Cricket 1914

Ti:i£ WORLD OF CRICKET J u n e 20, 1914. T a r r a n t and Hearne were concerned together in this sort of thing before 1914, as nearly three years ago they added just over 200 against Somerset. Here is a list (per­ haps not quite complete, for only a hurried glance at the records has been possible) of their chief partnerships : 380 (for second), M iddlesex v. Lancashire, Lord’s, 1914. 229 (for second, unparted), Middlesex v. Essex, Leyton, 1914. 216 (for second), Middlesex v. Worcestershire, Lord’s, 1914. 201 (for second), Middlesex v. Somerset, Lord’s, 1911. 180 (for second), Middlesex v. Notts, Nottingham, 1913. J43 (for third), Middlesex v. Hants, Southampton, 1911. 117 (for second), Middlesex v. Yorkshire, Lord’s, 1913. 107 (for second), Middlesex v. Sussex, Lord’s, 1914. 106 (for second), Middlesex v. Notts, Nottingham, 1913. 104 (for fifth), Players v. Gentlemen, Oval, 1912. A g a in s t Notts at Nottingham last year they added over 100 in each innings. " S o m e followers of the game make a fetish of cricket statistics. They will tell you, almost a t a moment’s notice, who was the twenty-first or thirty-seventh player to complete his thousand runs in any given year, and readily, and willingly, supply sim ilarly erudite information respecting any bowler one may name. Such procedure is the result of a wonderful memory, or a sound system of book-keeping, but it isn’t c r ic k e t ,” says " The Gentleman in B lack ” in the Athletic News. I t is a trifle difficult to imagine what peculiar type of idiot would enquire when a bowler made his thousand runs (qua bowler). But of course all this is not c r ic k e t , “ T a b l e s h o w in g t h e n u m b e r o f p l a y e r s w h o s c o r e d s p e c t a c l e s d u r in g t h e s e a s o n in f ir s t - c l a s s m a t c h e s , ” “ T a b l e s h o w in g t h e n u m b e r o f in n in g s in w h ic h t h e r e w e r e t h ir t y o r m o r e e x t r a s ,” “ T a b l e s h o w in g THE NUMBER OF INNINGS IN WHICH NOT A SINGLE B Y E OR l e g - b y e w a s a l l o w e d ,” and that sort of thing ad nauseam — there’s c r ic k e t for you ! S u c h is our terrible temerity that even after being thus taken to task (by inference) we dare to record that Tarrant (June 15), J. W . Hearne (June 16), and Philip Mead (June 16) were first, second, and third respectively to reach the thousand in 1914 ; that in 1913 Philip Mead was first, Quaife second, Frank Woolley third ; and that in 1912 C. G. Macartney, Hayes, and Philip Mead were the placed men. T h e twenty-first in 1899 or the thirty-seventh in 1900 will be supplied on application ; but we can’t manage the bowler business, except in such cases as those of H irst and Rhodes, and even then we prefer to speak of them as bats­ men in connection with their thousand runs ! --------- — + ------------- R. O . S c h w a r z is not quite done with as a bowler yet. For Black­ heath v. Incogniti he took half-a-dozen wickets on Saturday. R. B a r n e s (7 for 7, Stanmore v. Harrow Club) and R. Bailey (7 for 5, Mortlake v. Kingston) accomplished sensational bowling performances. I n the Navy Trial match at Portsmouth on Friday and Saturday last 20 wickets realised 875 runs, one side making 500, the other 375. Only one century, by Asst.-Paymaster E. B. Elstob (who has scored heavily this season, as he did last) was made ; but Lieut. A. E. H. Wright, Asst.-Paymaster F. L. Horsey, Capt. A. S. Cantrell, Surgeon J. P. R. Stephens, and Lieut. S. S. Bonham-Carter all topped 50, and there were 10 other scores of between 20 and 50. Elstob gave no chance.