Cricket 1911

200 CUtCKET: A WEEKLY HECOBD OE TfiE GAME. J une 3, 1911. was more than fifty runs an hour. His was the ninth largest innings ever played by a Yorkshireman in a first- class county match, being exceeded by only Hirst (three times), .1. T. Brown (twice), Tunnicliffe, Wainwright and Peel. But all these batsmen were well-seasoned before notching their biggest scores, whereas Booth is but a colt. I hoped he would develop into a class bowler, and perhaps he may ; but will he not be tempted to sacrifice bowling for batting after his recent triumph ? Mind you, his county wants fresh batsmen even more than bowlers ; let’s hope that he and Drake will supply the lack. Only last summer I met at Scarborough an old friend, the captain of Pudsey Britannia, who told me that in his judgment his young townsman and cricket chum, Booth, was certain to train on and make his mark. As his was the last wicket to fall, it was surely an error of judgment on his captain’s part to toss him the ball when Worcestershire went in again ; he needed a good long rest. I remember old Caffyn, the only survivor, by-the-by, of the three English teams that toured in America in 1859 and in Australia in 1861 and 1863—telling me that on one occasion when he had scored 103 not out for Surrey v. England and was dead-beat by his exertion, his captain at once called on him to bowl, and naturally he could not do himself justice. I have seldom enjoyed a county match more than that in which Essex took jiart on the Oval last week ; there was not a dull moment all the three days. Even when it was certain to be drawn the Essex players never once relaxed their efforts. For this, I take it, they have to thank their captain, one of the keenest and hardest workers ever seen on a cricket field, whose example is contagious. A side seldom gets slack when led by a man who never spares himself. As a rule it is not desirable that a captain should be a bowler ; some captains never know when to take themselves off ; whilst others, like poor old Tom Emmett, are too modest to give themselves the trial they ought to have. Douglas preserves the happy medium. His batting is scarcely exhilarating, but he is the very man to go in first and break the bowling, and he rightly sends down the first over. Fane is a tower of strength to any eleven, and he is almost always at his b est; at any rate he was in this match, as Surrey knew to their cost. He looked as if he would never get out ; as it was he stopped long enough to notch the largest innings of the season—217—and one of the very best, too. Carpenter’s batting on the second day —86 not out—gave me even more pleasure, for it came as a surprise from a man who we had thought was on the shelf ; but there’s a lot of cricket in him yet, spite of the burden of 42 years. Car­ penter—and then Hayward ; honoured names, ever dear to me. At my first match at the same ground in 1862, the Carpenter and Hayward of those days were on the same England side ; Carpenter scored 94, Hayward 117. History repeated itself last week after an interval of forty- nine years. I don’t suppose my recent visit to the Surrey ground will be retained as vividly or as long as my first visit. Nor do I say that in the case of the Carpenters the son is the equal of his father, but one can claim for Hayward that he is as great a batsman as his renowned uncle—as great—who will say greater ? when we remember the enormous difference between modern wickets and the wickets of the fifties, sixties and seventies. We may well “ praise famous men, and the fathers that begat us.” At the same time I do not hesitate to say that a more perfect innings, with only one faulty stroke in it, than Hayward’s 170 not out last week it has never been my good fortune to witness ; it was the work of a master-hand, a model of style. No wonder he did not play at Northampton after a stay of more than five hours under a tropical sun. Hay­ ward has been a prime favourite of mine ever since a visit to the Oval in 1895, when Warwickshire were playing. The Surrey 1 ‘ coach ” called my attention to another young player of whom he prophesied great things, and who deserved the flattering opinion then passed. ‘ 1 He is undoubtedly a fine batsman,” was my reply, ” but take my word for it, that other (Hayward) is much greater and should before long be at the very top.” That was not a prophecy after the event. This was Hayward’s ninety-first century in first-class cricket. By-the-by, Wisden’s Almanack for this year has, marvellous to relate, tripped a little in one of its ‘ 1 cricket records,” viz., Batsmen who have obtained 25 or more Hundreds, on page 196, where Denton is credited with 49—it should be 46 ; Hayward with 93—it should be 90. I have not had time to check the other figures. It was this error which resulted in a state­ ment which appeared in almost all the papers to the effect that Denton’s 120 against Somerset the other day was his fiftieth century. We are all under such lasting obligations to our old friend Wisden that I feel very reluctant to point out the above inaccuracies ; but both my friends, Mr. Pardon and Mr. Ashley-Cooper, will, I feel sure, pardon my youthful liberty.