Cricket 1897

CR ICK E T : A W E E K L Y RECOR l) OP TH E GAME. A pbil , 8, 1897, times. Imagine all the great ones from “ down under ” in their prime and flower, ani choose the absolutely best eleven from among them ! Would any two critics agree, I wonder P I will tempt comment by giving my selection. Let it be clearly understood that each man is supposed to be at his zenith. And first, as to those from whom the selection would have to be made, I take it that only one wicket keeper could be considered, Blackham, to wit. I know that a few Australians consider that Jarvis at his best was quite Black- ham’s equal; but, smart as Jarvis undoubtedly was, a really great wicket keeper, I cannot agree with them in that. Let us take it, then, that Blackham must have a place. And now as to bowlers. Spofforth, Turner, Giffen, Ferris, Boyle, Garrett, Evans, Trumble, Palmer, Jones, M’Kibbin ; all these must fairly be held to have claims. I chose from among them without hesitation Spofforth and Turner as two. Then Giffen must certainly have a place, because he would be entitled to it for his batting alone, apart from the fact that he is a really great bowler. A combination of talents makes his claim indisputable. And now, who else ?—for we must have four. Evans, would say. Mr. Lacy, I know. M ’Kibbin or Trumble would be the choice of those who are apt to forget that there were great men before Agamemnon. For myself, my choice hesitates between Ferris and Palmer. Few bowleis have ever been more deadly than Palmer at bis best, and yet I cannot think him Ferris’s superior. I think Ferris’s left- handedness must be allowed to turn the scale. Ferris be it, then. We have still six places to fill. Five, at least, of these must be given to bats­ men pure and simple, for none of the great Australian batsmen, save Giffen, has ever gained really marked success as a bowler. The sixth may be a batsman, or may be an all-round man, if we can find one good enough. And I think that in picking out our batsmen the claims of all these must be considered—to wit, Murdoch, Massie, Horan, McDonnell, Alec Bannerman, Harry Moses, Lyons, Bruce, Harry Trott, Sirt Gregory, Iredale, Darling, and young Clem Hill. Murdoch, king of them all, is first choice, of course. McDonnell and Mas­ sie would also find places on my list, as would Horan. Shall we say Bannerman ? No ; Horan, Murdoch, and Giffen, players of the steady but not the stonewall type are ballast enough, for if Massie was a slogger, he was also a great batsman, and McDonnell at his best was more than a slogger, “ fearless and free” as his hitting was. Both suffered some degeneration from their highest standard; but, remem­ ber, we talk of them at their best. Who, then, if not Bannerman ? Not Lyons, certainly; we must not have too many hitters. Nor the graceful Bruce, nor Iredale, nor, I think, Hill, though in five years’ time I might not dare to leave him out, for he is a wonderful youngster, and we have not seen his best yet. Moses ? I scarcely know what to say. We have not seen Moses in first-class cricket in England; but we know that he was a great batsman. The other three men we know better, and three big- hearted, resolute players they are. Which of them shall it be ? Darling, with his Scotch coolness and Scotch pluck, “ Trotty,” with his beaming face and his lion-heart, or little “ Sid,” cute and clever and courageous ? Remember, we can take but two of them at most. And someone is wanted to go in first with one of the hitters. For this reason I would, I think, choose Darling, than whom there are few better first men in. He is no stonewaller; but, with a hitter for part­ ner, he could play (especially on English wickets) the wearing game as well as anyone. And now—is our last choice to be Trott or Gregory, or is Palmer to have another show ? Remember that Palmer, apart from his bowling, was at his best a really fine bat, as he proved over here in 1886. But then Trott, apart from his batting and his value at a pinch, is a bit of a bowler—what say ye, W. G. and A. E. S. ? Not a great bowler; no one could assert that, least of all Harry him­ self, but a useful one at times. On the whole, I give preference to him. Trott, then, is our eleventh selection. And this would be my “ order of going 1. H. H. Massie. 7. G. H. S. Trott. 2. J. Darling. 8. J. M. Blackham. 3. W . L. Murdoch. 9. C. T. B. Turner. 4. G. Giffen. 10. J. J. Ferris. 5. P. S. McDonnell. 11. F, R. Spoiforth. 6. T. Horan. Others might substitute a bowler for Darling, Horan or McDonnell, but I think four such bowlers as Spoff, the Terror, Ferris and the wily old Giffen enough for any side. And still others may say that a second eleven might easily be chosen that would be by no means certain not to defeat my selected team. That is true enough. I could choose a second eleven myself that would not be far behind it, and there would still be left a really first-class third eleven —that is, if you did not grab all the remaining bowlers for the second team. Let me pick out two more teams, strong at all points of the game, and never mind about which is the second and which the third eleven. A. C. Bannerman. J. J. Lyons. H. Moses. W . Bruce. 8. E. Gregory. C. Hill. G. E. Palmer. T. W . Garrett. A . H. Jarvis. E. Evans. E. Jones. C. Bannerman. J. E. Barrett. F. A. Iredale.] S. P. Jones. H. Donnan. H. Graham. G. J. Bonner.' H. Trumble.: J.:J. Kelly. H. F. Boyle. T. R. McKibbin. These are purely fanciful elevens, of course; one cannot at will cause the great players of twenty years or more to be contemporaneously in their prime. But one sees so many suggestions for “ fancy elevens ” that it does not seem out of the way to add one’s quota. Did not eleven B ’s play All England in dajs of old ? They were eleven contemporary B’s, it may be urged, a remark which would not apply to my three selected Australian elevens. But I think that the list I have given is one that may be of some use in showing how many really great players the Southern Land has, from her scanty population, already pro­ duced. And this with practically no opportunities for becoming first-class for any man outside Sydney, Melbourne or Adelaide until just lately. In due time, when Perth and Brisbane are great cities, when other towns have grown bigger, and intercolonials have ceased to be practically inter-city matches (how many times might not Mew South Wales v. Victoria have been called with equal pro­ prietory Sydney v. Melbourne ?), as they have been of necessity in the past, the crop of great players may become even more plentiful. And yet one never knows. It is not always where work is made easiest that the best result is obtained, and I think the men who made Australian cricket were the greater players for the difficulties that they had to face. “ Australia again,” some one may grumble. “ Why doesn’t the fellow talk about something else besides Australian cricket ? ” Well, mainly because there is not, at the present time, much else to talk about. And yet in a very few weeks from now—nay, the time is to be counted rather by days than by weeks—another season, almost as busy as ’97, will be upon us. I don’t think many will hail its coming with greater joy than I shall. What a long, long, time it seems since that last match at Hastings, half-ruined by the drenching of the week before—a somewhat sad ending to a season of great deeds. It will be delightful to see once more the Indian Prince on the warpath, to see our dear old W.G. again piling up centuries, and Mr. “ Andrew Ernest” back from the Indies, browned and more sunburnt than ever, to see them all troop out from the pavilions once more, bats­ man, and bowler, veteran and youngster, “ Bobby ” Abel and “ Tom ” Richardson, Murdoch and Killick. “ Cricket on the hearth” hath its charms, but, by your leave, gentlemen, surelv cricket on tlie good greprs vard i« besf ! J.N.P. GUMMED EDGF REVOLUTION IN Cigarette Paper Books EACH LEAF READY TO HAND FOR USE. A T ALL TOBACCONISTS.