Cricket 1914

M a y 23, 1914. THE WORLD OF CRICKET. Worcestershire in 1900 had won only three championship matches, losing ten. In 1901 they also lost ten, but they won seven. The side was, as it always has been, curiously unequal— brilliant a t times, feeble at others. R. E. got as much out of it as most captains would have done. In particular, he made far more use o f Burrows than his brother had ever done, and the burly Yorkshire-born man has stood higher in critical estimation ever since, under his young captain’s leadership, he showed that year of what he was capable. Probably it was due to Foster’s suggestion that he gave up to a great extent the off theory tactics he had hitherto employed, and went more for the stumps. R. E .’s 44 innings th a t year were thus made up : 6 centuries ; 13 scores of 50 or more, but under 100 ; 11 of between 20 and 50 ; 8 of between 1 and 20 ; only one duck. To give details of innings after innings would prove wearisome. The cumulative effect is the great thing as far as this season is concerned. In successive matches early on he scored 79 and 67 v. Sussex at Hove, 60 v. Lan­ cashire a t Worcester, and 68 v. Warwickshire at Worcester. A little later, in seven successive games, he made 30 not out and 68 v. Leicestershire, 49 and 110 v. Gloucestershire, 98 v. Derbyshire, 21 and 65 v. Surrey, 32 and 40 v. Somerset, 95 and 69 v. Kent, 50 and 11 11. Hants. There followed three matches (including Gentlemen v. Players a t Lord’s) in which he did not reach 50 in any innings ; and then, in nine successive games he scored 135 (v. Surrey), 33, 54, 44, 23, 62, 100 (1). Warwickshire), 111 (v. Derbyshire), 96 (v. Leicestershire), 1, 42, 136 ( v. Gloucestershire), and 13 and 104 not out (for an England X I. v. Yorkshire at Scar­ borough). He reached his 2000 on the Worcestershire Ground on August 30, and there was scarcely a man around the ropes who did not know i t ; but it was H. K . who led the applause — applause such as the ground has seldom echoed before or since. In 1902 he could not p lay regularly, and was not a t the very top of his form, though among his scores were 63 and 65 v. Lancashire at Worcester, 76 and 58 not out v. Leicestershire at Leicester, 109 v. Derbyshire a t Worcester, and 29 and 53 for Gentlemen v. Players at Scarborough. He played scarcely at all in 1903, yet no dissenting voice was raised when it was announced that he had been chosen for the team at Australia under P. F . Warner’s captaincy. Everyone expected him to do well ; no one expected any­ thing quite so tremendous as his great feat o f that tour. Before the first test match came along he had had some chance of sampling Australian wickets, for he made 71 v. Victoria, 35 v. New South Wales, and 21 and 34 not out v Queensland. Australia had a very strong team a t Sydney. When the match began they lost Trumper, Duff, and Hill for a meagre dozen. Noble fought as Noble always could when his back was to the wall, and Armstrong and Hopkins and Syd Gregory helped him. The total was 285. A t this stage the w icket had been damaged b y rain, and R. E .’s great innings m ight never have been played but for the skilful and steady p lay of John Tyldesley, who stayed there until it had begun to recover. His 53 was one of those comparatively small scores which have effects that the score- sheet does not show. The crack did not start well. He was shaky a t first, and ought to have been caught a t 51. But after that his play was magnificent. He had good helpers— Leonard Braund, w ith whom he had a partnership of 192, Albert Relf, who helped him to add 115, and Wilfrid Rhodes, with whom he pu t on 130. Eight wickets were down for 332 ; the tenth— Foster’s own— did not fall till 577 (a new test match record total) had been achieved. Bu t Relf and Rhodes are not, and were not then, save b y exigencies of the game, Nos. 10 and 11 batsmen, a fact which lessens the marvel. R. E . batted seven hours in all, and hit 38 fours. One m ight well grow dithyrambic over such an innings played in such a match. B u t let it pass. The hero of it lies under the sod now, w ith many a wreath upon his grave ; but he has erected a monument cure perennius, for scarcely will th at tremendous score ever be beaten in test match cricket. He had to retire ill in the second test at Melbourne, a severe chill prostrating him after he had scored 49 ; and for the rest of the tour he seemed to feel the affects of this, for until the last match, when he ran up a brilliant 73 not out v. South Australia, he did not make another big score. In 1904 he only appeared in one first-class match. The following year saw him playing in seven. His scores were : 246 not out v. Kent, 31 and 4 v. the Australians, 2 and 15 v. Warwickshire, 93 and 99 not out v. Somerset, 71 and 7 not out v. Gloucestershire, 28 and 38 v. Leicestershire, and 45 v. Surrey. Against K en t he played magnificently, his first chance being at 225. During his 40 hours’ stay he was always on top of the bowling, and he hit a couple of sixes and 34 fours. Three innings were all he played for Worcestershire in 1906— 35 v. Warwickshire, 198 and 10 v. Somerset. A fter reaching his hundred a t Taunton he added 98 in only a trifle over an hour. In 1907 he was accorded the high honour of the England captaincy. Here he was up against it very definitely. The googly had introduced a new factor into cricket. Several great batsmen were all a t sea w ith the m ystery balls. Among those who coped w ith them best were C. B. F ry and R. E. Foster. Their stand in the third test at the Oval, after Hayward and Tvldeslev had left w ith only 19 scored, was a memorable one. They played back, watched the ball right on to the bat, and risked nothing for the sake of a four. Though Foster’s brillance was never unsound brilliance, yet this self-restraint and patience was even more remarkable in him than in his partner. Among his scores for Worcestershire this year were 144 v. Gloucestershire, 174 v. Kent, 68 and 67 v. Somerset, and 76 v. Warwickshire. His average for the county— which tied w ith Yorkshire for second place in the champion­ ship— was nearly 42. A fter 1907 he only played in two more big matches, though from time to time there were rumours of his turning out again. It was in 1910 th at he delighted the Worcester­ shire spectators w ith his 133 (3J hours, a six and 14 fours included) out of 205 against Yorkshire. His last game for the side was a t Dudley against the 1912 Australian Team. He only made 26 ; but he made them well enough to show th a t the old skill was skill all there. A part from his batting, he was a big asset to bis side in the field. The Worcestershire slip contingent, when two or three Fosters and Simpson-Hayward were playing, was no end of a help to the fast bowlers. Probably there have not been half-a-dozen slip fieldsmen who could be equalled w ith him. He made many catches, and some of them were catches that most men would never even have shaped to make, for his a ctiv ity and quickness of eye served him here as they served him a t the wickets. None of the brotherhood ever achieved fame as a bowler. H. K . would go in at times when the attack was in a knot, and send down a few overs of fastish stuff, tolerable as regards length, but w ith no special devil in it. R. E. had less pace, but tried more experiments ; he gave one now and then the impression that he m ight have been a fair change bowler, for he used his head. Apart altogether from cricket he had a great record. He represented Oxford v. Cambridge twice at Association foot­ ball, twice at racquets, and once at golf. F ive times he played for England at the winter game— three times v. Wales, and once each v. Scotland and Ireland. He played the game as the game should be played, and we all mourn his loss. Many a man who could not be bodily present when, in the glowing May sunshine, all that was mortal of him was laid to rest in the God’s acre on the fair hill, close to the place of his birth and the school