* I was telling a neighbour in the Press box of the changes that had been introduced into cricket grounds. For instance, a few of us can remember tbe old scoring boxes at Lord’s and the Oval—a small movable wooden structure on wheels—and a back-less form in front of it, on which sat three or four reporters who made their notes on their knees and without protec­ tion from the sun. No wonder the cricket reports of those days were meagre. And yet in face of facts like this some of my older acquaintances wax eleoquent about ‘ ‘ the good old time.” But to-day is better than yesterday, and to-morrow will go one better still, so far as cricket and all that pertains to it are concerned. One is thankful to have lived on into this progressive period. * F. S. A.-C. writes :— “ 1 should like to take this opportunity of saying that I was not responsible for the paragraph referred to, or for two others, which appeared in the Records in Wisden for 1911.” WANDERERS v. CHARLTON PARK.— Played at Charlton Park on May 24. Score:— C harlton P a r k . H. Gore, c de baram, b Colman .. W, Bezer, b Bridger........................ 35 W an d erers . R. Lambert, c Fernie, b Sargent... 21 1 S. de Saram, c Stratton Mills, b S. K. Mills, b Bridger .......... 6 Sargent ....................................... 36 S. R. Sargent, b Bridger .......... 34 Stanley Colman, b Fernie .......... 97 G. W. Bumpus, c R. Kenward, b C. P. Hurditch,cS. Mills,b Bumpus 4 Crawford ........................................ 21 R. Kenward, c Bezer, b Cunis ... 15 Fernie, c and b Crawford .......... 20 N. C. Lambert, cS. Mills, b Sargent 32 W . Cunis, run out ......................... 2 P. G. Gale, c Bezer, b Sargent ... 10 Stratton Mills, not o u t.................. 4 R.T. Crawford, cBumpus, b Fernie 30 H. Goodwin, b Bridger................. 0 C. Kenward, c Bezer, b Fernie ... 50 B. C. Coker, c Hurditch, b Bridger 14 E. J. Bridger, c Fernie, b Bezer... 14 A. N. Other, absent........................ 0 S. H. H. Bridge, not out .......... 0 B 31, lb 9 ....................... 40 B 25, lb 1, w 6 ............. 32 Total .......... ... 177 Total ................. 341 TEDDINGTON v. MARLBOROUGH BLUES.— Played at Teddington on May 27. Score :— T EDDINGT0N. J. T. Dixon, c Gatey, b M. S. Rogers 33 M arlborough B lues . A. W. Dickinson, b J. T. Dixon ... 2 R. B. Latimer c V. B. Rogers, b M. 0. Lewis ................................ 56 L. R. Lewis, c J. T. Dixon, b Darby ........................................ 21 K. Dixon, c Dickinson, b Hacking 5 H. M. Rogers, b J. T. Dixon 4 C. P. Mead, c and b M. S. Rogers A. E. Quincey, lbw, b M.O. Lewis 1 K. Gatey, b J. T. Dixon .......... 6 22 M. O. Lewis, c Latimer, b J. T. R. E. Westmauott, c M. O. Lewis, Dixon ........................................ 10 b Jenkins ................................ 8 A. Hacking, b J. T. D ix o n .......... 12 F. E. Johnson, not o u t................. 30 H. Church, b Westmacott .......... 9 G. Kinross, b Jenkins ................. 2 O S. Jenkins, c Westmacott, b G. A. J. Darby, c L. N. Rogers, b J. T. Dixon ................................ 5 Jenkins ....................................... 4 M. S. Rogers, not out ................. 28 E. J. Snee, ht wkt, b Jenkins 1 L. N. Rogers, not out ................. 12 G. C. Ross, b Jenkins ................. 0 Byes, &c................................. 1 Byes, &c.............................. 23 — — Total ......................... 110 Total ................. 191 V. B. Rogers did not bat. LONDON SCOTTISH v. SOUTH HAMPSTEAD.— Played at Brondesbury on May 27. Score:— S o u t h H a m ps t e a d . G. Bamford, c Powell, b H. G. V. Homer ....................................... 84 R. Moore, c H. G. V. Homer, b Hogg 48 J. Puddefort, c S. Lienard, b Hogg 2 P. Brooman, b H. G. V. Homer .. 3 P. Walford, lbw, b Hogg .......... 51 C. Clarke, c H. G. V. Homer, b S. Lienard ....................................... 9 F. Kup, b Hogg................................ 10 C. Pearce, not out ......................... 4 C. Barrett, c S. Lienard, b Hogg... 6 B 1,1b 2 ................................ 3 Total (8 wkts)* ..........226 *Innings declared closed. D. Barrett and L. Gilliard did not bat. Durham, who were last season’s champions, scored 324 for five wickets v. Burnmoor (143) on Saturday, the second highest score in the history of the Durham Senior League. F. Scott made 119 and C. Y. Adamson 83. L o n d o n S c o t tis h . C. Powell, b Bamford ................. 0 C. Tollit, c Clark, b Bamford ... 81 E. A. Bennett, b Bamford .......... 70 S. Lienard, b Bam ford................ 0 E. Hogg, c C. Barrett, b Bamford 18 L. Lienard, st Clarke, b Bamford 0 E. A. Homer, not out ................. 2 G. T. Holford, not out ................. 4 B 11, lb 1............................... 12 Total (6 wkts) .... ... 187 H. G. V. Ilomer, R. A. Bennett and R. K. Morris did not bat.