Cricket 1896

S e p t. 17, 1896. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 437 FIRST CLASS CRICKET IN 1896. Although, the season of 1896 was remarkable in many ways it will chiefly be remembered for the performances of K . S. Ranjitsinbji, who, notwithstanding that his career as a first class cricketer only began in 1894, succeeded in doing so many wonderful things, that previous records were constantly brought into comparison in connection with his batting. Among his other feats he made ten hundreds during the season, a record which has never been surpassed and only once equalltd by Mr. Grace ia 1871, when he was in his prime; hescored-2,780runs,. thus beating the previous record of 2739 for a season made by W. G. in 1871 ; and in the Sussex match against. Yorkshire at Brighton he made 100, and 125, not out. Without a shadow of a doubt he was the greatest batsman of the year, but while Ranjitsinhji deserves a little niche in the temple of tame all to himself, it cannot be placed quite as high up as that already occupied by W. G., who is still a subject of wonder and admiration. That a man who was born iuJuly 1848should be fifth among trie averages, should score over 2,000 runs, should play an innings of 301 and another i f 243, besides taking 52 wickets at a ieasonable cost, is nothing short of mar- vtllous. He is still the “ Champion.” The season, like that of 1895, has again brought into great prominence several other men whose day seemed over years ngo. Among them was Sir T. C. O’B: ien, O. W. Wrigut,, K. J. Key, W .N. Roe, W. L Murdoch, George Giffen, A. J. Webbe, and lastly, more noticeable than all the rest, W. H. Patterson and L >rd Han is. On the other hand several iian pliyers eilher dropped out of first- class cricket altogether, or appeared only in one or two matches. Chief amongst them were W. G. Druce, H. T. Hewei.t, J. Le Fleming, Leslie Wilson, M. C. KempundW. L. Knowles. Owing to accidents, G ;egor Macgregor, G. Branu and H. B. Hayman only played in the earlier matches. Among the several very promising ) oung players who either made their debut in first-class cricket or had previously been very little heard of, weie Haigh (Yorkshire), a fast right hand bowler; C. J. Burnup (K«nt aud Cim- bridge University), Kulick (Sussex), P. S. Waddy (Oxford University), Hayes (Surrey), P. Periiu (Essex), Kuight ( Leicestershire) -all good bats; and F. G. Bull, E-sex, one ot the best amateur bowlers of ilits yoir. A great many bats­ men decidedly i creased their reputation, the most noticeahle being A. O. Jones, W. Newham, J. Douglas, H. B. Hayman, H. R Br >iiiiey-Davenport, J. R. Mason, Captain E. G. Wynjaid, H. P. Ward, Barton, C. O. H. Sewell, R. C. N. Palairet, Frank Sugg, G. R. Bardswell, Captain Quinton, Storer, W. N. Roe, F. E. Lacey, O. B. Fry, Dr. G. Thornton, Denton, Ballwin, Bagshaw, Diver, while Brock well resumes his old place as one of the best bats of the year. Among the batsmen who, like apple trees and plum trees, h id an “ off ” season were Flowers, J. A. Dixon, Holland (Surrey), Lock­ wood, F. Marchant, W. G. Grace, junr., Wrathall, F. Mitchell, X. F. Druce, Woodcock and Pickett, although several of them did well for a short time. From the point of view of the weather, the season was altogether remarkable. Until August it was almost invariably fine; afterwards it was almost invariably wet. But even during the fine weather, several bowlers did wonderfully well. This was, perhaps, not so rnutih due' to the excellence of their bowling as to the curious way in which some wickets played. It constantly happened that while on one or two grounds hundreds of runs were being knocked up on each day of the match, at others the side which batted first had a fairly g o o i time, »nd the unfortunates who came after them had to do their best on a crumbling wieket, which was altogether in favour of the bowlers. Frequently, too, wickets were so fiery, that batsmen could not touch fast bowling, and during this period, Jones and Richardson had a beanfeast. When the weather changed, the slower bowlers began to come to the front with extreme rapidity, and by the time the season closed, they had obtained nearly all the best places in the averages, A few men did well almost throughout the season, but the majority did their per­ formances in streaks. Jack Hearne deserves the place of honour. With the exception of about a month in the middle of the season, when he was absolutely “ off colour,” he nearly always had a good analysis. He was very accurate in pitch, came back just enough on ordinary wickets, and not too much on