Cricket 1912

Nov. 16, 1912. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 575 Lauderdale C . C . : 19 12. Back row (left to riqht): A. Lewin (Umpire), A. E. W icks, S. H odge, A. R. E. W ren, C. Lewin, A. Hayf.s (Scorer). Middle row : A. J. A rn old, H. O. Jones, G. R. C'rofts (Capt.), T. Sales, E. F. A rnold. Front row: P. C. Sheen, J. Bradshaw, A. Gage. Club Cricket Notes and Jottings. Lauderdale had a fairly good season, winning more matches than they lost. The batting figures show a big falling-off from 1911 ; but the character of the season accounts for that. H. 0 . Jones was quite the crack bat of the side, as E. F. Arnold was its best all-rounder, his bowling figures being particularly good. T. Sales made a good m any runs, and A. E. W icks, C. Lewin, and A. K . W ilbraham bowled with success. Three matches were lost by such narrow margins as one run, 8 runs and 15 runs ; and in the last case a Lauderdale man, lent as a substitute, scored 17 for the opposing side, which was rather hard lines, but all in the game, of course. L A U D E R D A L E C.C. : 1912. Played, 25 ; won, 12 ; lost, 10 ; drawn, 3. Seven matches were abandoned. B atting . B owling . Inns. N.O. R. A. H.S. O. R. w, A. Allison, H. W. 6 0 82 13-66 32 36 124 13 9-53 Armstrong, E .H. 8 0 59 7-37 20 — — — — Arnold, A. J. ... ... 20 1 196 10-31 28 29 107 8 13-37 Arnold, E. F. ... 22 2 360 18-00 112* ... 268 692 75 8-93 Cohen, M. 8 1 38 5-42 21* — — — — Crofts, G. R. ... ... 20 4 185 11-56 46 27 127 6 21-16 Drew, G. F. ... 18 1 189 11-11 54 ... 117 351 21 16-72 Gage, A. E. ... 14 4 50 5-00 16* — — — — Jones, H. O. ... ... 17 2 380 25-33 78 — — — — Jenkins, W. F. 5 0 45 9-00 17 — — — — Lewin, C. ... 10 2 77 9-62 34 ... 170 548 39 14-05 Rowntree, E. A. ... 14 2 87 7-25 26 — — — — Sales, T. ... 26 1 375 15-00 91 — — — — Saunders, H. S. 7 0 54 7-85 19 29 94 6 15-66 Sheen, P. C. ... 14 1 65 5-00 17 — — — — Shepherd, F. ... 6 0 36 6-00 17 — — — — Wicks, A. E. ... ... 14 5 64 7-11 20* ... 163 415 41 10-12 Wilbraham, A. K. 4 0 4 1-00 3 69 220 26 8-46 Wren, A. R. E. 5 1 29 7-25 18 — — — Also batted -Archer, 0., 3 innings-0 not out-16 runs : Bass, P. E., S2-0-8 ; Beedell, C., 1-0-0 ; Hyde, A., 4-0-27. Also bowled Bell, H. S., -Beedcll, C 2-0-37 ; Bradshaw, J., 2-0-26 ; Hodge, . E., 22 overs-73 runs-9 wickets. S., 2-•0-31 ; The Old Whitgiftians can look back upon the season with gratification, not only on account of playing results, but also because the future of the club has been made secure. For twenty-six years they have been a wandering club ; now a ground has been obtained, , and that means much. O.W .s who have just left school will have | every inducement to join the club, and some of those who have drifted into other clubs should com e back. The first X I. in 1912 began badly and finished badly, yet had quite a decent record, and throughout there was such genuine keenness as augurs splendidly for the com ing years. The eight matches won were against Cyphers, Catford, Ewell, G uy’s H ospital, W hite H ouse, Spencer, Purley and A m p th ill; the seven defeats were at the hands of Beddington, Caterham, Purley, Sutton, H. A. C., L.C. and W . Bank, and Croydon. The drawn games were with Old Olavians, Teddington, and Cyphers, and two of the three were very distinctly in the O .W .s’ favour. New Becken­ ham scratched, and rain prevented play in the matches with W im ble­ don, Private Banks, and Forest Hill. The best performances were undoubtedly those against Spencer (O .W .s, 282 for 9, dec. ; Spencer, 62), W hite House (W .H ., 172; O.W .s, 200), Catford (O .W .s, 200 for 8, dec. ; Catford, 114), and Purley, return (O.W .s, 247 for 4, d ec.; Purley, 147) ; but so generally good was the form shown in June and July, when only Sutton lowered the team ’s colours, that the indiffer­ ent start and finish of the campaign appear inexplicable. W . D. H ackney heads the batting; up at O xford, he is not always available, but his brilliant batting has been a great asset when he has played. R. V. Bowater and A. G. N ewcom b, both improving immensely on last year’s form , have done splendidly. The form er has modified his rashness, and this has made a lot o f difference. N ew com b was wonderfully consistent ; he only topped 50 once, yet has an average of just on 38. H. .J. Warner did well towards the end ; but Carter Pegg and G. A. Ellis, though they had their days, did not live up to their last year’s reputations. W . B. Bannerman, A. E. Sandell, and W „ H. Barley were all useful on occasion, and H. T. Groom, though not playing regularly, was of great assistance when he did turn out. Bowater, Hackney, Pegg, Bannerman, and W arner bore the brunt of the bowling. The first-named was not suited by the wickets ; it was anything but a fast bowler’s season. H e did finely, but does not seem to keep his length and pace quite as well as of old. H ackney has a perplexing swerve, puts brains into his work, and should be really first-class when he has overcom e his evident distaste for punishment. Bannerman and Pegg have been brilliant on occa­ sion. Bannerman's 8 for 26 (including the hat trick) v. Spencer was quite the feat of the season. If W arner has not done quite so well with the ball, his improvem ent in batting has made amends for this. Ellis captained the team ably throughout. As it seems likely that