Cricket 1914

464 THE WORLD OF CRICKET. O c t o b e r , 1914. SUSSEX v. YORKSHIRE. At Hove, August 3 1, September 1 and 2. Yorkshire batted the whole of the first day, and made 3 19 for 5. Denton and Kilner, both with luck, added 17 7 for the third wicket in 135 minutes. Kilner hit 15 fours, and Denton, who batted 175 minutes in all, 14 . Rhodes made his 54 in just under 100 minutes. Hirst and Holmes, not out at close of play, added 93 in all, the veteran scoring 56 in 40 minutes on the Tuesday after batting twice as long for 36 on Monday. Sussex replied to the total of 461 with 3 16 for one wicket. Seventy-four were on the board before Wilson was out, and then Vine and Jupp stayed together for the rest of the day’s play. On the third morning both were soon out, and, everybody else except Relf failing, the total only reached 405. Vine batted 4 hours 10 minutes without a chance, and hit 2 1 fours ; Jupp was in 2\ hours, and made 14 fours. They added .249 for the second wicket. Yorkshire batted again, and Kilner played well, making 53 out of 70 in an hour ; but the men’s hearts were scarcely in the game, and at the tea interval it was abandoned .as a draw, Yorkshire taking first innings’ points. So ended the season •of 19 14 , for the match at Bournemouth had been finished earlier in the day. Y o r k s h ir e . First Innings. Second Innings. Wilson (B. B.), c Street, b Holloway o b Vincett .. .. 18 Booth, b Holloway .. .. .. 1 b Holloway .. .. 9 Denton (D.), b Holloway .. .. 124 c Bowley, b Holloway 16 Kilner, c and b Vine .. .. 88 c Vincett, b Cox .. 53 Rhodes, c Holloway, b Vine .. 54 c Street, b Vincett .. 9 Oldroyd, b Holloway .. .. 5 b Cox . . .. .. o Hirst, c Relf, b Jupp .. .. 92 not out .. .. 18 Holmes, run out .. .. 46 Drake, b Vine .. .. .. o Birtles, not out .. .. .. 31 Dolphin, b Relf .. .. .. 11 Leg-byes .. .. 9 Total 461 Total (for 6 w .).. 123 1 2 -4 -2 -2 9 -1 ; - 4 1 - 0 ; Vine, S u s s e x B o w l e r s ’ A n a l y s is . F ir s t I n n in g s :—Holloway, 3 3 - 6 - 1 6 7 -4 ; Relf, Roberts, 5 - 1 - 1 4 - 0 ; Vincett, 2 5 - 8 - 7 9 - 0 ; Cox, 1 3 - 2 1 - 2 - 7 7 - 3 ; Jupp, 1 2 - 3 - 4 5 - 1. S e c o n d I n n in g s :— Holloway, 9-1—36-2 ; Roberts, 9-1-36-0 ; Cox, ■9-0-33-2 ; Vincett, 8-2-3-18-2' H. L. Wilson, c Oldroyd, Rhodes .. .. .. 37 N. j. Holloway, c Dolphin, Vine, b Booth Jupp, c Kilner, b Drake Bowley (E. H.), b Booth Relf (A. E.), not out M. F. S. Jewell, b Drake Vincett, c Kilner, b Drake.. 11 Total .. .. 405 Y o r k s h ir e B o w l e r s ’ A n a l y s i s . Drake, 3 6 -5 -1 0 -7 9 -4 ; Booth, 2 8 -4 -1 0 4 -2 ; Rhodes, 3 2 - 1 - 1 4 3 - 3 ; Hirst, 1 2 -2 -3 4 - 0 ; Kilner, 8 -1 -3 4 -0 . Hirst 2 nb, Kilner one nb. Umpires :—Atfield and Blake. + S u s s e x . b Cox, lbw, b Rhodes • J • 175 b Rhodes . . • 113 Roberts, b Drake 6 Street, run out . 40 B 2, lb 6, nb 3 • 5 T he F ir s t- C la s s Season of 1914. T h e roar of cannon shortened a season which for the most part was well up to the average of those of recent years. Attend­ ances were scanty in some quarters ; so they have been for years past, and gates in any way sufficient to meet expenses may be looked for in vain at such centres as Bristol, Taunton, and Worcester. On other grounds week-end starts proved profitable, and if they did not carry out all hoped for from them were -certainly successful enough to justify their general employment during 1915— if there is any first-class cricket season in 1915, which at time of writing seems dubious. The season was full of interest. At first Middlesex seemed likely to win the championship, though Surrey, Kent, and (for a time) Hampshire were all in the running. Then Surrey over­ hauled their near neighbours and dear rivals, and when the curtain was rung down (leaving two of the leaders’ matches unplayed) were well ahead, though not so well ahead but that two defeats would have put them below Middlesex. In the circumstances it is impossible to say dogmatically that Surrey won the championship. One feels certain that the Surrey authorities would be the last to claim it. When, in deference to strong public opinion, they cancelled their games with Sussex and Leicestershire, they faced the possible consequences. It is open for anyone to say that they might have been beaten in both games. Had their opponents scratched this argument could not have been advanced with any show of reason. It is said that the M.C.C. may decide the matter by a joint award of the honours to Surrey and Middlesex. No substantial injustice would be inflicted by such an award ; yet one fancies that the majority of the game’s followers will be inclined to look upon Surrey as the premier county side of the year, with Middlesex a close second. Kent deserved their