Cricket 1895

A p r il 18, 1895. CRICKET A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 71 The following hatsmen playedin fewer than four innings:— N ew S outh W a l e s .— W . Camphin (scored 5 and 9), W . Farquhar (1-0), S. P. Jones (32-1-0), A . McPher­ son (8-6*), W . Moore (0-5). P. Noble (5-7), C. A. Richardson (49-5). Q u eensland . — J . Carlton (13-3), Creswick (0-4), I. 8. Drape (2-0), O. O. Hitchcock (l*-0), W . Hoare (0-6), Lewis (1-3), Metcalf (0-13), R . O’Brien (0-0), M. Pierce (0-7*). S outh A u str a lia .— Bennett (5-0), A . Green (11*- 0), J. M’Kenzie (2), J. Noel (0-5). T asm an ia .— K . E. Burn (48-28*), J. Bingham (9*), B. Campbell (1), A. Douglas (2-64), C. J. Eady (116- 112*), G. H. Gatehouse (45-19), S. Howe (1), E. Manwell (55), W . L. Sidebottom (0), J. W att (16), E. A. Windsor (23). V ictoria .— C. Alsop (1-13), E. A . Barrett (5), E. E. Bean (1-2*), W . Ingleton (0-17), A . E. Johns (10), D. M’Leod (27*-107), G. E. Palmer (6-36), Peryman (40), A. J. Philpott (16-31), P. Roche (25-77), G. Stuckey (51-5), T. Tatchell (3-24), G. Vantin (4-44), T. Warne (2-69-15*), C. G. W ilson (0-1). * Signifies “ not out.” Fractions in decimals. Owing to full analysis of the later matches not yet being available, we arc unable to give at present the full bowling averages, but hope to do so in a supplementary table in a few weeks’ time. Meanwhile, the following list of those who took twenty or more wickets, though not complete enough for purposes of reference, may be interesting. Wickets. Runs. Average. G. Giffen............... 92 for (about) 2,100 22'82 T. Richardson ... 68 for 1,616 23*76 R. P e e l............... 37 for 1,414 24 80 T. R. M ’Kibbin 44 for 733 19*93 C. T. B . Turner 44 for 923 20 97 J. Briggs ... 44 for 1,032 23 45 G. H. S. Trott ... 43 for 806 18*74 A. E. Trott ... for 758 21 65 S. I. Callaway ... 24 for 526 21*91 W. Howell ... 24 for 651 29*59 It will be noticed that Harry Trott has the best average of the list—a distinction which no one would have predicted for him at the beginning of the season. LIST OF CENTURIES. (Chronological). 115 J. T. Brown, Adelaide, England, v. South Aus­ tralia. 117 J. Darling, Adelaide, South Australia, v. Eng­ land. 228 A . C. M ‘Laren, Melbourne, England, v. Victoria. 133 F. A . Iredale, Sydney, New South Wales, v. England. 117 J. T. Brown, Sydney, England, v. New South Wales. 10*2 H. Dyer, Adelaide, South Australia, v. Victoria. 149 \ A . E. Stoddart, Brisbane, England, v. Queens- [ land. 107 JA W ard, Brisbane, England, v. Queensland. 161 |G. Giffen, Sydney, Australia, v. England. 201( S. E. Gregory, Sydney, Australia, v. England, in A ’ "^ ard» Sydney, England, v. Australia. 101 S. E. Gregory, Melbourne, New South Wales, v. Victoria. 173 A . E. Stoddart, Melbourne, England, v. Aus­ tralia. 140 F . A . Iredale. Adelaide, Australia, v. England, in- 9 ‘ ^‘ Eady» H°bart, Tasmania, v. Victoria. ii.** r?' Hobart, Victoria, v. Tasmania. inr t I* ^*Eady> Hobart, Tasmania, v. Victoria. H. Graham, Sydney, Australia, v. England. A. C. M‘Laren, Brisbane, v. Queensland and New South Wales. 152 G. H. S. Trott, Melbourne, Victoria v. South Australia. 'J- J- Lyons, Melbourne, South Australia, v. Victoria. 120 A. C. M*Laren, Melbourne, England, v. Aus­ tralia. J* T. Brown, Melbourne, England, v. Australia, im t Adelaide. South Australia v. England. 1 1\ J. T. Brown, Adelaide, England, v. South Aus­ tralia. 106 IF . G. J. Ford, Adelaide, England, v. South Australia. ' A. W aM , Adelaide, England, v. South Aus­ tralia. Ihose bracketed together were made in the same innings. Twenty-seven centuries in ^ jm a d e in fifteen matches. In only five of the twenty matches did no individual score and lack the hundred. There were also 68 scores of 50 and under 100, eight of them credited to George Giffen. PAIRS OF SPECTACLES. N. Bradley, Queensland v. England, at Brisbane. S. T. Callaway, Q. & N.S.W . v. England, at Biisbane. W . Howell, N. S. W . v. Victoria, at Melbourne. R. W . M ’Leod, Victoria v. N. S. W ., at Sydney. R. O’Brien, Queensland v. N. S. W ., at Brisbane. R. Peel, England v. Australia, at Adelaide. R. Peel, England v. Australia, at Sydney. It is curious that, with only seven instances in all, two of them should be debited to so genuinely good a batsman as “ Sir Robert ” Peel. J. N. P e n t e l o w . d o m g j j o n & e n c e . AMATEURS AND PROFESSIONALS. To the Editor o f C r i c k e t . S ir , —It appears to me that, in endeavour­ ing to extricate himself from an untenable position, Mr. Holmes has succeeded in plunging himself still deeper in the mire. A more contradictory and inconclusive expo­ sition I have rarely read. He commences by laying it down that “ a professional is one who plays at sport for a livelihood,” and an amateur ‘ ‘ one who takes part in a particular branch of sport out of genuine love for the same.” Surely he must perceive that these definitions cut the ground from under his own feet, for the very men against whom he continually rails do not depend upon cricket for a livelihood, they have their professions and businesses out of which to make a livelihood, and play cricket in the few summer months out of love for the