Cricket 1912

C R I C K E T : A W E E K L Y R E C O R D O F T H E G A M E .— AUOUST 1 7 t h . 1 9 1 2 . Together joined in CricKet’s manly toil.”— B y r o n . N O . 2 1 , V O L . I. N e w S e r i e s . S A T U R D A Y , A U G U S T 17, 1912. [ * ^ 1 “ '™ '] PB'CE 2D" No. 910 Old Series. A C h a t a b o u t ^ V i r . S . H . E m e r \ ) . There was a period of the present Australian tour when two j players’ names were on the lips of all to whom cricket appeals— the names of Charles George Macartney and Sydney Hand Emery, j Macartney started his great performances in the opening match of j the tour, with 84 v. Notts. Emery did not play in that game ; but | in the next three matches, while Macartney was com piling innings of 127, 208, and 123, he took 5 for 52 and 7 for 58 v. N orth- ants, 5 for 72 and 2 for 87 v. Essex, and 6 for 54 and 5 for 81 v. Surrey— 30 wickets for 404 runs in six successive innings. On the strength of this some were disposed to look upon him as likely to play a consistent leading part in tbe tour. But those who knew his past record, who had the judgm ent to w e:gh Ids qualities against his defects, were not among these. Em ery is m ore like B . J. T. Bosanquet than any other bowler of either the past or the present. Both capable of going th roigh the strongest side on occasion, both rank bad bowlers on their worst days, they possess— one siiould say possessed in ihe Englishm an’s case, perhaps— the dramatic quality of the un­ expected. On oue day sueli h bowler as these two may be bit freely by the tail end batsmen of a weak side ; on the next the crack run-getters of the wor d may find him too difficult. If Emery could maintain a good length he would be a great bowler, some say. But if Emery could do this he would be quite another bowler from what he now is. There would be great gain, doubtless, but theie m ight be some loss. Since May he has done few sensational feats—one m ight say that he has done no sensational feat. H is best analyses have been 4 for 32 v. Cambridge University and 4 for 53 v. Somerset. His absence from five consecutive matches in July is to be accounted for by a damaged knee, and no doubt this has handicapped him . Moreover, sodden wickets do not suit him . If the sun shines again, and the pitches are fast and hard, he may yet wreak havoc— yea, even upon E ngland’s chosen at the Ovali He has served no long apprenticeship to first-class cricket before gaining Test match honours. Five years ago he was practically unknown. H is first match for New South W ales was against South Australia at Adelaide in 1908-9. H e did l.ttle then, but had little chance — 1 for 12 and 1 for 6 his bowl­ ing figures. Against Victoria at Melbourne he took 3 Tor 115. In the return with Victoria at Sydney his two wickets cost 131, but he hit up 58 not out, he and Kelleway adding 86 for the last wicket. In 1909-10 he was taken to Adelaide again, but made twelfth man. At Melbourne in the next match he accom plished tbe greatest performance of his career to date. Nearly all the Victorian batsmen were helpless against him on a good pitch in the first innings, when he took 7 for 2 8 ; in the second he had 5 for 85. Against South Australia at Sydney he had 4 for 6 at one perio 1 of the first innings, finishing up \\ith 5 for 55. These were occasions when he found his length, puzzled everyone as to the ball tbat was com ing, and, in short, was at his best. Another success— 4 for 45 in the first innings of Victoria at Sydney — was his that season ; but 1 for 39, 1 for 16, 1 for 74, and 1 for 88 in tbe other four innings in which he bowled point clearly to off-da.ys. He did some useful woik during the New Zealand tour which follow ed; but in 1910-1 his bowling was pretty heavily punished in all the big matches, and what credit he earned was as a batsmen. In the return match between N. S. Wales and the South African team he M r. S . h . E M E R Y . played two fine hitting innings