Cricket 1913

6 7 0 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. October 18 , 19 13 . Cricket >otes. B y E. H. D . S e w e ll. A t this time of the year one generally yields to the charms of The Averages. Many who, like the writer, scarcely ever glance at them during the season do now for a short time give way to the spell of figures, and generally find some­ thing to interest them, however much they may object to these same things at other times. Doubtless something more than a cursory glance would yield many “ discoveries.” For example there m ight be money to be made by the man who promptly replies:— “ N e v e r” to the query:— “ When did Tom Hayward head the averages ? ” It is quite a likely sort of question to be put where a few cricketers have assembled round a fire on a soaking day, or in camp, say, on the Satpuras or in the Dun, where, doubtless, there will be many such priceless things before next season dawns. A man m ight be ex* cused for asking, “ How many times has Hayward finished top of The Averages ? ” But the bare fact remains that the old chap never has done so. Charles F ry has achieved the honour six times with averages of 78.67 in 1901; 81.30 in 1903; 70.02 in 1905; 46.74 in 1907; 72.00 in 1911; and 56.85 in 1912. “ W. G. ” got there 12 times between 1866 and 1880. The highest on record is Major R. M. Poore’s 91.23 in 1899. I don’t know the lowest that has won the honour; no doubt my Editor can jot that down without referring to his books; but Brock- well’s 38.23 in i8g4 for 45 innings, 6 not out, must be near it. Few can have achieved the position with a smaller aggregate than J. R. Mason’s 783 in 1909 (this was a 14 innings, 2 not out success. It would surely be fairer to make 20 complete innings the minimum?). Ranjitsinhji, of course, had a finger in this pie, in 1896, 1900 and 1904 to wit, when he averaged 57.91, 87.57, and 74.17, and it is rather a feather in the amateurs’ cap that they have headed the list 15 times in the last 21 years, F. G. J. Ford 18 and J. R. Mason 14 being the only instances under 20 innings, while Fry has won it with totals of 43, 40, 44, 34 and 31 innings, Ranji with 55, 40 and 34. Mead’s total of 60 this year is the highest of any winner. The figures of the two men who have made most runs and the two who have taken most wickets are curiously similar, and worth space to themselves:— Runs. Highest Score. Av; Mead ............................. 2627 171 50.51 • Hpbbs ............................ 2605 184 50.og Maidens. Runs. Wickets. Av. Booth ........... 185 3342 181 18.46 Hitch ........... 169 3228 174 18.55 Strangely enough the performances of the two Surrey players though SECOND from the point of view of figures are easily FIRST from a wicket point of view. Give your reasons and draw a map is a legitimate demand when any­ one makes such a sweeping statement so, without the map, here goes. Hobbs played 3 fewer innings than Mead, who played half his season on easier wickets than Hobbs. The Oval is a great and a good ground; but its wickets must play second fiddle in point of easiness to those of Southampton, while they are no easier than those on the O .R.G . Portsmouth. Meads 22 extra runs with 3 more chances under easier con­ ditions than Hobbs, is, therefore, not such a good cricket feat. Though the Oval wickets are less easy than those at Southampton and Portsmouth they are year in and year out much more difficult to get a lot of wickets on than those at Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford, etc. Most Yorkshire and Lancashire wickets HELP fast bowling, whatever the weather. Very rarely indeed is there a wicket in those parts which does not “ do ” a little even in the early hours of a match, while in fourth innings in those regions the bowler’s task probably never has been so difficult as it often is at the Oval. One has seen Hirst, Rhodes and Haigh “ pasted” on the Oval in the same year that they have been getting any number of wickets in Yorkshire. A ll of which proves that Hitch’s 7 fewer wickets in 198 f e w e r o v e r s than Booth is the better cricket feat of the two. Several times during the season M. C. Bird was jumped on by the critics for over-bowling Hitch, but one does not remember Sir A. W. White coming in for similar treatment, though Booth was kept on for nearly 200 more overs, and the Yorkshire captain had more bowlers to play with than had Bird. By the way, where WAS Sir A. W. White when he caught Hearne at the Oval last week? One report I read says he stuck up his hand at mid-off and the ball did ditto, another that he performed some extraordinary evolution, rivalled only by those of Pegoud, just in front of the pavilion, while bringing off a catch that was made before the populace knew where the ball was. I am interested in great catches (just now as much as ever I was, for am I not on Tweed bank waiting for rain with a barometer hermetically sealed at Set Fair?), and in my humble opinion ninety-nine out of even' hundred such are absolute flukes, and in about just the same proportion the ball has not been hit anything like so hard as it appears from the ring to have been hit. Many such c. and b.’s are only possible BECAUSE the ball has not been truly hit. It is a very great pity that the suggestion made by Mr. George Bird that the last match of the season should be played on a matting wicket between M .C .C .’s South African choices and the Rest of England was not taken. T aking the weather as it was an interesting game would have been seen instead of a great and glorious season winding up with such a farce as a scratch side trying to save the innings defeat against Barnes on an “ impossible ” pitch, followed by the usual crop of particularly foolish remarks as to what the-Kent and Yorkshire XI. ought to have done in the cir­ cumstances. Writing at a distance, I don’t know' what reasons prevented the suggestion being put into effect. It could not have been the fear of damage to the ground, said damage consisting only of the driving in of a couple of dozen iron pegs two feet long and about an inch in diameter. Though Barnes would not have taken 7 for 20, or have achieved anything like such figures, he would still have been able to show that a matting wicket DOES take break. A fact which is denied by a writer in the London Press. On what grounds I do not know nor has he explained. Apparently said critic has never heard of Faulkner, Vogler, Schwarz, and White, and their deeds on the matting wickets of South Africa. The season has silenced the guns of the enemy who wish to broaden and heighten the wicket and narrow the bat because “ any fools can get runs on the wickets of to-day.” Can they? Ash Mead (C. P.), though he does not come in that catego ry! Up to June 19 he had scored 6 centuries, that is, in practically a month’s play, for he did nothing up to May 17. Yet, in spite of the alleged power of any fool, he could make only 3 more in about 14 weeks’ regular parti­ cipation in the game. Fact is if they made the wicket nar­ rower, and the bat larger runs would still be “ difficult ” to get. Granted always the would-be getter played the game.