Cricket 1890

428 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME; SEPT, 25, 1890. THE SEVENTH AUSTRALIAN TEAM. F O R T IE T H MATCH—v. AN E LEV EN OF EN G L AN D . The Australian tour came to a rather un­ eventful close at Old Trafford, Manchester, on Saturday afternoon. It had been originally intended that the team should have finished at Hastings in the early part of the week. As how ever the England m atch at Manchester at the end of August had not even been com ­ m enced, owing to heavy rain on each of the three days, it was determined to give the L an­ cashire cricket folk a fixture in place of that abandoned. A strong eleven of professionals had been secured by the executive of the L an­ cashire C.C., but unfortunately for those interested, the Manchester Autumn race- m eeting was taking place at the same tim e at New Barns, close, to the ground, and the attandance was very considerably affected thereby, particularly on Saturday, when the Lancashire Plate of £11,000 attracted thousands to the race-course. Ferris had recovered so far from the injury to his knee to be able to play, but T rott, who had not before stood out of the team , was com pelled to give way this tim e owing to a strain. Murdoch was successful in the toss for choioe of innings, and the Australians went in first. Lyons was caught and bowled the first ball he had from Lohm ann, but Murdoch and Barrett played with great confidence, and their stand for the first wicket was the feature of the innings. Barrett scored faster than is his wont, and at luncheon tim e, when the total was 87, he had m ade 33 to 48 of Mur­ doch. T he tw o batsmen only added 13 after the resum ption when M urdocn was bowled by Lohm ann. Of the 99 added during his part­ nership with Barrett, the Australian captain had contributed 57. Though he was badly m issed at slip when he had made 36, his innings, which lasted just over two hours, was otherwise without a fault and quite up to his best form . Barrett after this played with great care, and when the game was stopped by the umpires at 5.20 ow ing to the bad light, he was still in with 78 to his credit. On resum ing on Friday morning Charlton lent Barrett use­ ful assistance, and the total was raised to 222 before the form er was caught at the wioket. G regory was soon dism issed, and then Barrett, who it was hoped would have carried his bat through the innings, was caught. Going in first, he was the last man out, having been batting just under five hoars and three- quarters. E xcept for two hard chances when he was in the fifties, he made no mistake, and as a display of w atchful cricket his 97 was deserving of the highest praise. R ain over­ night and on Friday caused the wicket to favour the bowlers in the afternoon, and the E nglish batsmen were rather heavily handi­ capped. U lyett and Shrewsbury gave little trouble, but Gunn, who was in two hours for his 49, played in his best style, and, later on, Peel was seen to great advantage, being not out at the end of the day w ith 31 out of 107 to his credit. Rain fell heavily on Saturday m orning, and Peel and Sugg made such good use of the w icket while it was wet that the follow-on was saved. Sugg, who, owing to an injury, had someono to run for him , hit 31 runs in a little over half an hour, and Peel ultimately carried out his bat for 65, the highest score on the side. H e was in altogether two hours and a half, and except for tw o very hard chances, there was no fault of any kind in his innings. W hen the Australians went in a second time in a m ajority of 67, L yons hit in his m ost vigorous style. H e scored 56 in twenty-five minutes, and when he was caught in the long-field the total was 66 . Barrett how ever was again seen to marked advantage, and when the gam e ended he had m ade 73 not out, of 186 for four wickets. As will be seen, he scored 170 in the m atch for once out. It was a remarkable finish to the tour, and a per­ formance of very exceptional merit. In the first innings he was five hours and forty minutes at the wicket, going in first and being last out. On the third day he was in two hours and a half, so that in tne m atch altogether he was batting for eight hours and ten minutes. Everyone will congratulate him on such a brilliant wind-up to the season’s cricket. A u str a l ia n s . First Innings. Mr. J. J. Ferris, run out ........................11 Mr. P. C. Charlton, c Sherwin, b Ulyett 21 Mr. S. E. Gregory, c Gunn, b Attewell 0 Mr. H. Trumble, not Mr.J. J. Lyons, c and b Lohmann .......... 1 Mr. J. E. Barrett, c Peel, b Attewell ... 97 Mr. W. L. Murdoch, b Lohmann ..........57 Mr. C. T. B. Turner, c Peel, b Briggs ... 8 Mr. F. H, Walters, c Lohmann, b Briggs 10 Mr. K. E. Burn, b Attewell ................. 8 Mr.J.M’C. Blackham, b Attewell .......... 0 In the Second Innings Lyons scored c Peel, b Attewell 56, Barrett (not out) 73, Murdoch, c Shrewsbury, b Davidson 7, Turner, c Shrewsbury b Peel 19, Walters, c Peel, b Lohmann 1, Ferris (not out) 19; b 4, lb 7.—Total, 186. E l e v e n of E n g la n d . out B 14, lb .2 Total ...234 Ulyett, b Turner ... 0 Shrewsbury,c Trum­ ble, b Turner.......... 8 Gunn, c Murdoch, b Ferris .................49 M. Read, c Blackham, b Turner................. 1 Briggs, c Blackham, b Ferris ................. 4 Peel, not out ..........55 Lohmann, b Turner 12 F.Sugg.st Blackham, b F erris.................31 Attewell, c Gregory, b F erris................. 0 Davidson,c Gregory, b Ferris................. 0 Sherwin, c Trumble, b Ferris.................. 1 B 5, nb 1 .......... 6 T otal...........167 BOWLING ANALYSIS. A u str alia n s . First Innings. O. M. R. W, Briggs.......... 5328 61 2 Lohmann ... 5229 63 2 Attewell ... 39.425 28 4 Davidson ... 13 5 27 0 Peel .......... 