Cricket 1912

576 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. Nov 16, 1912 every one will be again available in 1913, the side, with the new talent com ing along, should render an even better account of itself, i OLD W H IT G IF T IA N S C.C. : 1912. Played, 18; won, 8 ; lost, 7 ; drew, 3. Bannerman, W. Barley, W. H. Benton, F. ... Bowater, R. V. Ellis, G. A. ... Groom, H. T. Groom, W. ... Hackney, W. D. Harman, W\... Henman, C. H. R. Newcomb, A. G. Pegg, C. Pentelow, G. N. : Randolph, H. B. Sandell, A. E. Warner, H. J. Also batted (in fewer than 4 inns.) :■ — Benton, S. J., 2 innings-0 not out-15 runs; Corke, G. H., 3-0-8 ; Exelby, C. R ., 1-0-0 ; Exelby, W. N., 2-1-0 ; Hawkes, H. K., 2-0-5 ; Lovelock, C. P., 2-1-5 : McNair, L. J., 1-0-0 ; Pearce, G. O., 1-1-0 ; Rowland, G. L., 1-0-12 ; Unwin, P. T. F., 1-0-30. Also bowled :— Corke, G. H., 7 overs-33 runs-1 wicket. R. V. Bowater made 103 v. Spencer, W. Inns. ] B atting . S.O. R. A. H.S. O. B owling . R. W. A. 5. 14 3 152 13*82 31 . 149-1 475 36 13*19 .. 7 2 54 10*80 21* .. — — — — .. 6 2 17 4*25 15* .. — — — — .. 16 0 521 32-56 103 .. 173-3 530 50 10*60 .. 17 0 275 16*18 82 4 24 1 24-00 .. 7 1 83 13-83 42 25 88 5 17*60 5 0 7 1-40 6 — — — — .. 10 1 397 44-11 101 ,. 135*2 429 37 11*59 5 1 36 9-00 21 3 19 0 — 4 0 7 1-75 4 — — — — .. 14 i 378 37-80 69 — — — — .. 15 0 266 17-73 50 97 272 21 12*95 1. 4 1 20 6-06 14* .. — — — — 6 1 24 4-80 16 — • — — — .. 15 0 195 13-00 29 .. 25 97 7 13*85 .. 14 3 218 19-82 57 . 110 374 26 14*38 D. Slough, though some of their best men— notably, E. H . D. Sewell, H. Field, and L. M cCoy H ill— have turned out very infrequently — did well, with three victories to offset each loss. T. R . Kent, who has splendid batting figures, D r. E. W eaver Adam s, who not only scored more runs than anybody except K ent, but whose lobs also accounted for more than twice as m any wickets as any other bowler took, and W illiam Adam s, who made his first appearance for the county during the season, were towers of strength ; m any others *did well playing only occasionally ; and substantial assistance was given by a little group of fairly regular players— O. P. H orlick, W . E. Baker, F. E. B utt, and G. D ew ley— who were worth more to the side than their figures m ay convey. H orlick had no luck at all. H e, Baker and D ew ley were am ong the best fieldsmen on the side ; and the Slough fielding generally was better in 1912 than in 1911. K ent scored tw o centuries, Leat, D r. W eaver A dam s, W . Adam s, and M cCoy H ill one each. B y the way, the Slough, Eton and Windsor Observer of October 5 published an article dealing with the club’s season which was absolutely the best of its kind I have ever seen in any local paper. SLOUGH C.C. : 1912. Played , 29 ; won, 15 ; lost, 5 ; drew, 9. B atting . B owling . Inns. N.O . R. A. H.S. O. R. W. A. Adams, A. J. 3 1 2 0-66 2* — — — — Adams, E. Weaver ... 21 2 822 43-27 114 ... 187*2 679 61 11*13 Adams, Win. ... 17 2 446 29-73 102* 43 135 5 27*00 Baker, W. E. ... 13 4 122 13*55 33 2 4 1 4-00 Butt, F. E. ... ... 14 3 134 12-18 50* — — — — Clarke, T. 4 0 16 4-00 12 5 14 1 14-00 Dewley, G. ... ... 14 0 199 14-21 42 ... 101 295 ie 18-43 Eliot, Rev. 1'. H. 4 0 11 2*75 6 — — — — Fisher, G. ... 