Cricket 1886

NOV. 25, 1886. CRICKET: A WEEKLY BECOKD OE THE GAME. 471 bowler, and heavy smiter at Esher and the Crystal Palace. J. E. Laidlay, who finished second, is one of a family of Scotch cricketers from Loretto, who can, or could, all bo^l good slows with plenty of work on. Leslie M. Balfour, third place, has been for years about the finest bat in the North, good enough for any company. His brother, E. S. Balfour, is a little bit behind him, but still a good man at both games. Among the others, who finished close up with the winners, were Horace G. Hutchinson, a Devonshire cricketer, and a Free Forester. I don’t wish to say anything against his cricket, when I suggest that he is better at golf; H.S.C.Everard, an oldF.F.,who kept wicket well, though hardly as good as Blackham; A. G. G. Asher, who played for Oxford a few years ago. W. R. Kermack, who, though not a cricketer in the same sense that W. G. Grace is one, delights the onlookers and the other side with a noble exhibition of all­ round skill once a year, when the Royal Wimbledon Golf Club play the Wimbledon Cricket Club. Among men, who were not at St. Andrews, but who play both games with some skill, are J. G. Walker, T. R. Marshall, J. S. Russel, and G. H. Goldney, cum multis aliis. Many men won’t have anything to do with golf, because they have been told it destroys one’s form at cricke#. I don’t believe it is so; on the contrary, golf keeps one’s hand, eye, muscles, and liver in proper working order in the spring and autumn, when of cricket there is none. I think, however, that cricket for a time has an ill effect of one’s golf; you can often tell from a man’s style that he is a cricketer, but you may watch J. G. Walker, or T. R. Marshall,through a long innings without the least chance of seeing either of them mis­ taking his bat for a “ lofting iron” and play “ according.” A c o r r e s p o n d e n t (Mr.A.Constanduros) has sent me the following parody :— THE STAND OF THE LAST TWO MEN. Run by run—Run by run— Run by run—Onward! Fill up the scoring-sheet—they’re in For a hundred. Forward and back they played, Come when I call,” one said, “ Mind you don’t run me out Making this hundred.” Fast ball and slow they played, Bowlers were all dismayed, E’en tho’ the fieldsmen knew No one had blundered. Theirs to be on the watch Lest they should miss a catch; All try and win the match. Yet still the score mounts up, Nearing the Hundred. Fieldsmen to right of them— Fieldsmen to left of them— Bowler in front of them— Volleyed and thundered. No bowling seemed to tell, Boldly they played and well, Fieldsmen got all “ pell-mell,” And yet no wicket fell— (But they’ve not made a hundred). Flashed then the bat all bare— Swift flies the ball through th’air— Making a sixer there— All tlie field wondered! Good play—no school-boy poke— Though the balls often broke. Bowler and fieldsman Flinched from that hard off stroke Beaten and frightened! Then one came out —to get His pad tightened I Fieldsmen to right of them— Fielsmen to left of them— Longstop behind them— All now had blundered. Stormed at with balls pitched up well At last down the wickets fell! And they that had played so well, Came through the cheering crowd Back—while the scoring boards tell One short of a Hundred ! When can their glory fade ? Oh, that fine stand they made ! All the crowd wondered I Honour that stand they made, Nearly a Hundred I BUCKHURST HILL v. ANCHORITES. Played at Buckhurst Hill on September 18. B u ckh u rst H il l . J.R .M oseley, b Fisher 9 H . A. H ants,b W alker 84 (i. P alm er, c Chads, b F isher ....................69 R .L . A llport, c W hyte, b Chads ....................56 H . G ordon, c Carter, b Chads ....................14 R . J. H utchinson, b C hads............................. 0 L. H . G unnery, b W h yte ....................33 J. P igot, c C ock- burn, b Chads ... 12 A. M ason, c N icholls, b C h a d s ..................... 2 W. J. P hillips, not ou t ............................. 0 W . C harlesw orth, c C ockbu rn.b C hads 8 B l , l b 2, n b 2 5 T o t a l............292 A n c h o r it e s . C. C ottingham , c C harlesw orth, b P alm er .................... 5 C. W . L avender, c P igot, b G unnery ... 26 H . C. W alker,b H ants 5 B. R . F isher, c H ants, b G unnery ............23 W. W hyte, c Charles­ w orth, b G unnery 16 J.C arter, c M oseley, b G unnery .................... 