Cricket 1896

S e p t . 10, 1896. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 411 BETWEEN THE INNINGS. THE AUSTRALIANS IN 1896. The Australians’ last week’s play has by no means added greatly to their laurels. They had the worst of a wicket which was never very favourable to run getting, except perhaps for an hour or two on Monday morning, at Scarborough, and were easily beaten in an innings ; while at Hastings after getting a useful lead of 30 on the first innings, they collapsed on a bad wicket in the second, and only time saved them from a decisive defeat. Thus they ended their tour as they began it, with an unfavourable draw. Nevertheless, they have proved themselves a really great team, worthy to be ranked with the early Australian combinations, and indisputably ahead of any one of the last four teams; I shall have more to say about their iecord next week; in this article I propose to deal with the individual achievements of the season. It is this side of cricket which chiefly appeals to me as spectator, not that I cannot appreciate the cohesion, the fine working together of such a team as Yorkshire, or—at its best— Surrey; but somehow I cannot help feeling more interested in what one or two cricketers on a side may do than in what fate may befall the side as a whole. “ The greater contains the less,” says Euclid, the bugbear of my schoolboy days. I trust I quote the old gentleman correctly; but I must own I have never dipped into his pages since Emancipation Day. But “ every rule has its exception,” Slid another sapient albeit nameless pundit. And so I may perhaps feel justified in owning that Brown is more to me than Yorkshire, and that a big score by Abel or Hayward, or “ our Walter, ” a fine bowling performance by “ Royal George ” or “ Long Tom,” pleases me more than a Surrey success won by other men. I don’t mind Derbyshire’s failing so much if William Chatterton scores well; and a century by the G.O.M. consoles me very adequately for a Gloucestershire defeat. On the whole I am inclined to congratulate my­ self upon this state of affairs. If one hungers too much for the success of any particular county, one is somewhat too apt to feel sick and sore and tired of cricket altogether when that county is performing ill; but if one’s interest is chiefly occupied by individual cricketers, there is always something pleasant to read in one’s morning paper. I am not advocating the putting the individual before the side, mind you. The cricketer who put himself before his side would soon cease to be of absorbing interest to me. Nearly all of my favourites are men who conspicuously play for their sides, and not “ for their own hands,” like the armourer of the Fair City. I will take the Australians first—a place to which they have a right, both alphabetically and as the undefeated of all the counties. Little Gregory heads their averages, and deserves to do so. He played rare good cricket throughout the tour; and there was no better batsman on the side. Like Abel, he is a standing example of the great things that that may be done in cricket by little men. Few batsmen have more strokes than he ; and he is as full of pluck as an egg is full of meat. I don’t know whether to rank Darling or Trott next, or whether, indeed, these three should not be bracketed equals at the top; mind, I am not talking now of figures or of style. There are Englishmen with averages considerably bigger than any one of these three, who did not do half such great things for their respective sides; and for grace of style I should rank any of the three inferior to Frank Iredale. Trott, the cool, the lion- hearted, the wise captain, the cheery comrade, is a great man on a side; but so is Darling, the man whom nervousness never touches, who can stand in the breach like a hero of old days, and play great cricket when other men fail. Yes, call the three equal; I, for one know not how to distinguish among them. Darling as a hitter— and we were told to consider him such—was something of a disappointment. He seldom hit out unless the wicket was bad; but then his forcing tactics were generally noticeable. Trott made a splendid captain, and his innings against England and the M.C.C. (returnj at Lord’s were worthy of the greatest oi batsmen. Iredale’s graceful style was strongly in evidence ; but the New South Wales man gives one somehow the impression of languor, and one always seems waiting for him to wake up. Most of his runs were made in July. In the early part of tho tour he was very unsuccessful; and lately he has made no really big scores. He did, however, what no other Australian batsman has ever done in England, scored four centuries during the tour. Indeed, never before had more than two been made by any batsman, that number being credited to Murdoch in ’82, ’84 and ’ 90, to Trott in ’90 and ’93, to Horan in ’82, to Jones in ’86, to Bonnor in ’88, to Graham, Giffen and Bannerman in ’93. This time not only did Iredale score four, but Trott, Gregory and Darling each made three, and Giffen and Hill had two each. Iredale’s great weakness is the way in which he puts up balls in the slips before he gets set; but when once he is set few men play sounder cricket. Young Hill’sreally