Cricket 1886

28 ORlCKET: A W EEKL t RECORD OF THE GAME. F e £; (25, 1&S0 M‘DonnelI, and A. Bannerman. If Walters were now making his hundreds as he did a season or two back there would, I fancy, be no doubt about his inclusion, but though he is not making his hundreds he is just as good a batsman now as then. All that he wants is to get a fair score to start with, and his proper form will return. He is only 25 years of age, and has any amount of cricket in him for years to come. With plenty of practice on such a tour as this Australian team will have I believe Walters would, at the end of the trip, be very close to the top in batting averages. W .Giffen, whowill be taken to Sydney for the test match, is a very dangerous batsman and a grand field, but so far as can be ascertained, there seems but little likelihood of his being selected for England. If neither Evans nor Jones can go, the thirteen will probably be Blackham, Bruce, Bonnor, G. Giffen, Garrett, Horan, Jarvis, M‘Ilwraith, Palmer, Spofforth, Scott, Trumble, and Walters. From this thirteen a first-class eleven can be sent into the field—an eleven capital all round, and yet with not too many all-round men in it. It would not be judicious to take too many all­ round men. First of all pick your bowlers, but not more than a sufficient number. Australian bowling has never failed in Eng­ land, and with Spofforth, Palmer, Bruce, Giffen, Garrett, Trumble, and Evans (if he will go) the bowling results during the coming tour should be as highly creditable as ever. In alluding to bowling, I may mention that I miss from the M.C.C. list the familiar and favour­ ably-known name of H. F. Boyle, who has figured so often and so remarkably well as a bowler on English grounds. In the 1882 team he defeated even the demon himself, and won first place in grand style, and gained a hand­ some diamond ring from Mr. Dangar, of Sydney, as a trophy in recognition of his splendid achievement. It is possible, nay, highly probable, that some of my fellow cricket scribes differ from my opinion of Boyle’s bowl­ ing—I am referring solely to his bowling on English wickets, and I say with all due deference to the M.C.C. committee, and with all due appreciation of the acknowledged ability of Spofforth and Palmer, that on a real sticky wicket Boyle has no superior, provided, of course, that he is fit and well for his work. It may be said that most bowlers can get men out on sticky wickets,buthow many can get men out on such wickets as cheaply as Boyle can ? This is the important point, for on a sticky wicket a dozen, aye half-a-dozen runs make all the difference. I do not suppose these words of mine will have much weight with the M.C.C. committee,but they serve to place on record my opinion that should the English season be wet Boyle’s bowling will bemuch missed, notwith­ standing the array of talent the M.C.C. have in Spofforth, Palmer, Bruce, Garrett, Giffen, and Trumble, who is, I think, certain to be chosen. Evans, if he should be prevailed on to go, would with his precision and accuracy, robably prove an efficient substitute forBoyle, ut judging by the earnest but unsuccesful attempts made by previous teams to secure the services of the popular New South Welsh­ man, the chances are about 3 to 1 against his going this time. There is no lack of variety in the bowlers who may be set down as cer­ tainties. Spofforth stands alone. No bowler has a delivery like him, no bowler goes through such seemingly laborious action, no bowler so intimidates English batsmen, no bowler can last longer, or bowl with better heart and determination under adverse cir­ cumstances. He won his spurs grandly long ago, and he wears them yet with full brilliance and lustre. Palmer is a great bowler when in form, and with his easy and graceful delivery can last all day if wanted. If he could in future always bowl his leg-break as he bowled in the recent test match his record in England would be far ahead of anything he has previ­ ously done. Bruce, the left-hander, wno is entirely new to English grounds, will be suc­ cessful at times, but judging by his form here he is somewhat too erratic and patchy to be looked upon as likely to be head, or even second, in the bowling list. Garrett has done good service aforetime in England, and his right arm is just as good as ever. G. Giffenon his day is a splendid bowler, but when he isoff the spot is very expensive. Trumble is a capital bowler, who can keep down runs and stay at the crease as long as you like. In batting, first of all let us see who may be regarded as compensating for the loss of Mur­ doch, M‘Donnell, and A. Bannerman. These are three great batsmen, yet not one of them is going to England in this team. Murdoch’s splendid batting performances in England are universally known. He averaged 3031 in 1882 and 80 28 in 1884, and easily headed the batting list on each occasion. Who is to replace him? M'llwraith, Bruce, Trumble, and Walters are in the thirteen I have given above. M'llwraith is a dashing batsman who, if he retain his present fine form, will acquit himself admirably on fast wickets in England. On slow, sticky wickets I have not seen him perform, but i know that Mur­ doch on such wickets has often batted effec­ tively despite the fact that he is not a hitter. It is altogether a mistake to suppose that only hitters can,make runs on a sticky wicket. In 1882 the best innings Jones played in Eng­ land was at Derby on one of the worst of sticky wickets, and Murdooh in that match also scored well. Numerous similar instances could be cited. Shrewsbury, who is not a hitter, is, perhaps, the best batsman in the world on a sticky wicket. M‘Ilwraith can hit hard and play a defensive game as well, and there is no reason why he should not perform creditably on sticky wickets. But allowing him to be at his best right through on fast and slow wickets, I consider him by no means equal to Murdoch. M‘Donnell, who was second average in 1884, is also a batsman not easily replaced. Bruce is, without doubt, a eapital player, but whether he will shape on English ground up to