Cricket 1913

634 C R I C K E T : A W E E K L Y RECORD OF THE GAME. September 20, 1913. Titchmarsh played so finely that lie headed the second-class batting averages; his scores included two centuries, an eighty, two seventies, and a fifty. E. S. Household also scored two centuries, and topped 50 in three other innings. The Rev. C. G. Ward, who captained the side ably, made scores of 84, 78, and 65. S. G. Etheridge, of the Cockfosters C.C., played innings of 109, 96, 62, 60, and 50. Golding’s efforts included 100, 62, 60, 50*, and five scores of from 24 to 39. This quintet made up a solid phalanx of batting such as perhaps no other minor county had, and there were others who could make runs. Perhaps the bowling was a little too decidedly Burton and others. Shelford twice and N. J. Cdx and W. H. Marsh once each took 5 wickets in an innings; but Burton had 8 twice, 6 five times, and 5 twice. When E. H. Cuthbertson did not play Titchmarsh was quite good behind the wicket. It is difficult to account for the low place occupied by K e n t I I . They had lost Morfee, and Jennings did not play so often; but after all Mor­ fee only took 11 wickets in 1912, though he batted well. L. H. W. Troughton, the side’s captain, played particularly well v. Lincolnshire at Hythe (38 and 106*), Staffordshire at Canterbury (65), and Glamor­ gan at Bromley (43 and 50). Collins fell below last year's form; but his 67 at Stoke made amends for some failures. Except for the captain and A. O. Snowden few of the amateurs did much in the batting line; and in bowling Freeman, a googly merchant of promise (brother of J. R. Freeman of Essex), and Preston, who is leaving Kent, bore the chief weight of the season’s work. L i n c o ln s h ir e played a great many men. Their best side—which was probably W. E. Thompson, W. Rose, Day, Riley, Broughton, G. Hemingway, B. P. Nevile, E. Pullein, and three chosen from C. Williamson, T. H. Bowman, S. T. Haddesley, E. Hallam, and J. N. Worinan, though the last-named had no luck this season—could have given any other minor county a good game; but the representation shifted too much. However, the side did really well. W. E. Thompson was in very solid and consistent form; he made double figures in 13 innings of 18, including 93, 63, and 55. W. Rose, a far better batsman than ever before, hit out in great style; two centuries and two sixties were among his scores; and hewas invaluable behind the wicket. Riley’s all-round form was very good indeed; he was always making runs and taking wickets, and a score of 138 and 6 wickets for 42 in the same match was a double any man might be proud of. Broughton and Day were also very useful in both departments. B. P. Nevile made 73 v. Kent II. at Hythe, and took 5 for 33 v. Cheshire at Grantham, but on the whole did not do himself full justice. C. Williamson, without doing big things, showed promise. G. Hemingway was nothing like as successful as last year, but is a really good bat; and S. T. Haddesley should get a good show in 1914 after his form in the last match of the season. M o n m o u t h s h ir e were a curious side. They beat Glamorgan, and twice went under to Cheshire. But if H. A. Gilbert had only played regularly they would have been among the first four, in all likelihood. In E. S. Phillips they have a leader who was always making runs; in 13 innings for the county he registered a couple of centuries and five scores of between 28 and 43. Then there is Silverlock. He only once topped 50, but then he went right through the innings for near on to 200. He bowled well also. F. G. Phillips started capitally with 45, 64, and 47*, but thereafter only once more got going as a batsman; with the ball he was always valuable. Gilbert was practi­ cally unplayable in the two matches in which he appeared : 9 for 10, 6 for 55, 5 for 93, and 4 for 7 were his analyses. A. M . Maltby played specially well in the Glamorgan match at Cardiff, but did little besides. Diver kept wicket fairly; but his batting does not count for much nowadays. K. C. Raikes scarcely did himself justice; and