Cricket 1895

38 C R ICK E T : A WEEKLY RECORD OF H IE GAME. M arch 28, 1895 CRICKET NOTCHES. By t h e Eev. E. S. H o l m e s . It is to be hoped that we have recovered our balance, lost somewhat during the final test match between England and Australia. If so, it may be possible to review dispassionately the five matches of the series. Eecent impressions are always liable to lead to exaggerated speech, but it may fairly be conceded that no matches in the entire history of the game excited anything comparable to the universal interest with which these recent matches were followed at home. Several reasons may be alleged for this :— The number of matches played—five; the assurance that each match would be played ou t; and lastly, the unprecedented reports of the progress of the matches day by day. So far as I have seen, the finish of the fifth match provoked a long leading article in the English press. The Times even being no exception, whilst our old friend Punch as usual helped to swell the general chorus. One of the Weeklies, whom one would have credited with sounder sense, indulged in a jeremiad over “ the cost incurred by the evening papers in reporting the cricket contest, between England and Australia. It must have amounted to many thousands, and it was also repaid by the public, who bought the papers in reams to see how men of whom they knew nothing had caught balls, batted by other men of whom they knew only the names.” But we can afford to be generous toward such a cynic just now. Well, England won the rubber. Yet it may be open to question whether on the whole our men did as well as the Australians in the test matches. True, the luck was against us in the choice of innings; Stoddart won the toss only once, and then he was foolish enough to put his opponents in, with the result that England lost that match by an innings and 147 runs. I wonder if it ever pays to do this. Giffen did it in the second match, and lost it by 94 runs. Perhaps once in fifty times it may be desirable, but if I were a captain, I should assume that that once had not fallen to my lot. Nobody will deny, I imagine, that the first match of all, at Sydney, which England won by 10 runs, was gained more by luck than merit, much as we may applaud the skill of our famous left-hand bowlers. The third match, at Adelaide, was won by Australia with the over­ whelming majority of 382 runs; no luck there. Possibly had England taken first knock in the next match, at Sydney, the boot might have been on the other foot. Our captain stated that he had never seen such an unplayable wicket in first class cricket; it was not first rate on the Saturday, but on the Monday rain had converted it into a quagmire. The last match of a ll; what of that ? A splendid victory for England, and no mistake. Une of the finest victories ever recorded, 298 runs being scored in the fourth innings at a loss of only four men. On the whole my verdict would be, ‘ ‘Honors Easy, iioiigh slightly in favour of Australia.” Three of these matches yielded more than 1,000 runs apiece, viz., 1,514 in the first of the Sydney matches, and 1,006, and 1,364 in the Melbourne games. In the five 5,221 runs were scored, of which, Australia’s share was 2,822, England’s 2,399. But though I pronounced Australia stronger than the team led by Stoddart, it by no means follows that when the Colonials visit us they will be able to show anything like as formidable a front. For in the first place, they will have only 13 men to choose from, and not 2 2 —the number that took part in the recent test matches. Virtually we had only 11 men, for it was well known that Humphreys would be left out of these matches, whilst between our stumpers there was scarcely a pin to choose. I doubt whether two wicket-keepers need have been taken; our men over there never play so many matches which make it desirable for the Australians to bring a reserve stumper here. Then again, our men were on tour. Now I am not ungenerous enough to hint that they did not take care of themselves, but most of us know that high living and good cricket scarcely go together. It was suggested to me again and again by cricket friends, after our men lost their second test match, that they were stale. My reply was, “ stale with what ? ” Not too much cricket. There is no such thing as staleness in cricket. A cricketer may be below the mark in health, or he may have lost faith in himself, and either cause will suffice to put him off colour. If men go to bed in reasonable time, and are temperate in their habits, we shall hear next to nothing about their being stale. A bad liver will lead to disaster, of course ; but a stock maxim of mine for years has been this—’ ‘ indiscretion spells indigestion.” Certain Australian cricketers could be named who from this cause never play as well in England as they do at home. This tour has completed the good work done by Lord Sheffield's team three years ago. Public interest in cricket was at its lowest point in Australia; now it has touched high-water mark. Never were such crowds assembled on a cricket inclosure, the last match of all being witnessed by more than 100,000 persons. It would be interesting to compare the doings of our two latest English teams in Australia; but I must now content myself with the bare statement that in batting, Stoddart’s men have probably excelled any previous English com­ bination, both in the five test matches as well as in all first-class engagements. But the same remark applies to their opponents; their averages are even higher. Indeed, Australia has more great batsmen to day than ever before, if recent form be in any way reliable, The brothers Trott, Graham, Gregory, Iredale, Darling, and (greatest of all) Giffen are, on present form, equal to our very best batsmen. We shall all be delighted to see the younger men over here next year. It is in bowling both teams are weak. Yet before our men left, the batting, not the bowling, seemed a doubtful quantity. There was not variety enough in the English attack : Briggs and Peel are too much alike, so are Eichardson and Lock­ wood. Mr. V. E. Walker tells me he strongly urged the inclusion of Wain- wright; either he or J. T. Heame would have been very welcome. I should pre­ fer the latter on the firm wickets of Aus­ tralia, he is more of the Lohmann type of bowler. Wainwright on a sticky wicket is of course unapproached at the present time. But Australia are very hard up for bowlers, if Harry Trott, whom we know well enough over here, is often put on first. Turner’s exclusion from the last match was a surprise to us. Giffen did fairly well in the earlier matches, and with Turner certainly won the second Sydney match. The younger Trott had one phenomenal day with the ball — 8 wickets on a perfect pitch at Adelaide ! and he has a remarkable batting average in all first-class matches. But Australia sadly want a new bowler or two of the Spofforth or Turner order. And its nearly time such a bowler appeared. Let me see; Turner must have been playing in front-rank cricket for nine years, and in England I have noticed that the counties on an average require ten years to pro­ duce one great bowler. Some counties, of course, require more,’some less; Notts, for instance. So did Yorkshire at one time ; but Peel is their last great bowler, and he turned up in 1882 ; although Wainwright may yet prove to be of the highest class. Sussex’ last big bowler was James Lillywhite, who made his bow in 1862. So Surrey; it is a big interval between Caffyn and Eichardson (I am here referring only to home-born bowlers, not to foreigners). Ned Willsher, Kent’s famous left-hander, appeared in 1847; has the Hop County boasted of his suc­ cessor ? John Hearne is the only big Middlesex bowler I can recall, for Howitt came from Notts. Whilst Lancashire can show nothing beyond A. G. Steel and Barlow. So its time both Australia and our English Counties were blessed with some new bowling talent. In conclusion, let me offer my sincerest congratulations to A. E. Stoddart and his gallant band. In a letter to myself before leaving he spoke in the highest terms of the fibre of his men ; they have deserved all that was said. The captain has never played better, perhaps never so well when we take into account the burden of responsibility he has borne throughout in an office to which he was almost a stranger. Brown, or rather “ Mister Brown,” as Punch calls him, has surprised us all. We knew him to be a sterling batsman in England, he has proved himself a master of the craft. Taking all the circumstances into the reckoning, I should call his innings—140 —in the last innings of the fifth match the grandest of any played in the tour. Such an innings played at a most trying crisis—Stoddart having left first ball that morning—proclaims the real genius. I am not going to gash, worthy readers, but I think this column first drew atten­ tion to Brown’s claim to a place in this team. In the best matches he stands first. MacLaren and Ward, though dead out of form occasionally, have also done