Cricket 1913

286 CRlClvET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. Jun e 14, 1913. Northamptonshire Notabilities. I d o not mind confessing that I was one o f those who scarcely expected Northamptonshire to maintain in 1913 their high standard o f 1912. T h e East M idland team has no star o f the first m agn itude; and we have got into the way o f depreciating a team without stars, perhaps. Y et Northants has a rare workmanlike eleven, with sea­ soned players who are yet not veterans, and young players o f whom the best has not yet been seen ; and the side’s form this season has in general been first-rate. They failed against K en t, it is true, and they lost to Surrey at Northampton. But a good victory over Leicestershire and capital wins over Lancashire and Warw ickshire make amends for these failures. A s I write the Essex game is still undecided; but if the M idlanders win it they will have four outright victories to set against two such defeats and a first innings’ beating. Never mind about the p o in ts; the results are good enough to be going on with. T h e two worthy professionals whose portraits appear on the first page are Northamptonshire men by every tie. E ast was born at the county town on August 29, 1876, W ells at Daventry on March 14, 1881. E ast came into the team quite young, and kept his place from the first. W ells hovered on the fringe fo r some time. Both are fastish bowlers, W ells the faster o f the two. Neither is nearly as fast a bowler as B rearley is or as Tom Richardson was. Both lack that extra bit o f pace which makes so much difference. But W ells at least is a good deal above fast medium when putting in all he knows. Both are useful batsmen. Neither is a great one. E ast is good enough to go in first; he is sound, solid, stolid— almost too stolid at times. But his defence has often been o f great value. T h e place o f W ells is among the tail. Yet he does not look like a tail-end batsman when he gets going. T h at clean, powerful late cut o f his is a rare accomplishment among the rank and file. H e scores much faster than East, but is less consistent. Seen from the ring they are not unlike. Wells is, I believe, the taller m a n ; but both are big fellow s. They are strongly-made as well as tall— true m idland yeomen. What a pity it is that there is nowhere any complete record o f second-class county c r ic k e t! Even the files o f the sporting dailies are drawn blank in the case o f some matches, and a file o f the Sportsman or the Sporting L ife is a cumbrous, unw ieldy thing. Wisden only gives the averages; not even these fo r the first year in which E ast appeared for the county— 1895. But these are in Lillywhite. I believe he only played in a couple o f matches th en ; his figures were quite modest, anyway. But in the next season, without performing sensationally, he proved his value all round, averaged 13 with a highest o f 63 not out, and took 25 wickets at under 19 each. H is batting figures in 1897 were only a little under 20, but his wickets were more expensive. It was in 1898 that Northants first began to come to the front, bracketed second with Berks in the Minor Counties’ Cham pionship; but E ast had little to do w ith the improvement. That was a lean year fo r him. F a r otherwise was it in 1899, when, thanks partly to half-a-dozen not outs, he headed the county’s batting averages, with well over 40 per innings, and took 32 wickets at a trifle over 21 each. In 1900, when the side was very strong indeed in batting and again went through the season undefeated, 24.44 Per innings only served to give him seventh place ; but his bowling was far more effective— 53 wickets at 16.49 each. Also he made his first century for the county. H e fell away in batting in 19 0 1; but his 62 wickets cost under 19 each, and he and Thompson did nearly all the bowling. Northumberland made 485 v. Northants at Northampton; but no other side scored as many as 300 against these two, and to even up matters they dis­ missed the Northumbrians at Newcastle for 45 and 29. In 1902 E ast joined the ground staff at L o rd ’s. H is batting figures for his county (undefeated except for one match in which they lost on the first innings) that year were moderate; but-'his 44 wickets cost only 12.38 each. Thompson had 100 at 1 1 .1 1 ; no one else took as many as ten ! It was as a bowler that East did best work in 1903, too— 70 wickets at 10.51 each, Thompson taking 92 at 10.47. In 1904, when o f twelve matches in the championship Northants lost two in the first innings (by 35 and 38 runs respectively) and won the other ten outright, he averaged 24.25 per innings, highest score 108, and headed the bowling table with 85 wickets at 10.44 each. Thompson’s share was 99 at i t . 49. Again no one else took as many as ten. Then came promotion. In the county’s matches from 1895 to 1904 (if the figures in Wisden are inclusive o f all matches, but one can never feel quite sure o f that) East totalled 2,770 runs in 154 innings, 21 times not out, and averaged 20.82; he took 424 wickets for 6,720 runs, average 15.84. Since then he has been doing really good all-round work in higher circles. H is best score in 1905, when lumbago troubled him a good deal, causing him to stand down several times, was 83 v. H ants at Southampton; his best bit o f bowling was his 6 for 33 v. Derbyshire at Northampton, which had much to do with one o f the two victories gained by the side that year. In 1906 he only had one good match as a batsm an; then he scored 53 and- 33 v. Essex at Leyton. H e took as many as 81 wickets, including 7 for 22 v. Derbyshire (one innings) and 10 for 114 v. Worcestershire (two innings), both at Northampton. In 1907 he only once topped 2 5 ; this was v. Hants at Northampton, when his 81, a really fine innings, was fa t and away the highest score o f the game. E igh ty wickets at a trifle over 17 each fell to him ; he had 12 for 62 at Gloucester, and among his other analyses were such as 6 for 54 (in the same game in which he made his highest score, his all-round cricket being the main factor in his county’s victory), 6 for 91 v. Derbyshire, 5 for 70 v. Lancashire, and 5 for 77 v. K ent. In no innings in which he bowled more than 5 overs did he fa il to take a wicket. Scores o f 86 not out v. Lancashire at Northampton and 65 v. Essex at Leyton were his only efforts exceeding 50 in 1908. In the two matches v. Derbyshire he took 16 wickets for 157 runs, only bowling 4 overs in one o f the four innings. H e had 5 fo r 46 v. Warw ickshire at Northampton and did several other good performances'; but W ells was playing regularly now, and so less work in the attack fell upon him. In 1909 his only notable score was 63 v. Derbyshire at Northampton; quite his best bit o f bowling was 5 for 38 v. Hants at Southamp­ ton, which had much to do with his side’s victory by 5 wickets. Against Notts at Northampton in the follow ing season he made 90 in the two innings— -50 and 40— with-