Cricket 1897

F eb. 25, 1897. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 31 TABLE 6.— t a b l e DELIVERIES D e . MISSED L.B.TV. Attewell, T .................. Barlow, R. G.............. Briggs, J. ................... Farraras, F ................. Flowers, W ................. Ford,_F. G. J. .. •• Garrett, T. W ............. Giffen, G. ................. Hardstaflf, R .............. Harrison, A. E. D .... Jackson, F. S............. Laidley. F.................. Lillywhite, J ............... Lohmann, G................ Martin, F. S h o w in g o f f w h o s e GRACE HAS BEEN DIS- Page, H. V. Palmer, G. E. ... Parris, F .............. Peel, R ................. Ramsay. G. Shaw, A ............... Shaw. J. C. Southerton. J . ... Spofforth, F. R. Turner. C. T. B. Wade, S. ........... Watson, W . Webbe, A. J. ... Winter, A . H. ... Forty-three times in all: T. Attewell and J. Briggs, with four and three times respectively, heading the list. MEMORABILIA. (a.) Average 2,000 runs in a season — 6 times, 1871-3-6. 1887, 1895-6. Average 1,000 and less than 2.000 in one season— 17 times, 1839, 1870-2-4-5-7-8, 1883-4-5-6-8-9, 1890-2-3-4. (6.) Innings of 300 and over, 3 times :— 344 in 1876, M.C.C. v. Kent, <anterbury. 318* in 1876, Gloucester v. Yorks, Cheltenham. 301 in 1896, Gloucester v. Sussex, Bristol. (c.) Two separate centuries in one m atch :— 130 and 102*. South of Thames v. North of Thames. 1868, Canterbury. 101 and 103*, Gloucester v. Kent, 1887, Clifton. 148and 158, Gloucester v. Yorks, 1888, Clifton. ( d .) Centuries in 3 consecutive innings, 5 times :— 118, Gents of "South v. Gents of North, 'j W est Brompton I 178, South v. North, Lord’s .......................... V1871 162, Gents of England v. Cambridge University, Fenner’s j 112, Gentlemen v. Players, Lord’s ...........) 117, Gentlemen v. Players, O v a l..................>-1872 170*, England v. Notts and Yorks, Lord’s j 134, Gents of Soath v. Players of South, O val ) 163, Gentlemen v. Players, Lord’s .......... /-1873 158, Gentlemen v. Players, O v a l..................j 121, Kent and Glos. v. England, Canterbury ) 123, M.C.C. v. Kent, Canterbury..................£-1874 127, Gloucester v. Yorkshire, Clifton.......... j 344 M.C.C. v. Kent. Canterbury..................) 177, Gloucester v. Notts, C lifton.......... <•„ >1876 318*, Gloucester v. Yorks, Cheltenham ... J The only other players who have done this in first-class cricket are Mr. A. C. MacLaren (1895), R. Abel (1896), W, Storer (1896), and Prince Ranjitsinhji (1896), who have each performed the feat once. than did Dr. Grace twenty-five years previously, and moreover played seven not out innings against four by W.G. When it is remembered that the wickets of 1871 were not nearly so good as they now are, and also that Ranjitsinhji has the easist ground in England—Brighton as his home ground, then let a com­ parison be made between the doings of our dear old champion in 1871 and K. S. Ranjitsinhji in 1896. The following figures are given of the two players in 1871 and 1896 respectively : — Not Inns. out. .. 39 ... 4 . ... 55 ... 7 . Highest Total, score. Aver. . 2739 ... 268 ... 78 90 . 2780 ... 171*... 57 91 A brief glance at any of the preceding tables cannot fail to show the great amount of cricket Dr. Grace has taken part in. We find him playing in first- class matches over thirty years ago against such men as H. H. Stephenson, Tom Lockyer, Robert Carpenter, Tom Hayward, George Parr—players who are players only by name to the present generation. Years ago when we were at school—perhaps in some cases even be­ fore we were born—W. G. was the acknowledged champion of our national game. Even, now, after thirty-two seasons of first-class cricket, he can still hold his own against all comers and still manage to score an innings of over three hundred. “ Here is a champion, when comes such another ? ” The best year he ever had was the season of 1871. In that year he scored 2,739 runs, scored ten times over the century, and had an averags of 78 90. Ranjitsinhji, it is true, has this year beaten W .G.’s aggregate, but then let it be borne in mind that the Prince played in sixteen innings m ire W . G. Grace ’ K . S. Ranjitsinhji The centuries scored by each were:— W . G. G race . 268, 217, 189*, 181,178,182, 146, 118, 117, 116. K . S. H anjitsinhji . 