Cricket 1896

52 CRICKET A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. A p r il 9, 1896. told how, when a batsman had seemed too well set ever to be bowled, he has often said as Read passed him between two overs : “ Look out, Maurice, I ’m going to chuck him up some for catches.” And how sure and steady were the hands, how keen and unerring the eyes, how swift the feet, whenever a catch came Maurice’s way. By no means a bad fast bowler in his time, either, though Surrey has needed him but little in that capacity ; he took 27 wickets in first-class matches in ’83, but altogether in his whole first-class career only 73. In brief, a grand man on a side, loyal, courageous, resourceful; I rank him with George Ulyett, and that is high praise. If he should never play in a big match again he will be able to remem­ ber with pride that his last innings in first-class cricket was a century, and his last season’s total one of four figures. Fare thee well Maurice ! Interesting letters are to hand from Mr. D. C. Stedman and the Rev. H. A. Tate, the latter of whom will be remem­ bered by many of my readers as the compiler of a brochure giving a complete record of W. G.’s scores in first-class matches, which appeared last year. Both have something to say as to my ranking of the great Australian bowlers. Says Mr. Stedman:— “ I should prefer Giffen to Ferris, all things considered, even on the latter’s form of ’88 and ’90. I was fortunate enough to be present when against England at the Oval in ’93 he dismissed seven English batsmen for 128 runs, in the face of the big total 483. I think a l s o ................................ that to commence with Giffen and Spofforth in preference to Ferris and Giffen would be desirable, as on a hard true wicket I think Spofforth more dangerous than Ferris. With regard to the bowler’s wicket, I agree with you.” Then follows Mr. S.’s ranking of the eight, which, as it differs from mine only in placing Giffen next to Turner and Spofforth, Ferris, third, and Palmer, fourth, I need not reproduce. Mr. Tate says:—I think Spofforth the best and Turner the most reliable of Australian bowlers. I place Palmer before Ferris, and rank Boyle with Giffen. Giffen has more break, but Boyle had a better length. Evans was a great bowler, something like A. Shaw (and who was ever better than Alfred ?) when I first went to A u s tr a lia ...........................As regards Spofforth, of course he often sustained accidents; but, I mean at his best, when I say he is the best of Austra­ lia’s bowlers. When he bowled his fastest he hit the sticks as often as any bowler.” My correspondent also alludes to the disputed Ulster v. Macquarie match; and I quote his remarks with much pleasure, partly due to the fact that they bear out my own grave doubts on the subject. “ I entirely discredit the accuracy of the Ulster v. Macquarie match in Sydney, when 1,238 runs were made. The match, I know, is given in Scores and Biographies 1874-6, p. 397, but it mentions that it is feared it is a hoax. I am perfectly con­ vinced that it is, for the following reasons: (1) Moore Park, Sydney, where the match is supposed to have been played, I knew well between 1880 and 1890, and only small clubs—clubs of boys—played there. (2) The wickets were very rough, and the ground being an open country no great care was taken of the pitches. (3) Small clubs do not make great scores even on perfect pitches, much less on rough wickets. But the match was played in either ’74 or ’75. Then that is a reason why the ground would be rougher, the scoring smaller. Australian grounds and wickets improved wonderfully during the decade of 1880-90, but before they were rough enough except in the capitals of each colony.” “ Point” (my good friend, Mr. C. P. Moody) of the Adelaide Observer also refuses to credit the score. (What says Mr. Gaston now ?) But he includes in his list of big scores the South African 858 (Newcastle and District v. Harrismith and District), which is no more genuine than the Ulster v. Macquarie score. That South African score'.excited my suspicion directly I saw it in Cricket, and I have felt convinced ever since that it was never really made. One of my causes of dis­ belief was this. The side which made 858—Harrismith, I believe—went in first; the other side made some five or six hundred (the exact score doesn’t matter, and I have not the volume of Cricket at hand), certainly considerable more than 80 behind Harrismith; yet the latter side went in again. Why ? If they had first innings, Newcastle should have followed o n ; if the Newcastle men went in first they would in any event have had the third innings of the game. This is one of those “ things that no fellah can under­ stand,’5 except on the assumption that the whole score of the match is an elaborate hoax. I should say that the mind of the man who found pleasure in hoaxes of this description would be beneath contempt. If ever—which the saints forbid !