Cricket 1911

590 RUGBY FOOTBALL AND CEICKET. D ecember 9 1911. head, that one may come from the pitch at a great pace while another apparently identical may be slow and dead, that one spinning ofl'-break may jump in and hit his body while another of the same kind may fly quickly past the outside edge of his bat. Sometimes a piece of turf is flicked out, sometimes not. It is an annoying and common experience to attempt a drive at an overpitched half-volley and find it hit one’s hand or arm. Batting under such conditions is no matter of rule, but of quickness and iesource. Hobbs and Tyldesley have greatly impressed the Austra­ lians by their cleverness on these wickets, excelling in getting under the ball which rose at the face and flicking it over the shoulder. On English so-called “ sticky ” wickets slow bowlers, as a rule, have their harvest, particularly slow left-handers. But in Australia the two or three hours of the sticky wicket, while naturally a reaping time for all bowlers, are the time of especial opportunity for the medium to fast bowler, the man with a full length, small break and stinging pace. The third stage is the recovered stage. The transition to this stage, as in the other cases, is curiously rapid in proportion to the length of the stages. But in this case the fact is perhaps not so remarkable, for a necessary condi­ tion of the recovered stage is the previous application of the roller at the end of a sticky wicket innings. The alteration now is very marked. Some batsmen think that an Australian wicket is at its best at this time, provided that the holes made during the wet and sticky periods have been rolled out. Given good weather such a wicket will play perfectly for days. But usually, after a sticky wicket a lventure, little more time is required. The Chief F i x tu r e s for 1912 . May 27. .Tune 10. June 24 July 8.- July 15. July 29. August August August THE JEST MATCHES. —Manchester, Australia v. South Africa. —Lord’s, England v. South Africa. —Lord’s, England v. Australia. Leeds, England v. South Africa. —Lord’s, Australia v South Africa. Manchester, England v. Australia. 5.—Nottingham, Australia v. South Africa. 12.—The Oval, England v. South Africa. 21.—Tho Oval, Englaud v. Australia. THE AUSTRALIANS’ FIXTURES. 8 .11. 1 .- 12 .- 15. Nottingham, v. Nottinghamshire -Northampton, v. Northampton­ shire -Leyton, v. Essex -T.ord’s, v. Middlesex -Cambridge, v. University -Bradford v. Yorkshire -Manchester, v. Lamashire -Sheffield, v. Yorkshire -Liverpool, v. Lancashire -Edinburgh, v. Seotiand -Glasgow, v. Scotland MAY. 16.—The Oval, v. Surrey 20.— Lord’s, v. M.C.C. and Ground ?3. —Oxford, v. University 30.— Kdgbaston, v. Warwickshire JUNE. 17 —The Oval, v. Surrey 20 — Hath, v. Somerset 27.— Leyton, v. Essex JULY. IP.—Leicester, v. Leicestershire 22.- Portsmouth, v. Hampshire 25. — Brighton, v. Sussex AUo j UST. -Derby, v Derbyshire 22.—Cardiff, v. South Wales (provsnl.) -Worcester, v. Worcestershire 20.—Norwich, An England XI. -Cheltenham, v. Gloucestershire 29.—Canterbury, v. Kent. SEPTEMBEK. -The Oval, v. Surrey & Middlesex 9.