Cricket 1896

F e b . 27, 1896. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 19 BETWEEN THE INNINGS. It was with a good deal of surprise that, a day or two after my last article was written and despatched, I read the list of men who had been chosen to form this year’s Australian team. The news was cabled over just in time to enable the Editor to chronicle it in “ Pavilion Gossip ; ” so that those who turned from that page to my article may perhaps have been tempted to chuckle when they saw that, of those whom I had set down as certainties, three had not been in­ cluded. But I had the best of reasons for believing that Lyons, Clement Hill and Albert Trott would all be chosen ; and even now I think that any one of the three would be worth more to the team than Jones. It is probable that, as the Australasian Cricket Council has called upon the selectors to choose another player in order to make up the strength of the team to fourteen, one of the three may come after all—for choice Lyons. But perhaps I had better not indulge again in the hazardous game of prophecy. Probably before this appears in print the fourteenth man will have been nominated. The selectors, by the way, were all old friends of the English cricket public— George GifEen, Tom Garrett and William Bruce, to wit. Apart from the question as to whether the team selected is absolutely the strongest possible, I look upon it as one likely to do credit to Australian cricket. I don’t imagine that it will equal the record of the great 1882 team; perhaps it can scarcely be expected to do as much as the 1884 combination; but I fancy it will give a better account of itself than that of 1893. I take these to have been, all things considered, the three strongest sides Australia has yet sent ns. The 1882 team played up to the best form that could have been expected of i t ; that of 1884 beyond what could have been ex­ pected of it—remember that the 1884 team had left behind in Australia such men as Garrett, Horan and Massie, and that it practically played throughout the tour with eleven men; that of 1893 fell far below what it ought to have done; but in the main I am inclined to rank the three teams as very much on a par, so far as one can judge of potentiality after actual performances have biassed one. Perhaps I may make my meaning clearer if I say that results of the threeteams ought to have been pretty much on a par. But this may be going too far into the regions of speculation to suit the hard-headed cricketer, who has a natural preference for matters of fact. Here, then, be facts; and facts possibly not uninteresting at this juncture, to wit, the results of the first class matches played by each Australian team, with the number of old hands and new players repectively brought over by each. RESULTS OF AUSTRALIAN MATCHES. (ELEVEN-ASIDE ONLY.) No. of Old New Year. matches. Won. Lost. Drwn. hnds. players. 1878 ... 17 ... 9 .. . 4 ... 4 ... 0 ... 12 1880 ... 11 .. . 5 .. . 2 ... 4 ... 5 ... 8 1882 ... 38 ... 23 ... 4 ... 11 ... 10 ... 3 1884 ... 32 ... 18 .. . 7 ... 7 ... 11 ... 2 1886 ... 38 .. . 9 ..,. 7 ...22 ... 9 ... 4 1888 ... 40 ... 19 .. . 14 ... 7 ... 7 ... 6 1890 ... 38 .. . 13 ..,. 16 ... 9 ... 7 ... 6 1893 ... 35 . . 17 .,. 10 ... 8 . 10 ... 4 249 113 64 72 It will be noticed that the earlier Australian teams never brought over more than thirteen men. The first team, indeed, had only twelve; and one of the thirteen in 1884 was Alexander, who acted as manager, and was only played when it was absolutely necessary. The combination of 1893 was the first to include fourteen, Coningham being added almost at the last moment. Fourteen is certainly not too many, considering the really hard season’s work which the Australians invariably put in. There are few English cricketers who play in as many as thirty first-class matches during one season. As showing the batting and bowling strength of the various sides, the follow­ ing figures—runs scored for and against the different teams may prove interest­ ing SYNOPSIS OF RUN-GETTING. For the Australians. Agst. the Australians. Runs Wckts. Runs Wkts. Year. scored. down. Aver. scored, down. Aver. 1878 ... 3793 ... 262 . 14-4 ... ... 3396 ... 271 ... 125 1880 ... 2732 ... 158 ... 2481 ... 185 ... 13*4 1882 ...10793 ... 555 .... 194 9089 ... 653 ... 13*9 1884 ... 9790 ... 478 ..., 20 4 .. 9496 ... 547 ... 173 1886 ...11082 ... 563 ..., 19-6 ,, 11884 ... 572 ... 20-7 1888 ... 9742 ... 625 .. . 15-5 , , 10100 ... 689 ... 14-6 1890 ...10573 ... 628 .... 168 ... 9739 .. 622 ... 15-6 1893 ...12677 ... 548 .... 23*1 11131 ... 603 ... 