Cricket 1912

420 CEICKET : A WEEKLY RECOBD OF THE GAME. A u g u s t 17, 1912. L. C. L i . Sutton, J. 0. MacBryan, Lee (Mdx.), Woolley (C. N.) H. W. Weston, C. A. Boden, Luckin, Bowles, P. H. Bell, C. J. Corbett, Lowe, and Beet—to name only a few. W h e t h e r there are any giants of the future in these lists is still quite doubtful. There are certainly a number of good capable cricketers. Fender, Lang, Kilner, Hylton- Stewart, the two lads Maurice Tate and Chester, Haig, and others have all the appearance of being likely to train on. The first-named indeed, with great ability and self-confidence that stands him in good stead, may be counted a first-class player already. But on the whole the performances of the newer men have not this season been specially notable if one excepts Fender, Kilner, R. B. Lagden, and C. K. Langley, who has up to date taken 17 wickets for a total of 101 runs. O n the other hand, the veterans have been well in evidence. Hayward, Hirst, Jack Hearne the elder, Schofield Haigh, John Tyldesley, and David Denton have all accom­ plished performances that will stand out red-lettered in the season’s records. I am not at all sure that an eleven of men over (say) thirty-eight might not be chosen to give a good game to our test match team. To the six mentioned (though Haigh has played once for England this season)might be added five chosen from the Jam Sahib, Albert Belf, William Quaife, John King, Albert Knight,'and Fred Huish. J o h n K in g , who has been playing first-class cricket regularly since 1899, has for the first time in his career taken a hundred wickets in a season. He has had pitches to suit him, and of course the absence of Shipman threw extra work upon him ; but it is really rather remarkable that any bowler should do better than ever before in his thirty-ninth year. He narrowly missed the unusual distinction of scoring his thousandth rim and taking his hundredth wicket in the same match. Though his bag of wickets against the South Africans was twelve, he only scored a single in his two innings, and was left with five still wanted for the round five figure total. A m o n g his best performances with the ball (in each case the figures are for an innings, not a match) this year have been : 8 for 26 v. Kent, 7 for 45 v. South AJricans, 6 for 45 v. Worcestershire, 6 for 65 v. Derbyshire, 5 for 46 v. York­ shire (for M.C.C.), 5 for 47 v. Warwickshire, 5 for 51 v. Surrey, 5 for 52 v. South Africans, and 5 for 53 v. Northants. In four other innings he has taken 5 wickets, though at heavy cost, and five times he has secured 4. B u t his record is less remarkable than that of another left-hander, George Dennett. Of the 181 wickets taken by the Gloucestershire bowlers up to August 10 Dennett has accounted for 103. Parker has taken 45 of the balance of 78, leaving 33 for division among the other nine men who have at one time or another tried their luck at the crease. T h e b e are few more consistent bowlers than Dennett, who first took 100 wickets in 1904, his second season in the county team (but the first was not a full season), and whose figures for that and succeeding years have been : 1904, 129 : 1905, 163 ; 1906, 175 ; 1907, 201 ; 1908, 153 ; 1909, 156 : 1910, 126 ; 1911, 123 ; 1912 (to August 10), 103. T h a t county cricket as an entertainment is not quite played out seems sufficiently proved by the Bank Holiday attendances. The fifth of August was not exactly an ideal day for sitting out to watch cricket; but there were roughly 11,000paying spectators at the Oval, about as many at Old Trafford, 6,000 at Canterbury, and 5,000 at Leicester. Of course, a public holiday gives a chance to a large number of people who simply cannot attend matches on ordinary days ; but this is somewhat beside the question at issue, and moreover a large proportion of the Bank Holiday crowds could be counted upon for Saturday afternoons, if only they could be sure of a full afternoon’s play. A t Sunderland between ten and twelve thousand paid gate to see the Australians play, and this was a two-day match in doubtful weather. Friday starts and an increase in the number of grounds played upon would do much to help county clubs. And there seems some truth in the charge made that some executives are deficient in initiative, tact, and businesslike qualities. Perhaps Major Badcock will show the way for others to follow. A town with a hundred thousand of population is not necessarily a better place for a county match than one of ten thousand. It is a better place for the regular playing of county matches, no doubt. But that is another matter altogether. One cannot complain that county executives have omitted to test the possibilities of outlying grounds in recent years ; but the movement is capable of further extension. S in c e last week the following have qualified for places in the thousand runs list :— 2 7 .— 0 . J. B. Wood, Aug. 9. 2 9 .— C . Kelleway, Aug. 13. 2 8 .— Hirst (G. H.), Aug. 12. A d d it io n s to the hundred wickets list are 11. —King (J. H .), Aug. 8. 13. —Woolley (F. E .), Aug. 12. 12. —Relf (A. E .), Aug. 9. 14.- —Tarrant (F. A.), Aug. 12. W o o l l e y is thus the first man to record the double— 1,000 runs and 100 wickets-—this season, though he only beat Tarrant by a matter of an hour or less. Albert Relf, John King, George Hirst, and G. A. Faulkner seem safe for the same distinction ; Thompson, H. L. Simms and F. R. Foster will probably fall short in the matter of runs, John Douglas and J. W . Heame in that of wickets. T h e Sportsman of last Monday includes the Australians’ figures in the Durham match as first-class. Personally, I quite agree with this, holding that all the even-handed matches of a touring team of first-class calibre should so rank ; but is it an official ruling ? I n the Staffordshire v. Glamorgan match at Stoke Creber (a left-hand bowler but right-hand bat), at a stage when his side was hopelessly out of the running, suddenly shifted from his usual stance to play Barnes left- handed. The England bowler retaliated by delivering the next ball underhand, and taking Creber’s wicket with it. The Glamorgan acting captain, Norman Riches, protested on the strength of an M.C.C. instruction to umpires ; but I imagine his protest was not very seriously meant. If Creber wanted fresh guard at all, he would have wanted it when he changed over, I should think. A n umpire appealed to me a few weeks ago as to what he should have done in circumstances that were v e r y similar, except that the batsman had not acted as Creber did. I told him that I did not see how, under the laws, he could give the batsman not out, but suggested that next time a bowler changed from o v e r to under-arm without warning he should no-ball him. This may not be the correct way out of the difficulty, but it seems a practicable one. My correspondent, who takes his duties v e r y S eriou sly , as it is quite right he should, was not entirely satisfied. I think he suspected me of undue levity; but I meant the suggestion se rio u sly . The erring bowler, I may add, was a member of the umpire’s own club. L a s t week I referred, with some diffidence to Frank Laver’s pamphlet. This week I have to chronicle that Peter McAlister has issued a reply, dealing with his own personal share in the matter, and traversing many of Laver’s statements. I have not as yet seen either the Board of Control’s statement or that issued by the V.C.A. If any good friend down under would send them along, I should be grateful. Possibly it is not to my credit that I am so keenly interested in the squabble ; but I don’t mind admitting that I have read everything about it that has come my way, and am prepared to read more. It has for me the fascination that a cause celebre has for thousands of people. But I fear I shall never be able to go the whole hog for either side, and so please “ Old Subscriber till now ” or the other correspondent who demanded in scorn whether I really thought McAlister a sportsman ?