Cricket 1893

422 CRICKET: A WEEKLY EECOED OL' THE GAME. SEPT. 21, 1:93 A, E Stoddart that he would turn out another big innings or two, he shook his head dolefully, adding that he was quite worn out. Not quite, as the sequel showed. However, we won’t quarrel now ; for once it is refreshing to state that the cause of matches being drawn— and there is a goodly list of such in the First-Class County Summary—was not rain, but rather the absence of rain. What of the Counties ? Much every way. Results prove conclusively that baiting alone,even when it is pre-eminent, cannot win the County Championship E o w -a -d a y s , It did once, a n d only once ; that was in the early days of Gloucester­ shire, when W.G.’s average was 80 or ihereabouts, and an average of 40 was of frequent occurrence in the amateur eleven that he led on to victory. All is different to-day. Thus, Yorkshire are easily first in 1893, yet they have scored fewer runs than any other county. In sixteen matches their total is 4619, or an average per match of 288 runs; in the same number of matches Middlesex’ figures are C468, with an average of 404 runs ! Yet Middlesex are 6 points below Yorkshire. Take the average yer inning* : Yorkshire stand fifth with 19, Notts first with 24. Every County can produce one (or more) batsman with a higher average than Brown, Yorkshire’s best man with the bat. They have but four men with an average of 20, whilst Middlesex have nine, so h a v e Kent, Sussex and Somerset­ shire have seven|apiece, and Glo’stershire, the last of the lot, have five. Again Notts stand sixth on the list, yet in one particular they have never had so memor­ able a season. Fourteen individual innings of a hundred runs ! There has never been such a record in the entire history of County Cricket; previous to this j ear Notts held first place with 10 centuries in 1887. But now look on the other side of the picture : barring Somer­ setshire,whose record in this one particu­ lar exactly tallies with Yorkshire’s, every County has more “ centuries against” it than Yorkshire. Thus Lancashire have 5,-Kent, Surrey, and Middlesex 4 a-piece, Glo’stershire 6 , Notts 6 , Sussex 8 , whilst Yorkshire(and Somersetshire)have only 2. This fact ought to point to a marked superiority in bowling, which other figures bring to the light. Thus, taking the season as a whole, and lump­ ing all the bowlers together, Yorkshire s wickets (i.e., the wickets taken by them, have cost only 15 runs each, Lanca­ shire’s 16£, S trrjy’s 17 2-5th, and so on till we get to Su isex, 27y (nearly). But look at individual bowlers ; in Yorkshire there are 6 bowlers whose average per wicket varies from 12 to 16, in Lancashire only 8 with an average of less than 20 , Middlesex 2, Kent 2, Notts 2, Surrey 5, Sussex 1, Somersetshire 1, Gloucester­ shire 0. This position of Surrey among the bowlers warrants us in looking for that county among the leaders again; but to our surprise their position is ODly fifth : at once we conclude that Surrey’s batting must have been at fault in 1893. And such is the case. Last year they were first in the batting column with a n average of nearly 2 2 , this year their average is just 18, and they occupy the lowest place but one. So Surrey m ’ist not attribute their wont of success in the county competition of 1893 to the lamentable loss ot the greatest crickettr they have ever had, but rather to the decline of skill in their old and tried batsmen. As Sussex aie third in the batting column, and yet seventh in the final order, weak bowling has much to do with their failure. It is worthy of remark that whilst their veteran lob bowler, with li2 wickets at a ccst of only 16 runs, has never had so good a season, the next to him lias taken only 22 wickets for 32J runs each. Incteid, 1 can recall no instance in which oue bowler has ever taken more wickets in a season than all the rest of his colleagues put together ; Humphreys’ total being wickets, all the other Sussex bowlers, 113 wickets. Lancashire are sadly in want of a third bowler, of the t)pe of Barlow or Watson. 