Cricket 1911

S e p t . 16, 1911. CEICKET: A WEEKLY EECOED OP THE GAME. 525 H as it ever struck y ou what a bore is the man whose vocabulary is small while his m em ory for stock phrases is tenacious ! Such are the writers who, afraid o f saying “ Essex ” tw ice in three lines, say “ the East Enders ” the second time, who, by way o f variety, give the K ent team the humble nam e and style o f “ the H oppers," to w hom W arw ick ­ shire m en are “ the B rum s,” while W orcestershire is “ the Sauce C ounty ” or “ Fostershire,” the Somerset team are “ the Ciderm en,” and the Yorkshire m en are “ the Tykes.” I f we had our w ay the employm ent o f any one o f these cliches, and o f some others we could name, should incur a fine from the writer using it. D oes anyone who knows the Faithful City think o f it prim arily as a sauce-manufacturing comm unity ? R emem ber the beautiful ground with its tree-shaded stand, the stately cathedral, the silvery river ! W hat have all these to do with sauce ? And “ Fostershire ” was never fair to the m en who have helped H . K . and his brothers to make W orcestershire cricket famous. The chivalrous ex-captain o f the county side would be the last to desire a slight upon such fine players as Messrs. Sim pson-H ayw ard and Burns, Arnold, B ow ley, Pearson, Burrows, Cufl'e, and m any another one m ight name. “ T h e B ru m s ” and “ the Tykes ” are ugly expressions, ungraceful, cacophonous. “ The East E n d ers” and “ the Hoppers ” are worse still— alm ost libellous if taken in certain quite possible senses. “ The Cidermen ” shows a poverty-stricken imagination, but is otherwise less objectionable because it calls up visions o f apple-orchards in blossom or w ith branches binding under the w eight of red and golden fruit, not of squalid streets, or o f the chase o f that very small deer, pulex irritan s. A provincial journalist always writes o f Lancashire as “ the County o f C omm erce.” This is annoying m erely from constant re­ petition ; it is void o f essential offence. “ The County Palatine ” is a phrase that no one could object t o ; it is dignified and sonorous, w ith som ething o f an echo o f old knightly days. “ T h e P e a k C o u n ty ” again seems perm issible, because picturesque, and “ the R ed R ose County ” or “ the W hite R ose County ” m ay easily pass muster. But where is the sense in speaking o f M r. A . O. Jones and his loyal henchm en as “ the L a cem e n ” or o f the county they represent as “ the Lace County ” ? Leicestershire’s adopted badge gives warrant for calling the unlucky county o f 1911 “ the fox-hunting shire but this can easily be overdone. W a r w ic k s h ir e w ill have every reason to remember for years to com e their last m atch o f the present season, as reference to the score on page 526 will show. They were obliged to take the field without Kinneir, but the absence of that player, m uch though it weakened the side, cannot be held accountable for their poor total of 129. W eak batting was chiefly responsible, but the fact m ust not be overlooked that they had never before been called upon to play against J. W . Hearne. E ngland’s great total is, in view o f next year’s Tournament, in one respect com forting, inasmuch as it proves how strong is our batting even with Hayw ard, Tyldesley and Mr. G. L . Jessop away. S a tu r d a y last saw the close o f the local Durham Senior Cricket League season. A s announced in last week’s C r ic k e t, Sunderland and B oldon, the tw o leaders (with 31 and 29 points respectively) met. Sunderland scored 203 for nine wickets and declared, C. B rooks being top scorer with 6 0 ; B oldon had lost seven wickets for 87 when play was stopped owing to bad light. Sunderland thus carried off the Championship. Their record since the inauguration o f the League, in 1903, has been as follow s: 1903, C ham pions; 1904, Cham pions; 1905, Joint Champions w ith W earm ou th ; 1906, runners-up; 1907, 3rd ; 1908, C ham pions; 1909, C ham pions; 1910, 4th ; and 1911, Champions. This is a magnificent record and one o f which they m ay w ell be proud. I n reply to a correspondent we m ay state here, as the inform ation is likely to prove o f interest to