Cricket 1914

366 THE WORLD OF CRICKET. J u l y 25, 19 14 . T h e records in Wisden show that feats similar to that of D rake have been accomplished in first-class cricket b y Joseph Wells (father of H . G. Wells, the novelist), George U lyett, George Nash, Jesse Hide, Shacklock, Martin, A rthur Mold, W alter Brearley, and Tarrant. Brearley’s is the only am ateur’s name to figure here, and his wickets were not all taken in the same innings. L o c k w o o d did the feat for Surrey v. Warwickshire in 1891, and Shilton for Warwickshire v. Leicestershire in 1888 ; but these matches come below the dividing line. U l y e t t ’s (for Lord Harris’s Team v. New South Wales a t Sydney, 1878-9) is the only instance outside England. K e n t ’s defeat b y N otts strengthens distinctly the position of Middlesex at the top of the table. But Surrey, only once beaten, may yet threaten their neighbours’ supremacy. Jam es Iremonger’s 13 for 100 at Tunbridge Wells is very nearly the biggest thing he has ever done in the bowling line, but it is far from 'being the only big cne. F o r years regarded as a mere change bowler, Iremonger blossomed out in 1908, and has ever since been one of the mainstays of his side’s attack. Only in 1912 did he reach 100 wickets, and his record is one marked rather by con­ sistent success of the ordinary type than b y deeds out of the ordinary. O n figures his greatest feat was his 6 for 7 in an innings v. Essex at Nottingham in 1910. He has never taken 13, or even 12, w ickets in a match before ; but he has thrice taken 11— for 57 (v. Gloucestershire at Nottingham , 1912), for 97 (v. Lancashire at Manchester, 1913), and for n o (v. Gloucestershire a t Bristol, 1911) ; four times 10— for 43 (v. Sussex a t Hove, 1908), for 54 (v. Derbyshire at Notting­ ham, 1913), for 69 (v. Middlesex at Nottingham , 1910), and for 73 (v. Derbyshire at Chesterfield, 1913). A m o n g his best analyses for single innings, besides the one alluded to above, may be noted : 6 for 38 v. Derby­ shire at Blackwell in 1912 ; 6 for 51 v. Philadelphians at Nottingham in 1908 ; 6 for 51 v. Sussex at Nottingham in 1914 ; 6 for 73 v. Middlesex a t Lord’s in 1909 ; 5 for 17 v. Essex at Leyton in 1910 ; 5 for 43 v. Essex at Leyton in 1908 ; 5 for 45 v. Lancashire at Nottingham in 1909 ; and 5 for 50 v. Sussex at Nottingham in 1910. A c o r r e s p o n d e n t writes to point out that in running over Sir Timothy O ’B rien’s chief scores we made no mention of his 92 for Oxford v. the Australians in 1884, one of the Very best innings he ever played. But we only gave his centuries, though we are quite ready to admit that a list of centuries does not do a man’s record justice in many cases. For many a 50 or 60 made on a bad wicket, or when urgently needed, should be counted for more than a three- figure score under easier conditions. E s s e x played nine amateurs and two professionals against Middlesex at Lord’s last week. Middlesex used to do th at sort of thing in the days of George Burton— Burton and W est were sometimes the only pros, on the side— but have not done it of late years. Gloucestershire in the seventies played a wholly amateur side until Midwinter came along, and a little later Woof cropped up. P r o b a b ly no other county, except Somerset, has ever had for any extended period a considerable preponderance of amateurs, and Yorkshire and Notts have often tended io be almost wholly professional sides. G e n tle m e n o f E s s e x v. Gentlemen of Surrey, or Gentlemen of Hampshire would be quite an attractive fixture. The Essex team at Lord’s would only need to be altered in two instances ; C. P. McGahey and Major A. J. Turner, or P. Campbell, might replace Russell and Tremlin. S u r r e y could be chosen from C. T. A. Wilkinson, M. C. Bird, P. G. H. Fender, D. J. Knight, E. C. K irk, Wilfred Reay, M. Howell, J. Howell, R. B. Lagden, F . C. G. Naumann, J. H. Naumann, F. S. Gillespie, J. I. Piggott, I. P. F. Campbell, E. M. Dowson, and (one believes) G. E, C. Wood as wicket-keeper. H am p sh ire, with E . M. Sprot, A. Jaques, H. C. Mc- Donell, Major J. G. Greig, Capt. A. C. Johnston, Lieut.- Commander G. C. Harrison, the Hon. L. H . Tennyson, R. du B. Evans, A. J. Evans, A. C. P. Arnold, Capt. H . W . M. Yates, H. A. Haigh Smith, G. A. C. Sandeman, and others, would have no lack of talent to select from. K ent might also enter the lists, w ith J. R. Mason, L. H. W . Troughton, E. W . Dillon, A. P. D ay, F. H. Knott, C. E. Hatfeild, Capt. W . G. M. Sarel, C. E . S. Rucker, C. K . Douglas, G. J. V . Weigall, A. F. Leach- Lewis as a nucleus. A n d Sussex, with H. P. Chaplin, H. L. Wilson, P. Cart­ wright, Dr. R. B. Heygate, K . H. C. Woodroffe, E . C. Baker, P. H. Davies, A . H. Lang, N. J. Holloway, B. H. Holloway, and C. St. J. L. Tudor. A f t e r a l l , we have some amateurs of ability left in first-class cricket, though not all of those mentioned are regular first-class players, naturally. W h y should not the Gentlemen of Kent and the Gentle­ men of Hampshire play the ’Varsities, the matches to rank as ftrst-class, of course ? H a v e the destinies of a county side in the field ever been entrusted to another man quite as young as A. W . Carr, who captained Notts last week ? H e is only 20. Like Knott, Carr made a great reputation at school, and when only 16 played a big innings for N otts II v. Cheshire, he and James putting up a long first w icket stand. Last year he and Lee were concerned together in a great partner­ ship v. Leicestershire. F u n n y things used to appear, masquerading as cricket reports, in the pages of old Bell's Life. Their writers had no more intention of being funny than had the gentleman who penned the description of the Cornwall v. Monmouth­ shire match (first day) appearing in the Sportsman of July 16th. “ G r e a t interest was taken in this match at Camborne ” (it begins). “ The weather was ideal. Monmouth started admirably, Silverlock compiling 40 in good style.” M o n m o u th s h ire ’s total was 76, and no one but Silver­ lock reached 15. So much for the “ admirable s t a r t ! ” " T h e bowling of White, Ing, and Trevarthen, however, proved very effective, the last eight wickets going for 11 runs.” H e r e the White and Ing puzzle is easily solved b y a reference to the score. A compositor may have been the culprit. The admirable start resolves itself by deduction into 2 for 65. Fair, but scarcely “ admirable.” W hat are you to say about really big things if you throw your large words about thus ?