Cricket 1914

122 THE WORLD OF CRICKET. M a y 9; 1914. B a t sm e n of 10,000 R u n s a n d Bow lers of 1000 W ic k e t s in F ir s t= C la s s C r ic k e t in E n g la n d . (Compiled by S. S a n t a ll.) As so much doubt exists whether certain matches played prior to 1887 should be treated as first-class or not, there is a possibility of these figures differing in some instances from those of other statisti­ cians ; but great care has been exercised in getting them as accurate as possible. Statistics, as a rule, are looked upon as very dry reading; but cricket statistics when covering so long a period as these do can hardly fail to be interesting to all followers of our great national pastime. Many contend that figures are very misleading in showing the real worth of a cricketer to his side. With that I am bound to agree, and certainly think that when a player’s average is being criticised the nature of the ground upon which he usually performs should be taken into consideration. Ask George Hirst where he would rather bowl— at Bramall Lane or at Southampton ? When I was playing against Yorkshire at Scarborough in June, 1899, the late Jack Brown asked me to bowl him one on the leg side to enable him to complete his iooo runs for the season, and so be the first player in England to accomplish the feat that year. 1 jokingly replied that I should be pleased to do so if he would allow me to bowl him out the next ball. He did not agree to my proposal. However, he succeeded in his object, and in conversation afterwards told me that he was very anxious to accomplish this feat, as he be­ lieved he was the first Yorkshireman to earn the distinction. He then reminded me that there were no wickets in his county like the Edg­ baston one, at that time the best in England, and that he thought for a Yorkshireman to get his iooo runs in the first seven weeks of the season was very creditable indeed. I quite agreed with him. There is little doubt that the batting averages of the Yorkshire players deceive, as much as those of Notts, Surrey, Warwickshire, Worcester­ shire, and—under present day conditions—Hampshire flatter, while, of course, the reverse is the case when the bowling figures are con­ sidered. A glance at the statistics will show that 99 batsmen have scored their 10,000 runs, and 42 bowlers have succeeded in capturing iooo wickets. Of the batsmen 35 are amateurs and 64 professionals, whilst amongst the bowlers Dr. W. G. Grace is the only amateur. Yorkshire (with thirteen) have most players amongst the batsmen : Surrey a good second with twelve. The broad-acred shire and Notts tie for first place amongst the bowlers with seven each, followed closely by Surrey with six. When the batting figures come to be analysed a fact that immediately strikes one is the vast difference in the records of the greatest players of 30 and 40 years ago and those of to-day. Leaving the Champion out '.of the question, for such a marvellous player is outside com­ parisons, there are only two batsmen—W. W. Read and Arthur Shrewsbury—who commenced playing before 1880 who have scored over 20,000 runs, and have an average of over 26 runs per innings. Here conditions come in again. Had such famous players as I. D. Walker, A. N. Hornby, A. J. Webbe, E. M. Grace, Richard Daft, George Ulyett, Ephraim Lockw’ood, Jupp, and Barnes, with numerous others whose names do not appear in