18-4 These two tables will, I think, bear out to some extent my contention that the best three teams were those of 1882, 1884 and 1893. As far as the difference between “ average fo r ” and “ average against ” goes, it would seem that the 1880 team must rank with these ; but it is well to remember that the 1880 team played only eleven first-class matches— a very poor test, comparatively. The difference is biggest in the case of the great 1882 team, whose figures give + 5'5; then comes 1893 with -f- 4-7 ; and 1880 and 1884 follow with + 3’7 and + 3’1 respectively. The 1886 record is by far the worst—strangely enough, worse even than that of 1890, when, although the Australians lost more matches than they won, they averaged 1*2 per wicket betterthan their opponents. Just a word here. I have considered all the regular eleven-a-side games played by the Colonists as first-class matches, as was the universal custom till some few critics cavilled in 1893. But, now that long-delayed promotion has come to such teams as Derbyshire and Warwickshire, it would surely be ridiculous to include matches against them in 1890 and 1896 and discard such games in 1893. Wiaden , for 1879, too, shows nineteen so-called first-class games played by the Aus­ tralians in 1878. But of these one was a game of a somewhat scratchy nature, played to fill up time after the match with Gloucestershire was over, which Wisden elected to consider “ a return.” If one admitted that, one would have to admit some half-score other games of a similar character, not appearing in the official programme at all. Another was a match at Glasgow, when, I believe, ten Australians met twelve of the West of Scotland; and this can scarcely be con­ sidered as other than a game against odds. Brumfitt and Kirby’s England v. Australia at the Wickets discards both these; and, after a good deal of con­ sideration, I am inclined to think Messrs. B. and K. right, though I have before expressed myself as favouring their inclusion. By the way, I cannot quite agree with my good friend, the Rev. R. S. Holmes, as to the infallibility of Wisden. The last few issues of the almanack have, it is true, been almost perfect; but some of the volumes of farther back—that of 1886 especially— contain averages which are anything but reliable. I may return to this subject on a future occasion. I have worked out the averages, batting and bowling, of the men selected to form the 1896 team, as also of the three from whom the fourteenth man will assuredly be chosen, in eleven-a-side matches against English teams, both in England and Australia, and append them here­ with. Eady, it may be mentioned, has never yet appeared in such a match; though, I believe, he was over in Mel­ bourne before the final test match of Stoddart’s Team, and might possibly have been chosen to play had his form at practice been thought good enough. The men who have not yet visited England have, of course, played com­ paratively few innings, which will not be wondered at when it is remembered that all of them, except Harry, are under thirty, and that only two English teams have visited Australia during the last eight seasons. The names of the men not actually chosen are marked with asterisks. BATTING AVERAGES. No. of Not Highest inns. outs. Runs. Aver. score. *C. Hill ... ... 3 .. .. 1 .. . 226 ...113-00 ... 150+ •A. E. Trott .. 9 ... 4 ... 331 ... 66-20 ... 85+ F. A. Iredale ... 15 ... 2 ..,. 553 ... 42 53 ... 140 J. Darling ... ... 13 . .. 1 . ,. 463 ... 38-58 ... 117 H. Graham... ... 5S ... 3 ... 1585 ... 28-81 ... 219 G. Giffen .......... 259 ... 12 ... 6003 ... 24*30 ... 203 S. E. Gregory ... 132 ... 20 ... 2404 ... 21-46 ... 201 *J. J. Lyons .. 196 .,.. 9 .. 3842 ... 20 54 ... 149 G. H. S. Trott ... 226 ... 7 ... 4497 ... 20-52 ... 186 H. Donnan... ... 14 ... 3 .,. 207 ... 1881 ... 39 J. Harry ... ... 6 ... 0 ...t 92 ... 15-33 ... 70 H. Trumble .. 115 . . 27 .. . 1249 ... 14-19 ... 105 A, Johns ... ... 1 . .. 0 ... 10 ... 10-00 ... 10 T. R. McKibbin 6 ... 1 .,.. 49 ... 9-80 ... 23 E. Jones ... ... 5 ... 1 ... 16 ... 4-00 ... 11+ + Signifies not out. BOWLING AVERAGES. No. of balls. Runs scored. Wkts. Aver. H. Trumble.......... ... 8483 ... 3592 ... 190 .... 18-90 G. Giffen .......... ...22958 .. .10453 .. . 521 .. . 20-06 G. H. S. Trott ... ... 7740 .. . 4318 ... 187 .... 23-09 *A. E. Trott.......... ... 1110 ... 456 ... 19 ..., 24-00 *J. J. Lyons.......... ... 3904 .. . 2038 ... 79 .... 25-79 T. R. McKibbin ... ... 642 .. . 335 .,,. 8 ,... 41-87 H. Donnan .......... ... 299 .. 136 ... 2 .... 68-00 S. E. Gregory ... 98 ... 78 ... 1 .. . 78-00 E. Jones................. ... 678 ., . 356 .,,. 4 ... 89-00 F. A. Iredale ... 12 ., 3 .. ,. — .., — H. Graham.......... ... 20 .,,. 22 .. i. — .. — J. Harry .......... ... 78 .... 42 .,,. — .. It would not be fair, of course, to judge men like Donnan, Harry, McKibbin and NEXT ISSUE, THURSDAY, MARCH 26th.