Cricket 1893

FEB 23, 1893 CRICKET: A “WEEKLY RECORD THE GAME* 21 45, Palmer 6 and 84, Giffen 73 and 10, Scott 27 and 43, Trumble 11 and (not out), 52. South of England—at Gravesend.—Palmer 93, Bonnor 43, F. Hearne 111, Maurice Read 109,W . W . Read 87, in second innings of South. lo r d Londesborough’ s Eleven—at Scar­ borough.—Englishmen scored 558, a record against Australian bowling in England. W. G. Grace 92, Flowers 82, Scotton 71, W . E . W. Collins (not out) 56, Bates 53, Ulyett 48, Barnes 45, Bonnor 46 in first innings; Palmer 75, and Jones 108 (not out) in second, which realised 192 for one wicket. Eleven Players—at Bradford.—Scott 72 and 33. South of England—at Brighton.—W . W. Read 102 (not out). An Eleven of England (Testimonial match to Mr. J. A. Murdoch, assistant secretary of the M.C.C.) — at Lord’s.—W. G. Grace 74, Abel 29 and ^not out) 52; O. G. Radcliffe 67, Jones 67, Jarvis 84. The least important match of the tour now afforded a welcome relief to the monotony, Sixteen of Skegness and Visitors winning by nine wickets. Three more draws brought the tour to a close, very much to the relief of all concerned. Eleven of the South, at Hastings:—Abel 75, H. Pigg 59, Spillman 47, L. G. Stileman- Gibbard 46, M‘Ilwraith 23, and (not out) 62, Blackham 35 and (not out) 49. Eleven of England, at B irm in g h a m W . W . Read 97. Eleven of England, at Harrogate Diver 53. Thirty-nine matches had been played, nine won, eight lost, twenty-two drawn, a decidedly unsatisfactory record. The Eng­ lish side in the game at bkegness was a strong one, and, as so good & d authority as “ Wisden’s Almanack ” reckons the match as a first-class one, we have included it in the averages which follow. The weakness of bowling had much to do with the failure of the team. W ith Giffen, Palmer, Spofforth, and Garrett on the side, this may appear an unwarrantable assertion. But, after his accident, Spofforth hardly ever bowled in anything like his true form, Palmer’ s trundling deteriorated in proportion as his batting improved; Garrett’s wickets were far more costly than in 1878 and 1882, and though Giffen showed great improvement he alone could not compensate for the dete­ rioration visible in the work done by his fellow-players. On ordinary occasions the team was strong in run-getting, but when runs were most wanted the whole batting strength seemed to collapse. However, Giffen, Jones, and Scott were, after the first three weeks or so, generally to be relied upon for runs, while later in the tour Blackham and Palmer frequ ntly scored well. Jarvis played some brilliant innings, but neither he nor any one of the three Victorians from whom so much had been expected was at all consistent. Bonnor was often hi r;, and adopted a style of play that did not suit him, while in the match at Scarborough his foot was so badly injured that he could not play again during the tour. Evans did not do much, and w?as evidently past his prime as a player. The fielding was sometimes decidedly poor, and altogether presented a marked falling off from the high standard of previous teams. BATTING AVERAGES. G.Oifftn ... . P- Joi es JJ- J- H. Scott . G. E. Palmtr J. Bonnor .. A. H. Jarvis J- W. Trumble . W. Bruce ... . J. M. BJackham J. M'llveraith . T. W. Garrett. E. Evans ......... R. Spofforth.. ■K. J. Pope . Times M ost in Inns, not out Runs an Inns. Aver. . 65 ... 9 ... 1454 ... 119 ... 25.54 ,. 66 ... 2 ... 15.c0 ... 155 ... 23.58 66 ... 5 ... )298 ... 1*23 ... 21.17 ,. 58 ... 4 ... 1056 . .. 94 ... 19.3J , 34 ... 3 ... 581 ... 49 ... 18.23 . 52 ... 6 ... 825 ... 96* ... 17.43 .. 54 ... 8 ... 823 ... 56* ... 17.41 .. 50 ... 4 ... 780 ... ll 6 ... 16.44 52 ... 5 ... 740 ... 11 ... 15 35 .. 41 ... 7 .. 533 ... 62* ... 15. i 3 .. 50 ... 9 ... 580 ... 49* ... 14.6 .. 43 ... 15 ... 347 ... 74* ... 12 11 .. 28 ... 7 ... 166 . ... 37 ... 7.19 .. 8 ... 4 ... 31 . 12 ... 7.3 Played in one innings—M ajor W ardill 17, H. H. Hyslop 1, J. Hardie 0. BOWLING AVERAGES. Overs. G. Giffen ... 1726.2 .., F.R.Spofforth 929.3 .. T.W .Garrett ]699.1 .. E . Ev»ns ... 506.3 ... G. E. Palmer 1441 S. *>. Jones 170 .. J. W. Trum ble 506.3 .. W. Bruce ... 829 .., H.J.H. Scott 9 A. H. Jarvis 9 .. J.M .Blackham 21 Mdne. Runs. W kts. Aver. 735 ... 2752 ... 162 ... 16.160 371 .. . 1527 .. . 89 ... 17.14 798 ... 2284 ... 129 ... 17.91 251 ... 615 ... 30 ... 20.15 582 ... 2374 ... VG ... 21.64 56 ... 342 ... 13 ... 26.4 186 ... 818 ... 30 ... 27.8 112 ... 62L .... 13 ... 47.10 , 4 ..,. 12 ... 1 ... 12 2 ... 14 .... 1 ... 24 . 9 .,.. 36 .. ,. — ... — V I— T he T eam of ]£ Only four of the 1886 team repeated their visit two years later. These four were S. P. Jones, J.M . Blackham, A. H. Jarvis, and G. J. Bonnor. The last-named can scarcely be strictly said to have repeated his visit, however, for he had been staying in England ever since 1886. The team was made up by the inclusion of three players whose figures had long been familiar on English cricket grounds—P. S. M’Donnell, A. C. Bannerman, and H. F. Boyle—and six new men. These were G. H. S. Trott, J. D. Edwards, and J. Worrall, of Victoria; J. J. Lyons, of South Australia; and C. T. B. Turner and J. J. Ferris, of New South Wales. The last-named two practically represented the bowling strength of the team, Spofforth, Garrett, Giffen, and Palmer all being absent, and Boyle certainly no longer the bowler he had been. Indeed, it is hard to say why Boyle was brought at all, for a glance attheaverage tables will show of how very slight use he was. It was anticipated that Trott would fill Palmer’s