0 A. B ugby, run o u t ... J .L .N ich olls,n ot out J. W . C ockburn, b H ants ..................... H. Chads, c Charles­ w orth, b G unnery W . Y oungm an, o H ants .................... B 2,1 b 7 ............ T otal .., ... TH E F IF TH A U S T R A L IA N TE AM . The following is an extract from a long article by “ Felix ” in the Australasian on the subject of the failure of the Fifth Australian Team :— “ In plain language, I venture to say that the defeat of the Melbourne Club team in the representative contests is due to the fact that they were not strong enough to cope with the full strength of England. Our batting has failed lament­ ably, and for the first time in England Australian bowling has failed. Who in bygone years heard of totals of 558 and 501 against Australian bowling ? Totals ranging from 300 to 500 are now quite common against Spofforth and his com ­ rades. It was not so aforetime. Com­ pare the doings o f the new men, Evans, M’llwraith, Bruce and Trumble, with those of Murdoch, Massie, M'Donnell, A. Bannerman, Horan and Boyle. The former, Trumble excepted, have done nothing, or next to nothing; the latter, without an exception, acquitted them­ selves excellently well. M ‘Ilwraith got into this team owing to his three centuries here in 1885-0. But all the form he showed in Australia has deserted him in England. He has been a con­ spicuous failure, the greatest that ever went to England. The wet wickets he tarted on seemed to have taken all the cricket out of him. Bruce has signally failed both with bat and ball. One of the home papers alleged, indeed, that the young left-hander showed the white feather when playing in one of the test matches. If this be true, Bruce in England and Bruce in Australia are totally different cricket­ ers. Evans has done very badly, much to the regret and surprise of the numerous friends of the popular New South Welsh­ man. It must be mentioned, though, that he was not given a proper chance, especially in bowling. Tne home papers said so repeatedly. Though he was taken home for his bowling, he was rarely tried until men were thoroughly set. Trumble, for a new man, has done passably, and must not be bracketed with the numerous failures, among whom Bonnor, the levi­ athan hitter, has to be included. Black­ ham and the sapient Spofforth said in the Sydney pavilion, last January, that next to W . Grace, they would choose Bonnor on their side. It is a pity the giant has so stupendously failed to justify the very high opinion entertained of his cricketing ability by such judges. Bonnor’s highest score during the tour, so far as advices reach, is 49. His fielding seems to have been on a par with his batting— that is to say, it has been weak and patchy. Garrett, as a bowler, has not done as well as was expected. Still, he has performed creditably. In batting, however, he ranks with the failures. One man (Giffen) deserves the very highest praise it is possible to bestow. He has batted splendidly and consistently. He has bowled admirably and with great and well-merited success. H is fielding, too, has been capital. Up to the last com ­ pilation of averages he had bowled about 1,600 ballsmore than any o f his comrades, and, so far, he stands first in the list both in bowling and batting. Jones, I am very glad to note, has batted in splendid form. Twice he has topped the hundred. His 151 against the Gentlemen was a masterly display, and his 108 (not out) at Scarborough is spoken of in the highest terms. I think, when the tour closes, Jones will be top in batting. Scott has not batted up to the form expected, but he has played some excellent in­ nings, and will take a creditable third place. He, Giffen, and Jones are head and shoulders above the other men. They appear as Tritons among minnows. Spofforth is not the Spofforth of old. This time he has been thoroughly collared. The demon no longer intimi­ dates English batsmen. It may be that his accident incapacitated him. But, whatever be the cause, it is certain that his record now shows an astonish­ ing falling off when contrasted with his grand figures in 1884. Palmer, as a bowler, has done very little, and in batting he has disappointed all his friends, notwithstanding that latterly he is credited with some capital scores. Jarvis has failed as a batsman, and behind the sticks he has not been at his best. Blackham has at times kept wicket quite in his old style, but in batting his average is small. As usual, though, he has been all there on a pinch.” Next Issue December 30