game. Therefore, according to these definitions, they are amateurs, and not professionals. But the definitions do much more than this. Does Mr. Holmes really believe that there are any cricketers at all who depend upon the game for a livelihood ? Many of the professionals have flourishing businesses and are well-to- do in the world, and I doubt if any single one remains idle when not engaged in cricket. Take Gunn as a typical example. According to Mr. Holmes he cannot be a professional, for he certainly does not depend on the game for a livelihood, but follows it because he loves it. The very fact that he prefers to play as a professional shows the necessity for the distinctions which exist, but not for those on the lines Mr. Holmes would impose upon us. But Mr. Holmes is not satisfied with these definitions. Further on he flatly contradicts them by laying it down that “ either every man who makes money by sport is a pro­ fessional, or no man is.” This amazing and far-reaching dictum will surely create con­ sternation in the sporting world. In the domain of cricket it makes confusion worse confounded. As Gunn does not depend on cricket for a livelihood, but plays because he likes it, he is not a professional, and as he makes money by it he is not an amateur ; but as he makes his livelihood outside of the cricket field, he is an amateur, and as he makes money on it he is a professional! Truly, oh, Gunn, thou art in a parlous state ! Grace and dozens of others are in the same obfuscated condition. But just look at what this remarkable postulate would do in other branches of sport. What about the Duke of Portland and Lord Rosebery; what about the man who wins the Grand National on his own horse? What about the noble lords who knock over pigeons for money at Hurlingham, or the rifleists who win large sums at W imbledon ? What about the gallant officers who scoop the pool at the Junior United Service, or the grave and reverend seignours who pocket half-crown points at the Athenaeum ? What about Stoddart and his tourists ? According to the last dictum none of these can be gentlemen. I am afraid, Mr. Holmes, you have made a sad hash of the whole thing; it was bad enough before, but where it is now the Lord only knows. You would reduce all sport to the sordid question of money, or no money. If we could do without money altogether, well and good. But we cannot, and therefore I do not see what good can arise from raising the question in this way. It is much more likely to bring the money side of cricket into still more objectionable prominence than it is at present than to place it on a logical footing. Let sleeping dogs lie. The distinction between gentleman and player is well understood, and does not want confusing with pedantic disquisitions concerning amateurs and pro­ fessionals. I am sure that the vast majority of the players are satisfied with their status, and only querulous grumblers can possibly object to a few phenomenally fine cricketers being kept on the field by means they would be the first to repudiate if they were in a position to do so. The “ Gentlemen v. Players ” match is the most interesting now left to us in these days of strenuous, I had almost said vicious, struggling for so-called championship, and it would be a thousand pities if Mr. Holmes’ diatribes in any way endangered its continuance. I cannot conclude without protesting against Mr. Holmes’ allegation that a “ sportsman ” would be more prone to “ loan himself out to the highest bidder ” than the journalist. A man would act up to his ideals whatever pursuit he followed, and the man who writes is quite as ready, or as unready, to sell himself to the highest bidder as the man who plays cricket. I was a regular journalist for ten years in Australia and New Zealand, and am one now in the *ense that I contribute largely to various publications, and I know what I am writing about.— Yours faithfully, G. LACY. Barmouth, April 13, 1895. CROYDON v. ERRATICS. Croydon on April 15th. - Played at E r r a tic s . First Innings. L. Walker, c May, b Ching 0 H. F. Recanio, b Smith ... 5 F. T. Crawford, c Clarke, b S m ith ...................................14 R. J. Tivers. b Smith........... 2 Rev. J. C. Crawford, b Ching 8 C. F. Recanio, b Smith ... 0 H. Temple, c Clarke, b S m ith ................................... 6 Rev. Clarke, b Sm ith........... 4 G. F. Blades, c Smith, b C h in g ................................... 4 A. P. Keeling, not out .. 4 Leg-byes ................... 9 Second Innings. c Clarke, b Feist 21 not out ...........2*2 c T. A . Watson, b Feist 10 run out Total ...........56 C roydon . Total 2 56 H. R. Groom, b J. E. J. A. Archer, b F. T. Craw ford................... 4 Crawford................... 3 T. J. Ching, b J. E. G. F. Long, lbw 24 Crawford................... 32 C. G. May, c Sub, b T. A. Watson, run out 75 Blades ................... 10 A. E. Clarke, c Clarke, E. H. B. Stanley, b b W alker................... 22 Tivers ................... 7 E. W . Smith, b F. T. L. K. Watson, not out 0 Crawford ... ........... 79 B 21,1-b 9, n-b 4... 34 C. W . M. Feist, c Re— canio, b F. T. CrawTotal ...306 ford ........................... 16