Cricket 1912

M a t 25, 1912. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 165 Africans later in the same week. In the first innings Hay­ ward was out in playing a perfectly correct defensive stroke to a ball that did the totally unexpected and reared straight up. In the second innings he was run out. A man out of luck may fail and yet be at the top of his form and have a test century or two in his bag. Take the case of J. T. T y l­ desley in 1902. In the first few weeks of the season Tyldesley could not get runs and was always getting out quickly. I remember that he took a very pessimistic view o f his own powers when at the Oval just before the first test match at Birmingham. Yet he was not left out of the England eleven, and he justified his inclusion by scoring 138. He was not out of form at all ; he had mere] y been under the frown of fortune. On the face of this in­ stance—Tyldesley’s case merely illustrates a truism of cricket experience—one can afford to ignore “ failure ” in trials or even sustained lack of success in other cricket on the part of men of proved worth, who have won all the honours of the game. One must except the rare case of the veteran who lags superfluous on the stage which he has adorned. Even if England’s side had to be selected on trial form only and there were nosecond trial, andform in general cricket were ignored, the English side would command confidence, and would on paper at least be a stronger side than either the Australians or the South Africans. Hobbs, on trial form, is the great batsman to which his doings in Australia point, while Spooner is just the same Spooner who witched the world in previous seasons. He is still one of the very few batsmen who can make good bowling look easy, and batting, in all its phases, an art which anyone might master. But the man lies very near the superman in cricket, and Spooner is peculiarly apt to afford an example of this truth by getting out from some absurd stroke when he is making every ball appear to be bowled merely to show the infinite variety of his scoring strokes and the lack of effort with which he makes them all. Fry never makes the bowling look easy ; no theoretical or made batsman ever does ; but there is such a suggestion of certainty—of quick think­ ing and resolute action—about his play that one is sur­ prised when he betrays the human liability to err. I always think of Fry as batting with a mighty “ Don’t ” written in letters of red across the horizon at the bowler’s end. His moral force is tremendous. No bowler can bowl at him with any confidence. These three, withjRhodes, form the back-bone of England’s batting. Others may and can make runs, but these are the four upon whom depend­ ence may be placed, upon whom the burden must fall. Young Hearne may have technical faults—his habitual back play may be called a fault by some—but he has the “ big game ” temperament, which unites confidence in oneself with respect for the opposing bowlers, and that counts for much as everyone knows who has seen the effect—• the deplorably demoralising effect— of anxiety upon the play of our batsmen in several recent test matches in England. One need have little fear of England’s batting, provided always those chosen do their powers justice. That is the rub. We can take all the luck in, if nerves are left in the pavilion. The English bowling is of assured strength. There is no need to write at length of Barnes, who is worth playing for that ball which comes in from leg alone, of Brearley, who combines stamina with skill as no other fast bowler has done since Tom Richardson was at his best, or of Foster, even if his exploitation of the leg-theory be not the success it was in Australia, of Smith, of Dean, and of others. A very strong side in all departments is assured. So is a stronger side on paper than either of England’s rivals for the Triangular Championship. But do not let us delude ourselves into the belief that our side, as some of our most responsible writers in our most responsible papers have said, will be the best that England has ever had. This is an extravagant statement and is, in my opinion, not only a mere journalistic tour deforce, but yet another proof that we are sadly lacking in the historic sense. Our prospective side may seem to possess greater relative superiority on paper over the two Colonial sides than most English sides of the past have appeared to possess over most Colonial sides of the past, but that is all. To describe our prospective side as the best England ever had seems to me sheer extravagance in superlatives. Many