Cricket 1911

J u l y 2 9 ,1 9 11 . C E ICK ET : A W EEK LY RECORD OP THE GAME. 371 WORLD - FAMED. Q 0 4 ^ A 2 7 / 6 #?% 2 2 / 6 & o '£ ' h " 1 8 /6 0 1 6 / 6 9 i t % vV 1 4 / 6 ^ o n T o ^ - ' D EM ON■ 1 4 / 6 READ . . “ The Evolution of a Cricket Bat,” O BTA IN A BLE F R E E UPON R EQ U EST FROM GEO. G. BUSSEY & CO., LTD ., 36 & 38, QUEEN VICTORIA ST., LONDON. Factories: r Peckham, London. | lElm swell, Suffolk. A g e n t s a ll o v e r t h e W o r ld . Cricket Notches. B y th e R e v . R . S . H o lm e s . AST year cricketers grumbled at the ra in ; this year they may be equally disrespectful to the sunshine. And it’s batsmen I have in mind ; they cannot be expected to make huge scores on soft wickets, and some of them seem to be similarly handicapped by hard wickets. Are they tiring ? Here is Warner for instance; in three consecutive matches— against Somerset, Hamp­ shire and Kent— he had five innings and his aggregate of runs was eighteen ! Last season he struck a bad patch for a time, then he changed the order of going in, recovered form, resumed his old position and wound up by notching three consecutive centuries at Lord’s. In the present drought do the wickets show signs of wear ? Anyhow it is noteworthy that last week, when not a drop of rain fell save at Manchester, there was not one innings of 400 in the eleven championship matches. So the bowlers cannot be faring badly, spite of no end of missed catches, for which do doubt perspiring hands are largely responsible. It is quite as difficult to hold a ball when your fingers are wet with the heat as when they are numbed by the cold. Though thus handicapped Buckenham manages to take on an average half the wickets in nearly all the matches played by Essex ; is it because, like the fast bowlers of long ago — Emmett and Freeman, to mention only two—he aims at the stumps and does not cultivate off-side bowling ? What of the slow bowlers ? Let Rhodes answer for them ; or rather let Northamptonshire sing his praises. Fourteen wickets for 139 runs was a wonderful performance on a sun-baked pitch. Hirst did not dismiss one batsman It is eight years since Rhodes bagged 14 wickets in a match when down at Worcester 211 runs were scored off him. We must go back as far as 1900 for a better analysis from his left hand, but in that match, against Essex, the Harrogate wicket was of the consistency of batter-pudding— a wicket made for him. In view of the forthcoming trip to Australia, where he will have any number of plumb wickets, his latest triumph with the ball is most welcome. Yorkshire enthusiasts are not likely to forget it when he takes his benefit next month. Of course, during last week we had a double-century scorer—Kinneir, and it was his introduction into this select circle. A t least it used to be so regarded ; but the performance has recently become so common as scarcely to excite notice. There was a time when I always wrote for the score-card recording two centuries by the same batsman, but I do so no longer. I have a vivid recollection of the season of 1868 when down at Canterbury W .G. set up a new record by notching 130 and 102 not out against the North of the Thames. It occasioned no surprise, for anything was possible to him then. But everybody confidently stated that it would never be repeated. Well we had to wait nineteen years for our old champion to score a second double­ century— this time against Kent, and then in the very next season he treated the Yorkshire bowlers in the same fashion. This happened in 1887 and 1888. All men marvelled, for I would have you know that ten years previously, viz., in 1878, W.G. stood only third in the season’s averages and the critics immediately concluded that his star was setting. Up to 1888 no other batsman had rivalled his performance. But in the present season it has been done six times ; only once before— in 1905—have we had so many double-barrelled innings and the season has yet many weeks to run. What does this fact prove ? Either that the level of batting is higher or that of bowling is lower. One or the other or perhaps both. I hold a very strong opinion which I would now voice for the first time. It is this : that all our modern great batsmen have consciously or unconsciously copied W .G .’s methods in the same way as the leading cueists acquired much of their skill from playing billiards with John Roberts. It is not exclusively the im­ provement in wickets that explains the present day heavy scoring. Had there been no W .G ., the master of all bowlers for more than forty seasons, there would not have been Fry, Hayward, Tyldesley and many others witching us with their marvellous deeds. Watching Simpson-Hayward at the Oval the other day I could not help wondering that more bowlers did not cultivate lobs ; especially amateurs. It is a pity he is Worcestershire’s captain for, like Tom Emmett when York­ shire’s skipper, he does not bowl nearly enough. Hayward and others seemed far more comfortable with fast over-hand bowling than with lobs. Now it is a very remarkable fact that the only bowler that has ever taken all the ten wickets more than once was the late V. E. Walker, the captain of Middlesex and the Gentlemen for many seasons ; and he always bowled lobs. But then he was a wonderful fielder as well, who seemed to know instinctively how every ball would be played, and not seldom would at short-leg take a catch off his own bowling. I have never had a keener pleasure on the cricket field than watching his manoeuvres ; very few batsmen were ever his master. Then Notts had Oris. Tinley, who as a member