Cricket 1914

346 THE WORLD OF CRICKET. J u l y 1 8 , 1 9 1 4 . years wcmM, have helped it to many another victory. |Worc^steMBjre’s plan for wearing down the opposing bowling hj$};j|een to h it it to every quarter, but such tactics S b t a l | g p come off, and a t best are attended with con- ,___8Cau»®i^;his, and in this respect unlike the average rsAi^Jand Jjide, Worcestershire has almost always been attFactiv^ir, T t e other midland teams have only been so alt -^ltervfyjg Take any one of them—-Notts, Derbyshire, Lg^ester|jffiru^'\Varwickshire, Northamptonshire— and it iji&asy tqrtSSmiJnber seasons in which their play has been, ©a 1(the vj^k»l^,'|deadly dull. T h at reproach could never bfc 4 evellQf!i;,-at:^. K . Foster’s men. The side half suffered from the want of a slow bowler of class. Ajfeeod many have been tried, but, in general, with comparatively poor results. Most of the bowling has been right han/i, fast : to medium, the chief variations being Cu fle’s l^t-handerC Simpson-Hayward’s lobs, and in earlier d|iys A.lbef'r B ird ’s slowish right-hand stuff. A B lyth e— B lythes don’t grow on every gooseberry bush— would haveo een as Big an asset to Worcestershire as a Vine. Enough said ! No one capable of judging is likely to dispute the statement that H. K . has had to fight his coun ty’s battles w ith marked deficiencies in certain arms. On the whole, though, w ith occasional lapses, such as will happen to all sides, he has been p retty well supported in the field. W h at he has done personally can hardly be compressed into the limits of a single article w ithout danger of th at article’s -becoming a mere array of figures— a danger always .present in dealing w ith a long career in the cricket field otherwise than in general terms. litrMe was four years (1889-92) in the Malvern team. He m ay have played for Worcestershire before 1892 ; records are very scanty prior to that date, but if he did, it was in but few matches^for the county played but few. He has played ever since, never missing a season completely, though in 1912 he appeared in only one match. He did not get his blue at. Oxford in his first season in residence. Just about that time Oxford, after a lean period during which men walked into the team as batsmen who would not have had the ghost of a chance a few years later, had a plethora of batting talent. Among H. K .’s contem­ poraries were G. J. Mordaunt, G. O. Smith, P. F . Warner, F. G,.<H. Clayton, B. N. Bosworth-Smith, M. Y . Barlow, and others who had, as he had, come up w ith school reputations. Bu t his blue came in his second year, 1894, and in 1895 he played what is probably the innings to which he looks bade w ith the keenest pleasure. Oxford were beaten in the 1895 match. They were set 331 for victory, and they made only 196. Foster’s share of these was 1 2 1 . He made his runs at an average pace of one per minute, and he gave only one chance, at 45. Tw enty fours and twenty singles were included, one three and nine twos making up his total. The next highest score was Raikes’s 23 not out. W . *W. J.owe— Lincolnshire born, but Worcestershire b y long association— -afterwards among the leading members of H. K .'s county tfem , took 5 for 48 in that innings. He did not get H. K .’s w icket; that fell to Gray, by a catch made by. H. H. Marriott, a third Malvernian, at cover- point. v A % Among Foster’s chief innings for Oxford were 59, in his first matctv, v. Wehbe’s X I, 80, iv-Sussex, and 71 v. Essex (after ihe^Varsity game) in <^94 f 57 and 46 not out v. W ebbe’s X I, 79 ex,£Ssfnd''fi brace of 57’s v. K ent in 1895 and 67 v. Surrey, and 66 and 40 v. the Australians in 1896. .