Cricket 1897

M ay 6, 1897. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 117 to trespass upon the patience of my long suffering readers with the following “ spring poem,” the greater part of which, I believe, dates back about three years, though it will be found as applicable now as then. ________________ A SONO OF THE SEASON. We are glad in the sweet springtime season; We rejoice when the year reaches May, But our gladness has excellent reason— Which spring poets but seldom display ! For there cometh, with advent of May-time, The reign of the bat and the ball, The cricketers’ long looked-for play time, Which we bade sad adieu in the fall. Now once more shall our Champion splendid The loose ball to the boundary speed, And the f tme of great Gunn be extended. And “ our Walter” prove no broken Read ! And to Ward shall great praise be a-ward-ed, A-id to Jackson high honour shall be ; While of Stoddart may this be recorded— That his centuries were frequent and free! Now once more on the wicket that’s sticky Shall Briggs make the rungetter fail; And Yorkshireinan Peel’ s trundling tricky, As of old time, shall often prevail; And the batsman, albeit he bat well, Shall fall to “ Long Tom’s ” cannonade ; And accurate still shall be Attewell, Nor of Hearne shall the well won fame fade! Ah ! Ranji, of princes most peerless, Of Sussex the hope, may it be That thy batting, so finished and fearless, Shall place near the top of the tree The old county, on whom that sad strumpet, Dame Fortune, so long cast her frown !— Well, the others may like it or lump it ; Before Sussex there’s some will go down ! o S?fcc a "3o 50 2 s . rd a> "5 'a o a s o>► •Sfo a M P h < m g J. W . Trumble... 1 35 52 8 823 18*70 56* W . E. Midwinter 2 36 56 6 924 18-18 67 R. W . McLeod ... 1 29 46 11 633 18-08 47* J. Mcllwrailh ... l 28 39 7 532 16-6-2 62* J. J. K e lly ........... l 25 38 8 490 16-33 45 W . F. Giffen ... l 14 20 4 215 15-31 62 P. C. Chai'lton ... l 29 47 11 f>34 14 83 75* G. H. Bailey ... l 14 24 5 281 14 78 40 A. E. Johns l 10 12 6 81 14 f0 31* C. J. E a d y .......... l 17 21 3 290 1380 42 E. Jones .......... t 29 41 6 482 13 77 40 E. Evans ........... l 29 41 15 347 1334 74* T. U. Groube ... l 11 19 3 210 13*12 61 A. Coningham ... l 15 22 3 249 1312 46 J. D. Edwards ... l 34 53 12 527 12 85 50* W . H. Moule ... l 6 9 3 75 12-50 34 G. Alexander ... 2 15 19 2 210 1235 47 J. W orrall........... 1 39 61 10 561 11 0) 46 W . H. Cooper ... 1 6 9 6 33 11-00 8* F. E. A llan ......... 1 17 26 6 212 1060 78 K. E. Burn........... 1 23 39 4 33) 1014 35* I). W . Gregory ... 1 17 25 2 233 10-13 57 F. H. Walters ... 1 26 43 3 402 1005 53* T. R. McKibbin .. 1 22 34 11 175 7-fiO 28* J. Slight ... •... 1 4 6 0 41 6-83 21 List week I gave Mr. Lacy’s figures of Eoglish batting against the Australians i i England. This week I give my own of Australian batting in this country. I may remark here that iu the “ number of matches ” column the number given is that in which the player took part, though iu one or two of them he may not have had an innings at all. BATTING AVERAGES OF AUSTRALIANS IN ENGLAND. T able I.—100 or more innings. ■/ DQ Pbea -S o toosH .a> •a & "3 -g <D 6c*■< > a « < S i W . L. Murdoch... 5 132 222 17 5332 26 00 286* G. Giffen ........... 5 367 268 16 5806 23-03 180 S. E. Gregory ... G. H. S. Trott ... 3 100 161 21 3194 22 81 154 4 144 243 10 5219 22-39 186 U. J. H. Scott ... 2 69 115 13 2262 22-17 123 P. S. McDonnell 4 116 190 7 3936 21-50 105 J. J. Lyons........... 3 97 164 9 3158 2037 149 W . Bruce ........... 2 *9 107 8 2017 20-37 191 A. C. Bannerman 6 153 259 •16 4785 1969 133 G. J. Bonnor 5 131 214 17 3682 18-69 122* S. P. Jones........... 4 92 151 7 2576 17-88 151 H. Trumble 3 94 143 35 1812 16‘77 105 G. E. Palmer 4 101 148 28 1888 15-73 94 J. McBlackham... 8 209 318 46 4058 14-91 96 C. T. B. Turner... 3 102 163 6 2238 14-25 10 5 A. H. Jarvis 4 89 132 14 1605 13-60 96* J. J. Ferris........... 2 74 117 29 1175 13-35 54* T .W . Garrett ... 3 87 123 16 1339 12*39 59 F. R. Spofforth... 5 109 156 27 1437 11-13 56 H. F. Boyle........... 6 106 153 48 1032 9-82 69 T able II.—Under 100 innings. J. D arlin g........... 1 33 53 1 1555 29-90 194 C. H ill................... 1 37 46 3 1196 27-81 130 F. A. Iredale ... 1 32 51 3 1328 27-66 171 H. Graham......... 2 53 85 5 1982 2477 219 H. H. Massie ... 1 36 61 4 1405 24-64 206 C. Bannerman .. 1 17 31 1 723 2410 133 H. Donnan......... 1 28 44 1 1009 2346 167 J. E. Barrett 1 36 61 7 1305 22-89 97 T. Horan ........... 2 50 82 7 1552 20-69 141* The following, not being regular mem­ bers of teams, also played, in a few matches :— Not Highest Mchs. Ions. outs. Rns. Aver, score ... 