Cricket 1896

F e b . 27, 1896. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 21 long and careful study of cricket history has convinced me that the distinction made between major and minor matches in the past has been altogether too arbitrary. Let us, by all means, be told definitely what matches are to rank and what are not. But don’t let us draw the line too tightly. I do not propose to revise each separate issue of Wisden in the past; what has been done has been done, and we must accept it. But I plead for fairer and more liberal treat­ ment in the future. Those who are interested in Australian matters will be pleased to read of the revival of New South Wales cricket. Not that New South Wales has ever actually discontinued cricket; but for some sea­ sons past her representatives, while holding their own pretty fairly with South Australia and being easily able to defeat Queensland, have seldom succeeded in scoringa win against their old Victorian rivals. But so far this (Australian) season the Welshmen have been in fine fettle. After defeating Queensland at Sydney, they beat Victoria in the Christ­ mas Intercolonial at Melbourne, and, going on to Adelaide, fairly smashed up South Australia in an innings. This, too, without the help of Turner, Moses, Bannerman, or (as far as the two later matches are concerned) Gregory. Their two new bowlers, Howell and McKibbin, are scarcely, I think, a second edition of Turner and Ferris; but they are un­ doubtedly good men. Many judges think Howell the better of the two, by reason of his perfect leDgth; but apparently the selectors of the team to come to England were not of that opinion. Turner, by the way, is said to have quite lost his bowling powers. He cannot now get wickets even in club matches. At the end of the season of 1890-91, Victoria and New South Wales had each won 23 matches. Since then New South Wales had only scored one more win (and that by the narrow margin of 19 runs), while her rivals {had piled on no fewer than seven. The turn of the tide must thus be very welcome to the senior colony, which seems to have that handsome trophy, the Sheffield Shield, now well within its grasp. It has won both its out matches ; and, playing the other two at home, strengthened by Gregory, Turner, and Ferris (if chosen), and perhaps Moses, should certainly win the remain­ ing two. This is the fourth season in which the right of holding Lord Sheffield’s munificent gift has been fought for. The shield was presented by that nobleman after the close of his team’s tour in 1891-2, to be contested by the three principal Australian colonies. The immediate result, and one of the most gratifying outcomes of the gift was that South Aus­ tralia, which had hitherto played but one match with New South Wales and Vic­ toria each season, arranged returns. Victoria won the shield in splendid fashion in 1892-93, winning all her four matches, and never being really hard- pressed in one of them. South Australia and New South Wales won and lost one match each with one another, and thus stood level. In 1893-94, South Australia, mainly owing to the grand batting of George Giffen (who scored 47, 205, 24, 103, 29 and 89, not out, in the three matches won), lost but one match, the New South Wales game at Sydney, and thus stood first. New South Wales lost two and won two. Victoria won one, lost three. The next season saw Victoria again become holders of the shield. This looked scarcely probable when South Australia began by beating both her and New South Wales: but Victoria won both matches with New South Wales and the return with South Australia, and it thus depended upon the last match of the season whether Victoria should stand first alone or level with South Australia. Then New South Wales did her old rival a good turn by beating Giffen’s men; and the final results were:—(i) Victoria, won three, lost one ; (ii) South Australia, won two, lost tw o ; (iii) New South Wales, won one, lost three. So that if New South Wales manages to come out at the top this season, she will have earned for the first time the right to have her name inscribed on the shield as that of the champion colony of the year. The 924 of Carlton v. University, at Melbourne, has once more brought into the realms of controversy that Ulster v. Macquarie match played (P) at Sydney, many years ago, in which an innings of 1238 is said to have been scored. I note that