Cricket 1912

512 CEICKET: A WEEKLY EECOED OF THE GAME. S e p t . 21, 1912. Against Yorkshire 146 centuries were made (by 83 batsmen) in the 515 matches. T he number made for each county was : Derbyshire ... ... 8 Northamptonshire ... 3 E ssex ... 6 Nottinghamshire ... 11 Gloucestershire ... 5 Somerset ... 8 Hampshire ... ... 9 Surrey ... 18 K en t... ... 6 Sussex ... 17 Lancashire ... ... 14 W arwickshire ... 10 Leicestershire ... 10 W orcestershire ... 8 M iddlesex ... ... 13 C. B. Fry m ade m ost (8). Hayward and C. J. B. W ood each made 5 ; A. C. M acLaren, L. C. H . Palairet, Quaife (W . G .), K. S. R anjitsinhji, R . H . Spooner, and Storer each 4 ; Abel (R.), Bagshaw, H . K. Foster, G . L . Jessop, Killick, Knight, and Mead (C. P.) each 3 ; Braund, Bowley, Devey, J. A . D ixon, J. Douglas, F . L . Fane, F. R. Foster, Gunn (W .), D. L . A. Jephson, A. 0 . Jones, F. Marchant, Shrewsbury, Tarrant, Tyldesley (J. T .), and M ajor A. J. Turner each 2 ; and the follow ing (53) one each. Arnold, Baldwin (C.), Capt. E . I. M. Barrett, Barton, Bean (G .), Board, B. J. T. Bosanquet, G. Brann, Brockwell. C. J. Burnup, Coe, V. F. S. Crawford, E . W . D illon, Ducat, S. H . Evershed, Flowers, F. G. J. Ford, R . E . Foster, H . G. Garnett, A. C. S. Glover, W . B. Goodacre, Hayes, H . B. Haym an, H aywood, Hearne (J. W .), K. L. H utchings, Iremonger, K. J. Key, Kinneir, E. S. L itteljohn, K. G. M acLeod, Marshal, J. R. M ason, C. P. M cG ahey, R . E . More, W . Newham , P. A. Perrin, F . A. Phillips, Pougher, W . W . Read, Seymour (James), E . M. Sprot, A. E. Stoddart, Sugg (F. H .), Thom pson (G. J.), C. L . Townsend. Trott (A. E .), G. A T. Vials, Ward (A .), P. F. W arnor, W . H . W ilkes, S. M. J. W oods, and Capt. E . G. W ynyard. T he table which follows tells eloquently of Yorkshire’s general superiority over opponents during the 20 years. W hile the county o f m any acres made 208 totals of 300 and over, her opponents made only 101 ; while Yorkshire was only 56 times dismissed under three figures, her opponents were thus out 190 times. H IG H AND LOW SCORING. Yorkshire. Opponents. Yorks. Opponts. --------- *■ ■- ^ , ---------- Comp. Comp. 400 300 400 300 inns. inns. and under and under under under In Matches w ith over. 400. over. 400. 100. 100. Derbyshire 5 12 1 2 1 10 Essex 2 6 1 2 2 18 Gloucestershire 4 8 0 3 3 22 Hampshire 9 6 2 2 0 11 K e n t .................. 4 7 1 6 9 11 Lancashire ... 2 6 2 5 6 17 Leicestershire 15 9 2 7 1 14 Middlesex 4 12 3 7 6 16 Northamptonshire 0 4 1 1 0 4 Nottinghamshire 6 13 2 6 4 10 Somerset 9 12 1 4 3 16 Surrey 4 5 7 7 10 15 Sussex 7 9 4 7 4 5 Warwickshire 8 12 2 10 2 11 Worcestershire 5 3 2 1 5 10 T otals ... 84 124 31 70 56 190 T o t a ls o r 500 a n d O v e r . By Yorkshire (24). 887, v. W arw ickshire, B’ham, ’96. 535, 704, v. Surrey, Oval, '99. 530, 681 (5w.), v. Sussex, Sheffield, ’97. 528, 002, v. Derbyshire, Chesterfield, ’98. 522 060, v. Leicestershire, Leicester, '96. 518 575(7w.), v. Leicestershire, Bradf’d, ’99. 518, 562, v. Notts, Bradford, ’99. 515, 562, v. Leicestershire, Scarborough, ’01. 515, 562, v. Leicestershire, Dewsbury, ’03. 504 549 (9w.), v. Som erset, Taunton, '05. 549, v. Hants, Portsm outh, ’04. 504, 548, v. Sussex, Bradford, ’96. 500, 548, v. K ent, Tunbridge Wells, ’ 12. v. Worcestershire, W orcester, '11. , v. Worcestershire, W orcester, ’01. v. Notts, Sheffield. '01. (7 w .), v. Sussex, Hastings, '11. (8 w .), v. Somerset, Taunton, '00. v. W orcestershire, W orcester, '03. . v. Leicestershire, Leicester, '05. i v. Leicestershire, Leicester. ’07. (7w.). v. Gloucestershire, Brad, ford, '05. v. Essex, Bradford, '02. ', v. W arw ickshire, B ’ham, '09. Against Yorkshire [8). 63<\ by Somerset, Leeds, '01. 560 (5w.), b Sussex, H ove, ’01. 558 (8w.), b Sussex, Bradford, '0: 551 (7w.), by Surrey, Oval, ’99. 