THIS has been in many ways a frustrating season with generally disappointing results. The batting looked reliable on paper but proved to be very weak in the middle in the early matches, though latterly it was considerably improved. It was obvious that there would be a weakness in the support bowling, particularly because of the lack of a spinner of the quality of Staniforth in last season's XI, and of a good stock seam bowler. A heavy burden was thus placed upon Milne, whose performances during the season have tended to be erratic: on occasions he has bowled exceptionally well (e.g., 6 for 26 against Bradford) but too often his attack has been negative and short of a length. Nevertheless he has taken over 100 wickets in his last three seasons with the team and we shall miss him next season. Youle has been generally disappointing after his successful opening spell against Rotherham (7 for 22) although in fairness it ought to be added that he has been handicapped by a foot injury. He bowls to a length but without sufficient variation and thought. Bailey has proved a useful bowler who has broken up some good stands, but there have been too many full tosses and long hops for the Umpires' comfort! Pike shows promise and is very willing to learn-the first essential for any slow bowler. For a young player, he has done very well in his first season with the XI.
A Pike, B Hill, D Bailey, L Youle, E C Wragg, J G Ratcliffe, P Richardson, ?
J C Hemming, D Parfitt, D G Milne, C B Laycock, M B Rowbotham, G P J Beynon, T K Robinson.
Photo courtesy of John Ratcliffe
Beynon has undoubtedly been the most successful batsman and his last two innings (69 n.o. against Leeds, 78 n.o. against Nottingham) were delightful and should give him great confidence for his captaincy of the side next season. He is a very strong player on the off-side but must master his weakness against good swing bowling. Rowbotham had some good innings in the early part of the season, showing some unorthodox strokes and always looking for runs. Concentration has been lacking of late, and so his final performance has not quite equalled that of last season. Laycock has always looked the best equipped batsman but in early games the cares of captaincy seemed to affect his performance. On the hard wickets of the last few weeks he has played some very attractive innings. As captain, he has had to face a difficult task with limited bowling and has worked hard to make the best use of his resources. A very pleasing feature of his attitude has been the sporting declarations he has made on several occasions, giving a real challenge to the opposition and ensuring some very keen finishes.
Useful scores have also been obtained by Richardson, who did very well as an opening batsman after disappointing efforts lower down the order; Hill, who has several times been unlucky but whose fielding earns special mention; Ratcliffe, who, although not quite maintaining last year's promise, should be a mainstay of the batting next season; and Bradshaw, whose soundness and strength on the on-side, together with good slip-fielding, have proved invaluable on the few occasions when he has been released from the Second XI captaincy. Others who have assisted the XI in various ways are Wragg, Walton, Sallis, Bryars and Rigby.
Criticism on the year's results would be easy, but let it suffice to say that the essentials in any cricket team are aggressive fielding, eagerness to score runs rather than stay at the crease, and positive and constant attack by the bowlers, supported by a well-placed field. Bowlers have a duty to assist the Captain in field-setting and individual fielders should assist by moving quickly and intelligently into position. Attention to these essentials will make next season's outlook brighter, and the cricket even more enjoyable to watch, than that of this year has surely been.
J. C. H. T. K. R.
RESULTS (not including Masters' match) Played 15. Won 3. Drawn 7. Lost 5.
