Cricket 1911

CRICKET : A W EEKLY RECORD OF TH E GAME. JULY 29, 1911. "Together joined in Cricket’s manly toil.”— Byron. no. 87 8 . v o l . x x x . SA TU KD A Y , J U L Y 29, 1911 . price 2 d. A Chat about Arnold. GEORGE ARNOLD’S father was Edward Harttield Arnold, himself a good cricketer, a Sussex man by birth, though he never played for his native county. He was engaged for many years by the Exmouth C.C., and settled down as a licensed victualler in the Devonshire town, where his son was born on November 7, 1877. The youngster was educated at Hole’s School, Exeter, but played little cricket there, learning the game under his father at Exmouth. When he was quite a small boy Mr. Paul Foley, who used to take a M.C.C. team into Devon every year, dis­ cerned his great promise, and wanted his father to let him go to Worcester as soon as he left school. But the elder Edward Arnold thought it best to keep him a year or two at home first. He played his first county match at the age of fourteen. It was against Glamorgan at Swansea, in 1892, and he was sent in last in the first innings, and carried his bat for two. In the second innings his captain put the long lad in first, and he was not disposed of until he had made 80, and then it was a run out that finished his display. In both 1893 and 1894, while qualifying for Worcestershire, he played for Devon, heading the batting averages in each season. He was still under eighteen when he first appeared for Worcestershire, in 1895, but his all-round form was already remarkable. He bowled with great effectiveness, taking 48 wickets at under 10 runs each in Minor Counties’ matches, and 88 in all Worcestershire matches at just about 10 each. W ith the bat he averaged between 18 and 19, scoring 106 v. Warwickshire Club and Ground at Dudley. In 1896 (batting average 25, highest score 96, and 53 wickets at a trifle over nine runs each) and 1897 (over «6 per innings, though his top score was only 78, and 88 wickets at a trifle over 11 each) he was a tower of strength to the side; but in 1898 illness kept him out of the team almost all through the season. The next year saw Worcestershire figuring for the first time among the elect. Arnold’s bowling proved less deadly than had been hoped; but he batted very finely. *•W isden,” not much given to superlatives, says he “ played superbly” for his 121 not out at Derby; and if bis scores against Notts (142, including 27 fours— the match was rejected because it was only a two-day one, and there was no return game) and London County had been included, his aggre­ gate would have been well over a thousand. He totalled over 1,200 in the following season, including cen­ turies in two successive matches— a splendid 112 v. Sussex at Worcester, and a rather laboured and very lucky 113 v. Warwickshire at Birmingham. Though he bowled well he did few sensational feats. But steady good work has always been his forte in the bowling line, rather than exceptional isolated performances. It is impossible within the space one has at command this week to deal with Arnold’s many great deeds in detail season by season. Below his usual standard, owing to illness, in 1901, and scarcely able to bowl at all, he was in fine all-round form next season, scoring over a thousand runs and taking over 100 wickets. He had 12 for 87 for the South v. the Austra­ lians at Bournemouth, and 10 for 94 for his county v. Yorkshire at Harro­ gate. Again in 1903 he achieved the double feat of 1,000 runs and 100 wickets, and also scored two centuries in the match with the Light Blues at Cambridge. His 101 not out in the first innings saved his side from collapse ; his 128 in the second was one of three centuries included in a total of over 500 for five wickets. Thirteen for 79 v. Warwickshire (Birmingham), 11 for 126 v. Surrey (Worcester), and 8 for 58 in the first innings, Players v. Gentlemen (Lord’s) were among his feats with the ball in this, his best bowling year. Visiting Australia as a member of the M.C.C. team of 1903-4, he did good work, but was not specially prominent. Several times it was his fate to go in to bat at the fag-end of a tiring day, and thus his chances as a run-getter were decreased; as a bowler he never took more than four wickets in an innings in a match of importance, Photoby] [Hawkins&Co.,Brighton. E. G. ARNOLD,