others, that Mr. W arner's 244 at the Oval this w eek is the largest innings he has ever made in a first-class match. The only other scores o f over 200 he has obtained in matches o f note are 211 for L ord H aw ke’s team v. Otago at D unedin in 1902-3 and 204 for M .C .C . v. Sussex at L o rd ’s in 1905. T h e 'portraits of the m embers o f the M .C .C .’s team for Australia which appear on page 513 are from a photograph supplied^by the w ell-know n firm o f Messrs. E . H a w k in s'& Co., 32, Preston Street, B righton. Copies m ay be obtained m ounted, or on post-cards, from the photographers at the prices stated at the foot o f page 527. The following are some of the latest hundreds obtained in minor cricket:— Aug. 12.—E. O. Challenger, E. O. Challenger’s XI. v. F. C. Kaye’s X I...................................................................*102 „ 19.—W . Balster, Chicago Wanderers v. Chicago.........*122 „ 19.—H. P. Waller, Chicago Wanderers v. Chicago ... 104 „ 30.—E. A. Rooney, Pembroke v. Excelsior (Brussels) ... *104 Sept. 1.—Capt. L. L. Hoare, G. B. Noel’s XI. v. Channel Islands 111 „ 2.—E. H. Johnson, Bootle v. Birkenhead Park... ... 109 ,, 2.—B. Sharp, Bootle v. Birkenhead Park ........... *102 ,, 2.—H. Richmond, Shrewsbury v. Crewe........................*101 „ 4.—D. F. Gillman, Phcenix v. Harrow Wanderers ... 101 „ 4.— S. K. Gore, Folkestone v. 3rd Worcestershire Regiment .............................................................*100 ,, 5.— S. Hadden, Beckton v. Chief O ffice ............................ 112 ,, 5. —R. St. L. Fowler, Phoenix v. Harrow Wanderers ... *173 ,, 6.—L. F. Anderson, Middlesex Amateurs v. Albemarle and Friern Barnet.................................................140 „ 6.—F. C. Adair-Thompson, H A .C . v. Hampstead ... 109 „ 7.—P. Hands, Eastbourne v. Mayfield ............................ 104 „ 7.—J. C. Colquhoun, Blue Mantles v. Yellow Hammers 114 „ 7.—F. Burton, Cross Arrows v. Kensington ............... 122 „ 8.—J. W . Hearne, Cross Arrows v. Xonians ............... 124 „ 8 .—H. White, Cross Arrows v. X on ian s....................... *120 „ 9.—W . G. Innes, Cupar v. Dunfermline....................... *108 „ 9.—G. D. Stoke, Glasgow University v. SpriDgburn ... *104 „ 9.— D. Highet, Ayr 2nd XI. v. Poloc 2nd X I.................*100 ,, 9.—H. Wilkinson, East Stirlingshire v. Golfhill ... 107 ,, 9.—L. J. Moon, Hampstead Hockey Club v. Hampstead *149 „ 9.—R. A. Lloyd, Dublin University Long Vacation v. Co. Kildare A .................................................137 „ 9.—H. St. J. Wimble, Pembroke Wanderers v. Leinster 101 ,, 9.— S. C. Anning, Marlborough v. War Office ... ... *116 „ 9.—R. R. Sandilands, Upper Tooting v. Chesham ... 152 „ 9.—E. Cotton, Oxford City v. Witney ............................ 102 ,, 9.—C. P. Hurditch, Twickenham v. Stanley ... ... 108 ,, 9.—J. Foxley, 2nd London Brigade, R.F A. v. R.N.C. Old Boys .............................................................*109 ,, 9.—T. A. Bradford, Chester-le-Street v. Philadelphia ... *207 „ 9.—Hendren, Durham City v. S e a h a m .........................145 „ 11.—W . C. Smith, Oxford City v. Witney ................ 107 * Signifies not out. HAMPSTEAD v. HAMPSTEAD HO CKEY.— Played at Hampstead on Sep­ tember 9. Score :— H am pste a d ' H o c k e y . • H a m ps te a d . E. H. Eiloart, b F. C. Mercier ... 7 G. A. S. Hickson, c Orr, b Eiloart 29 F. W. Orr, b Brachi......................... 28 F. R. D. Munro, b G reig............. 50 L. J. Moon, not out......................... 149 J. Kerr, c Eiloart, b Moon 4 G. H. Farmiloe, c Kerr, b Brachi 3 M. A. S. Sturt, b Moon ............. 0 R. Leigh Ibbs, b jM u n ro ............. 27 L. Brachi, b Greig......................... 41 A. J. Orr, c Munro, b Hickson ... 0 H. G. Dunkley, not o u t ............. 1 S. H. Shoveller, b Hickson 2 F. C. Mercier, not out ............. 28 F. R. Eiloart, b Sturt .............. 13 H. S. Maclure, run out .............. 3 L. J. Marcus, not out .............. 10 B 8 , lb 1, nb 1.............. 10 B 15, nb 2 .................... 17 Total (7 wkts) ... 249 Total (6 wkts) 173 R. P. Tatham and J. Greig did not F. Atkins, S. M. Carry and F. W . bat. Forbes Ross did not bat.