this list, been playing during the last 20 years, they would have had bigger results to show. I11 the seventies aggregates of iooo runs in a season were few and far between. An average of 25 was considered exceptional. The great increase in the number of first-class counties and the vast improve­ ment in the wickets have altered all this., Instead of our leading batsmen striving hard to complete their iooo runs in a season, it is the 2000 which is now their aim. When one comes to the bowling figures the shoe is on the other foot. Every well-read cricketer knows what a marvellous bowler Alfred Shaw was, but it is not at all likely that he would have taken over 2000 wickets at 11 runs apiece between the seasons of 1890 and 1913. When the famous Notts bowler was in his prime a bowling average of 15 was considered rather poor. Nowadavs, as these figures show, such famous bowlers as Relf, Trott, Wass, Lees, Tate, Fielder, and Arnold all average over 20 runs a wicket. Forty years ago such an average for a leading bowler wras unheard of. The names of Dr. W. G. Grace, Hirst, Rhodes, Briggs, Peel, Haigh, Albert Relf, Trott, Flowers, William Lockwood, Frank Tarrant, Alec Hearne, Wainwright, Arnold, and John Gunn appear in both lists, and no one will dispute their claim to be amongst the greatest all-round players. Had they given more time to the game no doubt the names of A. G. Steel, C. T. Studd, the Hon. F. S. Jackson, J. R. Mason, and C. L. Townsend would have been added. William Bates, the brilliant Yorkshire cricketer of 30 years ago, had also nearly qualified at. the time his career was suddenly terminated by the sad accident he met with in Australia in 1887-8. Jack Hearne’s wonderful figures form one of the outstanding features, and, taking all things into .consideration, his record must be put down as extraordinary. Hobbs and Dean, although they have been before the public but a short time, have both had wonderfully successful careers. The Surrey batsman has scored his 18,000 odd runs in 9 seasons, whilst the Lancas­ trian has captured his iooo wickets in one year less. Cricketers will find that the statistics will provide them with plenty of material to compare the past with the present day player. Is Jack Hobbs as great a batsman as Arthur Shrewsbury ? Is Blythe the etjual of Peate ? Have we bowlers to-day to compare with Alfred Shaw, Fred Morley, and George Lohmann ? Were the all-round cricketers of the past up to the standard of George Hirst and Frank Tarrant ? These are questions which cannot be solved by figures alone, but these statistics should go a long way to help anyone to form an opinion. B a ts m e n w h o h a v e T o t a l le d 10,000 R u n s . (In order of aggregate.) COMP. BATSMAN. CTY. OK CTIES. FROM-TO. INNS. RUNS. AVER. Dr. W. G. Grace .. Glos. 1864— 1906 1384 54,831 39 - 6 i Hayward (T. W.) .. Surrey 1893— 1913 946 39,969 42-25 Tyldeslev (J. T.) ... Lancs. 1S95—1913 8ll 33,131 40-85 Abel (R.) ' .. .. Surrey 1881—1904 893 31,724 35-52 Hirst (G. H.) .. Yorks. 1891—1913 919 31,495 34-27 Denton (D.) .. Yorks. 1894—1913 829 30,912 37-28 C. B. Fry . .Sx. & Hants 1892—1912 583 29,702 50-94 G. L. Jessop .. .. Glos. 1894—1913 771 25,659 33*28 Gunn (W.) .. Notts 1881—1904 742 24,971 33-65 Hayes (E.G) .. .. Surrey 1896—1913 748 24,624 32-91 P. F. Warner .. .. Mdx. 1894—1913 641 24,502 38-22 Quaife (W. G.) .. Warwick.. 