15 9 22 0 Ulyett..........16 8 17 1 Second Innings. O. M. R. W. ... 8 1 29 0 ... 15 4 44 1 ... 38 5 38 1 ... 22 11 45 1 ... 8 2 15 1 ... 4 3 4 0 E leven of E n g la n d . O. M. R. W. I O. M. R. W. Turner ... 54 29 83 4 | Ferris 54 26 78 6 The comparative failure of the Seventh Australian Team will be the subject of general regret not only in Australia, but also am ong E nglish cricketers. Their ill-success from a cricket standpoint is the m ore disap­ pointing, because we are still disposed to think that they are a better com bination than the results of the tour would lead anyone to believe. Their record, as it stands, is certainly anything but satisfactory, the worst, in fact, of any of the seven teams which have so far visited this country. Of thirty-eight matches, only thirteen have been won, while sixteen have been lost. A summary like this presents little ground for com fort, and it certainly must be a most disheartening record for those who were m ainly responsible for the visit. A t the same time it will, we think, be admitted that the cricket of the team generally fell far below the standard the prom oters were justi­ fied in honing would be reached on the strength of the performances of the leading members of the com bination during the last Australian season. The hopes that a team thoroughly representative of Australian cricket would be secured were, unhappily, not destined to be realised. Though the absence of George Giffen, the best all-round cricketer in the Colonies, was alone sufficient to prevent any such claim , still, the form the m ajority of those who joined Boyle had shown last winter was Footballs. Thi8< ccb <^Brand IS ABSOLUTELY THE BEST quite good enough to justify a feeling of confidence that they would prove a difficult side to beat. A s it happened, w ith a few exceptions, the team failed to play up to their Australian reputations. The remarkable mistake in bringing over as a reserve wicket­ keeper Burn, who had never kept w icket, was of course disastrous, as it left M urdoch, when Blackham ’s hands were bad, without a quali­ fied stumper, a serious disadvantage on several important ocoasions. In the hands of Turner and Ferris the bowling was quite up to the best standard of previous teams. These two bore, as in 1888, the brunt of the bow ling, and oddly enough each took 215 wickets, delivering very nearly the same number of overs, and at almost the same cost. Both fully maintained their prom ise of 1888, but after them the change did not appear to be of a very formidable calibre, though perhaps Charlton and Trumble m ight have had better figures if they had been given a better chance instead of as a rule having to com e on when either Turner or Ferris had proved unsuccess­ ful. In bowling there was little or no cause of complaint, except perhaps that the tw’o great bowlers m ight have been spared such an inordinate amount of work. Blackham , too, showed no falling off at the wicket, in fact on many occasions if anything he sur­ passed himself. It was in batting that the team m ostly failed, and we are strongly of opinion that if the season generally had been in favour of run-getting the Australians would probably have shown to even less advantage. T he bat­ ting was not so reliable as m ight have been expected; in fact, it was often very uneven. Though Lyons’ hitting was at times brilliant, altogether he was not seen at his best. Mur­ doch’s style was as neat as ever, and he alto­ gether falsified the expectations of those who doubted hie capability to bat in his old form after such a lengthy absence from the cricket- field. He played, indeed, throughout consis­ tently well, and everyone will be glad to see him at the head of the averages. D r. Barrett’s defensive cricket, if not taking, was invaluable to the side. H e always played up w ith pluck, and several tim es—notably against England at L ord’s—his batting was the feature of the Australians’ cricket. The value of his watchful play throughout cannot be overrated. Though Xrott did generally well, still he hardly fulfilled his exceptional prom ise of 1888, and in spite of more than one good innings, he was not so reliable as two years ago. Blackham, notably against Surrey in the first match, came off when others failed, and his hitting more than once changed the whole aspect of the game. Turner’s free cricket, too, at times was of great service, but otherwise there was a lack of stability, though often, and on critical occasions, the tail batted exceptionally well. Unfortunately, Jones, the m ost dangerous batsman on the side on his best form , could only play little, and when he did he was unable to do himself justice. W alters also was a failure. Great things were expected on his performances at hom e,but he never—well, hardly ever— played his real game, and, in fact, was one of the disappointments of the tour. Dr. Barrett was, in fact, the only one of the new men who can be said to have com e up to his home reputation, and he proved him self to be the thorough stonewaller the English public had been led to expect. Still though they were not successful, the team showed themselves to be good sportsmen, and they w ill certainly carry home with them the best wishes of cricketers in the old Country. In one respect, Boyle’s tour deserves to be remembered affec­ tionately on this side. His suggestion to give the whole prooeeds of a m atch for the benefit of our “ Cricketers’ Fund.” would alone entitle the team to the grateful recollection o f E nglish players. The cricket public here will not be likely to forget the good feeling which prom pted the m anage­ ment of the Seventh Australian Team to volunteer their aid on behalf of a charity which has for its object the relief of cricketers. NEXT ISSUE, OCTOBER 80.