Cricket 1896

36 CR ICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. M arch 26, 1896. Every batsman who played ten innings and every bowler who took ten wickets is included; while the figures of the sixmem­ bers of the team who played fewer than ten innings are given beneath. The name of each manwho is amember of the present team is signified thus (f). Moses is also thus marked, as it is almost certain he will be played on some occasions. With­ out attaching too much importance to the unusually high averages of Iredale and Darling, who have only played iu a few matches, one may remark that six regular members of the team have capital figures; while of those not included in the regular list Albert Trott and Clement Hill were in very notable form against Mr. Stoddart’s Team. The bowling is given in balls instead of, as is usual, in overs, because some of the overs were of four, some of five, and some (in Australia) of six balls, so that no true idea of the actual amount of that he had suffered in silence) that last time h« was over here he was seldom given a fair chance on a bowlers’ wicket, though allowed to peg away at the batsmen to his heart’s con­ tent when “ the Terror” and “ Long Hugh ” had proven ineffective on the hard wickets so prevalent in ’93. I shall never forget Giffen’s bowling in the England match at the Oval that season. It may be remembered that our men scored 483, Jackson, W. G., Stoddart, W. W., Albert Ward, and Arthur Shrews­ bury, all distinguishing themselves. The Australians sent down altogether 935 balls. Giffen’s share of these was 270. Trumble, who bowled 235 balls, took one wicket for 101 ! Turner, bowling exactly the samenumber, took onefor 94! George had seven for 128 ; he clean bowled Gunn and W. W. Read, caught Ward off his own bowling and got Shrewsbury caught in the long-field, and brought the innings Some of my readers may not under­ stand my putting Giffen above Turner as a master of strategy. But I think those who hav<3 watched the two men closely and often will understand it. Turner’s great quality as a bowler is his deadliness on the sticks. Of the 877 wickets he has taken against English sides, no fewer than 478 have been bowled, while 55 others were l.b.w. Spofforth’s 720 included 364 bowled, 16 l.b.w. Giffen’s 521 contained 225bowled, 28 l.b.w. Ferris, at his best, ranked with Spofforth and Giffen. I don’t mean that I bracket the three men as equal; that they were not; but all trusted rather more to well-laid plans and a smart field than to hitting the stumps. So, iu a greater cr less degree did Boyle, with his accurate length balls, and Tom Garrett. Palmer, on the contrary, bowled for the wicket, and of his 548 wickets, 341 were bowled and 16 l.b.w. Bombay Presidency y. Parsees.— Played at Bombay on August 23rd and 24th, 1895. bowling done could be gained from the usual method. It may be a surprise to find that George Giffen’s bowling average is over twenty per wicket. I, for one, should certainly rank George above Boyle, Garrett, and Hugh Trumble, and at least level with Palmer as a trundler. Let it be remembered that practically the the whole of the great South Australian’s bowling has been done on the billiard- table wickets at the Antipodes, or during exceptionally dry English seasons. The summer of 1882, it is true, had its fair share of rain; but Giffen had little bowling to do that season, Spofforth, Boyle, Pal­ mer and Garrett doing almost all that was necessary. The summers of ’84, ’86, and ’93 were all batsmen’s seasons, and in my opinion Giffen was, on good wickets, decidedly the best bowler of both the ’86 and ’93 teams. He complained, with good cause (though it would have been better for the success of the tour to a summary end when a score of 600 looked not improbable by bowling Briggs, getting Lockwood “ c and b ” and Mac­ Gregor “ l b w,” thus leaving only Mold to partner Jackson, who managed to get run out after just achieving his century. Better bowling against a side which played a winning game from the very outset, I have never seen, and never wish to see. That Giffen is, next to Spofforth, the most wily and resourceful of all the great bowlers Australia has sent us, and that he is at the present day the greatest all-round player in the world, are two of my articles of cricket faith. If khe is untroubled by either sciatica or that leg of his while in Eng­ land this year, I anticipate his eclipsing even his ’86 successes. He may be less active than he was ten years a g o; but his added experience and great coolness will largely counteract any loss of limberness. Leaving out of account Evans and Allan, who were undoubtedly far better bowlers than they showed themselves in England, I take it that we may fairly rank F. E. Spofforth, C. T. B. Turner, G. Giffen, T. W. Garrett, J. J. Ferris, G. E. Palmer, H. Trumble and H. F. Boyle, as the greatest Australian bowlers —at any rate of those known to us. Jones, Eady, McKibbin or Albert Trott, any or all, may prove worthy to rank with them, but all that is in the future. This then would be my ranking of the eight mentioned, all things—deadliness, accuracy, strategy—considered ; and the comparison being considered to refer to each man when at his best and at his worst. 1.—Turner and Spofforth (equal) 2.—Ferris. 3.—Giffen and Palmer (equal). 4.—Boyle. 5.—Garrett. 6.—Trumble.