Cricket 1911

J uly 22, 1911. CRICKET: A WEEKLY EECOED OF TEE GAME. 351 BU SM BKY ’S W O R L D - FAMED . Q C 4 27/6 ^ O w 2 2 / 6 < v M o . ? o % v v 18/6 Q 0 £ ^ * /V ^ 16/6 9 A *£ ^ / V v 14/6 / J u n i o r d e m o n •) < $ 5 h / E 3 / 14/6 r e a d . . " 77?e Evolution of a Cricket Bat," OBTAINABLE FREE UPON REQUEST FROM GEO. G. BUSSEY & CO.. LTD ., 30 & 38 , QUEEN VICTORIA ST., LONDON. „ , . (Peckham, London. a co n e s. | Elmawell, Suffolk. A g e n t s a l l o v e r t h e W o r l d . Cricket Notches. B y t h e R e v . R . S . H o l m e s . |HE inclusion of Kinneir in the team for Australia was a moral certainty after his magnificent batting against the Gentlemen at the Oval— 201 for once ou t; and he has promptly accepted the invitation. The value of a really first-class left-handed batsman cannot be exaggerated. Hitherto England has lacked such a batsman in Test matches. Some of us can remember how useful Scotton proved in 1886, when he helped W. G. to score 170 for the first wicket against Australia, Scotton’s contribution being only 31. Never mind : he kept his wicket up, and like all left-handers bothered bowlers and fielders, and so made the attack less formidable for his famous partner. Now Scotton was nothing like as great a batsman as Kinneir, although both were accustomed to open the innings for their re­ spective counties. A first-wicket couple, as Fry and Kinneir, will doubt­ less give a lot of trouble in Australia. You see, I am concluding that Fry will go. He must go. England cannot dispense with his services. I do not presume to tender advice to the M.C.C., but surely a second great left- handed batsman would prove invaluable ; and we have such a man in Philip Mead—witness his three centuries last week ; moreover, he is a most reliable man in the field and a very useful change bowler. Now why do I lay stress on the value of these two men ? It is because we know by painful experience what a tower of strength a great left-handed batsman has proved to successive teams from Australia. In their first seven tours in this country— 1878 to 1890—all their batsmen were right- handed. But in 1893 Bruce came over here. He could scareely be called great, but I have seldom seen a more stylish batsman ; and, if he did not stand higher than sixth in the averages, he proved more than useful to the men above him. In 1896, 1899, 1902 and 1905 Australia brought two left­ handers of the highest class, Darling and Hill, and in the last tour Rans­ ford and Bardsley. Our bowlers are not likely to forget these men. Had they been right-handed batsmen I venture to affirm that the remaining batsmen on their side would not have scored as heavily as they did. I repeat it—a left-hander is of far greater worth to an eleven than his own contribution to the score indicates. Hence my earnest hope that both Kinneir and Mead will be found touring in Australia at the close of the present season, especially as the Colonials are likely to have three, if not four, left-handed batsmen in their team. By-the-by, if stamina is a prime necessity in Australian cricket, then the Essex captain, who can bat or bowl all day without exhaustion, is wanted. Besides, at the present time he may dispute Foster’s claim to be the strongest all-round amateur cricketer. When Strudwick sprinted to the boundary after the ball the other day, did he cease to be the wicket-keeper for the time being ? Short-slip took his place to receive Strudwick’s throw-in. Was the ball dead when short-slip held it ? Suppose he had returned it wide to the bowler, could the batsmen have made a run ? This is a nice point not exactly covered by the Laws. What would be the umpire’s decision ? Nobody present at the Lord’s match when the Gentlemen beat the Players by better-class all-round cricket will speak of the decadence of cricket. A greater match was seldom played; from first to last the batting, bowling and fielding were well-nigh perfect. On such a wicket—a batsman’s paradise— one did not expect the bowling to be long maintained at a high level, but Barnes and Iremonger, Foster and Douglas kept batsmen on the watch throughout. Hobbs’ century in the fourth innings was a fitting com­ panion to Fry’s initial score. It was curious that Hirst failed both with bat and ball; 14 runs and never a wicket represented his work. Yorkshiremen have seldom scored heavily in the Lord’s match. The late J . T. Brown once notched a century there, and so did Ulyett in the Oval match. They have been more successful at Scarborough, but that match is not of the same class as those played on the metropolitan grounds. No less than 178 matches under this designation have been played, of which the Players have won 82, the Gentlemen 59. Will they ever draw level ? It is the most famous of all matches, far surpassing in interest Test matches ; at least to myself, especially in these latter years when all the counties consent to release any men who may be chosen. There was a period when the Oval match lost its prestige. I am glad that the Warwickshire stumper had a trial at Lord’s, for Strudwick will need an understudy in Australia. Last week I saw the Worcestershire wicket-keeper again. Of course one must not judge any cricketer, be he batter, bowler, or fielder, by an isolated per­ formance. But I had just previously read this judgment in that most useful little hand-book—“ Cricket’s ” Guide to Cricketers :— “ Bale, Ernest. Considered by some critics the best English wicket-keeper of the day.” I wish those critics had seen Strudwick’s stumping against the Gentlemen the