|May 4 v.||Rotherham G. S. (Home). K.E.S. 82, R.G.S. 50. Won by 32 runs.|
|May 21 v.||Old Edwardians C.C. (Home). O.E.A. 110 for 7 dec. K.E.S. 78 for 6. Drawn.|
|June 18 v.||Hymer's College, Hull (Away). K.E.S. 101 for 6 dec. H.C.H. 35 for 7. Drawn.|
|June 25 v.||De La Salle College (Home). D.L.S. 108 for 8 dec. K.E.S. 78 for 5. Drawn.|
|July 2 v.||High Storrs G.S. (Away). H.S. 76, K.E.S. 72 for 5. Drawn.|
|July 6 v.||Woodhouse G.S. (Home). Woodhouse 79, K.E S. 77 for 9. Drawn.|
|July 8 v.||Manchester G.S. (Away). Manchester 128 for 7 dec. K.E.S. 49. Lost by 79 runs.|
|July 9 v.||Doncaster G.S. (Away). K.E.S. 89, D.G.S. 90 for 7. Lost by 3 wkts.|
|July 11 v.||Liverpool Boys' Assocn. (Home). K.E.S. 90, L.B.A. 91 for 8. Lost by 2 wkts.|
|July 12 v.||Masters' XI (Home). K.E.S. 153 for 7. dec. Masters 91. Won by 62 runs.|
|July 13 v.||Q. Elizabeth's G.S. Wakefield (Away). Q.E.G.S. 115, K.E.S. 49. Lost, by 66 runs.|
|July 16 v.||Mt. S. Mary's College (Away). K.E.S. 159 for 8 dec. Mt. St. M.142 for 8. Drawn.|
|July 18 v.||Chesterfield G.S. (Away). K.E.S. 118 for 5 dec. C.G.S. 91 for 7. Drawn|
|July 19 v.||Bradford G.S. (Home). B.G.S. 58, K.E.S. 59 for 4. Won by 6 wkts.|
|July 20 v.||Leeds G.S. (Home). K.E.S. 159 for 4 dec. L.G.S. 149. Won by 10 runs.|
|July 21 v.||Nottingham H.S. (Home). K.E.S. 156, N.H.S. 159 for 3. Lost by 7 wkts.|
|Beynon, G. P. J.||15||4||78*||330||30.0|
|Rowbotham, M. B.||15||1||48||243||17.4|
|Laycock, C. B.||15||1||51||218||15.6|
|Milne, D. G.||11||2||24*||85||9.4|
|Ratcliffe, J. D.||12||4||15*||61||7.62|
|Milne D G||204||59||485||49||9.90|
|Pike, D. A.||49.5||5||157||10||15.70|
[*This should be Wragg, E. C. - source: Prof E C Wragg.]
IN view of the fact that a 2nd XI, especially when prospering, is frequently called upon to surrender its most promising players to maintain the strength of the 1st XI, the achievement of the team this season in winning 7 of its 12 matches is extremely satisfying. Take into consideration too an injury to Hessey, the team's leading wicket-taker, which kept him out of several games, and the tally of only two defeats throughout the season is even more remarkable. For this outstanding run of success much credit is due to J. D. Bradshaw whose resolute captaincy has moulded the team into a spirited unit determined at all times to give of its best.
In the early matches Rigby (160 runs in 8 innings) was the mainstay of the batting, but the most promising performances of the season were put up by Sallis (highest score 45 against Stockport G.S.) who was finally lost to the 1st XI, and by Bradshaw himself who, though he failed to score as many runs as he deserved, was always safe and dependable. For a batsman of his age and experience he is exceptionally impressive on the leg side, his on-driving and the unhurried manner in which he turns the good-length ball off his pads showing him to be a player of some quality. However, he still has certain weaknesses which he must attempt to correct. Another batsman to show promise was Powell (63 in 10 innings, twice not out) who revealed an easy stance and some attractive strokes. Foster and Loversidge likewise made valuable contributions on more than one occasion. On the whole the batting was sound and fairly consistent, as is borne out by the fact that the team was only twice dismissed for scores of less than 90.
The brunt of the bowling was borne by Hessey (20 for 188) and Walton (12 for 150), ably assisted by Wragg (15 for 171) and F. Booth (12 for 113), and their success is indicated by the fact that only thrice was an opposing team allowed to amass a total in excess of 100. Hessey, apart from an understandable lapse in the match against De La Salle (his first after recovering from his leg injury) was the most consistent of the attack. He has an easy action and might be even more effective if he could further develop his ability to swing the ball. Walton, despite a rather ungainly, low action, usually kept a good length, and in the match at Rotherham he bowled on a lively rain-damaged wicket with great hostility to return the excellent figures of 7 for 33. In the absence of either Walton or Hessey, F. Booth proved a useful substitute, while as change bowler he was not without success. He was able to generate a good deal of pace but he too frequently failed to attack the stumps. Whenever spin bowling was required, Wragg could be relied upon for steadiness, though a little more variety in pace and delivery would have brought him many more wickets. His victims, one felt, more often succumbed to their own impatient mistakes than to the guile that one traditionally associates with a left arm bowler. Other members of the team who did bowl when required were Baxter, Bryars, Rigby and Bradshaw himself.
The fielding, like the proverbial curate's egg, was only "good in parts ". Some excellent catches were taken, especially by Foster, but far too many relatively easy chances were put upon the ground. In the final match of the season it may justly be said that the possibility of a thrilling victory was thrown away by fielding which was at times almost too bad to be credited of a young team presumably sound in wind and limb. There was, however, an improvement in later matches, and it is to be hoped that this vitally important aspect of the game will not be in future neglected. For indeed anyone who is not prepared to do his best to become a good fielder automatically forfeits the right to call himself a cricketer. Favourable mention, however, should be made of the wicket-keeping of Powell which was invariably sound and stylish, though he still needs greater concentration and more practice against slower bowling.
