Cricket 1897

4 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. J an . 28, 1897. George Ulyett (dear old “ Happy Jack!” ) Mr. Radcliffe, and Mr. “ Billy ” Wilson. I suppose we must include Mr. Wilson, for he seems to have gone back to Australia for good, and though I am far from arguing that that necessarily closes his career as a first class cricketer, he may be reckoned as done with so far as English cricket is concerned. Others who are missed now are Mr. Leslie Wilson, Barlow, Mr. Fox, Mr. Yernon, Mr. Henery, Mr. W. W. F. Pullen, Jesse Hide, Mr. C. A. Smith, Mr. Page, Mr. Crosfield, Dr. E. M. Grace, Humphreys, Shacklock, Watson, Mr. Kemble; and though it is by no means impossible that some of these may appear again, it is scarcely likely that any of them will return to regular first class cricket. It is a noticeable fact that every man on the list down to No. 68 (Mr. Weigall) has made at least one century ; while 26 of those whose averages are below that of the Kentish amateur are similarly distin­ guished—or 93 of the whole 128. The highest “ highest score” is, of course, Mr. MacLaren’s wonderful 424; W. W. and W. G. are also credited with innings of over 300; while eighteen other players have innings of 200 or more. But of centuries and their makers I shall have more to say later. The lowest “ highest score ” (if one may use so paradoxical an expression) is Sherwin’s 34. The biggest number of innings is credited to W. G., who has also far and away the largest aggregate of runs. Four other batsmen, Messrs. Read and Stoddart, Gunn and Abel, have five-figure totals, and 29 more have scored over 5,000 runs, while only two of all the 128 have failed to reach four figures. Ranjitsinhji and Shrewsbury are far ahead of the other batsmen in point of averages; but it is not unfair to point out that the young Indian has only had four seasons, three of them wonderfully favourable to rungetting, while the great Arthur not only escaped perhaps the wettest two seasons of the ten, 1888 and 1894, but also has never throughout the decade borne the burden and heat of the fray as have men like W. G., W. W., Stoddart, Abel, Gunn, and Albert Ward, who have played practically day in and day out, in form or out of form, stale or fresh, throughout almost the whole of the time. W. G.’s figures, when one remembers that he was nearly 40 when the decade began, are simply wonderful. W. W. is lower down by far than he would be in the list of the previous decade, for his palmiest days have now evidently passed; but even now he stands far above many a younger man of unquestioned ability, and his place as twelfth among the batsmen is a splendid one when one considers that only in the earliest years of the decade was he quite in his best form. Gunn’s fine position is due to consistently good work; Abel had two bad years (1887 and 1893), but in each of the other seasons was beyond all question among the first seven or eight batsmen of the year. But the mott marked advance has been made by a batsman who is as low on the list as No. 58—Alec Hearne, to wit, who was a bowler pure and simple at the beginning of the decade (his batting average even in 1888 was less than 8), but who has gradually trained on into a thoroughly reliable batsman. BATTING AVERAGES (1887-96 inclusive). No. of Not Highest inns. outs. Runs. Aver, score. K. S. Ranjitsinhji... 129 .. . 