Cricket 1897

2 CEICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. F eb . 25, 1897. the scores already set down in the C.R.B. Score. Batsmen. Match. Year. 485 ...A. E. Stoddart ...Hampstead v. Stoics ...1886 419*...J. S. Carrick......... W .of Scot.v.PrioryPark 1885 415*...W . N. Roe ......... Emmanuel L .Y . C. v. Caius L.Y.C ..................1881 404*...E. F. S. Tylecote...Class, v. Mod. (Clifton) 1868 400*...W . G. Grace......... U.S.E.E. v. X X II. of Grimsby ...................1876 344 ...W . G. Grace..........M.C.C. v. Kent ............ 1876 318*...W . G. Grace.........Glos. v. Yorkshire ...1876 301 ...W . G. Grace......... Glos. v. Sussex ............ 1896 3*21 ...W . L. Murdoch ...N .S.W . v. Victoria ...1882 424 ... A.. C. MacLaren ...Lancs, v. Somerset ...1895 338 ...W . W . Read..........Surrey v. Oxford U. ...1888 323*...F. E. L a cey ..........Hants v. N orfolk ............ 1887 360+...C. Hill ..................Prince Alfred C. v. St. Peter’s C........................1893 352*...F. Laver ..........E. Melb. v. St. Kilda ...1893 328*...W . Bruce ..........Melbourne v. Hotham...1884 324 ...R. W . McLeod ...Melbourne v. Essenden 1892 307 ...S. R. W alford ...Cent. Cmbrlnd. v. Hyde 1895 417*...J. W orrall ..........Carlton v. University ...1896 338 ...A, H. Trevor ...Orleans C.v.RicklingG. 1882 303*...W . F. Holms ...BlairLdg.v.CampsieGln.1884 311*...N ich ols..................Somerset C. and G. v. Glastonbury ...........1891 331 ...W . F. Forbes ...A. E. Fellowes’s X I. y. H u n ts...........................1881 331*...H.Renny-Tailyour R.E. v. Civil Service ...1880 386 ...Capt. Spens..........United Ser. v. Nndscpts.1882 302 .. F. M. Lucas..........Horsham v. Storrington 1882 325 ...H. N. Dumbleton R.E. v. R. Marines ...1884 304*...J. Shuter ..........Bexley v. Em eriti...........1884 300*...H ow ard.................Goodwood v. Westbme. 1884 364 ...F. M. A tkins........Mote Park v. Shorn- cliffe Cam p...................1887 312 .. .E. J. Diver ......... Camb. Viet. v. St. John’s L.V.C..............................1887 307 ...R. A . A. Beresford School match atOundle 1888 313*...Capt. O ates..........1st R.M .F. v. A.S.C. ...1895 301 D. L. A . Jephson ...Wanderers v. Norwood 1895 * Signifies not out. + Retired. As I said before, I am sure that this list is by no means exhaustive. No doubt I could add to it myself by diligent research ; but I feel that I have a better chance of getting a really complete list by inviting co-operation. I cannot re­ member any instance of the 300 being reached in Canada, the States, India, South Africa, or New Zealand, though I may be wrong about one or two of these. My list includes six Australian scores; the rest were all made in England, with the exceptions of one (Mr. Holms’ , in a fifth rate match) in Scotland, and one (Captain Oates’) in Ireland. New South Wales looks like retaining possession of the Sheffield Shield, which Iredale’s wonderful batting (he scored 187 and 80, not out, in the deciding match of last season’s competition) enabled the mother-colony to win in 1895-6. So far the scoring of the present Australian intercolonial season has been markedly smaller than that of the last; and at least one bowling performance of exceptional merit—McKibbin’s 15 wickets for 125 on the billiard-table ground at Adelaide—has been chronicled. The senior colony certainly appears to be at the present time the strongest of the three in bowling. Turner bowled well both at Adelaide and Melbourne, though without luck; then there is the great little Mac, on his present form Australia’s premier bowler; Howell, whose claims for a place in the Ninth Team were vigorously pressed by many critics, a good, steady bowler, less liable to off-days than Mc- K ibbin; and the erratic Coningham, who managed to bring off a really fine perfor­ mance (six wickets for 38) in the second innings of Victoria at Melbourne. South Australia does not appear to have much bowling beyond Jones’s ex­ presses and George Giffen’s “ artfuls,” though a new bowler (A. E. H. Evans, the hero of the Adelaide Country Week last season) did well against New S >uth Wales. Victoria has Trumble and the brothers Trott, Carlton, Roche, and Charles McLeod; but Trumble is scarcely the same great bowler at home that he is in England, and none of the other five is as good as he. As far as one can see, too, New South Wales is the strongest team of the three in batting. Iredale, Donnan, Gregory, McKenzie, the much-improved Kelly, plucky old Tom Garrett, Coningham, the colt Noble, and Charley Turner are all good for runs; and there are other good youngsters coming on. It is very evident that the Ninth Aus­ tralian Team did not include all the good men in the colonies. One