Cricket 1895

A p r il 11, 1895. CRICKET A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 51 CRICKET NOTCHES. B y the R e v . R . S. H olmes . I have been asked to state how the work done by Stoddart’s team compares with the doings of previous English Elevens in Australia. We will begin with Shaw’s first team, 1884-5, and we will confine our attention to first-class matches only. Results of matches :— 1.—Shaw’s Team, 1881-5. England won 6, lost 2, drew 0. 2.—Shaw’s Team, 1886-7. England won 6, lost 2, drew 2. 3.—Shaw’s Team, 1887-8. England won 5, lost 2, drew 0. 4.—Vernon’s Team, 1887-8. England won 6, lost 1, drew 1. 5.—Lord Sheffield’s Team, 1891-2. England won 6, lost 2. drew 0. 6.—Stoddart’s Team, 1894-5. England won 8, lost 4, drew 0. So that the last-named cannot show such good results as one or more of their predecessors. It may not be generally known that, like Stoddart’s men, the 1884-5 team met the full strength of Australia five times, and won three of these matches by 8 wickets, 10 wickets, and an innings and 98 runs; losing two, by 6 runs (only) and 8 wickets. A much better record than that so recently made. Hitherto, starting with 1877, 27 test matches have beta played in Australia, of which Eng­ land claim 13, Australia 12, whilst 2 were unfinished. It may safely be said that no previous English Eleven made so many runs, or could show such splendid individual batting averages. And the same remark applies, of course, to their opponents. The twelve first-class matches yielded 12,138 runs—or slightly over 1,000 runs per match. As must have been noticed by all readers, there were four English averages above 40 runs :—Stoddart 51, MacLaren 47, Brown 43, Ward 41. la 1884-5, Barnes' average was 43, Shrewsbury's 40. In 1886-7, Shrewsbury 34. In 1887-8, W . w . Read 65, Shrewsbury 58. In 1891-2, W . G. Grace 44. But set off against this the bowling figures. Briggs and Bichardson come out best, but every wicket they took cost 23 runs. Peel’s 241 Look at previous bowling averages :— 1884-5, Barnes 13, Bates 14, Flowers 15. 1886-7, Barnes 13, Flowers 14, Lohmann 15. 1887-8, Attewell 11, Peel IS, Bates 21. 1887-8, Lohmann 11, Briggs 14, Rougher 15. 1891-2, Attewell 13, Briggs 13, Lohmann 16. Now if, as I believe, the bowlers who have just embarked for home are far superior to any Australia can produce at the present time, one is forced to the conclusion that Australian batting is probably stronger than it ever has been, and is somewhat in advance of our very best. Let the five recent test matches be quoted by way of proof. The last match of the tour—against oouth Australia—must be referred to, not for the sake of remarking that England’s innings of 609 is the highest total yet scored in any match between the mother country and her dependency, nor for the sake of singling out for especial favorable notice the extraordinary debut of the youngster Hill (150 not out and 56), but to give prominence to Giffen’s unique piece of bowling—5 wickets for 309 runs ! History furnishes no parallel. I can remember only one instance at home in which 200 runs were scored off one bowler in a single innings — 201 off Sam Woods at Hastings in 1892. Briggs took one wicket for 194 v. Yorkshire in 1887, Woof four for 188 v. Middlesex in 1892. and Mold five for 196 v. Sussex in 1893. But five for 309 ! It’s not the first time a captain has kept himself on too long. Perhaps Giffen can retort that he got Ward and Brown. Old William Ward once played against Lord Frederick Beauclerk; the latter was one of the most accurate bowlers ever seen. He once hit a single stump seven times out of twelve. But he had a decided aversion to taking himself off, confident of captur­ ing the best wicket if he only kept on long enough. At last Mr. Ward was caught from his bowling. “ I knew I should get you,” said Lord Frederick. “ Yes, but I have scored eighty, my lord, ” was Mr. Ward’s reply. I see that Giffeu changed the bowling repeatedly, but only at one end. Let’s hope he copied the example of a certain country bowler who was captain. His opponents were run­ ning up a huge score, and still he kept on, although he tried any number of changes at the other end. At last one of his side ventured to ask whether a com­ plete change was not advisable. “ Quite right,” was the rejoinder; “ now I will bowl from the opposite wicket.” It must have made batting delightfully monoto­ nous toWard, Brown, and Ford when all through their innings they had to face the same bowler; but would not any change have been preferable in the interests of South Australia ? A bowler should never be appointed captain, for some men in that capacity never put themselves on enough. I cannot help thinking that Stoddart might have gone on oftener than he did. When so many runs were scored time after time, his return—one wicket for 31 runs—seems wholly in­ adequate for the good change bowler we know him to be. Brown never bowled a ball in the first-class matches, yet his leg-break might have proved useful. But it’s easy to be wise after an event. And this seems a fitting opportunity for noticing a remarkably able book, “ Australian Cricket and Cricketers, 1856- 1894.” The author is C. P. Moody, who accompanied the 1890 Australian team on their visit to England. Through some delay or other, it reached me only a fort­ night ago. It contains 98 pages, no more, but they are full of the most interesting and valuable records of all Inter-colonial and Inter-national matches since 1856, with batting and bowling averages, and all sorts of records and curiosities. Of course, “ England v. Australia at the Wickets,” was first in the field and made Mr. Moody’s task infinitely lighter than it would otherwise have been. None the less is his own hand visible on every page almost, and the result is most satisfactory to men like myself who have frequent recourse to statistical tables. The book bears nc price, but a generous supply of copies ought to find a ready market over here, I beg to thank him for a presentation copy. As far as I have tested it, it is absolutely reliable. And may I also acknowledge sundry letters to hand during the past fortnight, in which previous mistakes on my part are generously, but firmly indicated. Here’s one from a dear old friend, whose handwriting is ever welcome. It runs thus:— “ From F. G. Mason’s Picture, 1846. F. P. Fenner and W. Martingell, for whose description, vide page 259, ‘ The Game of Cricket ’—the former c etat. 84, the latter 76 —are both alive, I believe. I spent three evenings with Fenner 18 months ago, and I saw Martingell at Lord’s last summer.” “ An old Harrovian ” makes two cor­ rections. I said that G. E. Yonge, who played in the University match of 1836, made havoc of Parr’s Eleven in 1852. “ This is a mistake, as it was C. D. Yonge, an elder brother, who played in 1836. G. E. Yonge did not plav for some years later, viz., for Eton in 1841-3, and sub­ sequently for Oxford. C. D. is dead, G. E. is yet alive. Again, it was William Willsher, Edgar’s elder brother, who played for Kent in one match in 1847, Edgar Willsher first assisted Kent in 1850. The compiler of ‘ Scores and Bio­ graphies ’ made this alteration in the Errata.” I mav say I got my informa­ tion about Willsher from Wisden’s Almanack of 1870, pages 98, 99. Mr. J. N. Pentelow, well-known as a writer on cricket, and who has a book in the press dealing with the history of the test games between England and Australia, points out three omissions in the “ County Championship Statistics,” which recently appeared in this journal. J. Selby scored 100 for Notts v. Glo’ster- shire in 1883 ; J. Sainton, 116 for Glo’ster- shire v. Lancashire in 1884; and Lord Harris 101 for Kent v. Middlesex in 1882. He adds, “ you will not, I am sure, think that I am writing in any spirit of carbing criticism. I differ widely from you on many different points. I do not see for instance that . . . . the fact of— and—taking payment for their services is in any way detrimental to the best interests of the game. But I always read yournotches with keen enjoyment . . ” This gives me a text for a homily. I might have got it from “ Wisden,” my yearly Christmas gift, and more to my taste than ever, if only for one reason ; this year the averages of the amateurs and professionals do not appear in separate columns, but all together. As I have twitted my old friend on this score more than once in these columns, and had made up my mind not to leave him alone until this blot was removed, I congratu­ lated him on the alteration. I am not without hopes of making many more distinguished “ verts ” on the same