Cricket 1913

September 20, 1913. C R I C K E T : A WE E K L Y RECORD OF THE GAME. The Second-Class Season of 1913 Compared with 1912, the season just ended was undoubtedly a better one for thesecond-class counties in general. The bulk of their matches always fall in late July and August, and they thus hadsome of the worst of the bad weather of last year. Then four matches were abandoned, and in six games there was no result even on the first innings. The full programme was one of 84 matches. This season saw the same number arranged; butnot one had to be given up, and only in two was there no result. Among the sides at the head of affairs last year, Norfolk, Stafford­ shire, Hertfordshire, Durham, and Northumberland were again well to the fore. Surrey II, Buckinghamshire, and Kent II. slumped badly. Glamorgan, Lincolnshire, Bedfordshire, and Cheshire rose appreciably in the table. The competitors were the same twenty, and the matches fixed up did not differ very much. Though the group system has been given up. there is a natural tendency for counties to arrange matches with near neighbours, thus lessening expenses somewhat. Dealing with the sides alphabetically, one comes first to B e d fo r d s h ir e . They had lost their veteran leader, H. R. Orr; but they had a good captain (and wicket-keeper) in the old Malvernian, E. E. Apthorp. Dr. Morcom played in only four matches, and Wharmby only in three; but F. W. H. Nicholas was a big addition to the batting strength, and W. E. King proved himself a capital all-round player. Hold- stock did good work as a batsman. H. Grierson was more frequently available, and a new professional in Ratcliff showed distinct promise. The best thing the side did was the defeat of Bucks, after a closure, at Hitchin; this was a real sporting match, and showed Apthorp and his men at their best. B e r k s h ir e did far better than in 1912. They had the invaluable help of Captain L. P. Collins, home on leave from India; but Bruce Lockhart was lost to them. The side made plenty of runs, G. G. M. Bennett, Dr. Woodburn, T. P. Norris, Sir Charles Nepean, Bailey, and others giving Collins excellent support. Hawksworth and Wood­ burn did most of the bowling, and did it well; perhaps the Bucks match at Marlow might have been won had the former not been absent owingto injury. He took wickets in every innings : 8, 7, 6, 6, 6, 4, 4, 3, 2, 2, and 1 giving him a bag of 49 in11 innings. Hawks­ worth is a veteran; but there are few better bowlers in second-class cricket, and he might have been helping his native county, Leicester­ shire years ago if only the authorities had not overlooked him. There seemed no reason why B u c k in g h a m s h ir e should not do well; but they never really got going till near the end of their campaign. Their best eleven is really strong. E. H. D. Sewell, who skippered them, played in half-a-dozen matches with a highest score of 32. Then, in the last three games on the card, he made three centuries. He did a lot of bowling, and among his analyses were 6 for 45. 6 for 121, s for 22, and 5 for 100; but the hard wickets made him far more expensive than last year. D. H. Field could only play in a couple of matches—a heavy loss; and neither P. W. Le Gros nor P L. Frith was quite as good as in 1912. On the other hand, W. B . Franklin came on greatly as a batsman, and kiept wicket finely; in S G. Fairbairn and D. R. Osborne two new bowlers of considerable ability were introduced; and the old Wellingburian, W. E. Hazelton, who only played once last year, showed in five matches this season that he is an all-round player of real ability. T. R. Kent, who did not play in 1912, topped the averages, andin five successive innings totalled 287 runs. The veteran, Matthew Wright, is still a very hefty man on a side; and the colt, D. A. D. Sewell, bids fair to prove a chip of the old block. The fielding generally was not up to last year’s standard, I gather. It was in bowling that C a m b r id g e s h ir e chiefly failed. But T. Sadler’s form v. Norfolk at Norwich suggests that he may be of great use to the side in the future, and H. Christmas may train on. Coulson had, as usual, a lot of work to do, and stuck to it gamely. It must have been quite a novelty fqr him to go through the Norwich match without bowling a ball. His best performances were both v. Suffolk— 5 for 20 and 3 for 36 at Cambridge, 6 for 56 in the second innings at Ipswich. G. A. Rose and the brothers Reid were only available for one match each, and A. S. Ling only appeared in three games. Carpenter played for the first time for his native county, and was very much in evidence against Northumberland at Newcastle, when he and F. E. Collier led a forlorn hope in gallant style, and against Norfolk at Norwich. But quite the best and most consistent batsman on the side was the captain, H. C . Tebbutt. His first three and last three innings only yielded 50 runs in all; but between these two spells he made 355 in seven innings, the lowest of which was 23. With their best men playing regularly Cambs would not be a bad side; but Coulson needs more support. It is good to be able to record an improvement in the cricket of C h e s h ir e . Still suffering from irregular representation and from a dearth of batsmen (largely due to the same trouble, for some of the men who only appeared once or twice are capable run-getters), they won both matches v. Monmouth, and jumped from last place to fifteenth. Smoker, the Han^-born pro., was the chief factor in the two victories; he lowered 23 Monmouth wickets for 136 runs. In no other match did he bowl as well. The skipper, F. Fairbank, and Barrell, formerly of Lancashire II., were his chief coadjutors in the attack. The batting was undeniably weak. J. C. Fallows was the only man on the side who twice reached 50. Chambers, Smoker, Holland, and H. C . Edge, of those who played in more than a match or two, each got fairly going once, but only once; of the occasional players A. C. Williamson, L. Hales, W. A. V. Churton, R. Parry, and