Cricket 1911

J u ly 8 ,1911 . CEICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OP THE GAME. 325 The University? /Watch. How O x fo r d w o n a n in t e r e s t in g gam e. Whatever verdict may be finally pronounced by the jury of experts on tbe quality of the play, there can be no question that the University match of 1911 was a thoroughly interesting game and will be remembered by the remarkable and most dramatic fluctuations in fortune which characterised its course from first to last. Cambridge doubtless had the game in hand at more than one stage, but they never held the advantage gained and made so many blunders, alike in generalship and in methods, that they never really deserved to win. This may seem a harsh saying, for Oxford were by no means free from similar, if not identical, faults. In these matters it is as well to remember, however, that there is a lot of cricket in a cricket match—a paradoxical way of stating that, if mistakes of head are avoidable, those of hand are incidental, and are, therefore, in some sort inevitable. It is very easy to be strictly logical in these matters and to point to the fact that if all the catches offered by Oxford in both innings had been accepted, Oxford would not have won by 74 runs. But cricket is cricket, and until you eliminate the human factor from the game, as you cannot do so long as men are men, the dropped catch will remain whether it counts, as in this case, or has no very convincing bearing on the issue. Moreover, in taking the dropped catch into the calculation, one has to adopt the fallacy of the petitio principii and to beg the question. In other words one has to presume that the whole sequence of events subsequent to the let-off would have been the same. That is a presumption for which there is no title. But this aspect apart, it is safe to say that Cambridge contiibuted to their own defeat by bad ground-fielding, indifferent generalship, and by the adoption of wrong methods at the crisis of the match, when, that is, Le Couteur found his length after going on for the second time at 65 on Wednesday. With the exception of Saville it cannot be said that any of the Cambridge men really met the ball or made a seriously sustained effort to get to balls a little wide of them. Hits straight to them were stopped, but many runs were given away. This and bad slip- fielding—the latter fault was perhaps unavoidable, were sufficient in themselves to account for the defeat of Cambridge. But other causes contributed. The bowling was indifferently managed especially in Oxford’s second innings after the debacle had begun and five wickets were down for 119. The five outstanding wickets added 209, but they were real value for so many, though in justice to Brougham it should be said that he played the best innings of the match and made the fullest possible use of a presented opportunity. Ireland should have bowled himself and Holloway more. Holloway can command variation in pace and it was precisely that quality which might have counted and in theory of the game must have counted against batsmen playing the sort of game which Brougham played. Grierson, too, should have been bowled more for he is a length bowler, whereas Kidd, though he may take wickets, is apt to be expensive. The third factor was improper methods after Le Couteur found his length. Instead of going resolutely for Le Couteur with a view to knocking him off his length, the batsmen either played back to him or made hesitating strokes. They went out to hit and changed their minds. Falcon and Ireland both threw their wickets away through that irresolution which produces the mistimed half-hit and hence a dolly catch either to the bowler or mid-on. Then others made the error of getting in front to short-pitched balls. This is dangerous against Le Couteur by reason of his pace off the pitch and liability to keep low. It would have been just as easy and far safer to score from the same balls without moving. Mann and Holloway both showed that Le Couteur could be hit with safety and if Mann had remained—the decision in his case was at least doubtfnl—he might have enabled Cambridge to win after all. It is easy to be wise after the event and still easier to point out errors that counted. One is aware, however, that these errors have ever been part of the game and are inherent; it is the part of the critic to point them out, however, even if he should happen to take a philosophic view of their occurrence and to find the best excuse for their manipulation in the game itself, alike in its material and psychological aspect. Oxford have been accused of playing back when they should have played forward and in this way of offering themselves as ready victims to Ireland in the first innings. By parity of reasoning, Ireland had better figures (5 for 25) in the first innings than his bowling merited, while his feat of performing the hat-trick was a gift of fortune. Here again, however, the game applies the solution. The half-volley is often the very best ball to bowl at a nervous or over-anxious batsman and it would be unjust to the