Cricket 1884

426 CEICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. s e p t . is. ism. grounds had very much to do with the triumphs of the first three Australian teams, too, received confirmation in the fact that the howlers who proved so effective over here were comparatively powerless when they had to meet English hatsmen on the faster wickets of the Colonies. This year, though, it cannot be pleaded that the state of the ground has in any way favoured the Australians. Except at the very close of their tour the wickets generally have been all in favour of run-getting. This only serves to reflect the greater credit on their all-round cricketwbich, in spite of a few failures, has been on the whole worthy of the highest praise. In one respect, and that perhaps the one in which their great ambition centred, they were unsuccessful. Murdoch is not able to make the same boast a3 at the “ Criterion ” two years ngo in comparing himself to Sir Garnet Wolseley, that he had come to beat England and had succeeded. The Austra­ lians had, no doubt, on paper the best of the draw in two of the three matches in which they met England. No one will for a moment wish to detract from the un­ doubted excellence of their performance at Manchester, or their still better sh:>w against quite the full strength of England on the splendid wicket provided at the Oval. All honour is due to them for the very fine cricket they played, and their grand score of 551 on the Surrey ground was a feat of which Australian cricket ha< thoroughly good reason to be proud. Still, it is emi­ nently satisfactory to Englishmen to remem­ ber that the only one of the three represen­ tative matches completed resulted in favour of the old country, and by more than one innings. At the commencement of the tour more than one of the team were certainly out of form, and it looked as if their successes would be only very few. As the season advanced, though, their cricket all round im­ proved considerably, and at the end of the tour they had played them?elves into the very best form. No one would be inclined to believe that their defeats by Oxford Uni­ versity or Kent were really the results of superior cricket, although both were highly creditable successes. In both matches, too, against the Players, from different causes the English professionals were very poorly represented, so that the glory of their vic­ tories was considerably decreased. In the two meetings with the Gentlemen, which were both singularly exciting, the honours were divided. Every possible credit, though, should be given to them for the fine up-hill game they played at Lord’s, and their defeat by four wickets was not inglorious when it is considered that Spofforth broke down after bowling a few overs, and that they were only able to bat ten men in both inning*. They were twice beaten, and decisively by the North of England, and it is cer­ tainly one of the most singular features in the visits of the four Australian teams, that they have not been able to beat a North of England team Another equally curious point observable in the results of the present tour, is that every one of the three representative matches played at Lord’s, resulted disastrously for them. On more than one occasion, though, fortune favoured them in drawn matches. They would, probably, have been beaten had time admitted of a completion of the game, both by a scratch eleven at Huddersfield, and by Sussex at Brighton. The return, too, with Notts at Nottingham was certainly not drawn in their favour, although there was just the probability that they might have won as the ground was when the game ended. On the whole, though, considering the hard work they had to undergo during the four months of their tour, the great strain attendant on such a succession of important matches, and the generally hard conditions of the ground, they proved them­ selves to be in every way worthy representa • tives of Australian cricket. Taking every­ thing into account, they may fairly be considered quite up to the average of the pre»ious teams, if they were not, on the whole, a little above it. Turning to the form of the various mem­ bers of the team, prominence should be given to the bowling, in which the strength of the team is rightly considered chiefly to lie. And in any mention of the bowling Spofforth’s name must stand out in bold relief, in a position by itself. How the team wouU have fared had Spofforth per­ sisted in his determination not to visit Eng­ land again can only be surmise. There is the stem evidence of facts, though, to show that he has taken nearly a hundred more wickets than any bowler in the team, and, it is not too much to say, that he has alone often decided the issue of a match. His previous successes on slow wickets and his comparative failures in Australia led to the belief that he would be of little use here if the wickets were hard and true. His figures, though, will show that he has been remarkably effective even under the altered conditions of grounds, and there is certainly no bowler we have ever seen who could claim comparison with him when he is thoroughly on his mettle, and there is the slightest help to be derived from the wicket. Palmer, towards the end of the tour, was suffering from a bad foot. The Australians consider him the best bowler in the world on a true wicket, and certainly on several oc­ casions he proved his exceptional ability. Still he was on the whole hardly as success­ ful. Giffen, who again showed more than once his power over the ball by a remarkable