Cricket 1912

S e p t . 21, 1912. CEICKET: A WEEKLY EECOED OF THE GAME. 513 disregard 0 not out) by 24. While Mead has scored 50 and over in 78 innings of 340 (percentage 22'9), Tyldesley has done so in 246 of 869 (percentage 27'1). While Mead has scored 20 and over in 179 innings (percentage 52-6), Tyldes­ ley lias done so in 486 of 869 (percentage 55'9). T y l d e s l e y has it as against Mead, and is almost exactly level with John Hobbs. Now what have the champions of William Quaife, George Hirst, Tom Hayward, and the late Arthur Shrewsbury to say ? These seem the most likely among the professional section to have better figures. E r n e s t V o g l e r ’s article next week will deal with the causes of the South African Team’s failure. The opinions of one who has so intimate a knowledge of the men who made up the team should be of special interest. Next week’s number—the last of the summer series—will contain the full first-class averages of the season (that is to say, the figures of every man who appeared in first-class cricket, whether he played one innings or 60, whether he bowled a single ball or took nearly 200 wickets), and the Minor County averages. S om e people see no use in giving the full averages. But I think it can easily be justified. It is much easier to give only those with a double-figure batting average, and to set a qualifying standard in innings ; but the result is to leave out much that may be interesting in future years, if it is not so now. For instance, among menwho have had far better averages, and probably will have again, the following fall below the double-figure standard this season, and will be absent from the tables given in other papers— Barnes, Parsons, W. T. Greswell, Smith (W. C.), Leach, Dennett, Buckenham, N. C. Tufnell, Kennedy, Dean, Hearne (J. T.), Buswell, Santall, and Bates. This is only a selection, of course ; but it numbers one man who has known what it is to score a four-figure total in a season, and three who have made centuries in first-class cricket. A m o n g the changes made in the paper of late, I find that the least popular is that of separating the scores of matches from the accounts of them. This was done with a view to economy of space ; but so many readers— especially among those overseas, who see the scores for the first time when C r ic k e t reaches them—have protested that I shall return next year to the old arrangement. T h e r e is n o th in g I like better to receive th a n a grum b­ lin g letter. T h e m an w h o takes th e trou ble to grum ble is k een ly in terested in th e p aper. T h a t’s w h y. A n d I am happy to say that I have had a good many grumbles during 1912. Many of them have related to the difficulty of obtaining the paper. This matter is largely in our readers’ hands. It is impossible for a journal of the type of C r ic k e t to be in every shop and on every stall, as papers with a six-figure circulation are. But any newsagent and any bookstall manager can get it if it is ordered, and if he will not take the trouble to do so he is not worth giving your custom to. I have done what I can during this so-called summer to get the paper a decent show, and I hope to be able to do more next year. B t jt to get the winter numbers shown is simply impossible ; and I trust that those who have supported me so well during the summer will continue to do so during the off-season. Please note that the six winter numbers will be sent to any address for a shilling postal order. That is to say, I am prepared to pay postage on them, so that you should have them at the same price as usual. This is not because I want to tread on the toes of the newsagents, but because there has always been so much difficulty in getting the newsagents to order those issues. S. G. Sm ith took his hundredth wicket at Hastings on September 13th, and Gervys Hazlitt his hundredth at Woodbrook on the same day. Smith (Warwickshire) fell short by 11 of the 1000 runs. The lists of thousand runs scorers (40) and hundred wickets takers (23) are now complete. I n preparing the Australian and South African averages I have been struck afresh by the rough luck experienced by John McLaren and Joseph Cox. These men will be written down failures. Is that fair ? They have never had a real chance. I saw McLaren bowl very well indeed at Hove—where, by the way, Roy Minnett was the only bowler who gave the Jam any trouble—and I am sure Cox is a far better man than his figures make him out. Had there been a real summer, these two might have been among the most useful men on their respective sides. T h e outstanding successes of the two teams are to my mind Bardsloy, Macartney, Kelleway, Ha/.litt, Nourse, Taylor, and Pegler. Others have done pretty well, but on the whole—even in Faulkner’s case and in Whitty’s —certainly not better than, if as well as, one had expected. But Bardsley and Macartney have been wonderful ; Nourse has done great work ; Herbert Taylor has lifted himself into the very front rank of South African cricketers ; Kelleway, in his own particular style, is a great asset to his side ; and Pegler, who looks to have plenty of stamina, and Hazlitt, of whom the same can scarcely be said, have done splendidly for their teams. I t h in k Mitchell and Tancred might have given Claude Carter more work. I think that Macartney might have done some of the work that fell to Whitty, among whose analyses are such as 1 for 69, 1 for 67, 1 for 84, 1 for 64, 1 for 75, 0 for 49, and 0 for 46. But no doubt Whitty was more than willing to keep on ; and so much depended upon the Governor-General as a batsman that it would not have been good policy to overwork him at the crease. I fancy that most people will agree with me that none of the colonial leaders—though we saw little of Jennings in that capacity—is a Noble or a Sherwell. T h e Australians began and ended with a defeat. The South Africans began and ended with a victory. The Australians won 9 matches and lost 8. The South Africans won 13 and lost 8. Yet the popular verdict, largely on the strength of test results, makes the Australians the stronger side, and I am not concerned to attempt to combat it. But on the whole I really think there was very little in it. Outside the tests, one side played generally below, one generally above, its test match form ; but then the tests were what mattered most. G e o r g e L e a c h is the latest addition to Lancashire League professionals. He will be missed at Hove, where he was very popular. One hopes that his fast bowling will be more successful in league matches than it has been during the last two or three seasons in county cricket. The old nip from the pitch and devil of his great year, when he was really a fine bowler, may come back to him. This season has not been of the type to give him much chance on the few occasions when he has played. S o u t h A f r i c a will not fail in the near future for want of coaching. The Armadale Castle last Saturday carried Fred Bowley, who goes to Cape Town, H. S. Harrison, bound for Port Elizabeth, Geeson, engaged at Johannes­ burg, Walter Quaife (it is Walter, I feel sure, not William) and William Smith (or is it Douglas of that ilk, his brother ?), on their way to Kimberley. George Cox, I hear, travels next week. Good luck to them all, and to their pupils ! I am particularly pleased that Bowley has secured an overseas engagement. He tried for one in New Zealand last winter. A nicer, straighter-going fellow and a keener cricketer it would be hard to find in the professional ranks. It is quite an off-chance, by the way, that Fred Bowley is not assisting Derbyshire. But he is Breconshire, not Derbyshire, by birth. B ad news , that Northamptonshire, even after so successful a season, has been so far from making ends moot. But one cannot believe that the county which came so near to winning the championship will be allowed to go under, whatever happens. R i c h a r d d a f t ’ s N o t t i n g h a m s h i r e m a r l . —Particulars apply Radcliffe-on-Trent, Notts.— (A dvt .)