1 was under the impression Watson had been dropped too soon, but learned at Scarborough from one of the county playtrs that his eyesight is too defective for first-class cricket. It is remarkable that whilst the best bowling average fur Somersetshire is 19, only two centuries have been scored at their expense. At the present time Yorkshire is the only county that has three really first-class bowlers; though should Lohmann return, Brockwell tram on, Surrey will have no lack in ihis department. With Notts, however, the outlook is most dreary. Attewell may come again : he should be advised not to bowl too much before the regular season begins, for he will be wanted more than ever now that bhack- lock has gone, as appears probable. It so, Shacklock will be able to re-call the past season as that in which he accom­ plished a bowling feat unique in the annals of cricket, by clean bowling lour wickets (Somersetshire) with successive balls in a lirst-class county match. Once more. In fielding Yorkshire stood out conspicuously among the counties, in that most important department of the game where for many years prior to 1890 they had been sadly wanting When one wants a model fielding eleven, one thinks of the Oxford University team of 1874: this generation has not pro­ duced their superior. And yet I am bold enough to state that during Middlesex’ second innings at Bradford this year, the standard of Yorkshire fielding was almost, if not quite, up to this high level. It was at once brilliant and safe, dashing and clean. I have seen nothing to compare with it for years ; there .was not a weak spot anywhere. On the whole then, Yorkshire thoroughly deserved first honours, though, as in 1892, it seems paradoxical to call that county best -which was twice defeated by the county immediately below i . And as five of the present county eleven are under twenty-five jears of age, and Tunnicliffe is only twenty-seven, Ulyett’s remark to me “ we have now the most promising team Yorkshire have e /er produced ” may prove prophetic. But they will have to fight hard to hold their well-earned supremacy, for on the wonderful all-round ability shown by Surrey in the return match with Notts, I am certain that Surrey’s failure this year is but temporary, and with Lohmann back again next year, we may expect to find the Southern County as strong as ever. The Australian Tour has been’ well- nigh exhausted by the critics. Haven’t they made too much of what the Colonials did not do, and too little of what they did do ? They did not beat England, but who expected them to? From sur.dry stray talks with several of them, I have con­ cluded that from the outset they never went much beyond a hope in this direc­ tion. It is scarcely to the point to refer to their double victory over Lord Sheffield's team, for the latter weie touring then, and were constantly being feted to a degree inconsistent with the best cricket; and, moreover, they were without the help of three such batsmen as Gunn, Shrewsbury, and F. S. Jackson. I saw the Australians early on, and late on at Scarborough, and on a few other occasions, and my first impression still remains, that they were a great batting team, but short of high-class bowling. Why, their one innings of 843 at Portsmouth was sufficient to stamp them as immensely strong with the bat. Criticism has been busy in depreciation of that score : wretched bowling, and I know not what else. Against aiuj bowl­ ing it was a wonderful effort. The Universities’ captaiD, however, assured me that his bowling was remarkably good throughout, but he added “ the wicket was the most perfect of any I ever played on.” When our bowling was strong, very strong, say even the strongest we could put into the field, their batting often triumphed. As proofs, take the M.C.C. match at Lord's ; that against Yorkshire at Bradford ; against North of England at Manchester; against England both at Lord’s and the Oval; against Middlesex at Lord’s ; and C. I. Thorn­ ton’s eleven at Scarborough. Man for man their batting may not equal ours, and yet on several occasions they could hardly have been surpassed bytheoldcountry. But compare their batting averages with these of any previous combination. An objec­ tion will perhaps here be raised on the ground of the perfect weather of this year as contrasted with any of the years in which we have welcomed an Australian team. For part answer to this read my previous notes on the weather. That the wickets may not have been perfect this year, one has simply to compare our English averages of 1893 with those of (say) 1887. Eight Australians have a batting average of more than 20 ; seven of them an aggregate of 1,100 and up­ wards. In 1882, Murdoch alone just reached 30, and four more were above 20. In 1884 Murdoch’s average wis again 30, and there were three more above 20. In 1882 four batsmen had an aggregate of over 1,000 runs; in 1884, three only. I have purposely chosen 1882 and 1884 be­ cause by general consent those years welcomed the finest teams that have ever visited us. Of course in a wet season tbe averages of the eighth team might have suffered, though it should be remembered that under such conditions matches would not have lasted so long, and thus more rest would have been possible. I have no time here to institute minute comparisons between individual members of successive teams. Granted that Murdoch has yet had no successor