6 4 57 28-50 18* 16 71 2 35*50 Gooderson, W. 6 1 52 10-40 33 74*4 237 15 15*80 Gregory, D. ... Outerbock, S. 6 0 89 14*83 40 — — — — 6 2 21 5-25 13 78 240 15 16-00 Hill, L. McCoy 3 0 137 45-66 122 40 125 11 11*36 Hogarth, H. G. 4 0 65 16-25 53 — — — — Horlick, O. P. ... 21 3 246 13-66 42* ... 131*2 405 22 18-40 Kent, T. R. ... ... 18 1 876 51*52 200* 22 91 ~1 91*00 Leat, E. J. ... 9 1 355 44-37 111 !" 67 244 11 22 18 Lc Gros, P. W. 3 0 84 28-00 61 32 101 8 12-62 Martin, G. ... 4 1 4 1*33 4* 34 145 5 29*00 Ross, N. D. C. Southall, E ... 7 2 121 24*20 43 1 0 1 — 9 2 148 21-14 47* 74 227 22 10-31- Staines, L. G. 8 2 137 22*83 47 1 2 — — Taviner, S. R. 4 3 35 35-00 18* 5 20 0 — Walter, M. L. 9 4 57 11-40 11* 16-2 49 8 6*12 Wilder, H. W. 4 2 52 26-00 25* 43-1 153 6 25-50 Wilmot, T. P. 9 2 115 16-43 29 10 20 1 20-00 Wood, C. H. 4 1 80 26-66 44 33 104 3 34-66 Also batted :— Benniiur, W ., scores 5 and 7 ; Beresford, Hon. S. R., 14 and 0 ; Field, D. H., 42 ; Fraser, I*. S., 12 and 80 ; Gallop, P. R., 7 ; Glanfleld, E. B., 2 ; Marshall, A. S., 0 ; Proctor, A. W ., 2 and 8* ; Proctor, F., 6d ; Sewell, E. H. 1)., 13 ; Smith, E., 2* ; Steadman, P. G., 19* ; Wright, M., 5 and 6. Also bowled: —Fraser, 1*. S., 13 overs-45 runs-4 wickets; Glanfleld, E. B., 6-9-0 ; Proctor, A. W., 27-103-2 ; Sewell, E. H. D., 6-21-1 ; Wright, M., 37-85-5. Ipsw ich and East Suffolk had a good season, the club’s total results being 23 matches won to 13 lost, 7 of the 13 losses being sus­ tained by the second and third X I. s. H. A . Busher, the old Barnes player, did great things ; and F. L. Titchmarsh, who had no luck at all for the county, batted so consistently for the club that he had an average of 28 with a highest score of only 53. H e and W . Sprawson, who headed the batting averages, were also very useful with the b a ll; but Busher, Waters, and V. F. Gaby were the chief wicket-takers, the pro. bowling in very deadly form. IP SW ICH AN D EAST SU F F O L K C.C. : 1912. First X I .: played, 17 ; won, 10 ; lost, 4 ; drew, 3. All elevens played 47 ; won, 23 ; lost, 13 ; drew, 11. Battersby, T. E. M. Bury, E. S. D. Busher, H. A. Catchpole, C. Catchpole, W. Cornell, P. P. Day, W. H................. Driver, P. S. Egerton, J. R. Forrest, J. ... Gaby, V. F. Henley, H. C. Hornby, G. P. Hoyland, Dr. S. S. .. Mayhew, K. S. Mellonie, L. W. Mortimer, O. Paterson, A. W. Patmore, H. W. Penstone, E. G. Quinton, P. J. Ridgway, C. R. Sharp, T. G................ Smith, G. J. Snowden, A. J. Sprawson, W. Steam, E. S. Titchmarsh, F. L. .. Trew, S. T.................. Vernon, J. T. Waters ( F .) .............. Wilkinson, J. L. Wilson, T. W. E. .. Gloucester City only won one more m atch than they lost, which is but a moderate record for so strong a side ; but the fact that they seored 3,464 runs for 199 wickets (average 17*4) against 3*099 for 227 (average 13*6) scored by their opponents gives the impression that their results scarcely do justice to their form . T. A. Truman and Paish did great all-round work for the side, scoring between them over 1000 runs and taking 165 wickets, no one else approaching their figures in either department. B atting . Inns. N.O. R. A. H.S. O. B owling . R. W. A. 5 0 127 25-40 56 28 78 3 26-00 . 17 3 109 7-78 27 — — — . ___ . 24 3 863 41-09 101* ... 185 662 61 10*85 . 7 1 220 36-66 87 — — — . 7 1 203 33-83 85* .. — — — — . 11 3 152 19-00 46 — — — ___ 6 1 47 9-40 15 — — — ___ 9 2 164 23-42 72 ... 