Cricket 1891

22 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. FEB. 26, 1891 BOWLING ANALYSIS. V ictoria . First Innings. O. M.R. W. Ferris....... 48.316 53 2 Charlton ... 3611845 Downes ... 103192 Second Innings, O. M. R. W. ... 29.112 27 4 ... 19 7 40 6 ... 12 5 13 0 Ferris bowled 2 no-balls and Charlton 1 wide. N.S.W. First Innings. 0. M. R. W. M’Leod ... 42 24 60 1 Trumble ... 24 13 13 0.. Worrall ... 12 6 14 0 Phillips ... 41.528 20 7 Palmer ... 10 8 8 0 B ruce.......... 4 2 8 1 Morris.......... 11 3 13 1 Second Innings. O. M. R. W, ... 12 2 33 6 ... 11.1 2 24 3 Worrall bowled a wide. of Zhe Victoria has now won l i f n T i *w ales 22 games, the Sydney • folJowmg table of the Inter­ colonial matches since their institution in 1856.— Date. Where Played. Won by March, 1856 Melbourne N.S.W., by 3 wickets January, 1857 Sydney N.S.W., by 65 runs January, 1858Melbourne Victoria, by 171 runs January, 1859°/“ ney Victoria, by 2 wickets Febraary,l860 Melbourne Victoria, by 69 runs January, 1861 Sydney Victoria, by 21 runs January, 1862 Melbourne Victoria, by 10 wickets February,1863 Sydney N.8.W., by 84 runs Dec., 1865 Melbourne Victoria, by l inns, and 20runs Dec., 1866 Sydney N.S.W., by 1innings and 26 runs Dec., 1867 Melbourne Victoria, by 7 wickets March, 1869 Sydney Victoria, by 78runs February,1870Melbourne Victoria, by 265 runs March, 1871 Sydney Victoria, by 48 runs March, 1872Melbourne Victoria, by l innings and 26 runs March, 1873 Sydney Victoria, by 24 runs Dec., 1874 Melbourne N.S.W., by 6wickets March, 3875 Sydney N.S.W., by 77 runs Deo., 1875 Melbourne N.S.W., by 1 innings and 1 run February,1876 Sydney N.8.W., by 195 runs Dec., 1877Melbourne N.S.W.,by 1 innings and 6 runs February,1878 Sydney N.S.W., by 1 innings and 2 runs Nov., 1879 Sydney N.S.W., by 33 runs Dec., 1879 Melbourne Victoria, by 1 innings and 96 runs Dec., 1880 Melbourne Victoria, by 2 wickets and 3 runs February,1881 Sydney Victoria, by 30 runs Dec., 1881 Melbourne Victoria, by 2 wickets and 2 runs February,1882 Sydney N.S.W., by 1innings and 138 runs Dec., 1882 Melbourne N.S.W., by 7wickets and 1 run February ,1883 Sydney Victoria, by 1 innings and 166 runs Dec., 1883 Melbourne Victoria, by 3 wickets and 1 run February,1884 Sydney N.S.W., by 202runs Dec., 1884 Melbourne Victoria, by 1 innings and 5 runs February,1885 Sydney N.S.W., by 3 wickets and 3runs Dec., 1885 Melbourne Victoria, by 1 innings and 69 runs January, 1886 Sydney N.S.W., by 150 runs Dec., 1886 Melbourne N.S.W., by 184 runs January, 1887 Sydney N.S.W., by 6 wickets and 2 runs Dec., 1887 Melbourne N.S.W., by 2wickets and 1 run January, 1888 Sydney N.S.W., by 1 innings and 35 runs January, 1889 Melbourne N.S.W., by 6 wickets and 1 run January, 1839 Sydney Victoria by 12 runs Dec., 1889 Melbourne Victoria, by 8 wickets and 1 run January, 18S0Sydney N.S.W., by 4wickets and 2 runs Dec., 1830 Melbourne Victoria, by 86 runs The following comments on the match by “ Felix,’ ' the cricket critic of the Australasian , will be read with interest, we feel sure:— Our victory over New South Wales in the forty-fifth intercolonial match between the two colonies will be received with signal satisfaction by supporters of the dark blues. There was no fluke about the win. From start to finish the game was keenly contested, and the smiles of the fickle goddess were equally apportioned. There can be no doubt that the Victorian display in the first innings was disappointing, for with a good wicket and perfect light a total of 250 was not un­ reasonably expected. To fall as our men did for 161 caused the hopes of New South Wales to be distinctly in the ascendant, for our visitors confidently anticipated heading that number by fully one hundred. But they did not. Their batting was unmistakably feebler than that of Victoria, though the wicket was even in better condition for them than it was for our men, who before lunch on the first day complained of a defect in the pitch, caused by a slight patch of dampish turf, which somewhat aided Charlton’s deliveries. In the second innings of each side the wicke^ was decidedly of the “ sticky ” order, and the Victorians felt quite content when they totted up 88. A special but by no means an entertaining feature of the match was A. Bannerman’s batting for 45 (not out). He went in first and carried his bat right through, and he scored at the alarming rate of nearly nine runs per hour on a pitch of the billiard-table class. His mournful and funereal play sur- S rised even his own comrades, and was un- oubtedly calculated to imbue them with a notion that the Victorian bowling was of the very highest quality. So it was. Still Gregory plainly showed that it was possible to score pretty freely. The contrast between his play and Bannerman’s was singularly striking. W ith Bannerman it was nothing but “ block, block, block,” “ potter, potter, potter;” with Gregory it was energy, and go, and rapid run-getting. The cutting of Gregory was a treat to witness, and some of his strokes reminded me not a little of his father’ s play in bygone days. Gregory hits well all round the wicket, and