Cricket 1897

M a r c h 2 5 , 1 8 9 7 . CR ICKET A W E E K L Y RECORD OF TITE GAME. 35 BETWEEN THE INNINGS. I have to thank Messrs. Stephen J. Barnes, J. D. Betharn and F. S. Asbley- Cooper, for kindly letters enclosing additions to my list of ‘ 300 ’ scores. Here are the scores alluded to :— 312, by A. Hoare, for the Ford y. T. H. Fox’s X I, in 1870. 307*, by F. W . Wright, for Eastbourne Masters v. Schools, in 1876. 327*, by Dr. E. M. Grace, for Thombury v. Chewton Keynsham, in 1876. 338*, by W . E. W . Collins, for Northwood v. Fresh­ water, in 1874. Mr. Ashley-Cooper tells me also of another instance of two two-hundred scores in one innings:—C. J. M. Fox (243*) and F. W. Janson (252), for Crystal Palace v. Hampstead, July 2, 1887. Wisden for 1882, he says, gives the following among big scores (on page 12):—W. Alexander, 207*, and D. N. Trotter, 207*, both for Phoenix v. Dublin University. Mr. Trotter’s score made on June 27th, no date given for Mr. Alexander’s. Can anyone tell me if these two were made in the same innings ? Mr. Thos. L. Adamson is kind enough to point out another good bowling per­ formance, which should certainly have been included among those of 1896 in my list, viz : Hayward’s 9 4 overs, 24 runs, 6 wickets, in Lancashire v. Surrey (second innings of Lancashire) at the Oval. Another of my correspondents, Mr. George Simmonds, writes : —“ Some months ago in Cricket you. made reference to the 200’s scored by H. Graham and F. E. Lacey in first-class cricket. I have hunted up the scores of all matches I can find in which the above two cricketers took part, but fail to discover an individual innings of over 200 by either in a first-class match. H. Graham (I presume you refer to the Australian) scored 219 against Derbyshire in 1893; but this cannot be admitted as first-class. I trust you will refer to the matter in Cricket, and if you are correct kindly publish them, and where they were made.” The score of Harry Graham’s to which I referred was, of course, the same one that Mr. Simmonds mentions. He says it “ cannot be admitted as first-class.” I am of another opinion. In each visit of the Australians up to 1893 all their even-handed games were reckoned in the nrst-class averages ; and even in 1893 the game against Liverpool and District was so included, while those against Derby­ shire, Leicestershire, Essex and Warwick­ shire were ruled out by the Press authorities—or a section of them. (The M.C.C. did not at that time take the trouble to determine the •status of matches). I protested strongly against this action at the time, but I had not then so wide an audience to appeal to as have in Cricket. The action of the county captains early in the next season, which led to the elevation of all four of the counties mentioned to the first-class, seemed to me a pretty caustic commentary laibeit unintentional) on the Press ecision. If it be accepted as unalterable, matters must stand in this position: That the match Derbyshire v. Australians was first-class in ’80, ’82, ’84, ’80, ’88, ’90 and ’96 (vide the first-class averages for those years), and wai not so in ’93. I prefer to be consistent, even at the expense of disagreeing with fellow cricket-writers, for whose opinions in general I have a good deal of respect; and Mr. Simmonds may take it that, whatever may be said to convince me of the contrary, I do, and always shall hold, that Graham’s 219 is fairly to be reckoned among first-class scores. Mr. F. E. Lacey’s score was 211 for Hampshire v. Kent, made, if I recollect rightly, at Southampton in 1884. Here I feel myself upon firmer ground. I know that there was some difference of opinion in the early eighties as to Hampshire’s precise status; but I think I aui correct in saying that up to and including 1885 the majority of the leading papers whose opinion on the subject is of any value reckoned Hampshire as first-class. It was, I think, during the recess of 1885-6 that, owing to the confusion which the difference of opinion caused in compiling the averages of the season, a definite agreement was arrived at among the lead­ ing Pressmen, whereby Hants and Somer­ set were put outside the fitsfc-class pale, and in 1886, for the first time, a clear line of demarcation was made. But Mr. Simmonds will find, if he looks at the averages in Wisden for 1887—no, looking at them will not show it; he must check the figures shown against the names of Emmett, Wade, and the one or two other