68 258 18 14-33 6 0 103 17-16 41 — — — ___ . 23 3 349 17*45 57* .. — — — ___ . 11 1 224 22*40 46 231 775 45 17*2*2 . 8 1 140 20-00 35* .. 104 341 23 14*82 . 12 0 177 14*75 46 — — — ___ 6 1 36 7*20 19 — — — — . 7 0 33 4*71 17 70 219 19 11*52 . 8 2 41 6-83 15 — — — — 22 2 333 16-65 72 .. — — — ___ ! ~8 0 120 15-00 56 — — — — . 17 6 273 24-81 65* .. — — — — . 10 1 212 23*55 93* .. 73 232 10 23*20 5 1 15 3*75 8 47 131 10 13*10 . 9 0 116 12*88 36 .. — — — — . 14 0 357 25*50 78 52 208 8 26-00 . 10 1 118 13*11 35 — — — — 6 0 94 15-66 36 .. 38 155 5 31-00 . 10 2 343 42-87 105* ... 126 360 35 10*28 . 13 I 117 9-75 40 — — — — . 21 1 560 28-00 53 131 395 28 14*10 . 12 1 165 15-00 46 .. — — — — 9 3 75 12-50 20* .. — — — — 9 5 66 16*50 22* 328 694 73 9*50 . 10 1 96 10*66 29 ” 34 142 7 20-28 6 2 71 17-75 31 — — — — G LOUCESTER Played, 21; won, C IT Y C.C. : 1912. 10 ; lost, 9 ; drew, 2. Inns. N. B atting . O. R. A. H.S. O. B owling . R. W. A. 7 2 19 3-80 11* .. — 32 3 10-66 5 1 45 11-25 15 — 57 0 — 4 0 27 6-75 11 — — — . — 16 0 166 10-37 36 . 139*1 392 21 18-61 6 1 87 17-40 50 — — — — 9 2 79 11-28 24* .. — — — — 14 2 138 11-50 35* .. — 23 1 23*03 11 1 163 16-30 59* .. — 103 3 34-33 11 0 99 9-00 30 — 67 1 67*00 4 0 92 23-00 33 — — — — 21 2 487 25-63 76* .. . 434-1 1197 103 11-62 16 0 130 8-12 32 — 22 2 11-00 16 2 276 19-70 53* .. — 142 6 23-66 5 0 11 2*20 7 — — — — 15 2 266 20-46 85* .. — 30 0 — . 13 5 69 8-62 21* .. — — — — 5 0 9 1-80 8 — 11 1 11-00 10 3 124 17-71 60* .. — 86 3 28-66 13 1 547 45-58 200 . 177*4 572 62 9-22 Crees, Dr. Ford, l\ H. ... Fox, F. N. ... Freeman, W. Godsell, R. T. Harvey, E. ... Hayden, Rev. O. E. Havward, F. W. Holder, R. ... Kent, A. E. ... Paish Peckover, L. H. Romans, G. ... Rust, F. Rust, T. Seabrook, Rev. J. H. Sumner, L. R. Timms Truman, T. A. Also batted : — Banner, W., 1 innings-1 not out-0 runs ; Bradner, J. G., 3-0-11 Burns, T., 1-0-11 ; Chance, L., 3-0-10 ; Chance, P. M., 1-0-0 ; Davy, E. F., 2-0-1 Dennett, 1-0-6; Dixon, C. M., 1-0-6; Hill, J., 3-0-1 ; Kendall, H. A., 1-0-5 Mills, 1-0-26 ; Rivers, A., 1-0-6 ; Sessions, A. Blair, 2-0-83 ; Sumner, G., 2-0-0 : Tate, J., 1-0-41 ; Taylor, S., 2-0-9. Also bowled: — Burns, T., 12 runs-0 wicket; Dennett, 58-6 ; Hill, J., 46-1 ; Kendall, H. A., 21-2 ; Mills, 63-4 ; Shaw, C. E., 8-0. The Saturday A team played 16, winning 6, losing 5, and draw­ ing 5. W . Banner— 229 runs in 15 innings, 1 not out, average 16*35— was their leading batsman. F. Dee took 31 wickets at 10*38 each. The Thursday team played 12 matches, won 8, lost 2, and drew 2. They totalled 1,613 runs for 86 wickets (average 18*7), while their opponents scored only 1,129 for 134 (average 8*4). Their best batsmen were : F. R ust, 182 runs in 7 innings, 1 not out— average 30*33. W . E. Humphries, 193 in 10 innings, 2 not out— average 24*12. H. Rivers, 140 in 10 innings, 3 not out— average 20*00. L. G. Smith, 97 in 8 innings, 3 not out— average 19*40. T. A. Truman played in 3 innings (1 not out) and aggregated ; E. R ust in 3 for 70 ; and R . Holder in 5 (1 not out) for 90. J. L. W oolley (27 wickets at 9 2 2 each) and H. A . K endall (21 at 4*90) were the chief bowlers. E. R ust took 14 wickets for 75, L. R . Summer 10 for 98, P. M. Chance 9 for 24, R . H older 8 for 67, W . E. Humphries 7 for 8, F. J. R ust 6 for 75, and H . R ivers 5 for 42. 139