Cambridge captain to suppose that he may not have bowled half-volleys on purpose and in terms of the old principle just enunciated. In any case we saw a good and interesting match, and if the fielding suggested a slackness which is inexcusable in University sides, there was much good cricket otherwise by way of compensation. Oxford impressed one as the better side, though as the game went, Cam­ bridge should have won, yet did not deserve victory. HAMISH STUART. S U S S E X v . L E I C E S T E R S H I R E . Played at Brighton on July 3, 4 and 5. Sussex won by 37 runs. In each innings of Sussex a good stand was made after the majority of the best batsmen had been dismissed, Goldie and Cox adding 103 for the seventh wicket in the first and Relf (A. E .) and Chaplin 113 for the fifth in the second. The younger Relf was seen to advantage on each occasion, scoring 54 in two hours and three- quarters the first time he went in and 50 out of 66 in an hour the second. Leicestershire cut up badly in their first innings, and it was only a last-wicket stand by Knight and Brown that saved the follow-on. They did well, however, when set 373 to win, although Wood, Whitehead and Lord were all out for 15. The fifth wicket fell at 61, but Coe and Knight put on 71 for the sixth wicket and the latter and Joyce, who hit freely, 113 for the seventh. Knight played a capital game and almost succeeded in pulling off the match. Score and analysis :— First innings. S ussex . R elf (R. R.^, b K ing ...................................... Vine, b S h ip m a n ............................................. K illick, b Joyce ... ............................ C. L. A. Sm ith, c Shields, b Shipm an .. R elf (A. E.), c Shipm an, b K ing .......... H. P. Chaplin, c W hitehead, b Wood .. K. O. Goldie, c Coe, b Wood ................... Cox (G. R.), not out ..................................... Leach, c W hitehead, b K ing ................... Vincett, b W ood .............................................. Butt, run out ............................................. . B 12, lb 4, w 4, nb 6 .................... Total ............................ *Innings de L eicestershire . First innings. C. J. B. W ood, c Cox, b R elf (A. E.) Lord, c Cox, b R elf (A. E .) ..................... W hitehead (H .), c Butt, b R elf (A. E .)... King, b R elf (A. E .) ...................................... M ounteney, c R elf (R . R ), b C o x ............ K night, not out ............................................... Coe, c Vine, b C ox ...................................... F. M. Joyce, c Butt, b Cox .................... J. Shields, b Leach ...................................... Shipm an, b Cox ............................................... Brown (W .), c Butt, b Relf (R. R.) B 6 , lb 3 ...................................... 64 Second innings, b S h ip m a n ............................., 50 0 c sub., b Shipm an .......... b S h ip m a n ............................ 7 32 4 21 c W hitehead, b Shipm an.. . 13 21 not o u t ....................................... 101 11 b Brow n ............................ . 48 75 65 not o u t ..................................... . 12 4 11 4 26 B 7, lb 1, w 1, nb 5 . 14 324 Total (5 w ktsj* .. . 249 I closed. Second innings. b R elf (A. E.) ..................... 0 b R elf (R . R .) ..................... 0 c Cox, b R elf (A. E .) ... 1 c and b R elf (R. R .) ............ 12 c sub., b Cox ..................... IS b R elf (A . E.) .................... 122 b Vine ...................................... 30 c and b Vine ..................... 73 b Vine ...................................... 17 not o u t ...................................... 33 st B utt, b C ox .................... 9 B 9, lb 10, w 1 ..................... 20 Total .. ............ 201 Total 335 First innings. S u ssex . Second innings. O. M. R. W. O. M. R. W. S hipm an... ............ 23 4 78 2 ..................... ... 20 1 89 4 King ............ 42 10 87 3 .................... ... 10 2 49 0 Joyce ............ 10 3 18 1 ............................ Brown ............ 101 2 39 0 ............................ 16 4 32 1 W ood ............ 25 0 7<! 3 ..................... ... 8 0 37 0 W hitehead .. ... 4 0 12 0 Lord ............ ... 2 0 11 0 M ounteney ... 1 0 5 0 Shipm an bow led eleven no-balls, W ood three w ides, and Joyce and Brown First innings. one w ide each. L eicestersh ire . Leach R elf (A. E.) R elf (R. R.) C o x ............ o . M. R. W. O. M. R. W. 8 0 49 1 ..................... ... 4 0 22 0 36 17 50 4 ..................... ... 35 13 62 3 11-3 2 28 1 ..................... ... 20 2 67 2 18 3 65 4 ..................... ... 13-5 2 35 2 Vincett ... 5 0 19 0 Vine ............ ... 20 0 95 3 K illick ... 4 0 15 0 Vincett bow led one wide. THE AMER ICAN CRICKETER. F ounded 1877. Published by H. H. Cornish on behalf of The Associated Cricket Clubs of Philadelphia. An Illustrated Journal of Cricket, Association Football, Tennis, Golf, and K indred Pastim es. No. 608, Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa., U.S.A. pr ic e — 18/- per annum, post paid anywhere. Specimen copies mailed on request.