he deserves nothing but unstinted praise for his spirited contribution of 60. He and Bannerman made 95 between them, and there was nothing in the rest of the play to call for comment, except to state that Iredale, who is new to Victorian soil, shapes like a thoroughly sound batsman. I am strongly inclined to the belief that Bannerman’s pronounced stone­ walling and his marked avoidance of off-balls tended to make some of his fellow-batsmen unduly cautious and timid in their play; but while I say so I do not for one moment wish to undervalue the great merit attaching to Alick’ s performance in keeping up an end from first to last, and doing so without giving the semblance of a chance. His defence was simply perfect, but it is beyond question that he let many balls pass which should have been punished. To a genuine lover of cricket it is interesting to watch bowling of a class which has ,to be treated with respect; but there are times when the respect manifested may be overdone. Such was the case with Bannerman. He deserves credit, but not to the extent which he has won many a time and oft in previous exhibitions by him in these time-honoured encounters. I do not wonder at the publio feeling shown during Bannerman’s monotonous innings. A few more like it, and even the keenest enthusiast would keep away. Moses played remarkably tamely, he being over 40 minutes in making a run. On the Victorian side first place was gained by Morris in the first innings, and his score of 39 was obtained by first-class cricket of a taking wristy kind. To my mind Morris’s was the most scientific cricket of the match. He made one stroke to long-on off Charlton which was remarkably good, and some of his off strokes were very fine. Blackham came just at the right time with his 28, made by sterling and vigorous cricket, and Phillips and Trumble merit the warmest praise for the able way in which they played and augmented the score wh-m runs were badly wanted. Trumble shapes in such admirable style that I have often wondered why he fails to attain prominence as a batsman. In the second inn­ ings, on the sticky wicket, he played well for 27, though like others he had a share of good luck. Trott hit resolutely for 18, and Horan and Bruce soundly earned their respective con­ tributions of 12 and 10. A word of praise is due to Tom Garrett for his 12 (not out) in the second innings of New South Wales. He was too ill to field, but he donned his war-paint in the hope that he might help to save his side in batting, and the veteran played manfully, as he has done many a time before. The bowling of Phillips would deserve a full chapter, but as space is limited I must confine myself to the statement that his record, con­ sidering the perfect condition of the pitch, is simply marvellous, and stands without pre­ cedent in intercolonial annals :—251 balls, 20 runs, 28 maidens, 7 wickets. Think of it as a record on a fast true pitch against able bats­ men, and the more you think of it the more you will wonder. The collection made for Phillips by Major Wardill and Messrs. Ryall and Slight was thoroughly well merited, but I think that the association might well supple­ ment the £18 by a present to specially recognise this splendid bowling achievement. Trumble may be justly praised for his performance with the ball in the second innings, and for New South Wales Ferris, Charlton, and Downes distributed the bowling honours with capital figures. How is it that Tom Garrett didn’t get a shot in either innings ? Palmer, though only 8 runs were scored off him, showed that he has lost a lot of his old “ devil” with the ball, and keeps his arm quite low now com ­ pared with his old style. In fielding Worrall stood conspicuous aboye the whole for his magnificent form. That run out of Iredale was the finest thing I have wit­ nessed in twenty years’ cricket. Time after time applause rang out for Worrall, and he deserved it all. Bannerman, Gregory, Bruce, Charlton, Downes, and others did effective work, and Blackham and Wales in their position with the gloves acquitted themselves excellently. Wales got a blow on the bridge of the nose that would have made some men cave in, but he came up smiling, as if blows on the bridge of the nose were nothing to him. It was generally admitted that Blackham showed sound generalship in placing his field on the sticky wicket in the second innings. He had a short-leg forward close up, and a mid-on close up, and he had two, and some­ times three, men in the deep field, so as to curb any hitting inclination by the batsmen. The result was that the majority of the New South Wales men stopped carefully at home, and became comparatively easy victims on the treacherous turf. The umpiring of Messrs. Briscoe and Cotter was really good throughout, notwith­ standing the reprehensible halt and gestures of dissatisfaction made at the wicket by Alick Bannerman after Cotter had given him out. Some men require to be told half-a-dozen times that they are out before they will move away. C r ic k e t e r s .— B e st G oods b e a r th is M a r k .— A d v t. NEXT ISSUE, MARCH 26.