Cricket 1914

386 THE WORLD OF CRICKET. A ugu st i , 19 14 . The super-batsman is of this order of beings— sometimes. In such cases as those of Hobbs, Trumper, and Macartney— t o mention only three— he is so. Take another case— that o f Ranjitsinhji— and the same statement holds good to ■even a greater extent, though during his last few years in big cricket the Star of the E ast was far more orthodox in his methods than earlier. B u t the super-batsman is not always so. What did W . G. do th a t other men could not ? He invented no new strokes. His brother, the L ittle Doctor, was far more of an innovator than he. It could not be said of W. G. that he made any ■one stroke incomparably better than any other man made it. B u t a superb physique and rare qualities of eye and judg­ ment enabled him to go on making them so very much longer than other men could go on— one talks of innings, not of years, though this statement holds good of years also — and he was great above all others b y cumulative effect, as it were. There were great men before Agamemnon ; and one has no desire to exalt Hobbs at the expense of others, his peers at least, some of them, it may be, his superiors. He is the batsman of the day, as they were of their days. Run over the list in your minds, and you will find yourselves thinking not only of W. G. and Ranjitsinhji, of Trumper and Macart­ ney ; but also of A rthur Shrewsbury, of A. C. MacLaren, o f R. H. Spooner, of C. B. Fry, of Gilbert Jessop, of Clement Hill, of W illiam Gunn, of John Tyldesley, of Tom Hayward ; .and of many another, it may be, for we have not all the same heroes. D aft and Carpenter and Hayward of the older days— Fuller Pilch and George Parr before them— and even ■earlier y e t W illiam Beldham and one or two of the worthies •of the Hambledon Club— later poor Jack Brown, dead in his prime, staunch, great-hearted W illiam Lloyd Murdoch, W alter W illiam Read, idol of the old Oval crowd, Warren Bardsley, to-day one of the surest of batsmen, Joe Darling ;great alike at winning games and saving them, Stanley Jackson, Lionel Palairet— but where shall one stop ? They were not all equally great, and another man might place others unnamed before some of those named. That does not matter. To think of them will help one at least to realise th a t there are many and various kinds of greatness. In this, at least, they were alike— one and all of them were ■good men in tight places, men who triumphed over diffi­ culties— yet even in this there were degrees of excellence among them ; and who would dare to attempt anything like a placing b y order of merit ? It is less than ten years ago since Hobbs first played in big •cricket. Before that, while qualifying for Surrey, he played one season for Cambridgeshire. This was in 1904. Young as he was— only 21 when he joined the Oval staff— it is curious th at the authorities of his native county should not have recognised his promise till it had been brought to their notice b y the fact of his going elsewhere. Tom Hayward spotted it readily enough. W h y, in 1903 over 30 men appeared in Cambridgeshire’s eight matches, but Hobbs was not among them ! (H. C. Tebbutt, F. P. C. Pemberton, and W atts were the only men among the 30 or so who still represent th e county, b y the way.) B u t Hobbs played for Cambridgeshire in 1904, totalled ■696, averaged 58, and scored 195 v. Herefordshire at Cam­ bridge. One believes that he also made another century or tw o ; but the recorders of those days took small account of hundreds scored for minor shires, and no particulars are at hand. He had qualified for Surrey before the 1905 season began. The first match yielded him over a hundred runs, though n ot a century. He made 18 and 88 v. W . G .’s Gentlemen of England X I, which included W alter Brearley, G. W . Beldam, W . W . Odell, and C. L. Townsend, the first-named taking 11 for 124 in the match. His second match was against Essex. He made 28 and 155, w ith only one chance (at 90) in the long innings. “ The great feature of his p lay,” says Wisden, " was his skilful placing in front of short leg.” W ho could say nowadays what is the great feature of Hobbs’s play ? It is all features! Let him start to exploit one particular stroke, and find it made dangerous or difficult by a re-placing of the field, and he will bring out in its stead not one other, but half-a-dozen others. He was a good batsman in 1905 ; a great batsman in the making. Now he is a great batsman made, though even y et he may not have reached his zenith— who can say ? He did not score so largely in 1905 as m ight have been expected after he had aggregated nearly 300 runs in his first two m atches; but he was never in danger— and has never been in danger— of being left out of the Surrey eleven. This despite the fact— which doubtless many have for­ gotten— that he was so far then from being the great fieldsman he is to-day th at it would not be too much to say that he was in the very moderate class. He could always hold a catch ; but there was in his fielding then none of the dash and sparkle, the combined brilliancy and certitude, that it has to-day. Improvement was not long in coming ; but it was not until three years or so ago th at he reached his present high standard. Now the deeds of John Berry Hobbs and the manner of those deeds, are they not written in the Book of Wisden and elsewhere ? To go over them all here would take far more space than can be spared. L et figures speak for themselves. Here a r e : H o b b s ’ s B a t t i n g A v e r a g e s S e a s o n b y S e a s o n . SEASON. INNS. N.O; RUNS. AVER. H.S. PLACE IN CENT. AV ER. 1905 ................................... • 54 3 1317 25*82 155 2 88 1906 • 53 6 1913 40-70 162* 4 .88 1907 ................................... • 63 6 2135 37-45 166* 4 8 1907-8 (A .).. i 22 1 876 41-71 115 2 4 1908 .. • 53 2 I9O4 37*33 161 6 20 1 9 0 9 ....................... • 54 2 2114 40-65 205 6 5 1909-10 (S.A.) 20 1 II94 62-84 187 3 1 1910.. • 63 3 1982 33*03 133 . 3 24 1911 . 60 3 2376 41-68 154 * 4 18 1911-2 (A.) .. . 18 1 943 55*47 187 3 2 1912 .. 60 6 2042 37 * 8 i h i 3 13 1913 •• 1 v • 57 5 2605 50*09 184 9 2 1913-4 (A.S.) 22 2 1489 74-45 170 5 1 1914 (0 July 25) • 33 1 1558 48-68 215* 6 — Totals • 632 42 24,448 41*43 215* 60 — The table which follows is not likely to appeal to all. Bu t there are many students of the game in its mathematical aspect who will find interest in it. W h at are the odds, reckoned on his past performances, against Hobbs, having reached 50, getting to three figures ? W hat are the odds against his being dismissed w ithout scoring ? A t least 25 to 1, it appears, whereas the odds at the start of an innings against his making a century are little more than 10 to 1. And not many people will care to offer 10 to 1, one fancies. S y n o p s is o f H o b b s ’ s S c o r in g in F ir s t -C l a s s C r ic k e t . Innings of 200 and over. 150 under 200 100 under 150 75 • under 100 50 uflder 75 25 I 10 under under 50 1 25 Single figures. Out N.O. Ducks. Out. N.O. Total of Inns. 1905 0 1 1 3 I 13 14 17 I 3 0 54 1906 0 1 3 7 3 12 12 14 O 1 0 53 1907 0 2 2 4 11 8 12 21 0 3 0 63 1907-8 (A.) >. 0 0 2 2 4 5 5 3 O 1 0 22 1908 0 2 4 1 6 13 12 12 O 3 0 53 X9°9 _ • ; 1 3 2 2 5 12 16 9 I 3 0 54 1909-10 (S.A.) 0 2 I 3 4 6 2 1 O 1 0 20 1910 0 0 3 0 14 12 19 12 O 3 0 63 1911 0 1 3 6 7 16 13 12 I 1 0 ' 60 1911*42 (A.; . . c* 2 1 1 1 6 5 2 O 0 0 18 1912 0 0 3 4 10 *3 19 7 I 3 0 60 1913 0 2 7 4 8 10 13 i l 0 2 0 57 I 9I 3-4 (S.A.) 0 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 O 0 0 22 1914 (to July 25) 1 3 2 1 3 5 8 Q 8 1 0 33 Totals .. 2 20 38 42 81 135 154 131 4 25 0 632