Cricket 1912

S e p t . 7, 1912. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OE THE GAME. 483 With 458 wanted for victory, the county had nothing but a draw to fight for, and, thanks m ainly to Philip Mead, with help from Captain Barrett and E . M. Sprot, they averted a beating. Mead, undefeated in the match, was 77 at the finish. Barrett helped him to add 8*2 for the fourth wicket after 3 had gone down for 40. S u r r e y a n d M id d le s e x v . A u s t r a lia n s . — S ix of Surrey and five of M iddlesex made up the side, Hendren being omitted. Syd Gregory stood down from the Australian team, Jennings taking over the captaincy. Everything else in the day’s play was overshadowed by Warren B ardsley’s century—his eighth of the tour. H is form was fau ltless; he batted 195 minutes, and hit eleven 4’s. Minnett helped him to add 56 for the fifth, and H azlitt, who was in 80 minutes for his 27, 9 1 for the sixth wicket. Play did not start till 1*2.30, and was stopped early, with the score 225 for 8 , by bad light. On Tuesday Em ery was too unwell to continue his innings, and Whitty was out almost at once. After Hayward had gone cheaply Hobbs and Hayes added 89 for the second wicket of the combined counties. Both were out at 106. After J . W . Hearne had left two fine partnerships ensued. Morice Bird and Tarrant added 114 in about 90 m inutes for the fifth wicket, and the Cambridge captain helped the Surrey skipper to put on 95 for the sixth. Play was stopped at 5.50 owing to bad light. Bird had just passed the hundred, after batting 3 hrs. 15 m in.—a remarkably versatile and sound innings. The total was then 347 for 6 . On Wednesday Bird took his score to 1 12 , made in 3£ hours, with seventeen 4’s ; Hitch and Strudwick each hit a six, and the innings closed for 396. The Australians again fared badly, and one wonders more than ever why, with so m any other batsmen of proved ability on the side, Bardsley, Macartney, and Kelleway should be the only men to show at all dependable form. The last-named, it is true, did nothing on this occasion; but Bardsley played another splendid innings, making 76 in 140 minutes, and Macartney helped him to add 77 for the third wicket after two had fallen for 10. Except for 50 m inutes’ f-tonewailing by H azlitt, the rest was silence. Tarrant bowled very finely indeed, and kept everyone in trouble. Hit- h took his hnndiedtli wicket. The combined counties needed only 1 1 for victory, and, though with little time to spare, won by 10 wick* t«. Y o r k s h ir e v. M .C.C.— There was a double disappointment at Scarboiough, neither the Jam Sahib (who h»d a nasty cold) nor Lord Hawke turning out. R . H . Spooner and John Douglas put on 63 for the first wicket of M .C.C. ; but 9 were down for 119 . Simms, who completed his thousand runs for the season in the course of his innings, hit fearlessly for 45*, and the total reached 15 3 , Leveson- Gower’s share of the last wicket stand cf 34 being 3 only. When Dolphin look him behind the stumps, Booth secured his hundredth wicket of the Feason —the first time he has reached that number. Denton and Drake put on 64 runs for the third Yorkshire wicket. Falcon dismissed Drake and Kilner with successive balls. At call of time tbe total was 100 for 5. Rain caused delay in starting on Tuesday, and continuing, caused the game to be abandoned for the day at 3 o’clock. The five outstanding wickets fell on Wed­ nesday morning for an addition of 24 runs, and Falcon had an analysis of 5 for 16. No one but Spooner and John King could do anything with the bowling of H irst and Drake in the club’s second innings, which closed for 84. Yorkshire needed 114 to win in about as m any minutes, but never looked like making the runs, a high wind rendering the batsmen’s task very difficult. At call of time they had lost 7 for 79. Men of the Moment in London Club Cricket. B y “ S u r e C a t c h .” In the last issue of C ricket I notice the Editor says “ I am glad my contributors read each others’ articles. This is quite as it should be, and is good testimony that the paper is interesting.” There can be no doubt about the accuracy of these remarks. To every cricket enthusiast C r ic k et is interesting, and I know this season very many new readers, personal friends of mine, have found the paper full of bright reading matter. I will give here one little incident of how an accident brought a few new readers. Some weeks ago I alluded to G. W. Hammond as captain of Hornsey. This was a slight error, and at the time it amused the Hornsey players, but it got the paper talked about on the field with the result that several of the Hornsey men are now, I believe, regularly interested in C r ic k et . S ound A dvice for S hort S l ip s . When I recently preached a sermon about the bad fielding in the slips, and the cause of it, I had no intention of offering any criticism on my friend the “ Cliiel’s ” remarks. Slip fielding is admittedly poor in club cricket, and I cannot say it is particularly great in county cricket. In the club game it is poor, because men unsuited to the position are allowed to field there. Another thing which makes it worse than it really would be is the present stupid idea of captains that short slip should act as a second wicketkeeper. In fact, he is expected to stop the balls that pass tho “ stumper ” and also take the catches that the batsman put up. This means he has to try to do two things which cannot be properly done by one mao. In my young days we had none of this nonsense. Short slip was in the field to take catches, not to save byes. No man trying to keep his mind on two things at the same time can shine. What the wicketkeeper fails to stop should be no concern of a slip fielder. His whole attention should be rivetted upon the batsman, and with ready hands he should always be watching for the catch. I will give an illustration of the fallacy of expecting short slip to save byes and make catches in, say, the same over. In a match at Tunbridge Wells I was fielding short slip. A crack batsman was rapidly getting set when he just touched a ball from our fast bowler. At no time was the ball more than six inches off the ground, and it came to me like lightning ; yet I took the catch quite easily, with my hands almost touching my toes. Now, if I had been thinking about saving byes as well as taking catches at J. S . CO SSINO TON (South W e st Ham C.C.). the same”time, this ball would have been at the boundary before I saw it. I took the catch, simply because I was leaving the wicketkeeper to do his work, and thinking only of my own mission, which was to catch everything that came to hand in the slips. If every short slip fielder would do as I have always done, leave the byes to take care of themselves, he would make catches that he now misses, and his club would often win matches they lose through missed chances in the slips. In the cricket field, as in everything else, it is better to do one thing well, than two things badly. Begarding the Editor’s remarks about reading each others’ articles I may say that I have always made it a practice to read the whole of every paper I contribute to with a view to getting new ideas. I read the whole of C r icket , and I hope, as a consequence, to put before the Editor before next season commences, ideas for some new features which will help to make the paper even more interesting than it is to-day. A W orthy S on . This week I am able to give a life-like photo of young J. S. Cossington, a worthy son of a worthy father. Young Cossington, like his father before him, plays regularly for South West Ham, and I regard him as one of the coming London players. Cossington Junior has the right tem­ perament. In fact he is a Saturday afternoon match- winning player. Well built and strong, he makes the most of every opportunity. He is a club worker, as well as a fine all-round player. At the crease he has a neat upright