—Hastings, v. South of England -Scarborough, v. Lord Londes­ borough’s XL THE SOUTH AFRICANS’ MATCHES. 4.—Derby, v. Derbyshire 9.—The Oval, v. Surrey 13.—Lord’s, v. M.C.C. and Ground 1(5.- Huddersfield, v. Yoikshire 3.—Cambridge, v. University 0. - The Oval, v. Surrey 13.—Nottingham, v. Notts 17.—Bath, v. Somerset 1.—Lord’s, v. Middlesex 4.—E igbaston, v. Warwickshire 18.—Maidstone, v. Kent 2?.—Bray, v. Woodbrook C. and G. MAY. 20.—Oxford, v. University 23. —Worcester, v. Worcestershire 3 0 .- Northampton, v. Northampton­ shire JUNE. 20.—In Glamorgan, v. South Wales 2*.—Edinburgh, v. Scotland 27.—iilasgow, v. Scotland JULY. 23.—Dublin, v. Ireland 29.—fctoke-on-Trent, v. Minor Coun­ ties XI. AUGUST. 1.—Liverpool, v. Lancashire 22.—Manchester, v. Lancashire 8.—Leicester, v. Leicestershire 26. —Leyton, v. Essex 15.— Brighton, v. Sussex. 29. -Bristol, v. Gloucestershire 19.— Sheffield, v. Yorkshire SEPTEMBER. 2 — Bournemouth, v. Hampshire 9. —Scarborough, v. Lord Londe 5.— In Norfolk, v. Lionel Robinson’s borough’s Eleven Eleven 12. —Hastings, v. South of England INTER-COUNTY AND OTHER MATCHES. MAY. —Lord’s, M.C.C. & Ground v. Notts 20. ,— Lord’s, M.C.C. anniversary meet- 20. ing and dinner 20. .—The Oval, Surrey v. Northants. ,—Lord’s, M.C.C. and Ground v. 23 Yorkshire 23. ,—Tlie Oval, First Test Trial, Eng­ land v. The Rest 23, .—Brighton, Sussex v. Somerset 23, ,— Lord’s, M.C.C. & Ground v. Kent 23. —Leicester, Leicestershire v. York- 27 shire —Southampton, Hants, v. Somerset 27. .—Cambridge, The Univ. v. Middlesex 27 —Manchester, Lancashire v. Sussex 27, —Sheffield, Yorkshire v. Hampshire 27, —Dudley, Worcestershire v. Surrey —Edgbaston, Warwickshire v. 27, Derbyshire 27. —Lord’s, Middlesex v. Lancashire 27, —Leyton, Essex v. N’amptonshiie —Nottingham, Notts v. Leicester- 30. shire 30. ,—Worcester, Worcestershire v. 30. Hampshire 30. -Gravesend, Kent v. Somerset 30 -Bristol, Gloucestershiie v. War- 30. wick shire 30. -Cambridge, The Univ. v. Sussex 30 -The Oval, Surrey v. Glo’stcrshire JUNE. -Nottingham, Notts v. Kent 20. -Sheffield, Yorkshire v. Surrey 20. Manchester, Lancashire v. Essex 20. -Bath, Somerset v. Hampshire -Derby, Derbyshire v. Sussex 20. -L ord’s, Middlesex v. Hampshire 20. -Worcester, Worcestershire v. Lancashire 20. -Huddersfield, Yorkshire v. Essex -Nottingham, Notts v. Sussex 20. -Leicester, Leicestershire v. Kent -Northampton, Northamptonshire 24. v. Warwickshire 24. -Bath, Somerset v. Derbyshire -Bristol, Gloucestershire v. Sussex 24. -Stourbridge, Worcestershire v. Leicestershire 24. -Northampton, Northants v. Kent -Lord’s, Middlesex v. Yorkshire 24. -Leyton, Essex v. Surrey -Brighton, Sussex v. Kent -Nuneaton, Warwickshire v. Leicestershire 27. -Derby, Derbyshire v. Hampshire -Lord’s, Middlesex v. Notts -Tonbridge, Kent v. Sussex (Ton- 27. bridge Week) V7. -Leeds, Yorks, v. Gloucestershire -Edgbaston, Warwickshire v. 27. Lancashire 27. -Northampton, Northants v. Essex -Leicester, Leicestershire v. Hants. 29. -Lord’8, Middlesex v. Essex Chesterfield, Derbyshire v. Lancs. •Leeds, Yorkshire v. Kent —Edgbaston, Warwickshire v. Sussex. .—Lord’s, Test Trial Match. ,—Manchester, Lancs, v. Leicester­ shire .