Cricket 1912

458 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. A u g u s t 31,1912. A Chat about Philip Mead. One great feature of Charles Philip Mead’s first-class career has been his wonderful consistency. From the day when he first appeared in a big match—against the Austra­ lians in 1905-—to date (August 24) his ducks in first-class cricket have outnumbered his centuries by only on e ; his innings of 50 and over, including the centuries, exactly equal in number the innings in which he has not reached double figures, excluding the ducks ; and nearly a third of his total innings come between 20 and 50, a kind of score which, without making any great show on paper, is eminently useful to a man’s side. But perhaps it will be best to lot the figures speak for themselves. They include the first-class matches of the Australian tour of 1911-2 as well as games in England. Mead has made scores of :— 100 and over ...................... 23 times 90 and over, but under 100 ... 6 ,, 80 and over, but under 90 ... 10 „ 70 and over, but under 80 ... 7 ,, 60 and over, but under 70 ... 17 „ 50 and over, but under 60 ... 13 „ 20 and over, but under 50 ... 98 ,, 10 and over, but under 20 ... 57 „ Single figures...................... 76 ,, (5of them not out) Ducks ... ... ... ... 24 . Total, 331 innings. Beyond 10, I have notthought it necessary to differentiate between completed and uncom­ pleted innings, as every double figure score may be taken to represent some measure of achievement. One may thus say that Mead has failed in 95 innings (allowing for the five not outs) of 326, under 30 per cent. ; or, if you prefer to include the innings in the teens (some of these were not out, however) as failures, in 152 of 326, well under 50 per cent. He has made 20 or over in 174 innings, or over 53 per cent., and 50 or more in 76, or over 23 per cent. I have no tabulations of other batsmen’s careers to compare with this ; but I believe it would be difficult to find any present day professional batsman whose record shows so small a percentage of failures, so large a percentage of substantial success. His figures year by year have been :— Season. Inns. N.o. R. A. H.S. 1905 ............... 2 1 41 41-00 41* 1906 ............... 39 1 1014 26-68 13-2 1907 ............... 46 1 1190 26-44 102 1908 ............... 43 5 1118 29-42 119* 1909 ............... 41 2 1459 37-41 114 19 1 0 ............... 48 3 1416 31-46 111 19 1 1 ............... 52 5 2562 54-51 223 1911-2 (Australia) 18 2 531 33-18 98 1912 (to Aug. 24) 42 11 1665 53-70 160* Totals ... 331 31 .. 10,996 36-59 223 As a bowler—but of course his bowling is not on the same plane as his batting—he has up to date the following record in first-class matches : 1830 overs—5553 runs— 162 wickets—average, 34.27. Latterly he has only been used as a fourth or fifth change, and in Australia he did not send down a ball in a big match ; but from 1907 to 1909 he was being given rather more work, and among his best performances during that period were 5 for 56 v. Northants at Northampton (both innings included), the best analysis for his side, 5 for 49 in the first innings (208) of Sussex at Portsmouth, and 6 for 55 in the first (163) of Somerset on the same ground in 1907, and 8 for 21 (7 for 18 second innings) v. Northants at Southampton in 1908. His biggest crop of wickets was 42 in 1907. To follow his career match by match would take up too much space. It is likely that the Surrey authorities were made to realise on his very first appearance for Hampshire (before he had actually qualified), against the Australians in 1905, that they had let slip a youngster of more than ordinary promise. On that occasion he scored 41 not out in really capital style. Surrey might have had him, for he was born at Battersea, and was for a short time on the Oval staff. It could have been but a short time, however, for when he first appeared for Hants he was only in his nineteenth year. His first match after the qualifying period had run out was against Surrey at the Oval early in May, 1906, and he only made 3 runs in two innings, going in first then as now. But this failure was of small account in the light of what he did a few days later. Against the bowling of Hirst, Rhodes, Haigh, Myers, and Ringrose at South­ ampton, he made 60 and 109, helping E. M. Sprot to add 120 in the first innings, and batting finely when others failed in the second. Neither innings was quite faultless ; but the only mistake in the bigger one was a difficult chance in the slips. In his next half dozen matches he registered a number of useful scores, but none reaching 50. Then he made 79 at Tonbridge when 33 was the next highest score for his side, and 132 against the West Indians, while in later matches Leicestershire, Northants, and Worcestershire had all chances of realising how good he was. His second season boro out the promise of his first ; he had one period of small success, but among his scores were such as 102, 95, 65, 67, and (in his last three matches of the season) 88, 50, and 58. Considering the difference in character between the two seasons—1906 a batsman’s year, 1907 a bowler’s— his 26.44 in 1907 meant considerably better work than his slightly higher average of 1906. \ar The following year, 1908, found him making progress, though perhaps scarcely to the extent expected. Among his best performances were two centuries v. Leicestershire and 96 v. Gloucestershire. It was in 1909 that he went right to the front. Hayward, Hobbs, Rhodes, and Sharp were the only professionals above him in the first-class averages. His total of 1459 included but one century; but in 41 innings he was only six times out under double figures, and only once without scoring. Not only did he make many runs, but he made them in fine style. Moreover, he was a great run-saver, as indeed he has been throughout his career. In the revival of Hampshire cricket, the young Surrey-born left-hander has played a great part alike with the bat and in the field. He did excellently in 1910 without quite equalling his 1909 record. Again he made only one century; but among his other scores wore 95, 90, 89, 87, 81, 69, 65, 63 not out, 63 and 58. The seal was put upon his fame in 1911, when he scarcely seemed able to do wrong. An injury to his hand kept him out of several matches ; but he aggregated 1706 in championship games, and 2562 in all first-class matches, and was second to C. B. Fry both for the county and on the season’s full results. He began with 82 for the M.C.C. v. Yorkshire and 100 for Hants v. Somerset. In his fifth match of the season he ran up a century for M.C.C. v. Leicestershire ; in his seventh and eighth he made 73 v. Kent, and 65 and 53 v. Surrey ; in his tenth and eleventh 79 for M.C.C. v. Australians and 70 for Hants v. Leicestershire ; in his fourteenth and fifteenth 109and 100 not out v. Leicestershire and 5 and 120 not out v. Yorkshire ; in his eighteenth and nineteenth 29 and 207 not out v. Warwickshire and 194 v. Sussex ; in his twenty-second 71 v. Worcestershire ; in his twenty- fourth' 51 v. Middlesex ; in his twenty-sixth and twenty- seventh 28 and 85 v. Lancashire and 223 for Players v. Gentlemen at Scarborough ; and in his twenty-ninth (and last) 101 for England v. Warwickshire at the Oval. Thus in 16 matches out of 29 he played innings of 50 or over, never going three matches together without registering such an innings ; and during the season he also made 17 scores of between 20 and 50. He was only twice out without scoring, and only eight times under double figures. That his doings in Australia were somewhat disappoint­ ing after a season like this cannot be denied. Yet to say that he failed would be absurd. Up to the eve of the first test match he had played 8 innings (once not out) for a total of 305 runs. After that, it is true, he did less, his only innings of note being 46 in the Adelaide test and 98 v. Tasmania at Launceston"} but at the end of the tour he had an average of over 33 in the first-class games, which scarcely spells failure. So much had been expected of him, however, that his lack of success in the tests told heavily against his chance of a place in the English Team for the Triangular Tournament, and though he has done splendidly this season he was not chosen even for one match. Yet that he will establish his right to a place in the best England side in the very near future scarcely admits of doubt. The man who can play as he has played for his county can scarcely be lacking in that much discussed quality, “ tem