Cricket 1897

328 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. A ug . B, 1897. BUSSEY’S <C C B « BATS. H IGHEST GRADE . BUSSEY’S BALLS. H IGHEST GRADE . BUSSEY’S GUARDS. H IGHEST GRADE . BUSSEY’S < C C B- « - GLOVES. H IGHEST GRADE BUSSEY’S < CCB-« BAGS. H IGHEST GRADE. CRICKETERS’ <CG fr« DIARY I S A G E M F O R 6 d . CATALOGUES ON APPLICATION TO CITY DEPOT— 36 & 38, QUEEN VICTORIA STREET. LONDON, OR DEALERS ALL OVER THE WORLD. MANUFACTORY— PECKHAM, LONDON. TIMBER MILLS— ELMSWELL, SUFFOLK. BETWEEN THE INNINGS. I don’t think it at all fair to suggest, as some critics have suggested, that the Philadelphians have flown at too high game in tackling our first-class counties. The capital fight which, although minus their best man, they made in the last match of the tour against Surrey is of itself almost sufficient disproof of this. And, look you, they have a far better record against the counties than the counties against the Australians last year. Not a single county team was strong enough to beat the boys from “ down under ; ” yet no one suggestedthat “ the counties had flown at too high game in tackling the Australians.” Of their eleven matches with the counties the Americans won two, lost six and drew three. Of the drawn games they would certainly have won that with Notts had it been fought to a finish ; they had decidedly the best of the game with Somerset, and had quite held their own with Yorkshire. Throughout the tour they were but once dismissed for less than 100 runs. They scored altogether 5,020 runs for the loss of 238 wickets (average 21-9), and had scored against them 5,792 runs for 201 wickets (28'8). This is, of course, a big disparity ; and no I team which averages nearly seven runs per wicket less than its opponents can hope to win many matches; but it must be remembered that the Philadelphians did not come with any idea of beating all and sundry that might be opposed to them, but with an object largely educational. It must be admitted, too, that they had dis­ tinctly hard lines in several respects. Their captain, Mr. Patterson, the best all-round player in America, met with injuries that kept him out of four matches and prevented his batting in the second innings of another. Mr. Crawford Coates has been an absentee from the last five matches—also through an injury. Messrs. Ralston and Bohlen have been handi­ capped in the same way. The best men on the side are Messrs. Patterson, Lester, Wood and King—all four players good enough for any side. After these one would place Messrs. Baily, Bohlen, Coates, P. H. Clark, Thayer, Cregar and Ralston, all men worth their place in the team, and the first two of them probably at their best worthy to rank almost, if not quite, with the leading quartet. Messrs. Biddle, H. L. Clark and Bates did nothing to justify their selection ; and one can readily believe that had Messrs. W . W. Noble, E. W . Clark and H. Brown been in their places tha team would have had a much better record. One hardly knows whether to give first place to Mr. Lester or Mr. King. The former, though he never reached three figures, scored well in almost every match, was never out for a duck, and only four times (in 26 innings) for less than 10, among his scores being 92, 72*, 71, 69, 67, 66, 62 and 60, with nine others of between 19 and 36. When one remembers that he was the youngest member of the team, and that he had played scarcely any first-class cricket previous to the tour, one cannot help looking upon his record as a wonderful one. Of course, his experience of English wickets last summer was of great help to him ; but he had to play against bowling of altogether a different class to that which he faced then, and he came through the ordeal in triumph. Mr. King, besides being one of the run- getters of the side (he takes fifth place in the batting averages, and played ten innings of between 20 and 60), was far and away the most successful bowler, having the best aver­ age and taking more wickets than any two of his comrades together. The captain’s bowling did not prove effective, and he started very badly with the bat. In the middle match of the tour, that v. Hants, he played an innings of 88, and his last five innings were 162, 59*, 53, 52 and 64—which leaves 62 to divide among his other eleven innings. Mr. A. M. Wood began well, and, until the last three matches, batted consistently throughout; his best score was 100 v. Notts, and he also made 80, 73*, 57, 52, 47 and 42. Mr. F. H. Bohlen scarcely showed his true form, his batting being somewhat streaky; but he had a good deal to do with winning the Warwickshire match, in which he scored 87 without losing his wicket, and he also batted well against Hants, Notts, Kent and Surrey. Mr. H. P. Baily, although he bowled very well and generally took some wickets, only met with at all marked success on one occa­ sion, in the second match of the tour, when he took eight for 70 v. Lancashire. Mr. P. H. Clark was hit pretty freely as a rule , but he bowled effectively v. Notts and the M.C.C. His batting average is due to “ not outs.” Mr. Cregar met with some success with the ball on one or two occasions, and batted very usefully v. Yorkshire, Warwick, Kent and Surrey. Mr, Ralston is undoubtedly a fine wicket-keeper, and the emergency man, Mr. Scattergood, showed fair form behind the stumps ; but neither did much with the bat. I am inclined to think that, should he visit us again within the next few seasons, Mr. H. C. Thayer will make a lot of runs; but Mr. Coates, though a good natural hitter, is not a first-class bat. Perhaps Mr. Lynford Biddle might have had a little better trial; he generally made some runs when played, but he did nothing really noteworthy. Messrs. P. H. Clark, J. B. King, J. A. Lester and A. M. Wood played in all the fifteen matches ; Mr. E. M. Cregar in four­ teen ; Mr. H. P. Baily in thirteen ; Mr. F. H. Bohlen in twelve ; Messrs. G. S. Patterson and H. C. Thayer in eleven; Messrs. C. Coates and F. W . Ralston in ten; Mr. L. Biddle in eight; Messrs. F. H. Bates and H. L. Clark in six, and Mr. J. H. Scattergood in four. Altogether I should say that, with Lester, Patterson, Wood, Bohlen, King and Thayer all in form the batting of the team would be decidedly strong, though even then there would be something of a tail. The bowling was quite as powerful as that of at least haif the counties ; but a slow bowler was badly needed. The fielding was by no means above reproach. It was not as smart and quick as one expects from a team of amateurs, most of them young and active. Perhaps there weie not more catches dropped than in the case of an average county team ; but the ground fielding was often slow and almost slovenly. I think, though, that the men suffered a geo 1 deal from the continuous play on hard grounds, unused as they were to even a whole week of cricket. Mr. Jessop’s 101 in forty minutes against the strong and varied bowling of the York­ shiremen must surely be a record. Even Mr. W . J. Ford’s 44 in seventeen minutes lor Middlesex v. Kent in 1885 is only very slightly faster in proportion ; and there is a good deal of difference between making 40 at express rate and keeping up the same rate in the compilation of a century. Any batsman who can scoro a hundred runs at the rate of a