540, by Surrey, Oval, ’11. 536, by Surrey, Oval, ’98. 521, by Essex, Leyton, ’05. 515, b y Hants, Southam pton, ’96. Am ong the low totals made by Yorkshire duriDg tbe 20 years were 26 v. Surrey, 45 v. Middlesex, and 47 v. Leicestershire. There was no other under 50. Against Yorkshire Notts registered 13, 38, and 3 9 ; Northants 15 and 27 ; W orcestershire 24, 25, 28, and 43 ; Essex 30 and 41 ; Leicestershire 34 ; Somerset 35 and 48 ; Hants 36, 36, 42, and 45 ; Gloucestershire 36, 44, and 46 ; Surrey 37 ; Lancashire 44 ; W arwickshire 45 and 47 ; and Kent 46. The only sides never put out for below 50 were Derbyshire, Middlesex, and Sussex. It would be easy to write m uch m ore. N o attem pt has been made to follow the W hite Rose career m atch by m atch, or even season by season. Space will not perm it of this, or of giving tabulated individual bowling perform ances, long partnerships, and the like. Every care has been taken with the figures given, and I believe they are as near absolute correctness as one erring human being can well make them . Cricket: A W EEK LY RECORD OF THE GAME. 33 and 35. MOOR LANE. LONDON, E.C. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1912. Communications to the E ditor should be addressed to him at 33 & 35 Moor Lane, E .C . Advertisements, Subscriptions, &e., should be sent to the Manager, at the same address. The following are the rates of subscription to C b ic k e t :— Great Britain. Abroad. 6s. 3d. ... 7s. 6d. One Year ................. T he 24 Summer Numbers ...5s. Od. The 6 W inter Numbers ...Is. 3d. 6s. Od. Is. 6d. N O T IC E . Messrs. WRIGHT & CO., of 7, Temple Lane, Tudor Street, E.C., areAdvertisementContractorsfor CRICKET, and will be glad to give their best attention to any Firms desiring to advertise In the paper. 5 cale of Charges will be sent on application. pavilion (Sossip. The abstract and brief chronicle of the tim e. —Hamlet. H a m p sh ir e and, Nottinghamshire will meet next year, and in mentioning the fact more than one paper has remarked that the two counties have never met before. I myself was called to account for saying so in C r ic k e t some fifteen years ago, and now it is my turn. Hants and Notts met twice in 1843, and there was also a game played to fill up time after one of the matches, regarded by some people as a third match. However, it is a long time since 1843, and one’s memory can scarcely be expected to reach back so far. T h e r e are very few possible new matches in the County Championship now. Derbyshire v. Middlesex, Gloucestershire v. Leicestershire, Hants v. Notts, Leices­ tershire v. Somerset, Middlesex v. Northants, Notts v. Warwickshire, and Notts w Worcestershire exhausts the list, I believe. B u t these would not be all absolutely new—only new as County Championship games. Derbyshire and Middlesex played a single game at Lord’s in the later nineties. Hants and Notts, as mentioned above, met in 1843. Leicester­ shire and Somerset used to meet as second-class counties. Notts and Warwickshire met in 1887, and again in 1894. Notts and Worcestershire played a single game in 1899. Thus Gloucestershire v. Leicestershire and Middlesex v. Northants are the only genuine new fixtures possible of arrangement among any two of the sixteen. As I expected, a champion has been found for John Tyldesley as against Philip Mead. Writing from Man­ chester “ A Felley frae Rochdale ” sends me an analysis of J. T.’s doings in first-class cricket. Up to date he has batted 869 times, with 56 not outs, has scored 200 and over 10 times, 100 and under 200 on 65 occasions, 50 and under 100 on 154, 20 and under 50 on 240, 10 and under 20 on 168, single figures on 162, and has failed to score 53 times (twice not out). W h i l e Mead’s ducks to date outnumber his centuries by two, Tyldesley’s centuries outnumber his ducks (I