—Brighton, Sussex v. Derbyshire .—Bristol, Glo’ster9hire v. Hants .—Cambridge, The Univ. v. Yorks. —(Whit-Monda^) Lord’s, Middlesex v. Sussex .—Leyton, Essex v. Derbyshire .—Bradford, Yorkshire v. Lancs. .—Nottingham, Notts v. Surrey .—Northampton, Northamptonshire v. Leicestershire .—Southampton, Hampshire v. Kent .—Taunton,Somerset v. Glo’stershire .—In Worcestershire, Worcester­ shire v. Warwickshire —Lord’s, Royal Navy v. The Army —Manchester, Lancashire v. Kent —Leyton, Essex v. Middlesex .—The Oval, Surrey v. Sussex —Leicester, Leicestershire v. Notts —S’thampton, Hants v. Derbyshire —Dewsbury, Yorkshire v. Somerset —Oxford, The University v. Wor­ cestershire JULY. -Gravesend, Kent v. Essex. 11- -The Oval, Surrey v. Uamp'hire. 11- -Manchester, Lancashire v. Wor­ cestershire. 11- -I 11 Gloucestershire, Gloucester­ shire v. Notts. 11- - Brighton, Sussex v. Leicestershire. -Eastbourne, H. D. G. Leveson- 15- Gower"s XI. v. Oxford Univ. • 15- - Lord’s, M.C.C. and Ground v. Cambridge University. 15- -The Oval, Surrey v. Kent. 15- - Leyton, Essex v. Sussex. 15- -Nottingham, Notts v. Derbyshire. -Dewsl ury, Yorkshire v. Worcester- 15- sliire. -Southampton, Hampshire v. 15- Oxford University. 15- - Lord’s, Oxford v. Cambridge. -Tunbridge "ells, Kent v. Lancs. 1S- (Tunbridge Wells Week). 18- -Bristol, Gloucestershire v. Yorks. 18- Nortliampton, Northants v.Surrey. 22- - Leicester, Leicestershire v. Sussex. 22- -The Oval, Gentlemen v. Players. 22- -Tunbridge Wells, Kent v. York- 22- shire (Tunbridge Wells Week), 25- —1The Oval, Surrey v. Lancashire Nottingham, Notts v. Yorkshire —Tonbridge, Kent v. Northampton­ shire (Tonbridge Week). —Coventry, Warwickshire v. Hants. —Worcester, Worcestershire v. Gloucestershire Asliby-de-la-Zouch, Leicestershire v. Derbyshire Brighton, Sussex v. Cambridge Univ. Leicester, Leicestershire v. Surrey —Derby, Derbyshire v. Warwick­ shire —Bradford, Yorkshire v. North­ amptonshire. —Horsham, Sussex v. Oxford Uni­ versity (Horsham Week) Southampton, Hampshire v. Cambridge University —Lord’s, M.C.C. and Ground v. Oxford University Horsham. Sussex v. Surrey (Horsham Week) Manchester, Lancashire v. Notts —Portsmouth Hants, v. Middlesex —Edgbaston, Warwickshire v. Yorkshire —Dudley, Worcestershire v. Kent -Eastbourne, H. G. D. Leveson- Gower’s XL v.Cambridge Univ. -Chesterfield, Derbyshire v. North­ amptonshire -Nottingham, Notts v. Lancashire. -Leicester, Leicestershire v. Wor­ cestershire. -Northampton, Northamptonshire v. Somerset. -Brighton, Sussex v. Gloucester­ shire. -Manchester, Lancashire v. Surrey. -Maidstone, Kent v. Middlesex (Maidstone Week). -Brighton, Sussex v. Notts. -Sheffield, Yorks, v. Leicestershire. Portsmouth, Hampshire v. Wor­ cestershire. -Edgbaston, Warwickshire v. Northamptonshire. -Derby, Derbyshire v. Somerset. -Aldershot, Navy and Army v. Ox­ ford and Cambridge Univs. -Lord’s, Gentlemen v. Players. -Eastbourne, Sussex v. Hampshire. -Northampton, Northans. v. Yorks. -Lord’s, Middlesex v. Warwickshire. -The Oviil, Surrey v. Yorkshire. -Catford, Kent v. Worcestershire. Brighton, Sussex v. Lancashire. -Leyton, Essex v. Lancashire,