Cricket 1895

396 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OP THE GAME. S ept . 5, 1895. “ THE BEST ELEVEN.” THE GENTLEMENS’ , PLAYERS’ , AND ENGLAND TEAM . This month’s number of the Badminton Magazine , which is quite up to the level of the highly successful first issue, contains an article which will command considerable attention, from the facts that it is written upon a subject of no smaller interest than the “ Best Elevens,” amateur, professional, and mixed, of English cricketers, and that its authors, who write in the way of a symposium, arethe secretaries of the M.C.C. and the Surrey C.C. The views of two men who have for years past been most intimately connected with the selection of representative teams, cannot fail to be received with some degree of deference, by even the most self-satisfi d student of cricket form, though it cannot be gainsaid that every little cricket circle has its self-appointed cri.ic, ever ready to improve upon the work of those responsible for the selection of teams for the big matches. Naturally, the question which first arises on consideration of the several elevens as chosen by the authors, is whether the lists are prospective or retrospective. The articles appeared last week, were they written immediately before publication, or do they stand for the authors’ opinions, say at the end of July P This season has certainly given us an opportunity of j udging form with some degree of certainty. Cricket was played for the first half of the season upon wickets which allowed it to be played under con­ ditions calculated to test a man’s form with fairness. It is a very admirable performance when on a ground ruined by rain and caking a player rises superior to the adverse sur­ roundings, but it is not cricket pure and simple that he is playing, any more than Sullivan’ s sharp, condemned to play unlimited games with a twisted cue on a board untrue with elliptical billiard balls, was actually playing billiards. It is magnificent, but it isn’ t cricket. And so, despite an occasional phrase which might tend to the idea that vicissitudes of weather had their weight in the deliberations of the team selectors, the general tone of the article is that the ideal teams are to play on ideal wickets in ideal we ither. This being so understood, the composition of the teams may be here given :— I . — G e n tl e m e n . Mr. Perkins’ X I. : H. W . Bainbridge \V. G. Grace F. S. Jackson G. McGregor K . S. Ranjitsinhji E. Smith A. E. Stoddart S. M. J. Woods C. J. Kortright Sir T. C. O’ Brien C. L. Townsend II. Mr. Perkins’ X I. : Abel Davidson Gunn Mold Peel Richardson Ward Attewell Holland Lilley Moorhouse Mr. Alcock’ s X I. : H. W . Bainbridge W . G. Grace F. S. Jackson G. McGregor K . S. Ranjitsinhji E. Smith A. E. Stoddart S. M. J. Woods A. C. Maclaren H . T. Hewett J. R. Mason - P l a y e r s . Mr. Alcock’s X L : Abel Davidson Gunn Mold Peel Richardson Ward Chatterton Hayward Hearne, A. Storer E ngland X L Mr. Alcock’s X I. Abel Grace Jackson Mold Peel Rankitsinhji Richardson Stoddart Woods MacGregor Ward h i .—: Mr. Perkins’ X I. Abel Grace Jackson Molcl Peel Ranjitsinhji Richardson Stoddart Woods Attewell Lilley It will be noticed that the Gentlemen’s team differs in the cases of three men, the Players in those of four, and that th&re are but two disagreements as to the representative eleven of England. As regards the Gentle­ men’s team, Mr. Perkins includes Sir Timothy O’ Brien and Messrs. Kortright and Townsend, whilst Mr. Alcock prefers Messrs. MacLaren, Hewett and Mason. The M.C.C. Secretary does not even mention Mr, MacLaren, who has made four centuries this season and is first in the batting averages, whilst Mr. Townsend, who has bowled so remarkably well this year is referred by Mr. Alcock merely to be omitted even from the gentlemen’s team. To the ordinary follower of cricket there is little to choose batween Sir T. C. O’ Brien and Mr. H. T. Hewett, save that the latter has played but little first-class cricket, while with Mr. Woods’ leg under suspicion Mr. Perkins seems to have done well in including Mr. Kortright in his team. Mr. Alcock’ s team is of great batting strength all through, but Mr. Perkins to my mind has an advantage in bowling which perhaps outweighs that in batting possessed by the other team. Probably each team would be stronger had it one man from the other, i.e., Mr. MacLaren in Mr. Perkins’ team for Mr. Kortright or Mr. Townsend in Mr. Alcock’ s for Mr. Mason. Mr. L. C. H. Palairet also has claims at last equal to those