16 ... 5381.... 47-61 ... 171* Shrewsbury (A.) ... 234 ... 23 ... 9316 .. . 4415 ... 267 Dr. W . G. Grace ... 479 ..,, 30 .. .16029 .. . 35-69 ... 301 Gunn (W .) ........... 402 ..,. a3 .. .12726 ... 34-48 ... 228 Abel (R .).................. 410 .. . 25 12427 .. . 32 27 ... 231 L. C. H. Palairet ... 228 .. . 10 .. . 6964 .. . 31*94 ... 292 A. C. MacLaren ..., 160 .. . 8 ... 4782 .. . 3L-46 ... 424 A . E. Stoddart 369 .. . 9 ...11260 .. . 31*27 ... 215* F. S. Jackson........... 243 .. . 15 .. . 6760 .. . 29 64 ... 145 H. T. H ew ett... ... 159 .. . 6 ... 4535 .. 29-64 ... 201 W ard (A.) ........... 319 .. . 21 ... 8775 .. . 29-44 ... 185 W . W . Read ........... 391 .. . 25.. .10734 ... 29 32 ... 338 Hayward (T .).......... . 158 .. . 17 ... 4048 .. . 28-70 ... 229* Sir T. C. O’Brien ... 292 .. . 21 ... 7759 ... 28 63 ... 202 W . H. Patterson ... 125 .. . 8 ... 3298 .. 28-18 ... 181 Storer (W .) .......... , 120 .. . 16 .. . 2935 .. . 27-25 ... 142* H . W . Bainbridge.. . 117 .. . 5 ... 3010 .. . 27-13 ... 142 K. J. K ey................... 327 .. . 43 ... 7649 .. . 26-93 ... 281 J. R. Mason .........., 131 .. . 5 ... 3371 .. . 26 75 ... 142* Rev. W . Rashleigh... Brown (J. T .) ......... . 147 .. . 5 .. . 3767 ... 26 52 ... 163 . 271 .. . 26 .. . 6297 .. . 25-71 ... 203 Lilley (A. A .) ........... 113 ... 6 .. . 2751 .. . 25 71 ... 153* Read (J. M.) .......... 294 .. . 20 ... 7030 ... 25-65 . 135 C. B. F r y ................. 115 ... 2 ... 2857 .. . 25-28 ... 125 W . Newham ........... 344 ... 23 ... 6058 .. . 25-10 ... 201* Chatterton (W .) ... 224 ..,, 18 .. . 5148 .. . 24-99 ... 127 Sugg (F. H.) ........... 345 .. 19 .. . 8145 .. . 24-98 ... 220 Brockwell (W .) 237 .. . 26 .. . 5222 .. . 24-74 ... 137 Carpenter (H.) , 103 .. . 3 .. . 2473 .. . 24-73 ... 161 W. L. Murdoch . 264 .. . 16 . 6058 ... 24-42 ... 226 G. G iffen .................., 102 .. 2 ... 2428 .. . 24-28 ... 180 Hall ( L . ) .................., 208 ..! 19 " . 4571 24-18 ... 1‘ 0 Davidson (G.).......... , 172 .. . 16 ... 3735 ... 23-94 ... 274 S. W . Scott ........... 139 ... 10 .. . 3080 .. . 23 87 ... 224 A . J. W ebbe ........... 301 ... 32 .. . 6377 .. . 23 70 ... 243* Quaife (W .) .......... 242 ... 13 ... 5829 .. . 23-27 ... 156* Marlow (F. W .) ... 211 .... 6 ... 4707 .. . 22-96 ... 155 S. E. G regory......... Tunnicliffe(J. W .).. . 161 .. . 21 .. . 3194 . 22-81 ... 154 . 248 .. . 19 .. . 5192 .. . 22-67 ... 105 Paul (A .)................... 103 ... 10 ... 2102 .. . 22 60 ... 177 F. G. J. F o r d ......... . 168 .. . 8., 3612 ... 22-57 ... 191 G. H. S. Trott .. .. 243 .. . 10 ..,. 5219 ... 22-39 ... 186 S. M . J. W oods .. . 296 .. . 22 ... 6116 .. . 2-2-32 . 215 G. B ran n ................. . 214 .. . 18 ..,. 4260 .. . 21-73 ,... 161 Barnes (W .) ......... . 276 .. . 10 5767 .. . 21-68 ... 160 Bean (G .)................. . 339 .. . 14 ... 6952 .. . 21-39 ... 186 F. M arch an t......... . 294 .. . 8 ... 6075 .. . 21*24 ... 176 J. A. Dixon ......... . 245 .. . 9 ,. 4942 .. . 20-94 ... 139 Flowers ( W .) ......... . 339 .. . 15 . . 6702 ... 20*68 ... 130 A. C. BaDnerman .. 113 .. . 8., . 2172 ... 20 68 ... 133 J. Shuter................. , 207 .. . 8 .. 4109 .. . 20 64 ... Ill Lee (F.) ................. . 114 .. . 5 . 2248 .. . 20-62 ,... 165 R. C. N. Palairet ... 136 .. . 8 ... 2626 .. . 20*51 ... 156 Ulyett (G.) .. .. . 302 .. . 14 ..„ 6859 ... 