Cricket 1896

A pril 30, 1896. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OP THE GAME. 101 MR. W. L. MURDOCH’S CENTURIES IN FIRST- CLASS MATCHES. 321 N.S.W. v. Victoria ..........Sydney............1882 286* 3rd Aust. XI. v. Su sex ... Brighton ... 1882 279* 4th Aust. X I. v. Australia Melbourne ... 1884 226 Sussex v. Cambridge Univ. Brighton ... 1895 211 Australia, v. England..........Oval ............1884 158 N.S.W. v. Victoria ..........Melbourne ... 1883 158 7th Aust. XI. v. Sussex ...Brighton ... 18S0 153* Australia v. England..........Oval ............1880 132 4th Aust. XI.v. Camb.Univ. Cambridge ... 1884 129 7th Aust. X I. v. Cambridge Univer.. Past & Present Leyton..........1890 107* 3rd Aust. X I. v. Orleans C. Twickenham 1882 104 G. of South v. P. of South Lord’s ..........1894 Mr. Murdoch also scored 117 for the Second Australian Team v. XV III. of Newcastle in 1880; 153 for the First Team v. XV III. of Victoria in 1878; and 172* for Sussex v. Hants in 1894. These, however, cannot be ranked first- class. Here is a detailed synopsis of Mr. Murdoch’s batting in first-class matches :— M r, W . L. MURDOCH’S BATTING AVERAGES. See Hig’sfc below Inns. Not out. Runs. Aver. score. (а) ... 222 ... IT ... 5,332 ... 26'00 ... 286* (б) ... 112 ... 7 ... 2,618 ... 24-93 ... 226 (c) ... 50 ... 5 ... 1,109 ... 24-61 ... 104 (d) ... 32 ... 3 ... 1,648 ... 63'37 ... 321 (e) .. 29 ... 6 ... 701 ... 30'47 ... 85 ( /) ... 2 ... 1 ... 37 ... 37-00 ... 37 (jO ... 1 ... 0 ... 12 ... 12-00 ... 12 Total... 448 ... 89 .. 11,357 ... 27'76 ... In (a) are included innings played for Australian teams in England; in (i) innings played in the first-class matches of Sussex; in (c) innings played in other first-class matches in England; in (d) thoseplayed inpurely Australian matches, intercolonials, &c.; in (e) those played in Australia against English bow ling; iu ( / ) the one first-class match played by the Australians in America in 1878; and in ( g ) the one first-class match of the South African tour of Mr. W. W. Bead and his men in 1891-2. A slip in addition of some of the figures I gave last week, caused me to give an ingenious (perhaps) but totally unneces­ sary explanation of a fact which was not a fact. I fear that is rather involved. What I mean to say is, that by crediting South Australia’s opponents with 100 runs less than they actually made, I managed to make out the bowling of Giffen’s men to have been stronger than that of either of the other colonies, whereas their average per wicket was higher than that of N.S.W., and only lower by a small fraction than that of Victoria. The figures as given by the editor on page 90 are correct. Peccavi The present time seems opportune for giving iu these columns a list which I have had prepared for some time, which gives the results of the matches played by the eight Australian teams which have so far toured this country with the various sides they have met. I place the repre­ sentative matches first, and give the counties in alphabetical order. The ten “ other representative matches ” are the following, and in the choice of them, I have been guided chiefly by the contem­ porary journalistic decisions: v. Lord Sheffield's Eleven in 1884; v. Lord Sheffield’s Eleven, Lord Londesborough’s Eleven, and Eleven of England, at Lord’s (testimonial match to Mr. J. A. Murdoch) in 1886 ; v. Lord Londesborough’s Eleven in 1888; v. Lord Sheffield’s Eleven and Lord Londesborough’s Eleven in 1890; v. Lord Sheffield’s Eleven, Shrewsbury’s England Eleven at Nottingham, and Mr. C I. Thornton’s England Eleven at Scar­ borough in 1893. AUSTRALIAN MATCHES. No of A. A. Against. Matches. Won. Lost. Dr’wn. England ................. 16 .. 2 .. 10 ... 4 \ Gentlemen ......... 7 .. 3 .. 2 . , 2 Players ................. 11 .. 4 .. 4 ... 3 North........................ 7 ... 2 .. 3 ... 2 South......................... 9 .. 3 .. 4 ... 2 i M.C.C. and G........... 8 .. 2 .. 4 ... 2 Other Rep. X I.’s ... 10 . 3 .. 4 ... 3 : Total: all Rep. matches 68 .. 19 31 18 } Cambridge University ... 7 .. 2 .. 2 ... 32 Oxford University... ... 6 . . 5 ... 1 Derbyshire .......... ... 7 . . 6 ... — !!! i * Essex........................ ... 1 . . — ... — ... 1 ? Gloucestershire ... 14 . . 7 2 ... 5 K e n t........................ ... 8 . 4 ... 4 __ Lancashire .......... ... 7 ... 4 ... 1 2 | Leicestershire.......... ... 7 . . 5 ... 1 ... 1 Middlesex................. ... 7 . . 6 — ... 1 Notts......................... ... 13 .. 3 6 ... 4 Somerset ................. ... 2 . . 2 ... — ... — Surrey ................. ... 12 . . 6 ... 4 2 Sussex ................. .. 8 . 4 ... 1 ... 3 Warwickshire.......... ... 4 . . 3 ... — ... 1 Yorkshire................. ... 