H. Harrison showed form that makes one regret they could not turn out oftener. Walter Brearley was not seen at all. C o r n w a ll scarcely reached last year’s standard, but were better than in most former years. Their outstanding players were Vibart and Whiting. The former is a capable wicket-keeper and very dashing batsman; he got runs in nearly every match; and made a century v. Devon at Camborne. Whiting was in great form with the ball. He took 17 for h i in one match, 11 for 79 in another, 9 for 115 in a thi and actually had more than half the wickets which fell to the Cornish attack ! E. Hawken worked hard as a trundler without any conspicious success; Trevarthen, very useful a few years ago, seems to have lost his bowline. H. Tresawna played three good innings; but he did not equal his 1911 form. W. N. Biclqford-Smith fell a long way below last year’s figures, but his twin brother, J. C ., played a great game v. Dorset, though he did little in the other matches. Barnes did very well on the whole, and should be worth persevering with; and C . B. Humphrey's 55 v. Dorset at Poole (not an easy ground) marks him out as promising. If D e v o n s h ir e had been a trifle stronger in bowling, they must have figured higher on the table. W. W’reford, the Neasden man, bowled capitally; only in one innings did he fail to take a wicket, and his average would have been better if he had had more effective support. He took 11 for 94 v. Cornwall at Exeter, and 10 for 141 v. Berks on the Kelly College ground. Light was effective at times; 7 for 40 and 5 for 58 were among his figures; but he has been more consistently useful. F. Hargrave Carroll and a new pro., Reed, were Devon s principal run-getters; very seldom did either fail; each scored a century, and the amateur also played innings of 87, 57, 51, and 47, while the pro. made 81, 72, 57, and 51. J. F. Shelley and E. A. Fulcher, each with a couple of seventies, were their best supporters; Light, R. Knight, and R. G. Cruwys also merit a word of praise. D o r s e t s h ir e won four of their first five matches, which must surely be a record for them.They won them in fine style, too, playing an uphill game on more than one occasion with real resolution. In successive innings their captain, C. P. Goodden, scored 76, 51*, 80*, 74, 26, and 62; he had made 91 earlier, and but for a bad slump in his last five innings, which only realised 12 runs, must have been very high up in the batting table. F. A. S. Sewell played in only four matches; his scores were 68, 61, 55, 37, 27, 25, 22, and 4. It is said that he prefers bowling to batting; but he did not meet with any considerable success in that line. G. M. Gordon’s 90 v. Devon at Sherborne did not save his side from defeat; but C. J. B. Webb's 43* and 83 v. Berks at Reading, coupled with his 5 wickets for 51, largely helped to the narrow victory won in that game. Walby three times scored sixties, and once (v. Cornwall) bowled with con­ siderable effect. P. P. Hope was useful with the bat and ball; and in E. A. McIntyre, who does not appear to mind howmuch work he does at the crease, and who revealed himself as a batsman of unexpected ability in the M.C.C. match, the side has a newcomer of great value. Except in the last two matches Freeman, the old Essex man, now coach at Sherborne, was disappointing. H. W. Farrer can bat as well as keep wicket; and R. D . Busk, J. K. Manger, ancT J. A. Parke show promise. W. E. Parke only played v. M.C.C., and made two centuries then ! H . B. Cummins, a failure with the bat, bowled steadily and well. D u r h a m had a very strong side, indeed. Unlike some of the other minor counties, they have a good many more than eleven men worth playing; but their team fluctuated too much. C . Y. Adamson, wh< returned from Australia during the season, did not play at all, and T. A. Bradford only turned out in three matches. The chief per­ sonalities of the side were Dennis Hendren, whom Middlesex let go, and Morris. Hendren played brilliant cricket, hit three centuries and made besides scores of 75, 74, and 49. He was also of some use as a change bowler. Morris took more wickets than any other bowlei in second-class cricket. Eight for 39, 8 for 53, 7 for 71, 6 for 29, and 6 for 45 were among his analyses; and only in one innings out of 21 did he fail to take at least two wickets. Harry, formerly of Lancashire, was his most efficient a ide; 7 for 40, 7 for 73 and 6 for 79 were his best achievements. As a batsman he was rather disappointing. A. F. Maynard, the old Durham School boy and Cambridge rugger man, batted capitally, as did T. Kinch; and others who did useful service at times in this line were E. B. Proud, J. J. Common (a good wicket­ keeper, too), and Hubert Brooks. It was a great pity that the two big hitters—H. L. Dales, who made a century v. Cambs, 68* v. Lincolnshire, and 46 v. Northumberland, and T- A. Bradford, who scored 68 an^ 48 in one match—were so seldom available. Harrison, except for one century, did himself little justice. Durham showed up well in their game with Northants, but it was not, one regrets to hear, a financial success. Like D u r h a m , G la m o r g a n could not always get together their best side. T. A. L. Whittington and E. R. Sweet-Escott were absent from a majority of matches, and the veteran Bancroft missed three. But the bowling of Creber, Hacker, and Maxwell, and the batting of Norman Riches, R. A. Gibbs, J. R. Tait, and others made the side a difficult one to beat. They succumbed rather unexpectedly to Monmouth in one match; but Riches was not well enough to do himself justice then, and Maxwell was an absentee. No other side beat them outright. Creber took 11 for 99 v. Kent II. at Swansea, Hacker 12 for 104 v. Surrey II. at Cardiff and 11 for 90 v. Wilts at Trowbridge, Maxwell 10 for 94 v. Kent II. at Bromley. H e r t f o r d s h ir e had not only a strong, but a regular, eleven. Six of their men appeared in all ten matches, two in all but one. C . H .