McDonnell's form remains to be seen. Trumble could be bracketed with A. Bannerman on fast wickets, but on sticky wickets Trumble has not vet been tested, and so it impossible to say wnat he can do on them. Bannerman, however, has been tried on such wickets over and over again, and he has seldom failed to perform meritoriously. If Walters be chosen I believe he will do very well in England. Indeed, if in true form he would, in my judgment, be scarcely second to any batsman in Australia. Of batsmen who have been to England with former teams we have Blackham, Bonnor, Garrett, G. Giffen, Horan, Jarvis, Palmer and Scott. Scott was never in better form than he is at present, and there is every reason to believe that he will maintain such form in England. If he plays as well as he did in 1884 both he and his side should be thoroughly satisfied. Palmer has improved considerably on his old form, and will doubt­ less make some big scores during this tour. G. Giffen, the resolute South Australian, is a fine batsman, and this season his 170 at Mount Gambier and other scores show that he is all there as usual. Bonnor, the hitter of the team, is, as I have said more than once, just the man to win a match when no other man on his side can win it. You don’t expect him to be first, second, third, or even fourth in average, but his great punishing powers make him a terror to Englisn bowlers, and once he gets fairly in the men do not know where to pitch the ball to avoid his leviathan strokes. It is eminently satisfactory to see his name in the M.C.C. list. Horan has not shown good form so far this season, but even the very best players go off at times, and score little or nothing for half a dozen innings. It is simply absurd to shunt a tried player because of three or four poor performances. Any person who knows anything about cricket would not do it. If Horan be included in the final selection, it is quite on the cards that he will figure on English grounds as creditably as any batsman in the team. Jarvis is a capital bat, and on a fast true wicket is generally safe for a score. On slow grounds he has not appeared to advantage, but his 1880 experience on English turf should be of considerable benefit to him during this campaign. Garrett will do well with the willow also, or I am much mistaken in my estimate of his ability. From the names mentioned a really first-class team can be chosen, but it should be distinctly remembered that Australian bowling has never failed in England. It is the batting that should be looked to. In fielding, with such men as Blackham and Jarvis to take turn about at the wickets, and such men as Scott, Bruce, Bonnor, Garrett, and one or two others to support them, the team should gain distinc­ tion, and hold their own with the best fielding ever shown by Australian teams. Bruce, to my mind, is as fine a fieldsman as ever stopped a ball in Australia, and he has the advantage of being able to return with left or right hand. If the M.C.C. choose the best available thirteen, and that is the evident aim of the committee, I venture to think that the fifth Australian team will thoroughly uphold the reputation gained by previous Australian teams on the cricket fields of England. M‘Shane and Worrall are not in the M.C.C. list, yet both are capital men. Worrall is one of the pluckiest players to be found anywhere. He is a dangerous batsman, a good bowler,and a grand field. M‘Shane, to my mind, is a much underrated cricketer. Some don’t like his batting because he has no style, but the average he gets year after year is sufficient to stamp him as a really good batsman. He bowls a capital ball too. In the field he is not quite first-class, but for all that he may be set down as an all-round man of far more than average merit. It is understood that the M.C.C. will consult with several of their certainties when the final choice is being made. The Australasian A few weeks ago the Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News gave a list of the then probable Fifth Australian Eleven. Of pre­ vious visitors to England it contained only three, Blackham, Palmer, and Spofforth, and I pointed out in an article in another sporting paper that two of the number were not con­ sidered good enough to play in the inter­ colonial contest between Victoria and New South Wales, and therefore, adding Giffen and Jarvis from South Australia, would not be considered among the first twenty-four players in Australia. Since then, C. Bannerman has, it is thought unwisely, been left out of the Inter-colonial, and we hear no further mention of his coming to England. In that article I expressed my opinion that we could not be justified in expecting from the team as then constituted the achieve­ ments of the fourth Australian Eleven—not to mention the third. But the team given in the Sporting and Dramatic of February 13th is a very different matter. Now that Murdoch has given up cricket, if Scott and Evans decide to come home, and Garrett and Jones obtain leave, it will be about as strong a team as Australia could hope to send, for when it comes to a matter of several months’ absence and twelve thousand miles distance, every Executive must expect a percentage of disap­ pointments from what would constitute an ideal of representation. It is very much to be hoped that Scott will come, for the Australian papers pronounce him at the present moment the best batsman in Australia. He has apparently lost some of his old dash, but has attained in its place a rovoking and almost monotonous perfection, should very much also like to see Evans on English grounds. He is so thoroughly up- country Australian—a great big fellow with a full sun-bleached beard—not in the least con­ ventionalized. With the practice he would get, and on an English wicket, I should fancy that his bowling might prove very deadly, for it is straight and a aifficult length, though on the Melbourne ground, when in batsman’s order, he had a knack of pitching his balls a little too short to keep down the scoring. I have heard the “ larrikins ” calling out to him Nest Issue March 25.