Cricket 1895

S ept . 12, 189 5 . CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 4 0 * CRICKET NOTCHES. By the R ev . R. S. H olmes . Is there such a thing as the “ Best Eleven?” I suppose there is, but you could get no con­ census of opinion on the matter. Just as there is the “ Worst Eleven.” W hy not try and choo 3 e this latter ? Or, put it this way— what eleven not to play in a representative match ? You won’ t find that a particularly easy problem to solve, if you remember that the fourteen first-class counties, beyond which one would certainly not travel for either eleven, contain some 200 names, all of which are possible candidates for the one eleven or the other. I have often thought it would be very entertaining to pick the “ Worst Eleven,” but, as I must decline the responsibility, perhaps all candidates for that team would oblige by sending me in their own names, and none else. Now, I have no inten­ tion just now of picking elevens out of the amateurs and professionals at present taking part in cricket; but I venture the remark, that any Gentlemen’s team which does not contain the names o f MacLaren, Palairet (Lionel, of course), and Townsend, cannot be the best. That is, if you are making the selection to-day ; it is more than likely—and we must bear this in mind, in examining the lists published in the Badminton Magazine — that Messrs. Perkins and Alcock may have draughted their elevens some weeks since. Hence the omission of either or both the above three cricketers from their lists. Surely, the Gentlemen cannot be fully represented in the absence of the best amateur bowler of the present day, and who is, in addition, above the average with the bat. But let’s find the best England Eleven. And to do so, let us lay down at the outset what, I think, must be safe principles in help­ ing us to make the wisest possible selection. And there are, at least, three or four things necessary to keep before us. First of all, as Badminton stated, the selection should be based on recent performances—during the present season. If we went back a twelve­ month, Brockwell would have to be picked ; if six months, Brown. Secondly, as the eleven chosen, is chosen to play a match or matches, and as, in our variable climate, the wickets are not always the best from the bats­ man’ s point of view, we should have an eye on, what we may call, fine weather cricketers. Thirdly, as such a match or matches demand more nerve, &c., than is required for an ordinary county match, we must find the men who are capable of rising to a great occasion, who do most when most is expected of them. And fourthly, we must try and have men in such an eleven, whose proven worth, at a pinch, is most likely to exert a healthy, moral influence on the rest of the team. This last requisite, liable to be entirely overlooked by us, seems to me of the very first importance. Confidence in two or three men will act as a very powerful tonic on the remainder, who might funk at a critical stage if they felt that everything depended upon what they did. Whom shall we choose, then? What eleven men now plaj’ing cricket most completely answer to these four conditions? 1 . The bowlers. Always pick your bowlers first, and be sure you have enough bowlers, especially if you can find big bowlers who can make runs, and also keep down runs by their fielding. Bichardson and Petl are our men, none better, styles markedly different, and each man master of his own style. Who else ? Mold ? Yes, because we have no superior. I don’ t hesitate to pick him because his methods somewhat, but not en­ tirely, resemble those of Richardson, but because he has taken but little part in matches outside his county; and, when he has, with no very marked success. Still, we will have him. W e will come back to the bowlers: meanwhile, who are our batsmen ? JP. G., Abel , and Shrewsbury , without doubt; each as great as ever, and each of lon£ and trium­ phant experience in every order of match and on every description of wicket. W ho else ? The pair of great Lancashire batsmen, men of more limited experience, but who both went through the mill in the last Australian tour. MacLaren and Ward are certain choices. On this year’s form the Indian Prince cannot be passed by ; besides, he is brilliant in the field. So our ninth place should go to him. But wait a moment before fixing him ; there are only three vacancies to fill up, W e must have a stumper, and the bowling wants re­ inforcing. For stumper, Lilley most decidedly, h» is more reliable, match in, match out, than Macgregor, though perhaps not so great as the Middlesex man on his d a y ; but he is this year a much finer batsman, and though a stranger to representative matches of the highest order, has done uncommonly well in outside matches—witness Hastings last week. I choose him before Storer solely on the strength of their respective batting averages this year. And now comes the crux. Who shall be tenth and eleventh. For tenth place we have such candidates as Jackson, Sam Woods, and Davidson; for the eleventh, Ranjitsinhji, Palairet an<l Stoddart. W hich to weed out. After careful thought, my choice is Jackson and Stoddart. And just because they have both done their greatest performances in the biggest matches. As county men I don’ t there is much to choose between them and the others; indeed they .suffer perhaps by com­ parison. But as Jackson and Stoddart are quite