looks for great things from O’Halloran, who, playing in his first intercolonial, ran up a score of 128, not out, against South Australia at Melbourne, and with Johns created a new record for the last wicket out there. It is pleasant to read, too, of Charles McLeod scoring a splendid 78 on a bad wicket against the strong bowling of New South Wales; of our old friend, Lyons, making big scores again; and of a South Australian colt (Bailey) and a New South Wales youngster (Noble, the same man who for the Sydney Juniors ran up a long score against Stoddart and his men) doing deeds of derring-do. The tourists have scarcely been seen at their best in the first round of the inter­ colonials; still Iredale, Donnan, Gregory, Trott, and George Giffen have played one good innings each (at the time of writing I have not seen the full score of the South Australia v. Victoria match); Clem Hill was to the fore in both innings against New SouthWales; Graham batted pluckilyin both innings against the same team; and Kelly showed by a half- century in each match how wonderfully he has trained on. TEN YEARS OF FIRST-CLASS CRICKET IN ENGLAND. II. As I promised last month, I give in this paper the principal averages of those who have not during the years 1887-96 taken 100 wickets or played 100 innings, as the case may be. In batting, I have set the qualifications for this table at a minimum of 20 innings and an average of 15 in order that it might be fairly comprehensive. I had intended at first to take 20 as a minimum average; but when I found that such well-known players as Frank Hearne, Mr. L. G Wright, Mr. A. J. L Hill, Walter Sugg, and Mr. J. Le Fleming fell slightly below this mark I realised that, to present any­ thing like a complete summary of the ten seasons’ individual records, the quali­ fication would have to be lowered. In bowling I fixed the standard at fifty wickets without regard to average ; and here I could see no good reason for a lower standard. Even as it is several players who are scarcely known as bowlers find places. In the batting table prominent places are occupied by several Australians who, though having made only one or two visits, did not come into Table I. Joe Darling stands seventh ; Hill and Iredale are not far behind; lower down come Graham, Bruce, Donnan, Barrett, poor “ Percy Mac,” G. J. Bonnor, McLeod, Kelly, and Walter Giffen. Edwards, Worrall, Jarvis, Charlton, Burn, Walters, Sam Jones, Coningham, and some few others fail to qualify, and are conse­ quently omitted; but none of these did anything sufficiently noteworthy to make his record one of the significant facts of the decade. The most conspicuous feature of the table, however, is the number of ’Varsity men it includes. Many of these are among those who were unable to play first-class cricket regularly after going down ; and one thinks with regret of the loss of such men as the graceful R. N. Douglas, the plucky, determined T. N. Perkins, and that fine all-rounder, E. C. Streatfeild. Of the 150 (or thereabouts) included in the table, no fewer than 32 made their reputation as members of the Light Blue Eleven during the decade; while about half as many owe allegiance to the Dark Blue. Then there are great names of other days, now but occasionally to be seen on thescore-sheets of first-class games, names like those of A. P. Lucas, A.. G. Steel, Lord Harris, and C. I. Thornton. And there are others who dropped out entirely in the early years of the decade, like Robinson, Bates, W. E. Roller, Wade, Yates, and Frank Ward. Apart altogether from the University representatives and our Australian cousins, there is a remarkable amount of promise in the way of new blood. Among the young professionals whose names will be found here are such men as F. C. Holland, Willie Quaife (whom one innings more would have placed in Table I.), David Denton, Killick, Tyldesley, Street, Barton, Knight, Baldwin, Easby, Douglas Smith, Robson, and Wrathall. I warrant you that a large proportion of these names will be found pretty promi­ nent in the annals of the next decade ; one need not be an Old Moore to tell that. Quaife is a little ’un, but so is Abel; Holland and Killick do not give one the i upression of robustness, but then was Arthur Shrewsbury ever among the stalwarts ? I have great hopes of these three, as also of Denton, Knight, and Wrathall. Older men who would have been more prominent but for the ex­ clusiveness of the first-class circle until three years ago are Bagshaw, Diver, Tomlin, Law, and Walter Sugg among the pros.; Capt. Wynyard, Capt. Quinton, P. E. Lacey (all too rare a figure in county cricket), L. C. Docker, J. E. Hill, H. G. Owen, and S. H. Evershed among N E X T ISSUE, THUR SDAY , MARCH 25.