Cricket 1912

534 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OP THE GAME. S e p t . 28, 1912. The First-Class Season of 1012. B y T h e E d it o r . In 1911 we had what was as near a perfect season for weather as could reasonably be expected. In 1912 we—hadn’t. Let it go at th a t! Some people say that Yorkshire would not have won the Championship in a fast-wicket cam paign. Perhaps not. Probably not. But they won it right worthily under existing conditions, and if not an essentially great side were at least a very good one. It is allowable to doubt whether they were very m uch better than Lancashire, who would have surprised no ODe by finishing first. The feature of the county season was the rise of Northamptonshire, which only just fell short of being as dramatic as W arw ickshire’s in 1911. A solid side, with plenty of good bats though no great ones, and a really strong attack, which had excellent support from the field, the youngest of the first class shires did itself great credit. W arwickshire fell away considerably; Kent were less trium phantly on top of m ost opponents than in some form er seasons ; Surrey failed to do them selves ju stice ; M iddlesex did better than one might have expected seeing how m uch they suffered from the early loss of their great cap tain ; Hampshire were in and out, a strong batting side alm ost always, but only at times a strong bowling o n e ; Notts just about deserved their position near the m iddle of the table. Of the rem aining seven, Sussex can hardly be said to have done well, but did better than the rest, who had on the whole a very bad time of it. Derbyshire, Somerset, Leicestershire and Gloucestershire are usually in the ru ck ; but E ssex and W orcestershire have figured higher, and their descent was alm ost tragic. E ssex could do nothing right, and the shadow of possible dissolution hung over the m idland county’s side. But, as last year, it is chiefly with the individual side of the season’s cricket that I intend to deal here. In all, 578 players took part in the 263 m atches (increases of 40 in m atches and 91 in players on last season’s totals, due of course to the double colonial visit) which made up the season. I have included all matches played by the Australian and South African sides, and their opponents in some of these swell the total largely. Thus eleven m en played for Durham v. the Australians, of whom only one (Morris) played in any other m atch included, and such matches as South W ales v. South Africans, the four games played in Scotland by the colonial team s, and the two played in Ireland by the South A frica n s,‘help to bulk out the number. But I think it is quite worth while to make these statistics com plete, m uch trouble as they entail. Am ong the 578 players there were three who had no innings, 20 who batted once or oftener but failed to make a run, 72 more who did not reach double figures, and 205 whose totals ranged from 10 to 100. Of the 351 players who bowled, 83 failed to take a wicket, 47 had one capture each, 27 two victim s, and 66 took between two and ten wickets. As regards those who met with more success, it may be of interest to compare the figures of 1912 with those of 1911. 1911. 1912. Number of batsmen totalling 2,000 or m ore ... 9 ... 4 1,000, under 2,000 49 ... 36 ,, „ ,. ,, 500, under 1,000 67 ... 69 Number of bowlers taking 100 wickets ... ... 21 ... 23 ,, „ „ ,, 50 „ under 100 29 ... 29 In 1910 there were 43 thousand-runs scorers and 18 takers of 100w ickets; in 1909 the figures were 43 and 1 9 ; and in 1908 they 52 and 17. There are six new names in the 1,000 runs list, those of C. G. Macartney, Captain E . I. M. Barrett, C. Kelleway, H . W . Taylor, H . L. Simm s, and C. B. Jennings. It is a curious fact that not one of the six newcomers played in English cricket at all in 1911. Four of them are C olon ials; Captain Barrett was then at Shanghai, and H . L. Simm s in India. No fewer than 30 of the batsmen whose names figured in the I,000 runs list in 1911 are absent from it this time. Of these Kenneth M acLeod is the only man who did not play at a ll; but Board, P. F . W arner, and K. L. Hutchings played so little that they had no chance of reaching such a total. Of the rest, M. C. Bird, H . P. Chaplin, John Gunn, Hendren, and James Seym our totalled over 900 this year, and Bowley, Charlesworth, F. R . Foster, H ard­ staff, G. L . Jessop, Knight, and Pearson over 800. In some of these cases the falling-off was great— Jessop from 1,907 to 804. for instance, Foster from 1,614 to 828, Charlesworth from 1,376 to 813, Seymour from 1,825 to 977, Bird from 1,404 to 985. Chaplin and Hendren alone were but little short of their last year s totals. Among those who to* ailed under 800 there were fom e terribly big drops—Kinneir fr o m 1 ,6 2 2 to 7 08 , K illick (n o t p la y in g re g u la rly , b u t h a v in g a s m a n y a s 2 8 in h in g s a g a in st 5 4 in 1911) fr o m 1 ,4 4 6 to 460, C u ffe fr o m 1,054 to 3 97 , D ra k e fr o m 1 ,4 8 7 to 791, F . L . F a n e fr o m 1 ,0 4 4 to 5 6 0 ; w h ile A r n o ld , B o o th , B ro w n , W . B . B u r n s , G e o rg e G u n n , a n d H arry W h ite h e a d s co re d less th a n h a lf a s m a n y ru n s in 1 91 2 a s th ey did in 1 91 1. J. W . H . T . D o u g la s, W o o lle y , a n d R o b e r t R e lf w ere a m o n g th e fe w w h o w ere u p b o th in a g g re g a te a n d a vera g e. T h e S c o r e rs of 1 ,0 0 0 R u ns in 1912. Order. Batsman. Date. Order. Batsman. Date. 1. C. G. M acartney ... June 19. 