Mr. A. J. Gaston, whose opinion is entitled to a great deal of weight, believes the match to have been a genuine one. But surely all this difficulty in authenti­ cating it would not have arisen had it been so ? If we grant it to have been, however, the 924 is, of course, not a record. I don’t think anyone who saw Worrall in 1888 would have considered him likely to run up a score of over 400 against even moderate bowling. But his performances in the big Australian matches since tend to show that he has improved a good deal, and one is rather inclined to wonder that he has not yet been included in the Victorian eleven this season. The following is, I believe, a complete list of individual scores of 400 and over:— 485, by Mr. A. E. Stoddart, Hampstead y. Stoics, m 1886. 424, by Mr. A. C. MacLaren, Lancashire v. Somerset, in 1895. 419, not out, by Mr. J. S. Carrick, West of Scot­ land v. Priory Park, Chichester, in 1885. 415, not out, by Mr. W . N. Roe, Emmanuel, L.V.C. v. Caius, L.V.C., Cambridge, in 1881. 415, not out, by Mr. J. Worrall, Carlton v. University, Melbourne, in 1896. 404, not out, by Mr. E. F. S. Tylecote, Classical Side v. Modern Side, Clifton College, in 1868. 400, not out, by Dr. W . G. Grace, United South of England XI. v. X X II. of Great Grimsby, in 1876. If any of my readers know of any other genuine instance I shall be very glad to hear of it. Australia has also been credited with another record lately—to wit, five centuries in one innings. For Padding­ ton v. Burwood, at Sydney, 725 runs were made for four wickets—A. C. K. Mackenzie, 155 ; A. C. Bannerman, 122; A. Noble, 113; Alderson (retired), 113; and J. J. Kelly (not out), 106. Three centuries in an innings have been compassed a good many times—there are fourteeninstances of itiiifirst-class cricket —but an innings including four is very uncommon, and one with five till now absolutely unprecedented. (I distinctly bar Ulster and Macquarie.) The only four-centuries-in-an-innings cases I know of are these three I Zingari v. Bullingdon, at Bullingdon in 1886: L. K. Jarvis, 152 ; Lord Dal­ keith, 120; H. W. Forster, 107; Lord George Scott, 100 (C. T. Hoare made 82, nearly achieving the fifth century). Thornbury v. Wootton-under-Edge, at Thornbury in 1888 : C. J. Robinson, 199 ; E. M. Grace, 145 ; T. Robinson, 128 ; A. H. Grace, 104. Mr. A. P. Lucas’s Eleven v. Free Foresters, at Chelmsford in 1889 : F. A. Phillips, 120; H. M. Taberer, 114; L. H. Gay, 112; F. E. Rowe, 107 not out. Besides the fourteen in first-class games, there are something like thirty instances in my list of three centuries in an innings in minor matches. PRESENTATION to Mr. W. G. GRACE. A pleasant function took place at the Clifton Club, Bristol, on the evening of February 4. The occasion was a presentation in connection with the W. G. Grace Testimonial Fund. The con­ tributions from Gloucestershire amounted to £1,400, and the opportunity of the dinner was utilised to present W. G. a gold chronometer watch, together with silver coffee kettle and an illuminated address for Mrs. Grace. The Duke of Beaufort presided, and the company numbered seventeen, including Messrs. Brownies and Arrowsmith (hon. secs.), and Drs. E. M. and Alfred Grace. The noble chairman, in proposing the toast of the evening, “ The Health of Mr. W. G. Grace,” said that he was the admitted cricket champion of the world, and a man who was respected and deservedly popular in the two hemispheres. He was, moreover, the recipient of a great testimonial, so universal and so spon­ taneous that it fairly established a record. The Duke then presented, in the name of the committee and subscribers, a hand­ some gold watch, and for Mrs. Grace a silver kettle with a beautifully illuminated address. The watch bore the inscription, “ Presented to W. G. Grace, Esq., by the subscribers to the Gloucestershire County Cricket Club Fund in connection with the national testimonial, 1895.” On the kettle was engraved the following “ Presented to Mrs. W. G. Grace by the subscribers to the Gloucestershire County Cricket Club Fund in connection with the national testimonial raised in honour of her husband in 1895.” Mr. W. G. Grace briefly responded, and in thanking his friends for the gift to his wife, declared that but for his wife’s help he never would have done as well as he had even in cricket. The health of the chairman was pro­ posed by Mr. E. G. Clarke. NEXT ISSUE, THURSDAY, MARCH 26th.