20 . . 9 ... 4 ... 7 Scratch X I.’s and Minor County Matches... .. 58 . . 28 ... 7 ... 23 Grand Total .......... ... 249 *. 113 .!! 64 !’.! 72 The Oxford and Cambridge Past and Present matches, both in cases where a joint team was put into the field and in those where each Varsity tackled the Colonists alone, are included in the matches with scratch elevens, as seems only fair when one remembers that (save perhaps on one occasion, when Cam­ bridge Past and Present beat the power­ ful Third Australian team) the English teams in these games have never been in the slightest degree representative of the real strength of the ’Varsities’ cricket. Notts is the only county which can claim a majority of wins over losses, though Kent runs level thus far. The dear old county with the proud motto “ Invicta ” (how she belied it last year) ! has almost invariably played up to her best form against the Australians. Middlesex— often a stronger side than Kent—has never yet been able to beat them. On the whole, the table would seem to prove that the average Australian team is decidedly above county strength, but not up to English representative form. It would be little short of a miracle if it were. Where England has fifty first- class cricketers to choose from, Australia has but ten; and the amount of cricket played in the mother country is out of all proportion to that obtainable “ down under.” All the greater is the credit due to “ the Sons of the Golden South,” for the fine cricketers that have been and still are raised among them. Australia has produced Spofforth, whom many think the finest bowler the world ever saw; Turner, held by some his superior, by many his equal; Blackham, the prince of wicket­ keepers ; Murdoch, who ranks high in the second line of batsmen—for one must give W.G. a place in the forefront by himself; Giffen, before whom none but W. G. can be placed for all-round ability; to say nothing of many great players of scarcely less fame than these. What would not one give to be able to choose an eleven of the best men in Australia, and another of the (contemporary) best men in Eng­ land, then, by one wave of a magic wand, to have each man in his prime, and the great battle fought out at Lord’s ? What a match it would be ! And what a field of selection would be open ! These would be my chosen elevens; but, again, I have no expectation than anyone will agree with me in toto. England : W. G. Grace, W. W. Bead, A. G. Steel, A. E. Stoddart, Hon. Alfred Lyttelton, Shrewsbury, Gunn, Briggs, Lohmann, Ulyett, Shaw. Australia: W. L. Murdoch, P. B. Spof­ forth, C. T. B. Turner, J. J. Perris, G. E. Palmer, G. Giffen, J. M. Blackham, T. Horan, P. S. McDonnell, H. H. Massie, A. C. Bannerman. And after these one might select another eleven from each side, to play a second match, likely to be scarcely less well contested and scarcely less exciting than the first. But these are vain dreams. “ Where are the snows of yester-year ? ” As likely to come back as they are the suppleness and activity, the keenness of eye and sureness of foot, that helped to make the gallant veterans of this list the great players they were in their glorious prime. Oh, the hardest day was nevsr then too hard ! But, as the Australian poet who wrote that line, Lindsay Gordon, the bard of saddle and spur, “ the Laureate of the Centaurs,” said in another of his poems : There is an end to all things, A season to every man. W.G., like the brook, seems able to “ go on for e v e r;” but to other men there comes the inevitable period of decay, and thereafter the time when their place in the cricket arena knows thorn no more. To me it is a sad thing to see a great player going downhill, a sadder still to miss him altogether from the side he has served so long and so well. I often wonder whether older men than myself, by whom so many more familiar figures must be missed, feel the same. But a truce to this. It is far too pessimistic for the opening of a new season. Long live cricket, and bright and sunny be the season of 1896. Mr. Musgrove has set right one or two misapprehensions as to the Australian team. I am glad, indeed, to hear that Harry’s disappointment has been liberally compensated. It seemed to me very hard indeed that the East Melbourne player should have had to stand down, though one can scarcely doubt that the inclusion of young Hill will strengthen the team; and I thought both Harry and Johns quite within their rights in refusing to retire. The selectors, it appears to me, made a mistake in not deferring the choice of a wicket-keeper until somewhat later. Had they done so, the team would have been stronger than it now is, for both Harry and Hill might have been