fine form was a surprise. We knew how good he was on Australian wickets; but it scarcely seemed likely that one so young could do well in England. Except for a fortnight or so in June, however, he was always making runs; and everyone admired those artistic leg-strokes of his. I should rank him after some of the other batsmen on the side who had smaller averages than he, because he seldom did much in the more important matches ; but he is a wonder­ ful young player, and we shall all hope to see him in England with many another Australian team. Giffen was in far better form than in ’93 ; and, although he does not occupy so high a place in the list as I expected he would, that is chiefly owing to the fact that others have done better than I anticipated, not that he has done worse. Veteran though he is, he is a great all-round player still; and even this visit may not be his last. His 80 in the second test match at Manchester was a grand innings. Donnan is a worthy successor to Bannerman. Perhaps ho lapses into hitting a trifle oftener than little Alec did; but on the whole such lapses are by no means so frequent as they might be. The wickets suited him ; had the season proved generally wet I scarcely think he would have j ustificd his selection. He is a good man, nevertheless, and, like his comrades, a well-plucked one. at Southampton, and seldom played after­ wards. After his great performances of 1893, Graham’ s figures in such a run-getting season as this were deplorable ; and though Eady played one or two plucky innings early in the tour he has still a lot to learn about batting. Kelly and Trumble were very useful indeed. Neither played a really big innings through­ out the tour; but both were always con­ tributing usefully to the score, and on one or two occasions—notably in the great game at Manchester—proved the salvation of their side. Kelly has plenty of pluck and resolu­ tion, and should go far as a batsman. I did not think Trumble quite as good as in 1893; but his wicket never goes as a gift, and any side in which he is one of the tail-end men is strong in batting. Jones is an unmitigated slogger ; but the runs he made w’ere useful occasionally. Johns and McKibbin hardly count as batsmen, the former’ s average of 14 being a somewhat fictitious one. The bowling was good and varied. Jones’s expresses, Gitfen’s persuaders, McKibbin’s big breaks, Trumble’s good lengths, Trott’s leg-twisters, all played their part in the attack. Here, again, Eady did little, though performances in the first test match and against Hampshire, at Southampton, gave me some idea of his true form. The surprise packet was McKibbin. He, like Brer Rabbit, “ lay low ” at first, and in fact, did so badly, that when the tour was half over he had been left out of more matches than he had played in. But then, as Iredale did, he came with a rush, and in the team’s later matches has been quite the most dangerous trundler on the side. He secured his hundredth wicket during the last hour or so of play in the last match, and not only heads the Australian averages, but is also in front of any English bowler who did much work. But Trumble was the best bowler on the side; and I should be inclined to rank him second only to Richardson among the bowlers of the. year. Giffen was as good as ever. Like Trumblfy he was taking wickets from first to last, while Jones’ s best performances were done in. the earlier matches and McKibbin’s in the, later, Jones did w ell; but I don’t altogether believe in him as a great bowler. I don’t like that short-pitched ball of his, which, on fiery wickets, is dangerous to life and limb of the batsmen ; I don’t like his action, though I am not of those who condemn it as unfair ; and, on the whole, I think it just as well that Sussex did not secure him. Trott has. improved, and knows how to utilise his own bowling to the best advantage; but he bowled little in the later part of the tour, and that little was very ineffective. The fielding of the team was splendid; and Kelly and Johns are both good wicket-' keepers, though scarcely ranking with. oui* best men, let alone with Blackham, the King of stumpers. Throughout the tour the men were on the best of terms one with another ; and there was no mistaking the fact that every man had the interests of the side at heart, and worked his hardest for its success. These seven all made over 1000 runs each, as seven of the ’ 93 team—Graham, Lyons, Trott, Bannerman, Bruce, Giffen and Gregory—did. Donnan secured four figures in his very last innings of the tour. Consider­ ably below these came the other seven men of the team; and of these it may at once be said that Graham and Eady were not very suc­ cessful. There was groat excuse in both cases ; Graham was laid up with rheumatism while his comrades were practicing before the tour began, and Eady hurt his right shouldtr THE COUNTIES. In the notes which follow, though the men are grouped according to their counties, for convenience sake, it must be understood that no limitation to purely county matches is intended in the remarks upon them. Six Yorkshiremen are among tho thousand- runs scorers ; and two (up to dato—Monday) among the takers of a hundred wickets. .Jjjr,