Cricket 1911

352 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. J u l y 22, 1911. other day. It was in my judgment the outstanding fea­ ture of the whole match, more noteworthy even than the batting of either Spooner or Kinneir ; he was as accu­ rate as Lilley at his best, spite of his failure to stump Warner off a ball of Rhodes’s ; and he was as lively as a kitten. He is not exactly a giant at his full height, but when he crouches behind the stumps and is almost hidden by them, he shrinks into the proportions of a dwarf. I trust his benefit will be the bumper he deserves. It will be the Kent match. One feels sorry for K en t; theirs is an instance of embarras de richesses. They can play only eleven men in a match, but they have nearly twice that number up to county form. At the outset of this season Jennings had “ a name still to make in first-class company.” He has not taken long over it, if a century against Somerset is any criterion. As for Hubble, he goes on from strength to strength; his latest century against Sussex—189 in 3 hours—when most of the leading Kentish batsmen had failed, was a wonderful effort. He may need a little more experience before he can be a certain choice in representative cricket. Woolley’s two centuries against Somerset may prove invaluable to his future as an England cricketer, especially as his bowling and fielding are above the average. And what of young Hearne’s 234 not out against the most luckless of all the counties ? Yet in the same innings his captain did not run into double figures. That innings raised his season’s average eleven points. Will he prove to be the greatest of all the Hearnes ? I remember old Tom with his famous draw stroke, which no other batsman of my day could perfect; a capital bowler withal. His brother George was also a member of the Middlesex eleven of the sixties, although he had not Tom’s genius. But his three sons, George, Frank and Alec, all made their mark in Kentish cricket. And here’s J. T., still the handiest man with the ball after more than twenty years of hard work with Middlesex. But the last of the Hearnes may prove the greatest. They are all blood relations, but 1 am a poor hand at genealo­ gical tables, and so don’t care to ascertain what degree of cousinship binds them. One rejoices in the perpetuation of a good old cricket strain. As everybody knows, cricket seldom runs through two generations. What would not some of us give to see some famous cricket names re­ appear with added lustre ? It would seem, when nature creates a great batsman or bowler, that she immediately destroys the mould. May I rebut an editorial charge ? I do not set down the All-Indians as “ duffers,” nor have I “ girded ” at them. On the contrary, I am truly glad they have visited us in this memorable year. They are here to learn, and as learners we welcome them, and trust they will prove such apt pupils that in time they will, like the Australians, be able to hold their own in Test matches. All I contend is that their matches ought not to be reckoned first-class. Nobody would rank them above a county like Staffordshire; but if a first-class county were to face Staffordshire and probably be beaten by Barnes’ bowling, the match would be ruled second- class at once, and batsmen’s averages would not suffer through the skill of our greatest modern bowler. That is my contention, which is wholly free from depreciation of our visitors’ skill. Their matches are doubtless taken seriously by them, but ought they to rank as first-class with our cricketers ? Nothing would give me much keener pleasure than a series of successes after their spell of failures. Will “ Cricket Weeks” become universal? Kent knows the value of them, and nearly all their matches are arranged in Weeks, following the long established precedent at Canterbury. Every Week of theirs yielded a handsome profit last year. But then, cricket is not the sole attraction. The whole town is en fete ; streets are decorated and illumin­ ated as for a coronation or other event of national import­ ance, whilst a round of evening amusements is provided. Take Maidstone last July ; the visiting teams were North­ amptonshire and Yorkshire ; those matches sufficed for the daylight. But in the evening there was a Venetian Fete on Monday; a Pastoral Play on Tuesday ; a Military Tattoo on Wednesday; a Cafe Chantant on Thursday ; music and fireworks on Friday ; and a band whilst the matches were in progress. Every available boat on the river carried lanterns, and the bridge was studded with electric lamps. When I paid my first visit to the Canter­ bury Week, in 1874,1was awakened at day-break by strange noises ; someone was hammering the wall. Raising the blind I discovered the secret; carpenters were busy rigging up a triumphal arch. There was no more sleep for me, but that was of no consequence ; it was refreshing to be the victim of local enthusiasm. And I can at this distance hear the band, and would not have dispensed with it on any account. A t other sports a band is a necessity ; why not at cricket ? The experiment was tried for one match at Lord’s last year, but was not repeated. Of