Cricket 1912

546 CEICKET : A WEEKLY EECOED OF THE GAME. O ct . 12, 1912. Batsman Inns. N.o R. A. H.S. C. P. H urditch (Tw ickenham ) 17 1 571 35-68 178* J. H . A. Tolkien (Ealing) ................ 28 7 738 3514 110* E. C. Porter (Ilford) .............................. 28 5 620 34*44 94 H . E. Barham (Barnes) ................ 16 4 380 31-66 79* L. G. K irkpatrick (H am pstead N om .) 24 3 663 31-57 112 P. W . Badge (G .W .R .).............................. 17 1 502 31-37 102* W . E. H obbs (N orbury P. W .) 15 3 375 31*25 105 E. H aw kes (Lessness Park) ................ 15 1 412 29-29 69* L. D ixon (B eddington)............................. 22 1 572 27-25 120 A . Em bleton (Stanley).............................. 12 0 325 27-08 79 A . H . Read (Lond. S co ttish )................ 16 1 401 26-73 88 G. S. Cole (Arl. and L eytonstone) ... 11 2 235 26-11 48 L. Coldw ell (A . & F. B a rn et)................ 18 0 457 25-38 69 H. 0 . Jones (Lauderdale) ................ 17 2 380 25*33 78 J. C. F. Mathiesen (B e u la h )................ 23 1 549 24-55 77 E. Sims (W altham stow) ................ 23 1 526 23 90 81 F. B ontoft (Manor P k. C o n .)................ 8 1 164 23-42 88 Bowler. Runs. W ickets. Aver. G. M. Louden (Ilford) 742 109 6*80 W . Keay (Beddington) ........................... 643 92 6-98 T. B uxton (A. & F. B . ) ........................... 443 62 7*14 S. M anchee (Beulah) ................ 414 54 7 66 F. Chart (M anor Park Const.) ... 383 46 8-32 L. D ocker (Tw ickenham ) 667 79 8*44 F. C. Buckeridge (R. P. H ouse)... 431 51 8-45 F. C. Boully (H am pstead Nom .) 519 61 8-50 E. F. Arnold (Lauderdale) 692 75 8-93 W . R. M orris ( G .W .R .) ........................... 165 17 9-71 W. Ruffels (Arl. & Leytonstone) 495 50 9-90 H. J. Mayes (B e c k t o n )........................... 584 56 10-42 H . W. W eston (Walham Green) 664 59 11-25 F. M. Barton (S p e n ce r )................ 997 88 11-3*2 E . H ogg (Lond. Scottish) 555 48 11-56 D. E. Lewis (Shepherd’s Bush)... 682 58 11-75 T. D. Robinson (W altham stow) 503 40 12-59 D. R. Osborne (Ealing) ................ 1326 103 12-87 R. T. Childs (Derrick W and.) ... 695 51 13-62 L. W indsor (Finchley East) 755 54 13-98 F. C. M ercier (Hampstead) 717 50 14-34 E . F. Upton (Lessness Park) ... 551 37 14*89 R. M. Bell (Sutton) ................ 1767 115 15-36 The Second=Class Season of 1912 . B y T h e E d it o r . Into the rights and wrongs of the Norfolk-Staffordshire con ­ troversy I shall not enter h ere; but it was certainly a pity that the two unbeaten sides of the season in the Second-Class Championship did not meet. Carmarthenshire dropped out of the com petition, after a plucky effort to keep their end up, and the contestants were thus reduced by one. There m ay be accessions before long. Cumberland seems to be feeling its way, and there is talk of a revival in Oxfordshire. In 1913, as in 1912, there will be no divisions, and each county will play the counties it chooses to play— or those it can get to meet it, which is not precisely the same thing. Taking the sides in alphabetical order, one com es first to B e d fo r d s h ir e , who, occupying the last place but two, seem to me to be below several sides by no means essentially superior to them . But Beds were weak in bowling. If A. F. M orcom could have played regularly they wojild no doubt have done m uch better. Their batting was quite up to the general average. Next year, I hear, they will have to do without H . K. Orr— a heavy loss. B e r k s h ir e were badly below par. E xcept for G . G. M. Bennett their best bats quite failed to get going, and, though Hawksworth did one fine feat, their bowling was not nearly as strong as in 1911 There is hope for the future in J. E . Denning and one or two others, and it would not be surprising to find the side figuring high up next year. B u c k in g h a m s h ir e did better than ever before. Two of their m atches were wiped out by rain ; they only lost one game outright, and that narrowly and unexpectedly. The presence of E . H . D . Sewell m ade a great deal of difference to the side, m ore possibly even than his play, though he was quite the all-round man of the team. Most of the players are young, and should do even better in the future. P. L . Frith came on greatly; he is a really good and reliable bat, and a fine field anywhere. W . B . Franklin is in the first flight of amateur wicket-keepers. H e took m ore than 80 per cent, of his chances for the county. W ith a little added strength in the bowling, Bucks m ight make any second-class side go all the way, and one hopes they will have a stiffer programme next season. C a m b r id g e s h ir e were not strong in any department, though I think their figures scarcely do justice to their potential batting ability. The absence of A. S. L ing from several matches was a big drawback. The Brentford footballer and Boston Park cricketer is a comm ercial traveller now, and has less time than form erly for the gam e. Coulson worked very hard as a bowler. C h e s h ir e had not a single success, in spite of W alter Brearley’s help. But in course of time matters should improve. There is a lot of good cricket in the county, and if only the best men could play regularly the side should