20-34 , 199* O. G. Radcliffe . 214 .. 5 .,. 4218 ..,. 20*18 , 116 G. L. W ils o n ......... . 131 .. . 7 .,,. 2497 .. . 20*13 ,... 174 J. J . Lyons ......... . 164 ... 9 .,.. 3158 ... 20-11 ... 149 Heame (A.) ......... . 361 .. . 33 ... 65b5 .. . 20*01 .. 155 A. O. Jones . 134 .. . 11 ..,. 2461 .. . 20-00 ,... 127 Lord Hawke ......... . 313 .. . 23 ... 5770 .... 19.89 ... 157 Peel ( R . ) ................. . 455 .. . 36 ... 8301 .... 19 81 ... 210* Baker (G. R .) ......... . 256 .. . 20 . . 4665 .. 19-76 ... 109 Hirst (G. H .) ......... . 185 ... 35 ... 2964 .... 1976 ... 115* Henderson fR.} . 183 .. 29 ... 3032 .... 19*68 ... 106 Moorhouse (R.) . 260 .. . 41 . . 4303. .. 19 64 ... 113 L. W ilson................. . 160 .... 7 ... 2976 ... 19 45 ... 132 E. S m ith ................. . 159 .. . 6 . .. 2938 .... 19-20 ... 154 G. J. Y . Weigall .. . 146 .. 10 ... 2608 .. 1917 ... 84 Lohmann (G. A.) .. . 284 ... 26 ... 4925 .... 19*09 ... 115 V. T. H ill................. . 129 ..,. 3 . .. 2394 ... 19*00 ... 114 H. P h ilip son ......... . 104 .. . 22 ... 1648 .. 18*87 ... 150 E. A . N epean......... . 149 ... 21 ... 2400. .. 18*75 ... 64* R. S. Lucas ......... . 120 ... 6 . .. 2134 ... 18-71 ... 185 Lockwood (W . H.) 254 .... 19 ... 4370 ... 18-59 ... 158 Hearne (G. G.) ... 211 .. . 29 ... 3375 .... 18-54 ... 103 Briggs (J.) ......... . 375 .. . 18 ... 6559 .... 18-37 ... 129* Pougher (A. D.'' .. . 174 .., 23 ... 2774 ... 18-37 ... 114 C. E. De Trafford .. . 143 .. . 3 . .. 2569 .... 18*35 ... 113 R. W . Rice ......... . 124 .. . 9 ... 2103 ... 18-28 ... 84 Barlow (R. G.) . 139 .. 13 ... 2285 .... 18-13 ... 92 Wainwright (E.) .. . 352 ... 22 ... 6935 ... 17-98 ... 145 A. N. H ornby......... . 194 .. 10 ... 3269 ... 17*76 ... 105 G. MacGregor......... . 189 .. . 25 .... 2870 .. . 17*50 ... 131 C. J. M. Fox ......... . 133 .... 10. .. 2143 ... 17 42 ... 103 Painter (J.) ......... . 243 .. . 10 ... 4037 ... 17*32 ... 150 Rawlin (J. J.)......... . 229 .. . 20 ... 3597 .... 17*21 ... 88 G. F. V ern on ......... . 149 ..,. 9 . .. 2409 .... 17*20 ... 109 H. Trumble ......... . 143 .. 35 ... 1812 . .. 16*77 ... 105 P. J. T. Henery ... 107 ..,. 8 . .. 1638 ... 16*.54 ... 138* J. J. Ferris ......... . 286 .... 47 ... 3908 ... 1635 ... 106 Capt. W . C. Hedley 121 ... 12 ... 1771.,.. 1624 ... 102 W . W . F. Pullen .. . 108 ... 2 . .. 1719 ... 16-21 ... 78 G. Fowler................. . 155 ... 11 ... 2324 ... 16-13 ... 118 Mounsey (J. T.) ... 133 .,.. 19 ... 1824 ... 16*00 ... 64 Hide ( J .) ................. . 157 ..,. 8 . .. 2379 ... 15*96 ... 130 C. A . Smith ......... . 154 .. . 17 ... 2185 .... 15-94 ... 85 Daft (H. U.) ......... . 239 .. . 26 . . 3383 .,. 15-8S ... 92* W ood (H.) ' ......... 231 ... 46 .. i927 ..,. 15 82 ... 83 No. of Not Highest inns. outs. Runs. Aver. score. .. 272 .. . 11... 3992 .... 15-29 ... 114 .. 135 .. . 15 ... 1350 .... 1 /00 ... 61* .. 125 ... 11 ... 1670 .. . 14*64 ... 82* .. 229 .... 4 ... 3231 ... 14*36 ... 96 .. 163 ... 6 ... 2238 .. . 14*25 ... 103 .. 396 .. . 46 ... 4980 . 14*22 ... 96 .) 254 .. . 60 ... 2744 .. 1414 ... 117 .. 167 .. . 22 ... 1869 .. . 12-89 ... 71 . 101 ... 14 ... 1115 .. . 12-81 ... 83 .. 142 .. . 18 ... 1564 .. . 12-61 .... 96 .. 175 .... 27 ... 1834 .... 12*39 ... 64 .. 114 .. . 9 ... 1300 .. . 12-38 ... 114 .. 184 .. . 54 ... 1568 .. . 12-06 ... 124 .. 146 .. . 44 ... 1213 .. . 11*89 ... 