place as a bowler; but English batsmen found the new man’s leg-breaks much easier to score from than those of the great George Eugene had ever been. Had the team included all the players originally intended for it, its strength would have been much greater. Giffen, Horan, and Harry Moses, perhaps the three best batsmen in Australia at the time, were all expected to make the trip ; and almost up to the last moment Midwinter’ s coming was looked for. But various causes combined to keep all these players away, and the team which finally left for England was far from being a representative one. Giffen had actually promised to go, and his defection was a great blow to the promoters of the tour. Then, as he now is, he was the finest all-round cricketer in Australia, or perhaps in the world. The team met with a good deal of un­ favourable criticism from the newspapers and public of the Colonies. That they did not deserve it all they amply proved before returning home. For our part, we consider that their record was far superior to that of the team of 1886; and that the 1888 com­ bination, considering that it was admittedly a non-iepresentativeone,reallydid wonderfully well. 'Jheir batting was uncertain ; they had only two first-class bowlers ; and they had to perform almost throughout the season on wickets such as are seldom seen at the Antipodes, where little rain falls during the summer; and yet, at the end of their tour, they had a very fair balance of victories. In one respect at least—their fieldirg—they were far ahead of Scott’s team. Mr. C. W . Beal was, as in 1882, manager ; aud M ’Donnell was captain. Though it is difficult to see on whom else the choice could have fallen—unless on Blackham— it must be owned at once that M ’Donnell was not a good captain, and that long before the end of the tour there had been considerable friction between him and some cf his men. His greatest error of judgment was the way in which he persistently overworked Turner and Ferris. The two great bowlers had to get through work enough to have killed some men; and had the season not been an exceptionally wet one, they could scarcely have lasted through it at the pace. The team, after some practice on M tcham Green, opened their campaign at Norbury Park, where they met a good eleven captained by Mr. C. I. Thornton. A win by six wickets was the result, Turner and Ferris bowling splendidly, and Jones playing a fine first innings of 45. Warwickshire was next very easily beaten—by an innings and 150 runs. Trott played a grand innings of 83, marked by a rare combination ot steady defence and fine hitting. Blackham made 96, his highest score in England, and M‘Donnell put together 46. Turner and Ferris, the latter more especially, were again very destruc­ tive. The brilliant play which had been shown by the Surrey men in the previous year led many to think that they would check the tide of victory which already seemed to have set in for the Australians. They entirely failed to do s o ; and, indeed, their defeat, considering that they had, save for the absence of Mr. M. P. Bowden, absolutely their best eleven, was nothing short of ignominious. An innings and 154 runs was the extent of it. Turner surprised everybody, himself not excepted, by playing a grand free innings of 103 ; M’Donnell made 56, Bannerman 43, Ferris 37 (not out), and Trott 35. The two bowlers again did splendid work, and Jones, whose fast bowling had not often been utilised during previous visits, had three wickets for four runs. Oxford University was the next team to succumb, by an innings and 19 runs. There were only two big scorers in the match, Rash- leigh, the ’ Varsity captain, who played plucky innings of 48 and 37, and the Austra­ lian skipper, who hit brilliantly for 105. Then Yorkshire went down by an innings and 64, Bonnor scoring 94. Up to now. five matches had been played, and every one of them won, four in a single innings. But now came a check, for Lanca­ shire, owing to the fine play of Messrs. A. G. Steel and J. Eccles, the Rev. J.R. Napier, and Johnny Briggs, scored a narrow victory by 23 runs. The ground was all in favour of the bowlers, and Jones’s first innings of 57, the highest score of the match, was an exception­ ally good performance. Just about this time Mr. Punch , Wegg-like, dropped into rhyme, with an address to Dr. W . G. Grace, on the occasion of his scoring an innings of 215 for his county v. Sussex. The concluding portion of this address is so apropos to the match of which we are about to tell that we cannot refrain from quoting it. “ Well, William, there’ s work for you, friend, and no error ! There’ s Ferris, the Fiend, and there’s Turner, the Terror, Are licl ing our Counties like winking. Their p it'b, and their pace, and their break set in to flurry The best of our batsmen from Yorkshire or Surrey; That’s scarce to your taste, I am thinking. I ’m sure that, my dear W. G., you’re a yearner To ‘ collar’ smart Ferris, and score off of Turner, And thump for three figures the pair of ’em. Well, when you next meet may you flog ’em like fun, For it’s time, my swart Titan, that something was done To lessen the funk and the scare of ’em. The Cornstalks are rattlers, my William, all round; As bowlers they’re smart, and as batsmen they’re sound, As good as they make ’em or pick ’em. But William, my champion, although we may feel They’re brothers in breed, foemen worthy our steel, Our duty’s to love, laud —and lick ’em.” Little short of a prophecy, this, surely ! In the very next match after that v. Lancashire