the doings of the rest call for no comment. If any side had as strong an array of leading batsmen as Herts, that side was N o r f o l k , with Michael Falcon' Geoffrey Stevens, R. F. Popham, R. W. Thurgar, and E. J. Fulcher. But the last two were not as consistent as the Herts men; indeed, consistency was not a marked feature of the Norfolk batsmen individually. Falcon was an exception; he made a century v. Beds, and in five other innings scored over 30. But Stevens made more than half his runs in one match, v. Herts, wh^n with 97 and 142 he narrowly missed the double century feat; and Thurgar made nearly half his in one innings, 155 v. Cambs. Popham’s total included 112, 94, 74, and 50 in different games; but in five other matches, nine innings, he only totalled 71. Norfolk had rather a tail, too, none of the rest doing anything at all distinguished. In Falcon, Falconer, and Watson the side possessed three very effective bowlers, who among them took over 100 wickets at about 14 runs each. The Rev. G. B. Raikes played only once, R. W. Collinson and B. Cozens-Hardy only twice; and the valuable services of G. W. Birkbeck were not available at all. N o r th u m b e r la n d has never had a better side. When F. W. Gillespie played (all too rarely) the Northern county had in him, the Lorettonian, G. L. Hunting, and Wingham, the Kent-born pro., three brilliant forcing batsmen. Then there were Norbury (formerly of Hants), a capital all-rounder, C. M. Skinner, who can hit also, and Milne, not at his best with the bat, to bowl, with assistance from Wingham, and others; J. S. F. Morrison, J. S. Nesbit, C. G. Arkwright, W. W. Meldon, and others as batsmen; and more good men in reserve. S. P. Bell, the captain, never got going, however; and Ord Richardson was not in his best form. Six centuries were scored for the side, Hunting and Wingham making two each; and in the ten matches there were nine other scores of over 50, eighteen of between 30 and 50, and twenty-five of between 20 and 30. Milne took 11 for 132 v. Durham and 10 for 91 v. Cambs, both at Newcastle, Wingham 7 for 88 in one innings v. Staffordshire at Walsall, C. M. Skinner 10 in the Cheshire match at Bollington and 8 for no v. Lincolnshire at Grimsbys and Norbury 9 for 85 v. Lincolnshire and 7 for 64 v. Cheshire, both at Newcastle. Owing to a defeat sustained at the Oval when lacking Barnes and another in a closely contested game at Norwich, S t a f fo r d s h ir e dropped to fourth place. They were still the strongest bowling side in the competition, and when fully represented had also plenty of batting; but they scarcely ever played the same side in two matches, and that fact told against them, 110 doubt. Among Barnes’s analyses were such as 9 for 31, 8 for 19, 7 for 19, 6 for 30, 6 for 31, 6 for 39, 5 for 42, and 4 for 11 (all these for single innings, not for matches); and Barnes was as great as ever, beyond question. With a couple of 50’s in one match, 83 in another, and 76 v. Free Foresters, he showed his true batting form, too; in first-class cricket there is too great a disposition to regard him as merely a bowler. Deyes was very effective at times; 11 for 84 v. Surrey II. and 5 for 21 v. Norfolk were among his best feats. The analyses of Morgan (formerly of Somerset) included 7 for 23, 7 for 94, 5 for 36, and 5 for 51; but he was a disappointment in the batting line. No Staffordshire batsman could claim consistency. Bernard Meakin played a great innings at the Oval, but did not reach 50 on any other occasion. Percival Briggs showed at his best v. Northumberland at Newcastle (72) and Norfolk at Stoke (55); but his average is very moderate for a batsman of his calibre. Nichols made a century v. Kent II. at Stoke, and at Canter­ bury batted finely when others failed; he did little in the other matches. L. F. Taylor, who is qualifying for Warwickshire, was less in-and-out than most of his comrades. In four matches he played innings of 106 v. Free Foresters, 83 v. Norfolk, 60 v. Kent II., and 58 v. Northumberland; but in four others he only totalled 92 in 7 