will agree that we need go no further back than 1902 for a season in which England had a larger array of great players and a better side. In that year there were C. B. Fry, Ranjitsinjhi, F. S. Jackson (greatest of all test batsmen), A. C. MacLaren, L. Palairet, all of whom were then at their best, Abel, Hayward, G. L. Jessop, J. T. Tyldesley. Then there were Gunn, Hirst, Lockwood, Rhodes, Braund and Lilley. Truly we have short memories in these matters, and a singular way of forgetting that many brave men lived before the present Agamemnons. I know which of the two sides I would give to win under equal conditions. It would certainly not be the 1912 side. The opposition is weaker, and the 1912 side may moreover escape all the bad luck that dogged the team of 1902. Let us also remember that paper strength is not always reflected in the play. Temperament counts, and the occasion has too often had a paralysing effect upon the playing power of England sides to justify such supreme confidence in our success as a mere comparison of the playing power of our prospective side with the playing power of two Colonial sides would seem to warrant. Club Cricket Notes and Jottings. Belated cards continue to drop in—welcome, one and all, if only because they show that secretaries are awaking to the fact that C r ic k e t is doing its best to become the organ of the large body of clubs in and around London. Scores of letters expressing pleasure at the new features have been received; “ Sure Catch,” “ The Chiel,” “ Hamish ” and Mr. G. A. Brooking all get their meed of praise, and the busy pen that indites these notes does not go unmentioned. That we are very far from perfection we admit; that we shall ever reach it we don’t expect; but we are doing our best, and for all omissions and blunders, past, present, and to come, we ask leniency. L on d on S c o ttis h , like Hampstead, the Wanderers, the Marl­ borough Blues, and others, rank among the paper’s oldest friends. Mr. R. A. Bennett (37, Kingswood Avenue, Queen’s Park, N .W .) is Hon. Sec., as for years past, and the club ruus two elevens, except in August, when many members are away on holiday. Tbe Week is July 8-13, M.C.C., Royal Dental Hospital (possible joke here about stumps, but I am too driven for time to work out a new one), West Herts, Walham Green, and Pallingswick will be met in its course. W a lth a m stow runs lawn tennis as well as cricket. Mr. James Johns (37, The Drive,Walthamstow) isHon. Sec., and Mr. G. M. Jeffery (1009, Forest Road, Walthamstow) Cricket Hon. Sec. Two elevens are run, meeting such strong clubs as Epping, Broxbourne, North Middlesex, Ilford, Lauderdale, Chigwell, Edmonton, Beckton, &c. The S u tto n “ card ” is a neatly-bound booklet, with a full list of members. Sutton, too, has a tennis section. Mr. R. M. Bell, of Surrey and London County fame (Dial House, York Road, Sutton) is Hon. Sec. as well as captain. The first team has nearly 40 matches, the half-day side not far short of the same number. The Week is July 22-27, when Surrey C. & G., Wanderers, Banstead, Butterflies, M.C.C., and Forest Hill are met. The management system is in force here, Messrs. R. M. Bell, J. G. M. Bell, V. R. Bromage, and J. A. Knight sharing the responsibilities. On Wednesday in last week— C r ic k e t goes to press on that day, so that events occurring then can receive only late notice—Ealing at home beat Boston Park by 56 runs. D. R. Osborne, top-scorer with 37 and most successful bowler with 7 for 56, was the central figure of the game. On the same day the Wanderers beat Sutton by 94, F. S. Gillespie and P. G. Gale making a long stand for the third wicket of the winners. T. C. Stafford and the Bells (the first-named 42, J. G. M. Bell 35, R. M. 6 wickets) did best for the losers. Hampstead (W. S. Hale 69, R. S. Everitt 46) beat Guy’s Hospital by 97. At the Oval the Surrey Young Players were altogether too strong for King­ ston Town though F. T. Oakes, (49) batted well for the losers. Myers scored 71, A. L. Cox 57; Freeman took 6 for 11, and T. Abel, one of the famous Bobby’s sons, 3 for 7. On Thursday Captain G. H. S. Fowke (Leicestershire) ran up 156, including a 6 and twenty-six 4’s, for M.C.C. v. Household Brigade at Burton’s Court. Anthony scored 78 for Hastings and St. Leonard’s v. South Lynn, and K. De Jongh replied with 77* for the opposition, the game being drawn. At the County Ground, Hove, Ringmer (214 for 5, dec.—A. Seal 64, A. E. Cosham 49, J. Diplocl: 45*, J. Ford 36) had a good win over Brighton Brunswick (113). Ford followed up his good batting with 6 for 20.