Regular members of the team were: J. D. Bradshaw, Hessey, Rigby, Wragg, Loversidge, Foster, Walton, Baxter, F. Booth, Bryars, Sallis and Powell. Hill and Bailey (1st XI), Avis, G. H. Bradshaw, Brown, Farnell, Gill, Shipton and M. J. Smith also played occasionally. Thanks are due to Roebuck who cheerfully and ably undertook the scoring in the early part of the season.
Played 12, Won 7, Drawn 3, Lost 2.
April 30 v. Eckington G.S. (Away). Eckington 77 for 5 dec. K.E.S. 78 for 4. Won by 6 wkts.
May 7 v. Stockport G.S. (Home). K.E.S. 102, Stockport 52 for 2. Drawn.
May 11 v. Worksop College (Away). Worksop 67, K.E.S. 61. Lost by 6 runs.
May 21 v. Old Edwardians (Home). O.E. 139 for 8 dec. K.E.S. 83 for 5. Drawn.
June 11 v. Rotherham G.S. (Away). Rotherham 88, K.E.S. 90 for 4. Won by 6 wkts.
June 18 v. K.E.S. Under 15 (Home). 2nd XI 54, U. 15 42. Won by 12 runs.
June 25 v. De La Salle College (Away). D.L.S. 121 for 3 dec. K.E.S. 67 for 7. Drawn.
July 2 v. High Storrs G.S. (Away). H.S. 75 for 9 dec. K.E.S. 79 for 3. Won by 7 wkts.
July 6 v. Sheffield Training College (Home). S.T.C. 83, K.E.S. 85 for 8. Won by 2 wkts.
July 9 v. Doncaster G.S. (Home). Doncaster 79, K.E.S. 80 for 9. Won by 1 wkt.
July 16 v. Mt. St. Mary's College (Home). K.E.S. 90, Mt. St M. 45. Won by 45 runs.
July 21 v. Nottingham H.S. (Home). K.E.S. 98, Nottingham 101 for 7. Lost by 3 wkts.
UNDER the capable captaincy of Newsom the team has had a most successful season. Without players such as Pike, who has played regularly for the 1st XI, and Ollerenshaw, who has been able to play in only three games owing to injury, the team has confirmed the potential talent in the Middle School. Of the fifteen players picked during the term all have played in at least two matches.
The main strength of the team has been in its bowling. Hawley (24 wkts, for 89) and Searle (30 wkts. for 116) have proved to be a devastating opening pair. Both are extremely accurate and with development in technique they should prove useful assets to any team in the future. Newsom and Shaw have provided excellent support with steady bowling of a slower variety. They occasionally made the ball turn, but most of their wickets were obtained by tempting the batsmen to try to hit them off their accurate length. Milner and Evison have had little chance to show their ability, but when called upon have performed creditably. Both should persevere with off-breaks and leg-breaks respectively.
The batting has lacked consistency. The problem of finding a suitable opening partner for Newsom was never solved satisfactorily, although Evison, Bridge and Perris batted well on occasions. The rest of the "recognised" batsmen-Ollerenshaw, Darwin, Hill and Shawhad varying degrees of success. More patience and concentration is required, particularly against accurate bowling, and the development of a sounder defensive technique is needed by most of the players. Evison (155 runs, average 17.2) and Newsom (123 runs, average 20.5) were the most successful batsmen and their century partnership for the second wicket against Nottingham High School was one of the high lights of the season.
Challenger has proved to be a most reliable wicket-keeper. Owing to the incapacity of Ollerenshaw he had to forsake his usual role as bowler and take over the important position behind the stumps. He has performed very creditably throughout the term.
The fielding has been of a high standard, except for a poor display against Rotherham Grammar School. The team lost that game by only two runs and so learnt early in the season the value of good ground fielding and the necessity of being able to hold on to catches.
Thanks are due to Turner, who kept the record of the deeds of the players, and to those who acted as twelfth-man. Their services to the team have been much appreciated.
The season has been enjoyed by all who took part. Even the weather proved co-operative! Let us hope for continued success from the players in the future.
G. W. T. D. J. W.
Played 9, Won 7, Lost 2.
Stockport G.S. 56; K.E.S. 59 for 6. Won by 4 wkts.
Chesterfield G.S. 32; K.E.S. 34 for 3. Won by 7 wkts.