innings. E. H. Bourne was only twice available; his brother, H. E., a far better man than his figures for the county so far make him out, scored 78* v. Free Foresters. Of the rest C. H. Campbell, C. R. Ridgway, F. R. Heath, and R. A. Heath showed ability; but J. S. Heath could scarcely get a run. His best performance as a bowler was 7 for 77 v. Kent II. at Stoke, but he did useful things in other matches. Little that is cheerful can be said of S u f f o lk . Their failure was wellnigh as complete as it could be. But more than any other county they suffered from absenteeism. P. W. Cobbold and A. K. Watson did not play at all, and to make matters worse H. L. Wilson and A. H. Lang were playingfor Sussex. The situation was a doubtful one from the start; it became desperate as the campaign wore on; but they struggled through, and next year they will surely do better. H. A. Busher, F. L. Titchmarsh, and others ought to make many more runs then; but there is no disguising the fact that the side has not a single batsman of commanding ability to serve the rest as a rallying-point. Two things stand out in bright relief against a sombre background—the steady and excellent bowling of Penfold and the wicket-keeping of P. P. Cornell. Penfold took half the wickets that fell to the Suffolk bowlers, and had such figures (for a continually beaten side, remember) as 13 for 100 in one match, 8 for 114 in another, 8 for 131, and 7 for 86. Cornell, keeping in five matches, caught 5 and stumped 5, made very few mistakes, and did not allow many byes. S u r r e y II. are lower in the list than usual; but they played excellent cricket at times, and, of course, for them the matches are of at least as much importance in the light of trials as they are as part of a competi­ tion. William Abel was the all-round man of the team. Three times he reached the century, and he got wickets in every match. Among his analyses were 6 for 19 and 6 for 25. Blacklidge also did good all-round work; he made 95 v. Kent II. and 70 v. Wilts, and took 7 for 47 in an innings v. Glamorgan. Peach nearly always made runs (87* v. Staffordshire and 63 v. Yorkshire II. his best), and Myers (with 142 and 33* v. Yorkshire II. and 84 v. Wilts), though less consistent, often did so; but neither did much with the ball. Freeman, who cannot bat a bit, proved a very useful bowler; 5 for 37, 5 for 38, 5 for 43, and 4 for 28 were among his figures. C. T. A. Wilkinson played in five matches, and only failed in one. Against Yorkshire at Bridlington he carried his bat through the innings for 75 when no one else could do anything with the left-hander, Smith. A. W. F. Rutty played in every match, and his leadership was of invaluable service to the side; he did not usually make many runs, but 53 v. Wilts and 46 v .Kent II. were recorded against his name. A good many young amateurs were tried—J. and M. Howell, A. E. R. Gilligan, G. E. C. Wood, D. Roberts, M. B. Burrows, J. H. Lockton, and J. White among them—and more is sure to be heard of some of these. Lacking A. M. Miller, their leader of so many years, W i lt s h ir e fared no better—but, on the other hand, no worse—than in 1912. There was a lack of stability in their batting which told heavily against them. C. S. Awdry’s century at the Oval came after seven innings in which that batsman—a good one, too—had failed to reach double figures. R. W. Awdry four times scored over 40, but did not play up to his true form. Newman, with 91, 51, 43, 42, 34, 33, and 27 in the course of 16 innings, did best; but even this is not great. A. W. Lapham is at the head of the batting by virtue of not out innings mainly; but with 63 and 27 he did well in the MTC.C. match. H. Taunton generally made some runs, and D. C. Brown and J. R Tayler were successful at times; R. Pinfield played one good innings, and T. S. Luce two or three useful ones; Captain C. G. Bond only appeared in three matches, but did well in those. Mitchell, slow left, was the side's chief bowler. He took 14 for 62 v. Bucks at Bletchley, getting a pitch that exactly suited him in the second