Cricket 1912

440 CRICKET : A WEEKLY EECOED OF THE GAME. A u g u s t 24,1912. extracts from one scribe’s comments on the Warwickshire v. Surrey match at Birmingham. : “ Foster is dead out of form with the bat.............Tom Hayward is scarcely an agile fieldsman nowadays. . . . Pridmore is not a great batsman..............The Warwickshire tail-end is woeful this season..............Byrne is not yet possessed of county form. . . . .Parsons is a poor cricketer . . . . .Why Santall is sent in after Byrne and Parsons is inexplicable.............Rushby beat Santall with every ball of one over.” E x c e p t that I think it a harsh judgment to say of Parsons ^(who last year struck one as very promising indeed) that he is a poor cricketer, I am not prepared to give a flat denial to any one of these statements. But their cumulative effect is rather depressing. Was there not once a man who travelled from Dan even unto Beersheba and found all barren ? S in c e the last issue went to press there have been the following additions to the list of scorers of 1,000 runs : 3 2 . - G. A. Faulkner, Aug. 16 . 35.—Quaife (W. G.), Aug. 16 . 33.—E elf (A. E .), Aug. 16. . 36.— King (J. H .) Aug. 19. 34.— Stone (J.), Aug. 16. T h e hundred wicket takers have been reinforced by : 15.—Wass (T.), Aug. 16. T h e Sportsman now states that in its First-Class Averages “ the figures of the Australians and South-Africans —which are only inserted for easier comparison—include all matches of their tours, though one or two are not, strictly speaking, first-class.” But this must be very unsatis­ factory to the sticklers for precedence according to M.C.C. ruling. It does not much trouble me, for I think it a fair working system to accept all the colonial sides’ games as of first-class rank ; but it would surely be more reasonable if definite pronouncement was made by the authorities. Perhaps they are waiting until the end of the season. O b possibly all their consideration has been given to the great problem of Imperial Cricket—whether the South Afri can matches can be held to affect the “ rubber ” between England and Australia—whether this is a separate rubber or only part of a nine-match competition—whether if Australia beat England in the only match decided of three, Australia, having won both rubbers (but are they rubbers ?) would be first by right—or whether the fact that England beat South Africa three times and Australia beat South Africa only twice comes into tho question—or—but enough ! Compared with this, the County Championship reckoning is as simple as A.B.C. ! [The B oard o f Control w ill meet on Monday in the endeavour to elucidate its own ruling .] FEAGMENT OF A MYSTERY PLAY. Time —The Present Day. Scene —A Blasted Heath. (Query, the Oval ?) Thunder and Lightning. Enter three Selectors. 1 S e l e c t o r : When shall we three meet again In thunder, lightning, or in rain ? 2 S e l e c t o r : When the hurlyburly’s done, When the battle’s lost and won. A l l . The weird Selectors, hand in hand, Posters of the sea and land, Thus do go about, about : Thrice to thine, and thrice to mine And thrice again, to make up nine :— Peace !—the charm’s wound up. B e w il d e r e d B r it is h P u b l ic . I wish I could make out what it’s all about ! I t would have been quite easy to arrange at the outset a system of reckoning. The Somerset Scheme—admittedly imperfect—would have been better than the present chaos, But I write on Monday, and perhaps the meeting this afternoon will, though at half past the eleventh hour, have set all straight. H a d the same system been in force as in the County Championship the position of affairs before the ninth test would have been that England had 15 points out of a possiblo 15 (both earlier games with Australia being ignored), Australia 11 out of 15 (one point for being behind on the first innings against South Africa at Trent Bridge), and South Africa 3 (for Trent Bridge) of 30. A win for Australia at the Oval would give the team 16 points out of 20 to England’s 15 out of 20 ; a win for England would settle matters once for all. Should Australia win, I am inclined to think that no substantial injustice can be alleged from any reasonable point of view if the Tournament be considered at an end, and Australia the champion side. Their one win would put them above England and they are already indisputably above South Africa. They would also be the only undefeated side of the three. W a r r e n B a r d s l e y has not, after all, suffered himself to be eclipsed by the brilliance of the Governor-General. It is perhaps scarcely to be looked for now that he should equal Trumper’s record of eleven centuries iij 1902 ; but he has put up a fresh record by a second time aggregating over 2,000. He reached that total (in all matches of the tour—make what deductions you choose for classifying purposes) on Friday at Cheltenham. T r u m p e r totalled 2570 ten years ago. It is quite possible Bardsley may beat these figures. T h e only other Australian batsman who have reached 2000 in England during a tour are W. W. Armstrong and M. A. Noble (both in 1905). Joe Darling’s aggregate in 1899 was 1941 ; but no one had expected him to get 2000—he made as many as 181 runs in his last match of the tour, at Hastings. “ W h a t actually is intended by the use of those tar­ paulin sheds which look like a battered aeroplane at the Oval? writes a valued correspondent, who until this season had been a stranger to first-class cricket grounds for years past. “ It was once upon a time supposed that they might, could, or would protect the pitch from rain ; but on the 8th of August, though they were brought out almost as soon as the rain began, the umpires came out to inspect the pitch (!), and prodded with their feet the centre dozen yards or so that had remained uncovered, and pronounced it unfit for play, promising to inspect again later on. This farce was repeated three or four times (the weather being quite fine meanwhile), until at length rain really did come on, and continued, rendering the continuation of the farce needless. Can you give me any idea of the object intended to be served by these cloth cucumber frames ? How could the umpires tell what the turf underneath them was like ? And why should the pitch take longer to dry than the out­ field ? Is this the result of preparation ?” To most oc these queries I must answer “ Don’t know ” ; but there is no doubt that the rolling to which the pitch is subjected does render it longer in drying that turf less heavily rolled would be. Mr. S. T. W a t k in s , Hon. Sec. of the Lincolnshire C.C., writes interesting articles on Minor County Cricket in the Staffordshire Sentinel. In the latest of these he thus refers to an innings played for his county by G. E. Heming­ way : “ He took every risk and hit up 48 out of the first 50 in some 25 minutes. He thus put his side in a winning position, and the declaration being enforced at 5 o ’clock with the score 93 for 7 wickets, Cheshire were dismissed a second time for 70................ How could you put Hemingway’s knock down at its proper value in a statis­ tical table ? It would be impossible. Yet it will figure in Wisden as no better than someone else’s half-century made on the opening day of a match on a hard, fast, and true wicket, and with no need to take unnecessary risks.” B u t Mr. Watkins is wrong. Unless Hemingway’s 48 chances to be his highest of tho season, and thus comes