place as third, but were hardly as difficult to beat as they have been in some seasons, and finished up badly with two heavy losses. Yorkshire, who up to July 7 had won only three matches, lost three, and had been headed on the first innings in 7 of the 9 others played, after that date showed remarkable form, were only once beaten, won 11 games, and were ahead on the first innings in the only one left undecided. Hampshire have never done better, and though it cannot be said that they deserved to be higher than fifth they were cer­ tainly fully entitled to that place. There follow five sides among whom there was very little indeed to choose, taking the season all through. A single defeat turned into a victory (and they lost to Sussex at Northampton by only 24 runs) would have put Northants, fourth among the five, ahead of Sussex, the highest. A win for Warwickshire in the match v. Edgbaston at Lancashire (where they lost on the first innings, but were only prevented by rain from winning outright) would have taken the Midland side into first place of the five. Had Notts beaten Derbyshire at Chesterfield (and they only lost by 5 runs) they would have been four places higher. But it is only fair to point out that Sussex lost to Surrey at the Oval by one wicket only and to Hants at Horsham by two wickets. Vic­ tories in these two matches would have given them fifth place. No change in the fortune of one match would have availed to take any of the remainder higher than eleventh. That is Lancashire’s place—a sad fall from the County Palatine’s high traditions. Two matches won instead of lost would have evened Lancashire with Warwickshire ; but her least heavy defeat was by 34 runs, and all the others were by quite sub­ stantial margins. Derbyshire and Leicestershire, without doing well on the whole, did by no means badly at times, and improved slightly on their figures of 1913. The three counties bringing up the rear were more or less outclassed all through. Probably Gloucestershire were the weakest side of the three ; but there was not a great deal in it. Now and then Worcestershire dis­ played better form against the stronger sides met than did either of the other two (with the exception of Gloucesteishire’s bold effort at Nottingham), but the Worcestershire bowling was altogether too weak to clinch matters, even when the batsmen had done well. THE COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP, 1914. PLACE IN ON 1 ST INNS. NO PTS. COUNTY. I 9 I 3 . M. W ON. W . L. L. RLT. OBTD. POSS. PERC. Surrey ............................ 3 26 15 5 3 2 1 93 125 74 ’ 4 <> Middlesex .. .. .. 6 20 11 4 3 2 0 70 100 70-00 Kent .. .. 1 28 16 1 4 7 o 87 140 62-14 Yorkshire .. .. 2 28 14 3 7 4 o 86 140 61-42 Hampshire .. 10 28 13 384o82 140 58*57 Sussex .. .. 7 27 10 4 6 6 1 68 130 52*3° Warwickshire .. .. 11 24 9 4 4 7 o 61 120 5°'83 Essex ............................ 15 24 9 4 2 9 0 59 120 49 ' 16 Northamptonshire 4 21 7 4 4 6 0 5 1 105 48*57 Nottinghamshire .. 5 20 5 7 2 5 1 46 95 48*42 Lancashire.. .. 8 26 6 5 6 9 o 51 130 39'23 Derbyshire .. .. 13 20 5 3 o 12 o 34 too 34 00 Leicestershire .. .. 14 23 4 5 3 11 o 38 115 33 '° t Worcestershire .. .. 12 22 2 3 3 13 1 22 105 2095 Somerset .. .. .. 16 19 3 o o 16 o 15 95 i5'78 Gloucestershire 9 22 1 3 1 17 o 15 n o 13*63 The two matches in which no result even on the first innings was arrived at were Worcestershire v. Sussex (at Worcester) and Surrey v. Notts (at the Oval). Three matches were cancelled owing to the war— Somerset v. Northants (Taunton) Sussex v. Surrey (Hove), and Surrey v. Leicestershire (Oval). No county occupies the same place that it did last year, though Sussex, Derbyshire, Leicestershire, and Somerset have moved only one place each—in each case upwards. Middlesex has jumped Irom sixth to second, Hants from tenth to fifth, and Essex from fifteenth to eighth. There were 189 Championship matches played. Outside the Championship 28 games ranking as first-class were contested. These were : M.C.C. South African Team v. Rest of England, Gentlemen v. Players (two matches), Royal Navy v. Army, four matches between the M.C.C. and county sides, Oxford v. Cambridge, 8 other matches played by Oxford, and 10 other matches played by Cambridge, and the extra game (at Hull) between Yorkshire and Lancashire. This gives a total of 217 matches, or two more than in 1913, in spite of the fact that eight games (three in the Championship, the three arranged for the Scarborough Festival, Yorkshire v. X I of England at Harrogate, and Champion County v. Rest of England) were cancelled owing to the War. In the 216 matches 486 players took part, of whom 237 played in 10 or more innings each, and 114 figured in only one match