the slowest of wickets, while his variation in pace was much more subtle than of old. He is able to conceal his hand very well indeed, and it is very difficult for a bats­ man to judge his pace. Some of his performances, especially against the Australians, were startling. Richardson, forlunately for Surrey, was the same great bowler as of yore. At times he was quite irresistible, aud was still the best bowler in the world on a perfect wicket. His great, performance against the Australians at Manchester, in the second Eugland match aud in the first innings at Lord’s in the first- Eugland match, on a perfect wicket, will not soon beforgotten. F. R. Spofforth heads the averages, but he only bowled in two or three matches, and always ou a wieket which helped Lirn. Nevertheless, feeing how little first-class cricket he has plajed for years, Ins bowl­ ing was truly remarkable. Attewell still held his own and had a splendid average; Peel did butpoo:ly until towards the end of the season, while Lohmann, who b»gan the season brilliantly, ended badly. Hay- waid was probably the most improved bowler of the year, and for a short time Abel was surprisingly useful to Surrey. Of the other bowlers who more or le-s kept up their reputation, the chief were Mold, Briggs, C. M. Wrells, Alec Hearne, E. Smith, Wainwright, Hirst, Hulme, Martin, C. L. Townsend (who for a time was altogether a failure), 0. J. Kortright, and S. M. J. Woods. The competition among Australian cricketers who were eager to become members of the ninth team to visit England was very keen, and a fierce newspaper war was waged both before and after the fourteen men, who were to be its members, were chosen; on tho whole, however, it was generally felt that the strength of Australia was fairly represented. Natural doubts were ex­ pressed in England as to the ability of the visitors to hold their own, for no less than nine of the .tew combination were about to make their d6but in England, and it is notorious that Australians do not, as a rule, show tbemselves at tbeir best during their first visit. But,, fortunately for the success of the tour, the weather was brilliant in tire exfreuie until late in the season, and for the most joart the hardest, if not the best of wickets, were available, so that the disadvantages to which Australians are generally ex­ posed were not as noticeable as usual. Phenomenal good fortune in winning the toss at the time the wickets were at tbeir best helped the visitors considerably, and against the counties they had a great run of success, never losing a match, and only twice making an unfavourable draw. Against representative teams, however, they were by no means triumphant. They were beaten twice by Eugland, and once each by M.C.C , the Midlaud Counties, and Mr. Thornton's X L at Scarborough, while their drawn games against Lord Sheffield’s XL , the M.C.C. (return), and the South of England, at Hastings, were greatly against them. Their only victory was at Manchester, against England, at a period of the year when English bowlers, with tbe single exception of Richardson, were all under a cloud. It had originally been intended that the matches against the Players of England aud tbe Norih of England should be representative, but it was found impossible to raise anything like the strongest team iu these matches, both of which were won by the Australians. It would require more space than can be spared to enquire into the causes of failure iu the representative matches ; on the whole, however, the Australians had by no means the worst of tbe luck iu them. Ia matches against teams which were only moderately strong the Aus­ tralians w'ere almost as giants opposed to pigmies; their batting seemed superb, their bowling invincible. It was only wben they were opposed to really power­ ful teams that 1Ley showed any signs of weakness; but when they met such a team there was no knowing what they would do iu the way of collapses. The chief inference to be drawn from their visit is that the next team is likely to eclipse all its predecessors, if most of the new men appear again at not too long an interval. The Australians would, how­ ever, do well to try to train up a few meu who can hit, especially on emergency; tbe greatest fault of the batting of the 1896 team was its solemn monotony— whether the bowling against it was goud, bad or indifferent, tde rate of scoring was generally about the same. The batting was, scientifically, almost perfect, but to look at it was trying in the extreme. There were exceptions, but they were few. N E X T ISSUE, THURSDAY , OC TOBER 29.