46° .. 113 .. . 16 ... 1149 .. . 11*84 ... 62 .. 135 ... 23 ... 1297 .. . 11*58 .... 50 .. 253 ..., 64 ... 2184 ... 11*55 ... 70° .. 153 .. . 39 ... 1282 .. . 11*24 ... 67* .. 363 ..100 ... 2895 .. . 11-00 ... 70* .. 272 .... 72 ... 2121 ..., 10*60 ... 71 .. 177 .. . 30 ... 1536 .. . 10*44 .... 6*i .. 217 .. . 37 .. 1850 .. . 10*27 .,.. 77 .. 268 ..116 ... 1448 .. . 9*52 ... 45 , 104 ... 25 ... 697 .... 8*8-2 ... 53 .. 167 ... 39 ... 1112 .. . 8 68 .... 69 .. I ll .. . 11 ... 867 .. . 8*67 ... 38* .. 207 ... 67 ... 1027 .. . 7-33 ... 4S* ... 222 ... 77 ... 1023 .. . 7*05 ... 34 .. 241 .. . 79 ... 1114 .. . 6 87 ... 38 ... 255 .. . 83 ... 1139 .. . 6 62 ... 57 C. W . W right... H. V. Page S. M. Crosfield... E. M. Grace ... C. T. B. Turner Attewell (W .)... Humphreys (W . i Shacklock (F.) W est (J. E.) ... J. M. Blackham Nichols (G. B.) Guttridge (F.)... Board (J. H.) ... Watson (A.) ... Mead (W .) A . T. Kemble ... W right (W .) ... Phillips (J.) ... Martin (F.) Heame (J. T.) Tyler (E. J.) ... Butt (H. R.) ... Hunter (D.) ... W o o tto n .......... Richardson (T.) Murch (H. W .) Tate (F. W .) ... Sherwin (M.) ... Roberts (F. G.) Mold (A ) .......... It may be worth while to mention hero that the sole reason why I have given the amateurs’ names thus: F. S. Jackson, and the professionals’ thus : Sugg (F. H .) is that it may be possible to distinguish at a glance to which section any particular cricketer belongs, and not at all because I believe in any necessary inevitable and natural inferiority of the professional cricketer, a class worthy of the respect of all men. In the bowling averages which follow I have introduced (tentatively) a system of which I believe many of my readers will approve. I made reference to it in my summary of the cricket of 1896. It is, in brief, to determine a bowler’s ability not alone by his average runs per wicket, but by a combination of that and his average overs per wicket. I have adopted ‘ 1overs per wicket ’ ’ in preference to “ balls per wicket,” because the latter would give so big a figure as practically to swamp the “ runs per wicket.” Of course, I have considered an over (for this purpose) as consisting of five balls. It may seem somewhat inconsistent with this that I should have given my first column of figures in “ balls,” instead of in “ overs,” as is usually done; but the change from four to five balls per over in 1889 is my reason for this. I wanted to show the actual amount of work done by each bowler, and this could not have been shown in one line for those who play ed before 1889 had I retained the over as unit. Of course my figures in the second of the average columns do not, therefore, represent exact overs in the cases of men like Watson, Mr. Woods, Turner, Loli- mann, &c., who played previous to 1889 ; but they have, for all practical purposes, precisely the same value. I am far from arguing that any averages whatever give an exact idea of a man’s ability. Too great a reliance upon statistics is ridiculous. But averages have this value: they give some approxi­ mate idea of the work done by a player, and of how it compares with that done with his rivals. And they count for more in estimating the real greatness of a player when they are spread over a series of j ears, than when they merely represent the work of one year. And I honestly N E X T ISSUE, THURSDAY , F E B RU A R Y 25.