171*, 163, 154*, 146, 1S8,126*, 114*, 107, 100*, 100. By this comparison I do by no means wish to detract from the merit of the Prince’s feat—it was in every sense of the word a great performance, and one worthy of W.G. in his best days. And now my work is finished ; it has from beginning to end been one of pleasure and one over which great care has been bestowed. If any readers wish to go more into detail concerning the batting career of the champion I recom mend them to obtain “ Scores and Mode of Dismissal of W.G.,” an excellent little book compiled by the Rev. H. A. Tate. And in conclusion let us follow the example of the Mahommedan and say from the bottom of our heart—with reference to W.G. — “ May his shado v never grow less and may he live to be a Hundred.” PRE SEN T -DAY CR ICKET. B y G eorge L a c y . In all occupations and pursuits, whether of a serious or a frivolous character, the old fogey now enjoys a recognised abiding place. His the province to enlighten the callow and inexperienced as to the real facts surrounding and in fluencing his particular hobby, and to enlarge upon the decadence which, in common with most other mundane affairs, has in these latter days marred its pristine excellencies. “ Why, dear boy, you ought to have seen it thirty years ago; assure you there’s no comparison whatever. Ah ! it was something like in those days.” We all know him, and in no domain is he more ia evidence than in that of sport, and among sports cricket is par excellence his most frequent arena. For in cricket the changes in method and motive have been more pronounced, and more far-reaching, than in almost any other branch of sport, and the scope given to the old fogey in his jeremiads is there­ fore wider and deeper. But, old fogeydom apart, it is really open to temperate debate whether cricket as a game has deteriorated or been im­ proved. An enquiry of this nature need not be carried further btck than the era of strictly modem ciick ,t, which may be i sai I to have commenced about 1850. Previous to this time the game was practically in an experimental stage, and subsequent changes have been of the nature of developments rather than radical innovations. At first glance a comparison of the present with the con­ ditions which existed in the past would certainly appear favorable to the former. Attendances are larger, clubs more flourishing, professionals better paid, and on the whole of a somewhat superior class, or at all events more well-mannered and dressed, grounds are less rough, scores larger, and bowling straighter. Certainly such a series of admissions on almost every point of the game would seem tantamount to giving the whole case of the past away, but these first im­ pressions are never to be trusted without further enquiry. I may as well say at once that I am among those who consider that cricket qua cricket has not improved, but rather the reverse. “ Attendances are larger, and clubs more flourishing,” you have said. True, but the remark would apply equally well to any other pursuit. Take the dramatic world. Audiences in London and other centres of population have increased a hundred-fold, but it does not follow that, the Irvings, the Wilson Barretts and others notwith­ standing, that the acting is any better. To fulfil an engagement Phelps once travelled on the axle of a stage-coach, for want of the wherewithal to pay the fare ; the modern sfar actor has a special train, with drawing-room car, but I venture to say that, though deficient in certain elegancies and refinements, no actor of to-day could equal Pnelps in elocution, and very few indeed in the portrayal of mental and physical emotion. The ad­ mission amounts to nothing more than that we are more prosperous, and have more money to give to our entertainers. “ The professionals are of a superior class.” True again, but we are all of a superior class. There has been a general uplifting throughout all grades of society. If the cavalry officer of forty years ago, with his greasy locks, awful whiskers, and ill-cut clothes, were to appear among us to-day, bn would be set down as an assistant in an inferior class of barber’s shop. If anyone doubts this, let him look at the photos of celebrities at various periods of their lives which appear in some of the illustrated magazines, and note what unmitigated cads they one and all looked in the fifties. “ Scores are larger, and bowling straighter.” More runs are made be­ cause the grounds are levelled out of all recognition, and the bo wling is siraighter because the bowlers cannot help it. When a ball is delivered from a point above the top of the head, and in an almost per­ pendicular line from the foot, it is much m,re difficult to bowl a wide thin a straight ball. The ball comes down naturally from this elevation to a point in a right line immediately opposite it. To deliver a ball to leg would require much more skill than is called for in send'ng one down to the middle stump. But wheu the arm is raised no hig.ierthau the shou'dur, and the b.,11 delivered ■« ith a round action, ttl« bitting of ihe mid'lie N E X T ISSUE, THUR SDAY , MARCH 25.