performance, did good service, and even more might ba said of Boyle, whose figures are the more creditable considering that the grounds generally were all against his bowling Midwinter hardly fulfilled the expectations formed from his play in England. In batting, Murdoch again stands pre­ eminent. During the early part of the tour he was quite out cf form, but, despite this, his figures are exceptionally good. He was perhaps, hardly as safe altogether, but the tour, it must be remembered, was one in­ volving a great strain and anxiety. Those who witnessed his grand innings of 211 against England at the Oval, do not need to be told that on an emergency he is as great a batsman as ever. For accuracy of timing and judgment his play in this match was truly remarkable. McDonnell is second in the averages, and he fully deserves the place. His hitting throughout has been one of the very best features of the tour, and he has rarely failed to make a good score. He proved himself to be one of the most, if not the most, dangerous batsmen in the team. Scott has, it is satisfactory to be able to record, thoroughly justified the judgment of those who were instrumental in obtaining him a place in the team. Though not attractive in style, he plays the game thoroughly, and on several occasions he has shown not only great pluck, but admirable cricket at a critical part of the game. Giffen, the best all-round player, perhaps, in the team, batted up to his reputation. Bannerman, though, was by no means so successful, and he was certainly not as safe as in 1882. Bonnor’s hitting was at times as good as ever, and Blackham, on several occasions, saved the side when things were all against them. Palmer more than once proved that he can bat well, and Spofforth, during the later matches, showed that with a little more care, he would be very useful as a batsman. On the whole, the fielding was up to the standard of Australian cricket, which is high praise. YORKSHIRE. RESULTS OF MATCHES. Matches played, 16 ; won 8, lost 4, drawn 4. Date and place. 1st inn. 2nd inn. Tot. May 8, 9,10, Yorkshire.......... 123 .. 135 .. 263 Moretou-in-Marsh Gloucestershire 179 .. 43 .. 222 Won by 41 runs. June 2, 3, Yorkshire.........250 .. 31*.. 231 Sheffield .......... Kent .................151 .. 12 .. 280 *Two wickets down. Won by eight wickets. June 5,6, 7, Lord’s .............. Middlesex........... 62*.. — .. 62 *Two wickets down. Drawn. June 12,13, Yorkshire.........245 .. — .. 285 Huddersfield .. Sussex ............. 133 .. 58 .. 191 Won by an innings and 9 1runs. June 16,17,18, Yorkshire.......... 129 .. 40 .. 1 9 Sheffield .......... Nottinghamshire 117 .. 54*.. 171 *Seven wickets down. Lost by three wickets. June 23,21, Yorkshire...........1 4 8 .. 9*.. 157 Derby.................. Derbyshire . . . . 98 .. 67 .. If 5 *No wicket down. Won by ten wickets. June 26, 27, Yorkshire......... 181 .. 97*.. 278 M anchester.... Lancashire . . . . 123 .. 154 .. 277 *8even wickets down. Won by three wickets. July 14,15, Yorkshi/e.........128 .. 72 .. 200 Sheffield .......... Lanca/hire . . . . 170 .. 81*.. 201 *Four wickets dowh. Lost by six wickets. July 17,18,19, Yorkshire......... 95 .. 199 .. 291 Nottingham .... N otts.................... 114 .. 181*.. 295 •Three wickets down. Lost by seven wickets. July 24, 25, 26, Yorkshire.......... 160 .. 284 .. 444 Dewsbury.......... Surrey .............. 266 .. 20*.* 286 *One wicket down. Drawn. July 28, 29, Yorkshire......... 301 .. — .. 301 Bradford .......... Gloucestershire 117 .. 127 .. 214 Won by an innings and 57 runs. August 14, 15, Yorkshire.......... 338 .. 6*.. 811 Gravesend.......... K e n t................... 206 .. 137 .. 843 *No wicket down Won by ten wickets. Aug. 18,19,20, Yorkshire.......... 212 .. 890 .. 602 Sheffield .......... Middlesex.......... 202 .. — .. 202 Drawn. Ang. 21,22,23, Yorkshire..........161 .. 176 .. 310 Brighton.......... Sussex ............. 359 .. — .. 859 Lost by an innings and 19 runs. Ang.25,26,27, York-hire..........231 .. 16*.. 217 Bradford .......... Derbyshire . . . . 126 .. 117 .. 243 *No ticket down. Won by ten wickets. Sept. 4, 5, 6, Yorkshire .......... 134 .. — .. 134 Oval .................. Surrey ..............110 .. 11*.. 121 *No wicket down. Drawn. B atting A verages . Most in Times Inns. Runs, an inn£. not out,. Avr. . 754 .. 135 .. 1 .. 33.18 Ulyett .. .. .. 23 . . 572 .. 107 .. 0 .. 24.21 . 827 .. 54 .. 0 .. 23.5 .. ..2 4 . . 5 9 .. 116 .. 1 .. 22.3 W . H. Woodhouse 5 . . 101 .. 62 .. o .. 20.1 Grimshaw .. .. 23 . . 437 .. 71 .. o .. 19 . 86 .. 25 .. a .. 18 Peate .. .. ..2 2 . . 315 .. 95 .. 8 .. 16.11 . 810 .. 50 .. 5 .. 16.6 Emmett .. ..2 4 . . 268 .. 87 .. 5 .. 14.2 Harrison .. .. 9 . . f4 .. 26* .. 4 .. 12.4 . 81 .. 27 .. 1 .. 93 137 .. 27 .. 9 .. 9.2 . 32 .. 24 .. 0 .. 8 Hon. M. B. Hawke 8 . . 43 .. 22 .. 0 .. 6.3 Baker .. .. .. 9 . . 89 .. 13 .. 1 .. 4.7 Lockwcod .. .. 5 . . 23 .. 10 .. 0 .. 4.3 E. T. Hirst played in three innings, scoring0,16 and 10. The following playod in one innirgs:—Pull-n (14) and A. Sowden (87). B o w l in g A v e r a g e s . Overs. Mdns. Buns. Wkte. Aver. Emmett .,. 677.2 . . 815 .,. 697 .,. 61 . . 11.16 Peate , 784:3 .,. 406 .,. 770 . . 61 . . 12.33 Ulyett . . 328.3 . . 154 ,.. 585 .. 83 . . 14.3 Peel.. . i. 827.3 .,. 153 ,. 468 .. 33 . . 14.6 Eawlin . . 91.1 ,.. 46 .. 155 .. 10 . . 15.5 Harrison. . 86.2 .. 85 .. 159 .. 9 . . 17.6 Bates . 390.1 . . 170 .. 544 .. 25 . . 21.19 The following bowled in one innings Pullen, 2, 0, 5 ,0 ; Harris, 6, 2 ,11,0 : Hall, 4 , 1, 8, 0 ; and Haylcy, 3 , 0 , 11 , 0 .