}[ ,u Worcestershire’s promotion to first-class rank was largely the work of Mr. Paul Foley. He it was who enlisted ■the band of talented professionals1'from whose ranks and from the ranks of old Malv^rftians the county eleven has m ainly been chosen. BurtOwS, BoM ey, Wheldon, Arnold, Bird, Straw, Wilson, Cnffe, Pearson, and m any another were picked out and brought to Worcester b y Mr. Foley. Not all of his choices turned out as well as he had hoped, of course ; Gaukrodger, Corden, Bannister, Keene, Solly, and others were more or less disappointing. B u t un­ doubtedly the man behind Worcestershire cricket had a keen eye for a likely player. He would scarcely have succeeded in his heavy task, however, but for the fact that there was a Foster fam ily at Malvern. For several years before and for several years after the day of promotion the Fosters were the backbone of the side’s batting ; and H . K ., who played more regularly than any of them and was inferior to none except the gracefully brilliant R. E., was the chief of the clan, alike by primogeniture and b y weight of deeds. In all matches for Worcestershire he had four-figure totals in 1900 (1503), 1903 (1596), 1904 (i5 s 3), 1905, 1906, 1907 and 1908 (between 1100 and 1200 in each of these four years) ; in 1899, 1902, 1910, and 1913 he scored over nine hundred. His worst year was 1909 ; in 1901 (total 670, average over 33) and 1911 (736, average over 40) he did not play regularly. Outside county cricket he has never cared to p lay much. His duties as estate agent to Mr. Foley have kept him busy. He played eight times for Gentlemen v. Players (1896-1910), with scores of 72 at the Oval in ’96, 52 a t L ord’s in 1904, and 67 a t Lord’s in ’06; in half-a-dozen matches for the M.C.C., his best for the big club being 84 v. Australia in 1909 ; and in three other first-class games. Now the Worcestershire club is organising a testimonial for him, and seldom, if ever, was one better deserved. He has laboured hard in the county’s cause— a labour of love, it is true— and those who have the county’s welfare at heart should be only too glad to testify to their appre­ ciation of his efforts. The following is a list of :— M e. H. K. F o s te r ’s C e n t u r ie s in F ir s t- c la s s C r ic k e t. 121, Oxford University v. Cambridge University, Lord’s, 1895. 162, Worcestershire v. Derbyshire, Worcester, 1899. 113, Worcestershire v. Lancashire, Manchester, 1900. h i , Worcestershire v. Middlesex, Worcester, 1900. 152, Worcestershire v. Derbyshire, Derby, 1901. 112, Worcestershire v. Derbyshire, Worcester, 1902. 120, Worcestershire n. Yorkshire, Worcester, 1903. 119, Worcestershire v. Cambridge University, Cambridge, 190.. 114, Worcestershire v. Hampshire, Southampton, 1903. 216, Worcestershire v. Somerset, Worcester, 1903. 107, Worcestershire v. South Africa, Worcester, 1904. 118, Worcestershire v. Oxford University, Oxford, 1904. 118, Worcestershire v. Yorkshire, Worcester, 1904. 112, Worcestershire v. Hampshire, Worcester, 1904. 119, Worcestershire v. Kent, Worcester, 1904. '135, Worcestershire v. Lancashire, Worcester, 1905. 180, Worcestershire v. Somerset, Worcester, 1905. 124, Worcestershire v. Warwickshire, Worcester, 1906. 152, Worcestershire v. Hampshire, Portsmouth, 1907. 123*, Worcestershire v. Kent, Worcester, 1907. 137, Worcestershire v. Surrey, Worcester, 1907. 174, Worcestershire v. Surrey, Worcester, 1908. 215, Worcestershire v. Warwickshire, Worcester, 1908. 126, Worcestershire v. Oxford University, Oxford, 1910. 112, Worcestershire v. Lancashire, Worcester, 1910. 119, Worcestershire v. Hampshire, Worcester, 1910. 112, Worcestershire v. Yorkshire, Worcester, 1911. 106, Worcestershire v. Somerset, Worcester, 1911. 114, Worcestershire v. Somerset, Taunton, 1913. M r . H. K. F o s te r ’s B a t t i n g in M a tc h e s o f Im p o r ta n c e . IN N S . N .O . RU N S. A V E R . H .S. For Malvern College . . . . 54 5 1,429 2916 141 For Oxford University .. 45 5 1,373 34 82 121 For Worcestershire up to ’98 112 1 3,022 27-22 176 For Worcestershire after ’98 431 15 15,150 36 41 216 For Gentlemen v. Players .. 16 o 383 23 93 78 For M.C.C. (first-class) .. 11 o 158 14 36 84 In other first-class matches . . 6 0 75 12-50 38 To give a total of these would be fallacious, as the school record and the matches played for Worcestershire in second- class days (up to 1898 inclusive) were not, of course, on the same plane as the rest. In the Oxford figures are included the match v. South Africans in 1894, and in the Worcester­ shire figures since 1898 the game v. London County in 1899 and the West Indians in 1900. These three matches were not officially first-class. J . N. P