Cricket 1911

J une 3, 1911. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OE THE GAME. 199 T h i s is a p h o t o g r a p h i c r e p r o d u c t i o n w i t h o u t a n y f a k i n g w h a t e v e r . T h e g r o w t h o f t h i s t i m b e r is b e l i e v e d t o b e u n i q u e . I f a n y C r i c k e t e r p o s s e s s e s a b l a d e s h o w i n g s u c h a w i d t h b e t w e e n t h e lin e s o f a n n u a l g r o w t h , w i l l h e k i n d l y c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h — W. E. B U S S E Y , 36, QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, L O N D O N . Cricket Notches. B y t h e R e v . R . S. H o lm e s . HE cricket of last week yielded several delightful contrasts which pleased everbody. The croakers are for the time being put to silence ; the game is no longer on the down-grade. Here’s a brief summary; one match was won by 2 runs, another by one wicket; per contra, an innings and 155 runs and an innings and 75 runs were the final records of the respective matches between Notts and Gloucestershire, Yorkshire and Derbyshire. Again, Leicestershire were dismissed by Kent for 26—their smallest total in a championship match; whilst Warwickshire lost only one wicket in notching 268 againstLeicestershire. When didNotts pile up 506 runs in the course of a single day ? And to the best of my recollection Yorkshire had never previously scored successive innings of535and 401 (for four wickets) as in their matches at Worcester and Chesterfield.Then just glance at afew of the bowlers ; whilst Wass could not get a Gloucestershire wicket, although 167 runs were scored off him, Iremonger in the same match got eight for 61 ; yet the latter is played for his batting, the former for his bowling. Again, down at Worcester Hirst’s analyses read nine for 41, two for 89 ; whilst at Leicester Blythe’s four for 100 was in sharp relief to his six for 10 ! Whereas Hirst could not get a wicket in Derbyshire’s second innings, Rhodes had the splendid record of seven wickets for 16 runs. So much for the glorious uncertainty of cricket ; one never knows what will happen next. One day a man can do nothing wrong, the next day he can do nothing right. But it is all in the game ; hence its perennial charm. The honours of last week were gained by the younger men. The older hands like Fane, Warner, the brothers Gunn, Hayward, Hobbs, Denton, Hirst and others, were, of course, in evidence, but for once they were put into the shade by A. R. Litteljohn, Booth and Drake. I rejoice in their success ; one was growing weary of singing the praises of men who are getting into the veteran stage, and they will experience a sense of relief in being tempor­ arily consigned to a back seat. Fancy a slow medium amateur bowler taking 27 wickets in one week on a perfect wicket and against such batsmen as hail from Kent and Lanca­ shire ! Litteljohn had only appeared in a few championship matches before this season opened ; so, although he is scarcely a colt in years—- being just 31—he is in first-class cricket. In this initial success of his he resembles Kent’s famous googly bowler, D. W. Carr. Whom do you think he reminded me of as I watched him bowl last week ? None other than A. G. Steel when in 1878 he took the cricketing world by storm with his deadly slow leg-breaking balls. I hesitate to institute this comparison, because Steel bowled round the wicket, gave a higher flight to the ball and occasionally sent down a fast ball with a slight break from the off. But both he and Litteljohn bowled just that length of ball which puts a batsman into two minds ; each knew the secret of the blind spot. Would Middlesex have beaten Lancashire had Litteljohn not been playing ? Anyhow, he bagged no less than 15 wickets, when Tarrant and the two Hearnes could do nothing. On only four previous occasions has a Middlesex bowler dismissed as many batsmen in one match ; .Tack Hearne taking 16 wickets against Lancashire in 1906, 15 against Notts in 1893 and against Somerset in 1904 ; whilst Trott claimed the same number against Sussex in 1901. The preceding comparison recalls an incident in the long ago. As you know, a cricket ground brings together all sorts and conditions of men, the most diverting of whom to me is the individual who will talk and who is always confident as to the correctness of his own statements. Well, such a person was my next-door neighbour at a Yorkshire match in which Peate, the famous slow left-hand bowler, was playing. As I assented with a nod to all he had been telling me, he doubtless regarded me as an authority on the game, so at last he asked this question : ‘ ‘ Do you know who Peate reminds me of ? You’ve heard of George Tarrant who vised to play for Cambridgeshire, and perhaps, like me, you saw him. Peate is Tarrant over again ; I never saw two bowlers so closely resemble each other. Don’t you agree with me ? I am sure you must.” My only reply was another nod. What else could I do ? Had I told him that Tarrant was right-hand and almost the fastest bowler ever seen, he would have pitied my ignorance. No, better answer a fool accordingly to his folly. And what of the Yorkshire colts, Booth and Drake, and their great innings at Worcester and Chesterfield respectively last week ? And in their second season only, although Booth did take part in a couple of matches in 1908. Drake had a slice of luck in his century, but Booth was indebted for his 210 against Worcestershire to his own skill. And his rate of scoring