—I should go in for them, I would undertake at least to invest them with a greater air of plausibility than the Harrismith v. Newcastle score has. Lyons was greatly to the fore in a match at Adelaide on Feb. 14th. It was not a first-class match, not by any means, being simply an encounter between two teams drawn from the Adelaide Stock Exchange. The team for which J. J. played made 242, and of these the big hitter scored 195. This is the biggest score he has ever made, but it was the pace not the magnitude of the innings which was most remarkable. The whole score only took John James an hour and twenty-five minutes to make. I am open to correction in this matter, but am inclined to think this is the quickest on record for a score approaching the two hundred though smaller scores may have been made in proportionately less time. I note with regret that Lyons was too unwell to play for his colony in the return match v. Victoria, at Melbourne a week later, but as the big match at Sydney, of which we had cable reports, came later, and as he played in that his illness can scarcely have been very serious. I should suppose that never has there been, even in Australia, such a big-scoring season as that which is now fast ap­ proaching its end. Three centuries in an innings seems, nowadays, but an ordinary sort of feat in Melbourne ; while immense scoring has also been the order of the day in Sydney. Things have been a little quieter in the third great city of the con­ tinent ; but in matches running contem­ poraneously in February Darling had made 120, and George Giffen 125 for Adelaide, E. H. Leak (one of a well- known cricketing family in South Aus­ tralia, who deservedly gained a place for the first time in an inter-colonial match a week later) 139, and E. A. Peters 136 for Australia, North Adelaide had up 336 for five wickets (Clement Hill 59) Nor­ wood 164 for two (Lyons 20, Ferris 47), and Fred. Jarvis, younger brother of A.H., an improving batsman who may not impossibly be here with the Tenth Australian Team, had scored 81 (of 110 while he was in) for Hindmarsh. The system of club cricket in the Australian capitals seems curious to us here in England. The matches are continued from one Saturday to another until finished, the result being decided on the first innings; and if an inter-colonial tour interferes—as in the case of the matches of which I have just written, the South Australian visit to Melbourne and Sydney did—taking away leading players, the games have to wait until the tour is over, and are then resumed. In this particular case thre3 Saturdays at least would elapse, as several of the players—Giffen, Lyons, Hill, Darling, Jones—stayed in Sydney after the inter­ colonial for the big match, Anglo-Aus­ tralian Team v. Australia. The third test match between Lord Hawke’s Team and South Africa was played after a ll; and the Englishmen had another easy victory. There were four eleven aside maches played during the tour—not counting the game played to fill up time after the second match at Cape Town—and in these matches, three v. South Africa, and one v. the Western Provinces, the averages of the Engli-h- men were as under:— ENGLISH BATTING AVEEAGES. No. of Not Highest inns. outs. Buns. Aver. score. A. J .L .H ill ... ... 6 .. . 0 ... 282 .... 47-00 ... 124 Hayward .......... ... 6 .... 0 ... 277 ..., 4616 ... 122 C. B. Fry .............. .. 3 ... 0 ... 122 ... 40-66 ... 64 C. W . Wright ... ... 6 ... 0 ... 218 ... 36-33 ... 71 8. M .J. Woods... ... 6 ... 0 ... 189 ... 31-50 ... 53 H. R. B.-Davenport... 6 , 0 ... 141 ... 23-50 ... 84 C. Heseltine ... 4 ... . 1 ... 39 ... 13-00 ... 18 Sir T. C. O’Brien ... 6 ... 0 ... 70 ... 11-66 ... 24 Lord Hawke ... ,... 6 ... 1 ... 46 ... 9-20 ... 30 Butt ...................... .. 5 ... 1 ... 22 ... 5-50 ... 13 Tyler ..................... .. 2 .. 0 ... 9 ... 4-50 ... 9 Lohmann .............. 6 ... 0 ... 14 ... 2-33 ... 8 A. M. Miller scored 4 not out and 20 not out. The complete bowling averages it is impossible to give as y e t; but in the three games v. South Africa Lohmann to o k : at Port Elizabeth 15 for 45, at Johannesburg 12 for 71, at Cape Town 8 for 87—35 in three matches for 203, less that six runs each ! The only South Africans who, playing in more than one match, had a double­ figure average (I speak of the four more important matches only) were the follow ing:—