... 0 C. Dunster, n ot ou t ....................... 5 b H . G. V . H om er .. 15 H . Thom as, c R . A . Bennett, b S. Leinard ........................................... B 4, lb 5, nb 1 ....................... 10 B ....................... 9 T o t a l ................................. 54 T otal (4 w kts.) .. 75