Rotherham G.S. 81; K.E.S. 79. Lost by 2 runs. (Searle 5 for 31; Shaw 26).
K. E. S. 2nd XI 54; K.E.S. Under 15 42. Lost by 12 runs.
K.E.S. 133 for 5 dec.; Central Tech Sch. 9. Won by 124 runs (Ollerenshaw 54; Evison 45; Hawley 5 for 4; Searle 5 for 8).
K.E.S. 74; High Storrs G.S. 16. Won by 58 runs. (Hawley 5 for 5; Searle 5 for 8).
Doncaster G.S. 57; K.E.S. 60 for 4. Won by 6 wkts. (Perris 27).
Mt. St. Mary's College 63; K.E.S. 64 for 7. Won by 3 wkts. (Newsom 6 for 10).
K.E.S. 126 for 3 dec.; Nottingham H.S. 121. Won by 5 runs. (Evison 55; Newsom 52 not out).
THIS has been a batting rather than a bowling side. At first there was difficulty in finding an opening partner for Findlay, but this was solved by Wagstaff in an excellent innings at Hull, though his concentration was too often rewarded with misfortune later in the season. Findlay began well and looked likely to become the backbone of the side, but the demands of wicket-keeping, failure to concentrate through over-confidence, and weaknesses on the leg side prevented the large scores of which he is capable. Powell proved the most accomplished batsman; against De La Salle College he was the only one able to play accurate bowling. When he has improved his defence (he has trouble in playing back) he should become a constant asset to any side. As an off-break bowler, he was "discovered" at Hymer's College, and with 5 for 11 against Mt. St. Mary's established a strong claim to recognition in this field. Despite initial nervousness Lord was always to be reckoned with in the middle of the order, and could always be relied on, especially in an emergency, to play well. His innings of 55 not out against Nottingham H.S. could not be faulted in its controlled aggression. Crowson was rarely happy against good length bowling, but his scores were often of value to the side. Board, Manterfield and Ellis showed promise and put up some good performances, but Dixon and Sheasby require more confidence and an improvement in basic technique.
Our bowling was often inaccurate and easily bewildered by competent batsmen: when the ball was pitched well up and on the stumps, success invariably followed. The mainstay again was Lord, whose effectiveness would have benefited if care, variation and thought had been made to match his enthusiasm. Walker rarely put himself on in vain, and always set an example in attacking the stumps. Board was very disappointing in his failure to maintain accuracy of length and direction. Gilbert proved spirited but erratic, while Crowson, though never impressive, was always a useful stock bowler. Andrew took the only hat-trick of the season, but distinguished himself most by lively fielding. Manterfield was usually good with his medium-pace bowling on the off stump he was at his best against Nottingham H.S. when he took the first 3 wickets in the first over. He and Lord made the match against High Storrs their own by taking 4 for 9 and 4 for 10 respectively, and scoring 72 for the fourth wicket to record the best stand. of the season.
The most exciting match was the game at Hull, where after one of our opponents had completely demoralised bowlers and fielders alike in scoring 92 not out, we won in the last over with one wicket to fall and two balls to spare as Ellis made the winning "snick" to crown a united effort by the whole team. Another tense finish occurred at Mount St. Mary's College, where we won through accurate bowling by Walker and Powell and alert fielding by everyone. Indeed the most pleasing feature of the season was the enthusiastic team-work, the credit for which must be given to Walker. His ability to discern and take advantage of his opportunities developed along with his own individual performances with bat and ball. It has been a really enjoyable as well as successful season.
A. F. T. P. D. A.
Played 9, Won 5, Drawn 2, Lost 2.
K.E.S. 91 for 9 dec.; Eckington G.S. 59 for 9 (Lord 5 for 25).
K.E.S. 68; Chesterfield G.S. 18 (Lord 4 for 5).
K.E.S. 79 for 6 dec. (Findlay 35); Rotherham G.S. 19 for 4.
Hymer's College Hull 125 for 4 dec.; K.E.S. 126 for 9. (Board 28, Powell 25).
De La Salle College 115 (Crowson 4 for 7); K.E.S. 72 (Powell 34 not out).
K.E.S. 123 for 7 dec. (Lord 33, Manterfield 29); High
Storrs G.S. 53 (Lord 4 for 10, Manterfield 4 for 9).
Doncaster G.S. 96; K.E.S. 74.
K.E.S. 53; Mt. St. Mary's College 45 (Powell 5 for 11).
K.E.S. 137 for 6 dec. (Lord 55 not out); Nottingham H.S. 72 (Manterfield 5 for 23).