as good as ever they were, and as they have often saved their side when Australia or the Players were the opposing team, I am certain they are the best choice. Besides their presence will inspire not only confidence in their own team, but fear in the ranks of their opponents. I am not certain the bowling is strong enough, for W .G . must not be thought of in this connection. I wish room could have been found for many other names. Gunn I leave out just because of his continued poor health, which we all deplore ; and Briggs I have not included, because until quite recently his bowling has been off, whilst he seems to have lost all his old skill with the bat. As Mr. Perkins said of his choice, so I say of mine, that most likely it will fail to satisfy many persons equally as competent to pro­ nounce an opinion as any of us. Here’ s my list then: W . G., Abel, Shrewsbury, Mac- Laren, Ward, Richardson, Peel, Mold, Lilley, Jackson, Stoddart. And that eleven, if not the actual •*best,” will take a lot of beating. A correspondent from Croydon must accept this list as the answer to his able letter on the same subject. . ........ From the island of Jersey comes the follow ­ ing : “ I should like to call your attention to two remarkable facts as given in the last issue of Cricket ; they occur in Somersetshire’ s matches with Yorkshire and Surrey, and both have reference to Tyler’ s bowling. In the former match Tyler did the hat-trick, by dismissing Brown, Denton and Tunnicliffe with successive balls. The curious feature is that not one of them got a duck. In the Surrey match Tyler is reported as having bowled 34 overs and 3 balls, whilst all the other bowlers together bowled only 30 overs. Perhaps the “ 34 overs” is a misprint, fortho difference could notbe brought about merely by Tyler changing ends and bowling two overs consecutively.” Unless he did so more than once, which he may do—viz., change ends “ as often as he pleases, provided . . . by law 14. But doubtless there is a printer’s error somewhere. A gentleman from Lewisham, referring to a recent remark of mine on TownsemFs bowling—that he is the best bowler who gets most wickets in the shortest time—asks whether I ignore altogether the runs scored from the bowling. “ What would be your opinion of the merits of four bowlers—two on either side—whose analysis worked out thus: — Overs. Maidens. Runs. Wickets. I 20 ........... 3 ........... 100 ........... 5 \ 20 ........... 5 ........... 80 ... ... 5 I 40 ........... 10 ........... 50 ........... 6 I 40 ........... 15 ........... 40 ........... 5 4 ‘Which set of bowlers is the more useful ? ” The answer is immediate, viz., the second set? unless it was a match against “ time,” every moment of which was precious; in that case I would prefer to have the first sot on my side, as in these days of boundaries, the former’s combined 40 overs would consume less time than the latter’s 80. But if you askwhich of two bowlers I prefer in a general way, one who bowls twice as many overs as his chum at the other end, takes the same number of wickets, and has 20 runs lees scored off him, my answer is, give me the more expensive bowler. The fact is, maiden overs are my bete-noir , and I consider that the re­ cording of them has been prejudicial to the game as a sport. They are a huge trial to spectators ; and, what is more, they enable batsmen to get their eye in until the ball comes to look as big as a balloon. Clever, of course, such a bowler is, but nothing more ; selfish he is, inasmuch as he totally disregards his fielders, not to mention the “ ring.” The object of a bowler is to get a batsman out, and not to keep the runs down. I speak, of course, of the average match. I never could see anything wonderful about a suc­ cession of maiden overs, except it is wonderful that a man, supposed to have brains, can convert himself into a bowling machine Look at the bowling figures for the present season. Richardson has had just two and a half runs scored off every over he has bowled ; Peel, who has sent down about the same number of overs, ha3 been Jiit about to the tune of about one and a half runs per over. But Richardson for the same amount of work has taken 100 more wickets than Peel. For this reason I would prefer him to any other living bowler, although it is perhaps not fair to compare, or rather contrast, two bowlers whose methods are so completely unlike. It has always been a comfort to my heart that the official record of the game— ‘ 1 Scores and Biographies ” —omits “ maidens ’’ altogether, go that certain “ Wonderful bowling feats'” of this description will not live on the page, of history. In answer to the same correspondent I would say that never before in any year have six batsmen hailing from the same county scored 1,000 runs in a season, nor has any batsman in "his first year managed to get into this select list, with the exception of David Denton, who is, of course, one of the “ six ” just referred to. In answer to several enquiries, by letter and word of mouth, let me say that the nattiest score card of the rec >rd innings Lancashire v. Somersetshire— has. been issued by “ Hammett, Printer, Taunton.” In red ink and on satin, padded and mounted. The price is eighteenpenoe. This is no# a trade puff, as I paid for my copy. Might; I somewhat abuse my privilege % askhlg^if any reader of this column has for sale the score card of the matches in which W , Cr.