not figure at the foot of the list again. C o r n w a ll have never done as well before. Eighth place is high for the Duchy. T he team has a longish ta il; but W . N . Bickford-Sm ith, Trevarthen and Vibart batted well— as did H . Tresawna, though his figures are not equal to theirs— and W hiting bowled with great effectiveness. D e v o n s h ir e divide the eighth place with their neighbours, yet were probably a far stronger side. There can be no doubt as to their being stronger in b atting; F. Hargrave Carroll, W . F. Sturt, E. Knight, M. Conde- W illiam s, Light and others were all good run-getters. W . W reford, the Neasden man, bowled most effectively, too, as did M . E . Fishwick and Light. Though D o r s e t s h ir e did n ot win a m atch outright, they figure above seven other sides. They had no great out-standing p layer; but C. J. B. W ebb and A. M. H arrison did good work with bat and ball, and W alby bowled better than he had ever done before. On the other hand, the E ev.W . H. Arundell, probably the side’s best bat, was not very successful; and F . A. S. Sewell and the captain, C. P. Goodden, did not get half the runs they ought to be worth. D u rh a m , under C. Y. Adam son, were a strong side. There are plenty of batsmen, though T. A . Bradford was not always available; and a bowler of Morris’s calibre is alm ost enough to make a m inor county. Am ong the teams which did less well than custom arily was G la m o rg a n . Norman Eiches batted consistently w e ll; it was not to be expected that in such a season he should equal his great figures of 1911. T. A. L . W hittington, absent from several m atches, did not show at his best, nor did B an croft; E .E . Sweet-Escott was never, and Eeggie Gibbs seldom , available. T he bowling was good ; Creber, H acker, and Maxwell are a more than useful trio. H e r t f o r d s h i r e had one of the best-balanced sides in the com petition— plenty of batting, with C. H . Titchmarsh as the crack, and other capable exponents to support h im ; and a really good bowling string in Burton, Shelford, Coleman, and W . H . Marsh. One would like to see H erts playing Staffordshire, Durham and Berks, as well as N orfolk and Bucks. K e n t II. were a good side on the w h ole; but there were too many changes in the team, and it had usually a long and weak tail. Collins, Jennings, L . H . W . Troughton, Preston, and Morfee are all good enough for first-class cricket, and have of course figured there­ in on occasion. L in c o ln s h ir e , weak as usual in batting (the weaker because the slow wickets did not at all suit W . E . Thom pson, their captain and normally their heaviest scorer) m ade up for this to som e extent by their attack, and attained to a respectable place. T h ey lose Day, who goes to the North Staffs. League, next year ; and they will find it difficult to replace him . M o n m o u th s h ir e had a rank bad season. Of the Phillips brotherhood only N. C. could get into batting form , and he was not consistent; F . G. and E . S. were terribly disappoint­ ing. Silverlock, doing better than anyone else, yet did not com e up to his old standard; and not m uch can be said for the other pros, played. In W . P. Geen, the famous Bugger man, the county has a good wicket-keeper. One may be tempted to discount N o r f o l k ’s record unduly on account of the weakness of som e of tbe sides played. But Norfolk had a capital team. The captain, M . Falcon, was in great all-round form ; and Falconer (who did big things), G ibson, and W atson gave him such efficient support in the bowling that it was always hard work to score against the East Anglian side. Geoffrey Stevens did not have a great season, and neither B . W . Thurgar nor C. J. H . Treglown has com e on quite as m uch as was hoped ; but G. W . Birkbeck has improved imm ensely, and is one of the side's mainstays. After Surrey II. and Herts, N o r t h u m b e r la n d have the highest battiDg average of the whole twenty ; but N orthumberland chanced to play m ost of their matches on wickets that were m ore conducive to scoring than those prevalent in August, when the m ajority of the sides had the bulk of their matches to get through. F . W . Gillespie was only able to play in a couple of gam es; but S. P. Bell, the new skipper, played regularly, and he, W . W . M eldon, C. F . Stanger-Leathes, Norbury, W ingham , M ilne, and E ichardson formed quite a band of capable batsm en; while Milne and C. M. Skinner, assisted by Norbury and W ingham , were real efficients in the bowling line. S t a ffo r d s h i r e , for the first time, were never beaten, and indeed never looked like being beaten. W ith a fine array of batsmen, Percy Briggs the best of them , perhaps the very greatest bowler of the day in Barnes, and other capital trundlers in W ilson (who will be gone next year, however), Deyes, N ichols, and Bucknell, the side is one that would do itself credit in first-class company, if only its lead­ ing amateurs could spare the necessary tim e— which, unfortunately they cannot. Gates at Stoke are not good enough, either. It is a pity but one must not blame those who run the club for looking well before they leap. S u f f o l k could do nothing right. They had not a team