course, a band is a costly addition. But if it made cricket attractive to many who at present do not patronise matches, then it might prove a financial gain. The fluctuation in a match would offer delightful opportunities to a sensitive band­ master. Why don’t other counties follow Kent’s lead ? Perhaps it would be impossible to reproduce their methods in our large northern cities, and the matter of fact Lan­ castrian and Yorkshireman might be unwilling to combine amusements with serious cricket, but surely in towns of lesser proportions, such as Northampton or Chesterfield, a cricket week with evening accessories might be a pro­ nounced success. If it were not, it need not be repeated. So far the men invited to go to Australia have been approved by us ail. But will all of them go ? Barnes, is indispensable ; he is our greatest bowler. Strudwick will want an understudy, and Smith, after his century against Surrey at Birmingham, has been asked. It is a pity that football keeps certain cricketers from an Australian tour. But Sharp is now at liberty in the winter, and so is Iremonger. Both are useful bowlers as well as skilful batsmen, and it’s our bowling that needs strengthening. Can Thompson—another capable all-rounder—-be passed by ? Buckenham will certainly come under notice. If only Brearley could spare time. He is our only great fast bowler ; his balls have just that nip in them which is the hall-mark of greatness ; just as Richardson and Lockwood had, but Rushby has not. REPTON v. M ALVERN .—Played at Repton on July 11 and 12 and won by Repton by 199 runs. Higgs-W alker took eleven w ickets for 75 runs. Score:— First innings. R epton . Second innings. E. C. Moses, c Mann, b L u ca s..................... ... 22 b F. Naumann ..................... 5 J. Howell, c W hite, b F. Naumann ... 11 ' c J. Naum ann, b Lucas ... 22 T. Popham , b F. Naumann ................... ... 4 lbw , b J. N a u m a n n ............ c J . Naumann, b F. Nau­ m ann ............................. 6 M. Howell, b J. Naum ann .................... ... 1 72 F. S. G. Calthorpe, b J. N aum ann............ ... 0 b J. Naumann ..................... 22 A. P. Rutherford, b Grieve .................... ... 32 b J. Naum ann ..................... 22 G. F. N. Palmer, c Mann, b L ucas............ ... 67 b Pethick .............................. 35 C. H. Twigg, c W hite, b F. Naumann ... ... 7 c and b F. Naum ann 28 J. N. Richardson, c J. Naumann ............ ... 4 b F. Naumanu ............ ... 0 G. R. Pedder, c Lucas, b J. Naumann ... ... 19 c K night, b J. Naum ann... 3 J. A. H iggs-W alker, n o to u t ... ............ ... 4 n ot o u t ...................................... 1 Byes, & c.................. ............ ... 10 Byes, &c............................ 17 Total ............................. ... 181 Total ..................... 233 First innings. M a lvern . Second innings. D. J. Knight, b Moses ............................. ... 53 b C althorpe.............................. 28 T. Cumm ing, b Calthorpe............................. 7 c Pedder, b Calthorpe ... 3 F. C. G. Naumann, b Higgs-W alker ... 1 b H iggs-W alker..................... 5 J . H. Naumann, b M o s e s............................. ... 22 c Moses, b Higgs-W alker... 1 C. J. Mann, c and b Higgs-W alker J. E. S. Pethick, c and b Higgs-W alker ... 20 c Pedder, b Higgs-W alker 0 ... 24 lbw , b Calthorpe ............ b H iggs-W alker..................... 10 D. C. Allday, b C althorpe............................. ... 1 0 G. C. Lucas, b H ig gs-W a lk er..................... ... 0 c Pedder, b Higgs-W alker 6 F. D. Hobbs, n o t o u t ...................................... ... 4 b H iggs-W alker..................... 0 R. S. M. White, b Higgs-W alker ............ ... 0 b C althorpe............................. 0 J. Grieve, run out ......................................, ... 3 n ot o u t ... 2 Byes, &c ................................... ... 6 Byes, &c........................ 19 Total ............................. ... 141 Total ..................... 74 SUSSEX M ARTLETS v. E A S T B O U R N E .-P layed at Eastbourne on July 18. Score: — S ussex M artlets . R. G. Tudor, c W agener, b E lliott 4 A. H. Wood, b E lliott .................... 24 Hon. B. Butler, b E lliott ............ 6 A. L. Corbett, st W agener, b Bracey 28 H. L. Havers, b E llio t t.................... 18 R. K. Simms, b B r a c e y .................... 0 W. G. Heasman, b E lliott ............ 10 A. L. D. Skinner, c Elliott, b Bracey 10 Hon. 0 . Scott, b E llio tt.................... 0 H . AsaThom as, c W agener, b E lliott 17 J. S. W elch, not out .................... 0 B 8 , lb 2, w 1 ............ 11 Total .................... 128 E astbourne . P. Hands, b W elch ............................. 16 C. Reunart, b Butler ....................., 53 H. 0 . Scott, b W elch .................... , 15 E. H. W. Sm ith, b S k in n er........... 3 W. H. Bacon, b Skinner ........... 0 C. W . Oancellor, not out ........... , 46 K . D. de Jonge, not out ............, 29 Bracey, c Heasman, b Skinner ... . o B y es..................................... 5 Total (G w kts) ... 167 R. C. Elliott, J. G. W agencr, and H. Dauboney did not bat.