of Mr. Hewett. W ith respect to the Players X I. the four pairs which differ in the elevens may thus be set out — more than those of the better of the two professionals. Mr. Perkins, on the other hand, selects Lilley, who is nine points in the batting averages above Storer. Mr. Perkins’ appreciation of the necessity of maintaining a strong attack is here again shown by his including Attewell, and leaving out for him, perhaps, the most finished batsman in the country, Albert Ward. W ith all deference, for it is due, to the authors, it may be here suggested that Lilley for MacGregor, and Ward for Attewell would strengthen the respective teams. The batting averages (with bowling averages where applicable) of the varients in the teams are subjoined. (1.) G entlemen ’ s X I.: — Bat­ ting. Bowl­ ing. Bat­ ting. Bowl­ ing. Mr. P e r k in s ’ . Mr. A lc o c k ’ s . Lilley. Storer. Moorhouse. Chatterton. Holland. Hayward. Attewell. Hearne, A. As regards the first pair it is almost a toss up, as wicket-keeper, possibly, Storer is slightly smarter, as batsman, Lilley a little more dan­ gerous. As regards the second pair, I fancy most people would rather prefer Moorhouso to Chatterton. W ith respect to the third pair, the Surrey secretary ought to make no mis­ take, and, indeed, Hayward’s bowling should give him the preference. Andjfinally, good bowler and capable batsman as Attewell is, I should be inclined to consider Htarne’s the better record. It will be noticed that each list includes both Richardson and Mold, though Davidson is in the team. Might it not be quite safe to omit Mold, and include another first-class batsman, say Shrewsbury or W . Quaife, especially if Hayward were included to add to the reserve of bowling strength. This is, of course, considering the players as selected against the representative Gentlemen’s Eleven. In the England team a very high compli­ ment is paid by the Surrey secretary to Mr. Gregor MacGregor, whom he selects before both Storer and Lilley. The batting averages of the three are : MacGregor, 22-56 ; Storer, 26-18; Lilley, 3 5 17; so that Mr. Alcock thinks that the lively Middlesex stumper’ s services must be worth a dozen runs an innings Sir T. C. A. C. Mac- O’Brien... 3815 — Laren ... 58 2 — C. L. Town- J. R. Mason 29*18 43 13 send ... 20-5 1273 (2.) P layers Lilley........ 35'17 — Storer ... 26'18 — Moorhouse. 33*23 34*71 Chatterton. 26*20 27 50 Holland ... 3316 — Hayward ... 29 19 1507 Attewell ... 10-10 16"74 Hearne (A.) 29*35 22 44 3.) E ngland :— Lilley........ 35*17 — |Macgregor . 22-56 - One word may be added as to the England team. This may presumably be taken to be chosen as against Australia. W ould it then be desirable to omit both Gunn and Shrews­ bury, who have both shown such strong defence against Australian bowling? They are, perhaps, neither of them in the rudest health, but as they no doubt would decline places if not up to the mark, surely the decision might be loft with them. And should BrQwn’s Australian form be quite forgotten, so that he should be unmentioned as well as unselected ? It is unfortunate that throughout the article K. S. Ranjitsinhji is described as “ Mr.” As a last comment, it may be said that the England team against the Australian eleven of Mr. Stoddart contains five of Mr. Perkins and four of Mr. Alcock’s eleven, the former having two and the latter three playing for the Anglo-Australians. M. C. CHARLTON PARK v. POST OFFICE.—Played at Charlton Park on August 31. C harlton P ark . A. F. Lovey, cFrizell, b Hirst .............. Capt. McCanlis,b Cole S. R. Sargent, b Skin­ ner ..................... H.C. Ogilvy, c Frizell, b Hirst .............. 25 J. Hunter, b Skinner 5 A.H.Pease.lbw, b Cole 1 A.L.McCanlis, notout 16 A. Hazlerigg, b Hirst 8 B 12, lb 1, nb 1 ... 14 Total *152 H. C. Sargent, W. Martin, and Dr. W. J. C. Keats did notbat, * Innings declared closed. F ost O ffice . H. Turrell, b Martin 9 F. R. nirst, c Hazel- rigg, b Martin ... 1 W.M. Frizell, bMartin 4 A. D. Bell, b Martin 2 H.O. Smith, cMartin, b Hunter.............. 1 E. Cane, c A. L. McCanlis, b Martin 10 H. W. Hardcastle, not out .................... 9 F. T. Cole, b Martin J. H. Skinner, b McCanlis.............. C. Perry, b McCanlis W. Manning, st S. Sargent, b Martin... Total K. S. R anjitsinhji writes : “ I have great pleasure in recommending the quality of your Playfair Cricket Bats, and have made a good many of my big scores with them.” Send for illustrated catalogue to H. J. G ray & S ons , 8 , Goswell Road, Aldersgate, E.C. [A dvt .]