Cricket 1893

88 CRICKET: A WEEKLY EECOED CP TSE GAME, M4RCH 23, 1893 Notts. Gunn and Barnes have, at least three times each; Gunn in 1880,1884. and 1890; Barnes thrice in 1878. Four great Notts bowlers— - _ _ Tear?. Wiokets. B uds . Aver. J. C. Shaw ...1865 to 1875 403 {.067 12.6 A- Shaw ........... 1604 to 1887 859 9983 11.6 P. M orley........ 187-2 to 1882 657 7847 11 9 W . Attewell ...1881 to 1892 736 9674 13.1 Facts worth noting:— William Clarke is the only Notts bowler that has taken all the ten wickets in an innings in a Notts match, viz., v. Leicester in 1845. Both J. C. and Alfred Shaw have done so in other first-class matches. Hat-trick in Notts matches :— Alfred Shaw v. Derbyshire in 1875. Also in eachinnings v. Gloucestershire in 1884. J. A. Dixon v. Lancashire in 1887. Flowers v. Kent in 1888. The following bits of bowling are more than noteworthy :— Jackson—15 wkts. for 73 runs v. Surrey 1860 lirundy—9 wkts. for 19 runs v. Kent 1£64 >» 6 wkts. for 20 runs v. Surrey J864 t 5 wJ ts; for 13 runs v- Yorkshire 1863 v aw“ " wkts. for 85 runs v. Kent 1870 M. M cIntyre—9 wkts. for 33 runs v. Surrey 1872 . . . »» 5 WKts. for 8 runs v. Yorkshire 1874 AJired Shaw— 6 wkts. for 8 runs v. Sussex 1873 , G wkts. for 8 runs v. Surrey 1&75 ,1 7 wkts. for 7 runs v. M C.C. 1875 » 6 wkts. for 21 runs v. York­ shire 1883 „ 6 wkts. for 27 runs v. York­ shire 18S3 ... _» 7 wkts. fo r 23 runs v. Surrey 1883 Alfred Shaw—6 wkts. for 15 runs v. Yorkshire 1884 _ »• 8 wkts. for 29 runs v. G loucester 1884 M orley—6 wkts. for 12 runs v. Yorkshire 1876 „ 5 wkts. for 10 runs v. Surrey 1876 „ 7 wkts. for 20 runs v.Lancashire 1877 „ 7 wkts. for 9 runs v. K ent 1878 , 8 wkts. for 26 runs v. Kent 1878 „ 7 wkts. for 7 runs v. Derbyshire 1879 „ 7 wkts. for 9 runs v. Surrey 1882 Flowers—8 wkts. for 23 runs v. Gloucester 1891 m. ” 6 wkfcs- fo*2L runs v. Lancashire 1886 Attewell—8 wkts. for 22 runs v. Sussex 1883 ._»» 9 wkts. for 33 runs v. Surrey 188G N.B.—All the above bits of bow ling cam e off in one innings, except where both innings are obviously included. C e n t o r ie s S co red . In County matches proper, Notts bats­ men have scored 58 individual innings of 100 runs and upwards. The first re­ corded was in 1843 by C. Brown. Of these, Shrewsbury claims 23, Barnes 11, Gunn 7, Richard Daft 2. Daft twice scored more than a hundred for Notts when playing M.C.C. Shrewsbury’s innings included seven that passed the second hundred, Gunn’s one. No individual innings of 200 runs has ever been made against Notts, though Marsden made 227 for Sheffield v. Not­ tingham in 182G. In County matches, 35 centuries have been made against Notts, 7 by W. G. Grace, who in the same matches in which Daft scored 2 centuries for Notts, scored 2 centuries against Notts. Marsden, Bates, A. Lyttelton, and W. H. Patter­ son alone have scored 2 centuries a-piece against Notts. Notts cricketers, playing 20 or more years C. Brown, 1842 to 1861; Grundy, 1843 to 1867 ; Parr, 1844 to 1871; R. C. Tinley, 1847 to 1869; R. Daft, 1858 to 1881; W. Oscroft, 1863 to 1882 ; A. Shaw, 1864 to 1887. Notts captains past and present:—W. Clarke, G. Parr, R. Daft, A. Shaw, W. Oscroft, M. Sherwin, C. W. Wright, J. A. Dixon. Benefit matches played for G./Butler 1861, F. Tinley 1863, J. Jackson/1874, R, C. Tinley 1875, R. Daft 1 8 7 6 /G. Parr 1878, W. Oscroft 1882, G. Butler ('junior) 1882, J. C. Shaw 1884, J Selby 1887, F. Wyld 1890, A. Shaw 1891. A. Shrewsbury will take a benefit this year. Let us wish him a bumper. THE AUSTRALIANS IN ENGLAND. A CHAPTER OF CRICKET HISTORY. By J. N. P entelow . VII.— T h e Team of 1890. The tour of 1890 cannot be considered any­ thing but a failure. No previous Australian team had ever had a majority of defeats over victories, not even the 1886 combination, which ran the matter pretty close, winning nine times, and being beaten eight. No pre­ vious team, not even that 1886 one, had ever found themselves rated so lightly by English cricketers. In 1882 or 1884 an encounter between the Australians and any good English team—County, University, or All England— was a battle of giants, and a hard-fought battle withal, contested ball by ball, run by run, as if the very lives of the plajers liU D g on the issue. What was such an encounter in 1890, after a dozen matches had given Englishmen the opportunity of gauging the real strength of the team ? Save for occa­ sional gleams of the old indomitable spirit that had been so noticeable a characteristic of Murdoch in his prime, very much what it became towards the end of the tour of 1886 — a mere listles3 playing out of time for the sake of eate-money. Well might a writer in the Sportsman , sign­ ing himself “ Austral,” lament in not nnznelo- dious verses the degeneracy of Australian cricket! “ Sigh for days that have departed When Australia played the game ; Weep for batsmen, lion-hearted, Whom no bowler e’er could tame. Now inter our cricket ashes ’Neaththe melancholy sod, And engrave upon the tombstone Cold ‘ Hie jacet,’ ‘ Ichabod.’ “ Where is Massie, mighty hitter ? Where M ‘Donnell ?—at a pinch W ho could stay the rot—none fitter To fight on, and never flinch. Where are Horan and stout Giffen ? They refused to kiss the rod — But their backs would sternly stiffen, W ith no thought of ‘ Ichabod.’ ‘ Garrett, Bannerman, and Bonnor, Never daunted, bravely fought To uphold our skill and honour, Courage to the fight they brought; Jarvis slogged with merry freedom, Scott was never *on the nod,’ But these heroes have departed, Like our glory—‘ Ichabod ! ’ ‘ Men, be up and prove your mettle ! Let Australia aye advance, Do not lose your former fettle, But your prowess still enhance ; Let no fear of Briggs and Lohmann Send your batting all abroad : Show to every British foeman ’Tis not written ‘ Ichabod ! ’ ” As was the case with the previous team, there were several disappointments in making up the side. M’Donnell had retired from cricket; Giffen, Bannerman, and Bonnor, after stating their intention to come, all broke their promises; and Moses and Bruce, though great pressure was brought to bear on them, either could not or wonld not make the trip. In their absence six men new to English cricket had to be included, and of these six, only one Barrett, proved a very decided success. A very pleasant feature of the tour, how­ ever. was the return of the great Murdoch to cricket after five years’ abstention from the game. He captained the team as well as ever, and often batted in quite his old style ; but it would not be true to say that he was as useful a player as he had been in his prime. His big innings were fewer and further between than in 1882 and 1884, nor were they made, as of old, in the fixtures in which they were most needed. Still, the success with which he met seems really wonderful when one considers the length of time he allowed to elapse without his donning flannels, and the short time he had had for practice before the team left for England. Besides Murdoch and Boyle (who came this time as manager, and not as a player), there were only two of the old-time faces in the team, those of Jones and the evergreen Black­ ham. With these came, however, four men whose figures had become familiar on English cricket-grounds curiDg 1888— Turner, Ferris, Trott, and Lyons. The new men were J. K. Barrett, H. Trumble, and F. H. Walters, of Victoria; S. E. Gregory (a nephew of David Gregory, the captain of the first team) and P. C. Charlton of New South Wales ; and K. E. Burn, of Tasmania. Burn was brought over under the belief that he was a wicket-keeper, and it was not discovered until he was on shipboard that he had never kept wicket in his life. Trumble and Charlton were the ‘ first change” bowlers in tho team, and the latter was said to be also a stylish batsman and likely run-getcer. Bairett and Walters were chosen for their batting, and Gregory partly for his splendid fielding powers, and partly for the promise he gave of developing into a really good batsman of the hitting order. The team — with the exception of their captain, who, accompanied by his wife and family, reached England on Easter Monday — came over in the “ Liguria,” and after some practice at Chiswick Park, began their tour with a match against Lord Sheffield’ s Eleven. The English team was a very strong one, only needing Gunn and Ulyett to make it thoroughly representative of England; but the Australians had all the luck, and won by an innings and 34 runs. On a good wicket Murdoch batted in a manter worthy of his best days for 93, Trott made 35, and Walters 2G. Then rain came o n ; the wicket was spoiled ; and the Englishmen were dismissed for 27 (Turner four wickets for nine runs, Ferris five for 18) and 130. Briggs and Peel batted very pluckily in the second innings. On a treacherous wicket at Birmingham, Warwickshire was defeated by 132 runs, Turner and Ferris bowling unchanged. Mr. W. H Laverton’s Eleven (at Westbury, Wilts) then beat the Australians by 181 runs, Grace scoring 64, and O. G. Radcliffe 93, in the second innings of the English team. The next match was a win, Oxford University being beaten by an innings and 61 runs. Charlton bowled wonderfully well, and Turner made 59, Mur- coch 45, Charlton 41, Ferris 34 (not out), and Lyons 33. The match with Surrey which followed produced as good play on the part of the Australians as any game during the tour. The two Reads did best for Surrey, Walter making 87 and 14, and Maurice 40 and 29. The feature of the Australian batting was the stand made by Blackham and Walters, the former of whom hit brilliantly for 75, while his coadjutor played very steadily for 53 (not out). Besides these, Trott made 36 and 35 (not out); and in the first innings Murdoch scored 40 and Barrett 37. On a fiery wicket at Sheffield, Yorkshire won by seven wickets ; and then the game v. Lancashire proved almost a secpnd edition of the match with Lord Sheffield’s Eleven. The Australians went in first on a good wicket, and aided by bad fielding ran up 316—Trott 61