Cricket 1914

A u g u s t 15, 1914. THE WORLD OF CRICKET. T h r o u g h Mr. F. H. Bacon, the Hants secretary, comes a suggestion to form a corps of professional cricketers for home defence, such formation to take place at the end of the season or earlier should cricket be abandoned. All the Hampshire professionals would join. There is a fine lead ; other counties should not be slow in following. The idea is a worthy one; and if ever the corps thus formed should be called upon to take its place in the line of defence it would beyond all doubt do splendid service. O n e could go on writing of the War ; it is far more easy to do so than to turn to the game itself. But though in times like this war news ranks first, yet after one has read it all one turns to the things which came first in that time, which seems so long ago and yet is but the other day, when the War was n o t; and to some at least of the faithful lieges of King Cricket it may be good to spend half-an- hour or so in reading of the friendly strife of the good greensward, even though they turn from it again to read of the shock of armies and the fields red with the life-blood of honest men who must die because a mad scoundrel who is styled “ Emperor ” has issued his fiat. Y o r k s h i r e ’s seven successive victories seem to demand first mention. They were all decisive wins—four in an innings, one by 10 wickets, one by 163 runs, one by 97 runs. T h e man who played the biggest part in the sequence was Alonzo Drake, who in the seven matches had 45 wickets for 497 runs, and largely helped to win the Notts game by his score of 80. But staunch George Hirst, with 383 runs in 8 completed innings ; Booth, with 40 wickets for 550 and a couple of 60’s ; Denton, Wilson, Kilner, Rhodes, and Dolphin have all done well, too. I n three successive matches Hardinge made four scores of over 80 for Kent—85 v. Northants, 86 v. Surrey, 87 v. Sussex, 88 v. Surrey, though not of course in that order. Last year he made five centuries in four matches, 154 not out v. Leicestershire, 117 and 105 not out v. Hants, 107 v. Northants, and 110 v. Middlesex. His more recent sequence pales by comparison with this, of course, but is worth noting nevertheless. T h e firm of Hardinge and Humphreys, First Men In, has scarcely been established long enough to rival the joint feats of Hayward and Hobbs, C. B. Fry and Vine, or A. O. Jones and Iremonger. But their 126 for the first wicket v. Northants at Canterbury last week was their twelfth three-figure partnership, unless one has missed anything. In 1911 they put up n o v. Worcestershire at Worcester; in 1912 145 v. Hants at Southampton and 122 v. Surrey at the Oval; in 1913 118 v. Somerset at Catford, 105 v. Essex at Tonbridge, 112 v. Gloucestershire at Gravesend, 192 v. Hants at Dover, and 126 v. Northants at Dover ; this year they have made 102 v. Sussex at Hove, n o v. Gloucestershire at Maidstone, 118 v. Surrey at Black­ heath, and the 126 referred to above. H a r d in g e has made some fourteen second wicket stands of over 100 with Seymour, including 240 v. Derby­ shire at Derby in 1908, and 231 v. Hants at Portsmouth in 1913 ; and Humphreys and Seymour have shared at least eleven such stands, including 224 v. Gloucestershire at Catford in 1909, 205 v. Hants at Dover in 1910, and 184 v. Sussex at Hove in 1911. T h e Australian tour in South Africa has been cancelled. I n William Brown, their slow to medium left-hand bowler, Leicestershire would appear to have a distinct asset for the future. Skelding is another man of whom they may hope much. Geary has already proved himself, and Sidwell seems to be developing batting ability, as most wicket-keepers do sooner or later. There is also Lord, who has scarcely redeemed his early batting promise, but has more than once lately bowled with effect. S k e l d i n g was born in 1887, Brown, Lord, and Sidwell in 1888. Lord was the first of the quartet to appear for the county, v. Lancashire at Leicester in 1910, when he scored a single. Brown played in one match later in the same season, v. Surrey at Leicester, taking 3 for 84. Skeldings’ debut was v. Kent at Leicester in 1912—o and o and 26 runs scored off him without a wicket did not promise much. Sidwell first apprared v. Warwickshire at Hinckley in 1913, scoring 7 in his one innings, making two catches and stumping one man. I n 1911, when he totalled 568 with an average of nearly 16, Lord several times batted really well. He made 32 and 73 v. Lancashire at Leicester, 71 v. M.C.C. at Lord’s, and 48, 43, and 42 in other games. In 1912 and 1913 he did less. It was a coincidence that in each season his best score was v. Surrey at Leicester—56 not out in 1912, 77 in 1913. This year he has made very few runs ; but his 5 for 47 v. Kent at Ashby-de-la-Zouch has not been his only useful bowling performance. B r o w n ’s 29 wickets in 1911 cost over 31 each. In 1912 and 1913 he only had 10 altogether, and those at heavy cost. But this season he has commanded respect even on good pitches. His 6 for 80 v. Lancashire at Liverpool was an excellent performance ; and in his last two matches he has taken 9 for 93 v. Northants and 12 for 129 v. Derby­ shire. S k e l d i n g did little of note in 1912 ; but in 1913, though his wickets cost over 31 each, he showed unmistakable ability to persevere in the face of punishment-—witness his 6 for 127 v. Northants at Leicester and 7 for 164 v. Surrey at the Oval. His best feat on figures was 6 for 63 v. Worcestershire at Worcester. This season he has taken 6 for 85 ( v . Northants at Leicester), 5 for 58 ( v. Kent at Ashby), 5 times four wickets in an innings, and 3 times three, and has a bag of 60 to date. T h e three-figure partnership of Hayward and Hobbs for the first wicket against Kent at Blackheath was their thirty-ninth such feat for Surrey. They have not performed to that tune against Derbyshire, Somerset, Sussex, or Yorkshire ; but the 39 include instances against all the other first-class counties, and against Cambridge, Oxford, the Australians, and the Gentlemen of England. Six of the 39 were against Leicestershire, not more than three against any other side. Two were of over 300, and three of between 200 and 300. To the Globe of a recent date R. G. Barlow contributed a very interesting article on umpiring. " County cricket umpires belong to a profession, and an honourable one,” he says ; and certainly if ever there was a painstaking and conscientious umpire, with that real pride in his work which exalts what might seem to some drudgery into a something far higher, R. G. B. is one. All umpires make mistakes, he allows ; the best is he who makes fewest. He depre­ cates entering into an argument with players as to the correctness of a decision, but in a story he tells he appears in the role argumentative. It is worth quoting, and is given hereunder. “ To illustrate how an umpire can be blamed after giving a good decision, two instances occurred in my own experience, when I was umpiring at Brighton, in 1902, in a Sussex v. Notts, match. The first instance was when Mr. G. Brann was batting against Wass, the Notts, bowler,