Cricket 1912

424 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. A u g u s t 17, 1912. which they gained, England were mainly—one might say entirely—indebted to three men, Hobbs, Barnes and Woolley. Hobbs played one of the very greatest innings in his career, while Barnes andiWoolley both bowled in their best formjand made the fullest possible use of the state of the pitch. Fry did not put Woolley on until the score was 31 for one wicket. It is fairly safe to say, therefore, that the South Africans would probably not have made 95, if Woolley had been put on instead of Foster at the start. Fry is not, as a rule, the slave of convention in these matters, and his delay in putting Woolley on was not, after all, of very serious moment. The only two batsmen who showed any ability to deal with the bowling were Taylor and Snooke. The former was sound in defence and judicious in his scoring strokes. He fell a victim—caught in the slips off Woolley-—to a ball slightly shorter than the preceding balls and at which he played forward. Snooke, without being at all reckless, hit pluckily and resolutely. He too was caught in the slips off Woolley. None of the others ever looked like staying or getting runs—except Faulkner, but that was solely because fortune appeared to have taken him for the button on her cap for the day. Faulkner could do every­ thing but get o u t; and to judge from his constant smile, the humour of his luck made strong appeal to him. The fact only shows what a fine “ sportsman ” in the best sense he is, but in saying that one merely means that he is a typical South African, for whether the game be cricket or Rugby football, your real man from the Cape is ever a Faulkner and always a “ sportsman,” a term I always use sparingly with reverence and with a full sense of all it implies in word, thought, and deed. Barnes was literally a “ demon ” bowler. He reared up in a way that made batsmen helpless. When he did over pitch, he could be driven and when he did underpitch he might even be cut or turned to leg, but as a rule nothing could be done except to try and play him or avoid him. His 5 wickets cost 28 runs ; Woolley’s 5 cost 41, but the difference was mainly due to Snooke’s hitting and to the fact that several high hits off Woolley happened to fall safe. The English fielding was good, especially for such a cold day. Though Spooner and Hearne played characteristic innings of 26 and 20, the feature of the English innings was the superb batting of Hobbs. One has seen Hobbs play so many fine innings that one hesitates about describing the last as the best, for there is always a tendency to place the last first in this special sense, just as a gale newly weathered is the fiercest that ever blew. Still there was no escaping the greatness of this innings, for Hobbs played with ease—an odd over and occasional ball excepted—bowling which had other great batsmen in constant difficulties and against which they had to struggle and strive. Hobbs’ defence was very sound, but the feature of his batting was his resolution in hitting, or, in other words, in making a scoring stroke. Once he had judged the character of a ball he never hesitated but treated it promptly and resolutely in terms of his judgment. His pulling and on-driving were specially fine and though he was restrained all through, it was judicious restraint as witness his three fours, all on- drives, in one over from Faulkner. He got his 68 out of 127 in 110 minutes and hit 8 fours. Faulkner, though bowling many loose balls, was almost at his best and sent down some real “ googlies.” His performance, 7 for 84, would have been still better but for these lapses into.in­ accuracy. Pegler was unequal. He would look almost unplayable for a couple of overs and then would lose his length and become quite ordinary except for an occasional ball. It was a great day and the cricket must have been thoroughly enjoyed by the 8,000 spectators—of these 6,313 paid at the gates—in spite of the dull skies and the cold and cheerless weather. B r ie f b u t D e c is iv e . Tuesday’s play proved brief and almost tragically disappointing for the crowd. In less than two and a half hours the game was over and England had won by the large margin of 10 wickets. One knew, of course, that England’s lead of 81 was a winning lead if the wicket proved as difficult on Tuesday as it was on Monday. The proba­ bilities were that it would be equally difficult, for more rain fell during the night and the surface was necessarily a little chipped. A very few balls sufficed to show that the wicket was as difficult as ever. It looked drier and was a little faster—this applies, of course, to the outfield also— but was on the whole less inclined to kick except when the ball pitched on a spot or Barnes bowled a particular length. The South Africans never looked like making a fight of it except when Nourse, who played a great game, and Faulkner were together. The odds were altogether too great, and the South Africans did well to make 93 and to escape the innings defeat. They made a most disastrous start, losing 3 wickets for 10 runs (Tancred being stumped in playing for­ ward at a ball that was shorter than he thought and turned quickly, Taylor out leg before in trying to turn Barnes to leg and Strieker caught at point off an awkward “ rearer” ) but Nourse and Faulkner then added 44 and took the score to 54. At this total Faulkner was bowled in trying to hook a leg break that hung. Llewellyn was out at the same total in the same way as Strieker, and then White, who tried to play a defensive game, was caught at the wicket playing back at a rising ball that got up and came back. Snooke, as in the first innings, was aggressive, but he fell, caught at mid-on off a skier, at 70,and Nourse should have been caught off a still higher hit in the same over and at the same total, but Hitch and Rhodes hesitated as to the catch and when Rhodes at the last moment took it he failed to retain the ball. But for this incident England would have won by an innings. As it was, they had 13 to get and Hobbs and Hearne quickly hit off the runs. Nourse played a very fine innings. His defence was sound, while he made many fine strokes on the off side and some specially fine strokes on the leg side, his timing being excellent. The crowd were clearly disappointed at the early finish, and hundreds waited to gaze at the players—one often wonders if a first-class cricketer is really an object of greater curiosity for some folk than a Martian or a Man from the Moon would be— as each in turn left the ground. SUMMING-UP. One need not hesitate in naming the direct cause of England’s easy win. It was due to the greater accuracy of the English bowling, or, put otherwise, to the much greater proportion of loose balls sent down by the South African bowlers. Pegler and Faulkner bowled just as good, just as difficult and just as deadly balls as Barnes, but both, particularly Pegler, bowled many bad length balls, and these, if they did not wholly represent the differ­ ence in runs between the sides accounted for the major share of the difference. The pitch was one on which a bowler who kept a length, bowled on or near the wicket and did not attempt too much, was bound to get men out quickly and cheaply. The match again proved that the side with the more accurate bowlers should always win, other things being at all equal, on bad wickets. As to the individual honours, England owed her victory to the bowling of Barnes and the batting of Hobbs. The wicket was just made for Barnes, especially on Tuesday, yet the “ Razor ” Smith of 1910 would have done just as well on the same wicket. I put the matter this way, because there has been the usual tendency to make the man of the moment the greatest man of all moments. Warner has described Bames as “ the greatest bowler that ever lived.” It is a very tall saying, and if Warner cares to indulge in such gushing use of the superlative it is his business, not mine. I prefer to take the cautious view and to preserve my historic sense. I have seen Warner quite as much troubled by two bowlers named Richardson and Lockwood as ever was any batsman by Barnes, and that, too, on a plumb wicket. We had better wait, therefore, and I, for one, will wait, until we see Bames accomplish in a test in England on a plumb wicket such feats as stand to the credit of Lock­ wood on such a wicket, before putting him in front of all the great bowlers whose deeds adorn cricket history. Barnes accomplished a great performance in taking 13 wickets for 57 runs—this seems and is a platitude—and in point of average his performance beats Blythe’s 15 for 99 against South Africa at Leeds in 1907. Without Hobbs’ great innings, however, England would not have won by the same margin or with the same ease and freedom from anxiety. Woolley, Spooner and Hearne all contributed to the victory. The South Africans did well, all the cir­ cumstances being considered, and I am very doubtful whether we should have won at all if the South African bowlers of 1907 had been at the Oval and in their form of that year. It is no use discussing the competitive value of the match and all the wide question of the system of