Cricket 1912

302 CEICKET : A WEEKLY EECOED OF THE GAME. J u l y 6, 1912. L. a n d N. W. M e n S h in e . T w o m en w ho are doing excellen t w o rk for the London an d N o rth W estern B a ilw a y team are A . J . H oughton and P a ris. T h e fo rm er is a quick ru n -getter w ith a neat style. H e is a thorou gh en th u siast, an d few m en en jo y their cricket m ore th a n he does. P a ris is a co n sisten tly h eavy-scorin g b a ts­ m an . P la y in g a good fo rw ard stroke and defending his w icket w ell, he seldom m isses a chance o f p u nishin g a h ittable ball, an d he is one o f the m ost in valu ab le p layers in the keen railw ay eleven . T h e M etal E x c h a n g e cricket team h ave several good all-roun d p layers. T w o of the best are S h ap le y, a fine quick- scoring batsm an , aud Sm ith , a cap ital bow ler. A gain st a M ill H ill P a rk team Sm ith secured 7 w ickets for 43. H e bow ls a good len gth ball, and v aries h is b all an d pitch v e ry ju d icio u sly T w o Stum pers. I see th at E . G . R ea d , w ho h as p la yed fo r both Su ssex and H am p sh ire, w as ag a in in great form for H eath field against T ow n ley P ark . H e scored 10 3 not out, and w ould h ave w on h is side a great v ic to ry i f rain had not in terfered . B esid es being a m agn ificen t b atsm an , B e a d is one of the best w ick et­ keepers I h ave ever seen in club cricket. A t the crease he p lays the vigorou s gam e, h is h ittin g all round the w icket being v e ry pow erfu l. B eh in d the stum ps he stands up to the fastest bow l­ in g, an d h is catch in g an d stum ping feats are freq u en tly brillian t. A n o th er fine club w icket-k eep er is W . P . B o w le y , o f M ill H ill P a rk . H e , like B e a d , stands up to all sorts o f bow lin g and takes the ball w ith the ease o f a Stru d w ick or a Sm ith . R o w ley has an attractive style in g ath erin g the ball, an d I do not know o f a better stum per. Essex=Australian and Liverpool Jottings. B y G . A . B r o o k in g . The Essex-A ustralian games of 1909 and 19 12 furnish an interesting sim ilarity. In the initial fixture on each tour, the Colonials scored heavily, ultim ately winning each game in handsome style. Three years ago Bardsley compiled 219 and Kansford 174, this season Macartney made 208 and Bardsley 184. The return fixture in 1909 ended in an even draw, on Saturday last it was likewise so. So long as cricket is talked about, the E ssex supporter w ill never forget how the E ast Anglian county vanquished the powerful 1899 A ustralian side ; a combination which only lost 3 games during the complete tour, England not once beiDg successful in any of the 5 Tests : a most remarkable performance on the part of the Colonials, but then the 1899 team was probably the hardest side to beat in a 3-day game that ever came over, though I do not wish to infer that it was the most powerful, though it was not far off. Turning to Liverpool cricket, the Sefton club had all the best of a drawn game with W allasey, compiling 2 10 for 7 to 79 for 7. Curtis, the Leicestershire professional, secured 6 for 26, and the chief Sefton rungetters were P. Miller 53, J . S. Stubbs 4 1, T. Johnson 35, and W. N . M. Baven 24. Liverpool were badly beaten by Bock Ferry, principally owing to the good bowling of H . Bushton, who secured 5 for 32. Six of the home side reached doubles and the score totalled 168, to which Liverpool’s response was 8 1. A notable addition to the visitors’ side was the presence of H . Dom ing, the crack all-rounder of Buenos Aires, who scored 10 and took 3 for 53. Waterloo Park lost their first game through not being powerfully represented in an evening fixture with W avertree; totalling 8 1 to 12 1. They also went under to W allasey 2nd— scores 1 18 to 8 1—owing to poor batting, only Parr doing the club justice with the willow. Polley and Shoubridge bowled very well, the former taking 5 for 30 and the latter 4 for 20. For once in a way the powerful Northern team cut up badly, New Brighton beating them easily— scores 54 to 15 3. Horspool 43 and Bennett 49 were the chief scorers for the Cheshire team. The only change in the England twelve for the Leeds tes,t is that H itch is given a place to the exclusion of Warner. It is not stated that tbe twelfth place rests definitely between any two players Special Club Notes. C o n tr ib u t e d b y “ T h e C h ie l .” Perhaps the Surrey C.C.O. Committee hardly realise howtthoroughly the fixing-up matches between the C. and G. and the various clubs of the county is appreciated. It is regarded as_a privilege and honour to play on the famous sward of Kennington, and match-cards are treasured as mementoes by those who take part in these games. But it is seldom that^a club shows at its best in one of them. The conditions are so different from those of the ordinary run of Saturday matches. That very difference, however, tends to bring out the best of a man’s cricket. And these matches are educative. If a side gets a good hiding, as generally happens, it will yet learn something. I hope these remarks will catch the eye of Mr. Findlay. I should like him to know what we club cricketers think of the Surrey C.C.C. ’s liberal policy. I am continually getting enquiries from secretaries re the insertion of club scores and notes. Let me say here that there is no charge made for* these. The Editor of C r ic k e t and the present writer may disagree on the subject of short runs ; but they are in complete accord in welcoming clubs to the columns of the paper. The only return asked •—it is a reasonable one, as I think all will allow—is that the clubs concerned should support the paper. Secretaries can do C r ic k e t and their own members a good turn by adopting the direct supply system. I don’t think they will find itentail much trouble. One official of my acquaint­ ance says,the paper sells like hot cakes on the ice, when once fellows realise how good it really is. He disposes, of his direct supply to the first team if they are playing at home ; if they are away he finds the second team snap them up eagerly. On looking through club cricket scores of late, 1 have been struck by the fact that extras appear to be on the increase. Why is this ? Wickets in general were never better than they now, are. I do not fancy wicket-keepers are chiefly to blame. Even in good club,cricket there are all too many erratic bowlers. For over twenty years I have kept wicket, and have always tried to work in con­ junction with the bowlers of my side. The result has been eminently satisfactory. It seems to me that there is a perfect epidemic of swollen head among young cricketers of to-day*. They will not take advice from older men; bless them, they know it all ! You can’t tell them anything. They strain themselves to sling the ball down at a tremend­ ous pace ; length, flight, direction—all these are outside their scope. One ball wide to the off—two outside the leg stump-—so they go on. What can a wicket-keeper do ? He has no chance of stopping such stuff. Result, a score of byes at least, with a few wddes and no-balls thrown in. Captains should deal more sternly with these young tear­ aways. It will be for their own benefit in the long run. “ Wanderer ” of the Sportsman has referred to my notes upon the important question of water supplies to cricket grounds. I don’t want my readers to think that I am out of sympathy with the clubs. There are two sides to every question, and I gave the M.W.B.’s side. Facts are stubborn things-—not always pleasant to face. Many clubs have brought this trouble upon themselves and their fellow-clubs by sheer carelessness. Some clubs still go on the old lackadaiscal lines which are distinctly not business. They will find in the long run that their methods are obsolete. Cliqueism and favouritism are out of date. The future is to the clubs who choose the best men for office, who treat players, young and old alike fairly, and who recognise that the twentieth century is a business age. * Is this a new thing, Chiel ? “ None of us is infallible— not even the youngest of us,” said the wise Dr. Jowett of Balliol. I knew a lot more at twenty than I know at forty. Most of it was wrong ; but I knew it. Bless them, I say too. What would not you and I give to be twenty again, my friend ?— T h e E d ito r.