1894—1913 605 24,235 40-05 Shrewsbury (A.) .. Notts. 1875— 1902 672 24,150 3593 H.H. the Jamsaheb of 56-58 Nawanagar .. .. Sussex 1893—1912 413 23,371 A. O. Jones .. Notts. 1892—1913 688 22,011 31-99 C. J. B. Wood .. Leic. 1896—1913 664 21,555 21,436 32-46 W.'W. Read .. .. Surrey 1873—1897 666 32-18 Vine (J.) .. Sussex 1896—1913 704 21,245 30-17 P. A. Perrin .. Essex 1896— 1913 543 20,992 3865 Tunnicliffe (J.) .. Yorks. 1891—1907 747 20,268 27-13 C. P. McGahey .. Essex 1894— 1913 623 19,587 3143 Ulyett (G.) 830 19,174 23-10 Rhodes (W.) .. .. Yorks. 1898— 1913 671 19,119 28-49 Killick (E. H.) .. Sussex 1893—1913 717 18,668 25-75 Hobbs (J. B.) .. Surrey 1905— 1913 481 18,388 38-22 A. C. MacLaren .. Lancs. 1890—1910 572 18,338 32-05 Gunn (J.) -. Notts. 1896—1913 536 17,834 33'27 Sharp (J.) .. Lancs. 1899— 1913 536 17,284 32-24 Brown (J. T.) .. ,. Yorks. 1889—1904 568 17,025 30-32 Knight (A. E.) .. Leic. 1895—1912 630 16,981 26-95 King (J. H.) .. .. Leic. 1895—1913 611 16,964 27-76 Relf (A. E.) .. .. Sussex 1900—1913 646 16,949 26-33 H. K. Foster .. .. Wore. 1894— 1913 480 16,807 35-01 Ward (A.) .. Yks. & La. 1886—1903 567 16,788 29-60 J. R. Mason ., .. Kent 1893—1913 492 16,625 33-79 Bowley (F. L.) . . Wore. 1899— 1913 537 16,332 30-41 Hearne (A.) .. Kent 1884—1910 749 16,310 21-77 Seymour (Jas.) . . Kent 1900—1913 501 15,912 31-76 A. N. Hornby .. Lancs. 1867— 1899 636 15,807 24-85 Hon. F. S. Jackson .. Yorks. 1890—1907 463 15,782 34-08 L. C. H. Palairet .. Som’t. 1890—1909 469 15,777 33-63 Jupp (H.) .. Surrey 1862—1881 660 15,687 23-76 Arnold (E. G.) .. Wore. 1899—1913 518 15,686 30-28 Ireinonger (J.) .. Notts. 1899— 1913 435 15,496 35-62 L. G. Wright .. .. Derby 1883—1909 577 15,114 26-19 Carpenter (H.) .. Essex 1893— 1912 491 15,068 30-68 W. L. Murdoch .. Aust. & Sx. 1878—1904 596 15,021 25-20 Lilley (A. A.) .. Warwick.. 1891—1911 560 14,959 26-67 Kinneir (S. P.) . . Warwick.. 1898—1913 464 14,938 32-19 S. M. J. Woods .. Som’t. 1886—1911 629 14,877 2365 F. L. Fane .. Essex 1895—1913 548 14,737 26-89 Board (J. H.) .. .. Glos. 1891—1913 760 14,719 19-36 Braund (L. C.) .. Sy. &Smt. 1896— 1913 553 14,634 26-46 Lord Hawke .. .. Yorks. 1881— 1911 761 14,488 1903 Barnes (W.) .. Notts. 1872—1894 622 14,365 2309 W. Newham .. .. Sussex 1881— 1905 574 14,351 25-00 A. E. Stoddart .. Mdx. 1885— 1900 445 14,139 31-77 A. J. Webbe .. .. Mdx. 1875—1900 562 14,034 24-97 Humphreys (E.) .. Kent 1899—1913 507 14,033 27-67 Tarrant (F. A.) .. Mdx. 1903—1913 408 14,000 34-31 Mead (C. P.) .. ... Hants 1905—1913 343 13,360 38-95 Briggs (J.) .. Lancs. 1879— 1900 700 13,050 18-64 Read (J. M.) .. .. Surrey 1880—1895 513 13,026 25-39 R. H. Spooner .. Lancs. 1899—1912 344 12,939 37-61 Whitehead (H.) .. Leic. 1898—1913 548 12,867 23-47 C. J. Burnup .. .. Kent 1895—1907 349 12,863 36-85 Brockwell (W. H.) .. Surrey 1886—1903 450 12,491 27-75 Storer (W.) .. Derby 1887—1905 430 12,346 28-71 Lockwood (E.) .. Yorks. 1868—1884 517 12,311 23-81 Flowers (W.) .. .. Notts. 1877—1896 602 12,295 20-42 Gunn (G.) .. Notts. 1902—1913 377 12,156 32-24 Wainwright (E.) .. Yorks. 1888— 1902 553 12,019 21-73 Sugg (F. H.) .. .. Y., D., & La. 1883—1899 491 ” ,999 24-43 I. D. Walker .. .. Mdx. 1862—1884 482 11,967 24-82 V. F. S. Crawford .. Sy. & Leic. 1898—1910 439 11,849 26-19 K. J. Key .. Surrey 1882—1905 435 11,709 26-91 Coe (S.) .. Leic. 1896— 1913 496 11,613 23-41 E. M. Sprot .. Hants. 1899—1913 407 11,607 28-51