2 2 0 5 2-50 5 C. W . Beal J. Conway (1878) W . A. Giles (1880) ... 1 H. Hardie (1886) ... 1 H. H. Hyslop (1886)... 1 H. Musg’rove (1896) . 2 R. J. Pope (’86 & ’90) 8 H.N".Tennant (1878)... 1 B. T. Wardill ( 1886)... 1 S. M. J. Woods 2 1 1 1 3 12 2 1 10 29 00 s-co 100 1 33 462 350 17 00 540 These are not nearly so high as those of the English batsmen given last week— that is to say, the leading figures are not so high as the leading figures of that list. But the difference between the number of innings played is so great that com­ parison of this sort is somewhat futile. W. G. is the only man whose number of innings approaches that of the players given in Table I . ; he, indeed, has played more innings against Australian bowling in England than have Scott, Bruce, or Perris against English bowling. Bub Giffen, Bannerman and Blackham have all played more than twice as many as he has ; while Murdoch, who heads the list, has much more than twice as many as any other English players. Of those who have played in twenty or more matches, only W. G., Gunn and Stoddart are ahead of Darling; yet we should be slow to believe the young South Aus­ tralian better than Walter Bead, A. G. Steel, Shrewsbury, or Abel, It would be just as unfair to assume, on the strength of these figures, Murdoch and Giffen inferior to some of the E nglishmen whose figures are better than theirs. And mind this—it takes a rare good batsman to average much over twenty per innings in a long series of matches. Taking altogether the 17 Australians in the two tables who have averaged over 20 per innings, I find that they scored 42,979 runs in 1854 completed innings— an average of 23’18 per innings. The 35 Englishmen in Tables I. to VI. of last week’s statistics who had similar averages, played among them 1039 innings for 27,581 runs—average 26'54. This would seem to give the men of the motherland a big pull. But this is one of the fallacies of such statistics. l r is obvious that 1039 innings of 26| runs each do not equal 1854 innings of 23 l-5th each. In order to get a fair comparison one needs to have an equal number of innings. To get these, I have taken the figures of the players whom Mr. Lacy has selected from among those who played in fewer than five matches, all of whom, with two or three exceptions, average over 20; then the figures of those in Tables I to Y I of last week’s averages who reach 16 per innings; and, lastly, the figures standing opposite the names of Mr. C. A. Smith and Tunaicliffe, the highest among the 153. These give me 815 more English innings and 16,447 more runs. Adding these to the 1,039 innings and 27,581 runs of the first lot taken, we have 1854 innings, 44,028 runs —average, 23'74, or about half-a-run per wicket better than that of the colonials. I don’ t intend to carry these calculations any further, for I think I have already Slid enough to show that a comparison between a few leading batsmen on each side is scarcely a fair test; but I may remark that, when the figures are carried right out, and the total number of runs made in all eleven-a-side matches by the Australians and their opponents, divided by the number of wickets lost by each, there is a good balance on the side of our visitors. The same is true, however, of English teams in their Australian matches, and it should hold good of any touring team that has any claim to be regarded as really strong, for such a team should always be superior to the average of its opponents, or it would lose more matches than it won. An Australian team in England meets one day weak Leicestershire, and a week after plays the flower of England; an English team in Australia smashes up Queensland, or an unrepresentative team of one of the older colonies, but meets its match in a picked eleven of all Australia. Any such tour­ ing team will, of course, be stronger all­ round than most of the teams it plays against. The only Australian team whose average of runs per wicket was not higher than that of its opponents was that disappointing 1886 combination; the figures for eleven-a-side matches of English teams in Australia do not show one which had not a better average per wicket than its opponents, the difference ranging from the two-tenths of a run by which Lord Harris’s team in 1878-9 out­ did the sides it played against to the enormous margin of ten runs, by which Lord Sheffield’s team in 1891-2 proved superior on the average to its antagonists. J.N.P. ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS. E. Ross (Brisbane.)—Tiianks. Your re­ quest shall receive attention. We do not know the address. F r a n k F a l l o n . — N . Field, Shenley, Leigham Court Road, Streatham, S . VV., would give you somo f u i - ticulars.