first-class men who took partin the match mentioned—that the ridiculous ‘ ‘ Sixteen of Skegness and District v. the Austra­ lians ” game in 1886 has been included in compiling them. Surely if this be reck­ oned as first-class, the Derbyshire game in 1893 well may be. Yet Wisden of that year bars the Hampshire fixtures. Now it seems to me that, say, Hampshire v. Sussex was much worthier to be ranked first-class than a slipshod exhibition game at a small watering-place, which for the nonce was considered as the centre (Heaven save the mark!) of Notts, York­ shire, Lincolnshire, and I know not how wide a stretch of country beside. I don’t like these eleven v. sixteen, eighteen and twenty-two matches. When they are considered merely as exhi­ bition games, one cannot say much against them; but to include them in compiling first-class averages is ridiculous. When Stoddart’s team was in Australia they met Eleven of Queensland and thrashed them unmercifully. Well, that was only to be expected ; but, heavy as was the beating, the match had far more importance and was of far more interest than it would have been had Queensland played eigh­ teen or twenty-two. I know I was hop­ ing at the time that later in the tour Tas­ mania would follow suit; but this was not to be, the Garden Colony putting, I think, a fifteen into the field. I hope that when the next English team visits the Tasmanians, they will play it even- handed. Both Tasmania and Queensland have passed by now out of the e irly crude stage when it was right and fitting that odds should be allowed them ; they can­ not yet pretend to be equil to the three leiding Colonies, but they have some pre­ tensions to first-class form, and it is only a check to their growth in popular opinion to go on taking odds. New South Wale3, as was auticipitel, has carried off the Sheffield Shield in fine style, with two victories over each of her rivals, and not a single defeat. I believe Yictoria had a similar record in one sea­ son, but I won’t be sure of that—I am growing chary of speaking without book. The most singular point about the splendid record of the oldest of the Australian Colonies, is the fact that her three crack batsmen—Iredale, Gregory, and Donnan —did very little indeed towards it, com­ pared with what was done by less famous players. Iredale, in the four matches, scored 173 for six times out, Gregory 133 for as many innings, and Donnan 184 in seven innings. These are by no means bad figures of course, but in 1895-6, Iredale made more in a single innings than his total of this season, while Donnan came very near doing so with an innings of 160. The great success of the season is the colt Noble—he is, I hear, about 24 years of age —whose six innings (one not out) realised 344iuns, his innings in the return withVic­ toria being 71 and 153 not out. The veteran Garrett scored 252 in six iunings, and Kelly 223, each having a three-figure score to his credit. Little Mac, the wily bowler, actually has a batting average of 49—six innings, three not outs, 147 runs. The erratic Coningham’s record is very moderate—68 in six innings, but he was very useful with the ball once or twice. The stalwart Mackenzie, too, did only fairly well with 126 runs in six completed innings. Turner scored 94 runs in his six innings ; and Howell made 60, but was three times not out. Every member of the team (and it is a notable fact that the same eleven took part in each of the four matches for the Shield) thus had a double figure average, eight of them being over twenty. As to the bowling, McKibbin is very easily first. Fifteen wickets for 125 v. South Australia, at Adelaide; eight for 127, v. Victoria, at Melbourne; eight for 164, v. South Australia, at Sydney; thirteen for 241, v. Victoria, at Sydney; 44 for 657 iu all, or just under 15 each; a wonderful record for “ Australia’s sunny wickets, where a sixer goes for six, And they seldom want the sawdust mountain hard against the sticks,” as Mr. E. J. Milliken hath it. Howell, who took at least one wicket in each innings, maintaining his reputation for being a “ come-day, go-day” sort of bowler, always reliable, was a worthy second, with 20 wickets for 362; and Coningham took eleven for 302. Only three wickets fell to the erstwhile Terror, and 218 runs were scored off him, though he was said at the beginning of the season to be bowling better than for some time past. Strange how short a time the brilliant pair of 1888 have lasted ?