21. Tyldesley (J. T .) ... July 26. 2. Hayes (E. G .)............... June 27. 22. H . H. the Jam Sahib.. July 26. 3. Mead (C. P.) ............... June 29. 23. J. W. H. T. Douglas ... July 27. 4. R. H. Spooner............... July 4. 24. Rhodes (W .) .................... July 27. 5. C. B. Fry ............... July 5. 25. H ardingc (H. T. W .)... Aug. 1. 6. W. Bardsley ............... July 8. 26. Makepeace (H .) ... Aug. 5. 7. Denton (D.) ................ July 9. 27. C. J. B. W ood ................... Aug. 9. 8. R e lf(R . R.) ... .. July 9. 28. H irst (G. H .) ... ... Aug. 12. 9. Vine (J.) ................ July 9. 29. C. K elleway ................... Aug. 13. 10. H obbs (J. B .) ............... July 13. 30. H . W . Taylor ... ... Aug. 15. 11. W oolley (F. E .) ... July 13. 31. P. A. Perrin ........Aug. 15. 12. Hum phreys (B .) ... July 17. 32. G. A. Faulkner ... Aug. 16. 13. Hearne (J. W .) ... July 18. 33. R elf (A. E.) ... ... Aug. 16. 14. A. C. Johnston ... July 20. 34. Stone (J.) .................. Aug. 16. 15. W ilson (B. B.) ... July 22. 35. Quaife (W . G .)................... Aug. 16. lfi. H ayward (T. W.) ... July 24. 36. K ing (J. H.) .................. Aug. 19. 17. A. D. N o u r s e ............... July 25. 37. H . L. S im m s .........Sept. 2. 18. Tarrant (F. A .) ... July 25. 38. L. J. Tancred ... .. Sept. 5. 19. Capt. E. I. M. Barrett July 25. 39. S. E. G regory ........Sept. 10. 50. Sharp (J.) ................ July 26. 40. C. B. Jennings ... Sept. 11 T h is list in clu d e s 9 E n g lis h a m a te u rs, 22 p r o fe ss io n a ls , 5 A u s tra ­ lia n s , a n d 4 S o u th A fric a n s . W . B a rd sle y (A u g . 16) w as th e first to re a ch 2 ,0 0 0 , fo llo w e d b y D e n to n (A u g . 2 7 ), C . G . M a ca rtn e y (S e p t. 1 0 ), a n d H o b b s (S e p t. 14). Of the 21 bowlers who qualified for the hundred wickets list last year as m any as 10 fail to do so this. The 23 of 1912 are made up of 11 who were included in the list in 1911, 9 newcomers to it— S. J. Pegler, G. A. Faulkner, W . J. W hitty, G. R. H azlitt, W . T. Greswell, H . L . Simm s, Booth, Kennedy, and King— and 3 men (S. G. Smith, Haigh, and W oolley) who have qualified before, but did not reach the mark last year. T he T akers o f 100 W ickets in 1912. Order. Bowler. Date. Order. Bowler. Dale. 1. S. J. Pegler .............. July 9. 13. W oolley (F. E.) ... Aug. 12. 2. Dean (H .) ................ July 12. 14. Tarrant (F. A.) ... Aug. 12. 3. Blythe (C.) ................ July 12. 15. Wass (T.) ................. Aug. 16. 4. Thom pson (G. J.) ... July 15. 16. H irst (G .H .).................. Aug. 28. 5. Haigh (S.) ................ July 17. 17. W. J. W h itty .................. Aug. 28. 6. W. T. Greswell ... July 20. 18. Sm ith ( W. C. ) ... Aug. 31. 7. K ennedy (A .)................ July 27. 19. Booth (M. W .) ... Sept. 2. 8. G. A. Faulkner ... Aug. 3. 20. H itch (J. W.).................. Sept. 4. 9. Dennett (G. E.) ... Aug. 5. 21. H. L. S im m s.................. Sept. 10. 10. F. R. Foster .............. Aug. 5. 22. G. R . H azlitt... .... Sept. 13. 11. King (J. H . ) ............... Aug. 8. 23. S. G. S m it h .................. Sept. 13. 12. R elf (A .E .) ............ Aug. 9. Of those who drop out, the fast bowlers naturally slumped most markedly. Thus Buckenham fell from 134 to 54, Fielder (not playing regularly, however) from 119 to 34, Shipman (kept out for some weeks by an injury) from 110 to 30, Field from 146 to 58. Cuffe dropped from 110 to 57, Rhodes from 117 to 53. The differences were less marked in the cases of Rushby (132 and 93), Irem onger (101 and 95), J. T. Hearne (122 and 77) and J. W . H earne (102 and 80). In such a season marked advances in batting ability were scarcely to be expected. But there were a few. John Douglas and A. H. H ornby were probably better batsmen than ever b efore; and A. C. Johnston and Captain Barrett, who each had a great season, were certainly so. W hen one comes to consider the bowlers, Kennedy is the first man whose name occurs. I leave out of account the C olonials ; but of them only Pegler astonished us m uch. T he others who were good were not better than we expected them to be. The young Hants professional made a tremendous advance— from 51 wickets at over 30 each to 139 at under 18. Something beyond the softer wickets must have gone to this. It is to be hoped that he will maintain his form , and not fall away after one great season, as Newman so unfortunately did. Sydney Smith, whose bowling seemed almost to have deserted him in 1911, was better than ever. So was John King, who seems to have developed additional spin and cleverness at an age when such attributes do not usually increase. George Cox has lost tbe ball that went with his arm, he says ; but the wickets often suited him quite nicely, and he did plenty of good work. Of H . L . Simms and W . T. Greswell m ore will be said in the next issue. Astill, without quite redeeming his prom ise of a few years since, was far better than in 1911. E. L. Kidd improved, or at least did more bowling with better results; he was probably better last year than most people thought him . Am oug tho men who dropped out of tbe list entirely were K. G. MacLeod, J. R. Mason, C. L . A. Sm ith, P. R . Le Couteur,