Cricket 1898

J a n . 27, 1898. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OP THE GAME. 7 the whole, I am disposed to agree with “ Wanderer ” of the Sportsman, and the writer of “ Pavilion Gossip ” that it cannot well be so reckoned. No match against odds in Australia has ever been considered of first-class rank, though South Australia used to place fifteen men in the field for a long time after New South Wales and Victoria had begun even-handed contests. If we are to allow the Brisbane game to rank, what shall be said of these, and of the earlier matches of fifteens and eighteens of the two older colonies against Parr’s, Stephenson’s, and W. G. Grace’s teams ? On the other hand, it may be argued that, since the match would have been considered first-class had Queensland played alone with only eleven men, the strengthening of the team by the inclusion of several prominent New South Wale3 players, and by its being allowed two extra men, can scarcely be held to degrade it in rank. But it is just these two extra men that spoil its claim. It would have been much better had Queensland played Stoddart’s men “ on their own,” as they did in 1894. A licking would not have hurt them ; and if they could have made even a decent show they would have gone up a peg or two in the cricket world. In “ Sammy” Jones, Donahoo, Bradley, Charles Richardson, Turner and Doctor MacDonald, they had the nucleus of a decent eleven, and, after all, the inclusion of the New South Wales bowlers did not prevent their having a tremendous score run up against them. It would not have mattered much had it been 736 or even 836 instead of 636. Poor “ Percy Mac ! ” They must miss him at Brisbane. I don’t think he would bave consented to have played thirteen men against eleven in a match which had been scheduled as of premier rank. By the way, I don’t think it at all likely that the suggested second match at Brisbane, v. Eleven of Austra­ lia, is likely to come off. Its date was to be February 18th, and, from a glance at the programme, I cannot see how it can well be shifted. But on that day New South Wales and South Australia begin their return match at Sydney ; and thus the field for the selection of the scratch team will be considerably narrowed. Of course it is possible to select avery decent team (on paper) without including men from either of these colonies. Bradley, MacDonald, Jones, Richardson, Donahoo and Turner (if he has not yet departed for South Africa) from Queensland; Eady, Windsor and Burn from Tasmania'; Trott, Trumble, McLeod, Bruce, Graham and Worrall from Victoria; and Fisher of New Zealand (if he has not yet returned after finding that it is hopeless for him to expect a place in any of the test match teams): from these a very good team might be chosen (still on paper). But it is pretty certain that the Tasmanians would Hot make the long journey neces­ sary ; and I doubt whether the Victorians could easily be induced to visit Brisbane, for the long programme of this season’s cricket is leaving them little enough time to spare as it is. But, as the match would come just before the last test match at Sydney, perhaps Trott, McLeod and Trumble might be induced to leave home a week earlier in order to take part in it. McLeod’s success in the three test matches already played should go far towards gaining him a place in the Tenth Australian Team for England—pre­ suming, of course, that he retains his form during the next Australian season. As everyone knows, he only got into the team through Giffen’s refusal; but, even if Giffen were included in the two re­ maining matches, McLeod could not be left out. His scores against the English­ men thu3 far have been : for Victoria, 63 and 14; for Australia, 50*, 26, 112 and 31—total 296 in five completed innings; and he has taken nine wickets at a cost of 236 runs in addition. Three or four years ago McLeod gave a good deal of promise as a bowler; but in that direction he is thought to have gone off a good deal since then. However that may be, it is a fact that he bowled better than anyone else on the side in the first test match at Sydney, and that his analysis was the best of all in the game recently concluded at Adelaide, though it may be doubted whether he was in as good form as Noble and Howell there. In 1894-6 he scored 19 and 25 for Victoria against the Englishmen, and too six wickets for 160; in the first test match then (the only one in which he played) his scores were 15 and 2*, and he had two wickets for 92 ; in the return match with Victoria he scored 52, and took 3 wickets for 108. So far, he has not yet failed to make double figures in any completed innings against English bowling. Among his achievements in intercolonial matches during the last three or four seasons have been:— 1893-4. 28*, and 6 wickets for 101—v. 8. Aust., Melbourne. 23, and 9 wickets for 131—v. N. S. W., Sydney, 9 wickets for 128—v. South Australia, Adelaide. 1894-5. 31 and 35, and 3wkts. for 100—v. N. S. "W., Sydney. 1895-6. 100and 50—v. N. S. W ., Sydney. 1893-7 78—v. N. S. "W., Melbourne. Noble is another man who is likely to form part of the new blood in the Tenth Australian team. In his case likelihood appears almost to extend to certainty. His chances looked rosy during the last colonial season, when his splendid play for 69 v. South Australia at Adelaide, and 71 and 153, not out, v. Victoria at Sydney made every lover of cricket talk about the new star that had appeared in the East; but this season he is proving that he is not only a fine bats­ man, but a good bowler—one or two more such performances as he has lately shown would justify one in saying a great bowler—So far, we have not heard of any startling batting performance from him this season; but I take it he was not selected for the second test match on the strength of his bowling alone, and should not be surprised to find in the course of a mail or two that he scored well in the Christmas intercolonial at Melbourne. Then there is Howell. At the begin­ ning of the present season he seemed dead off, and was severely pasted by the Englishmen both in the N.S.W. match at Sydney and in that hybrid game at Brisbane. But he must have done far better in the intercolonials at Melbourne and Adelaide or he would not have been chosen in the game just ended. I know that some Australian critics regard him as the most reliable of all the Australian bowlers, and there seems good reason for the opinion. He is said to keep a splendid length, and to have very few off-days. Howell’s first first-class match was against Stoddart’s Team in November, 1894. He had played in the Sydney “ Country Week,” and on the strength of his hitting had been invited to represent the colony—as a batsman, mind you. He went in No. 7 in the batting list, just after Donnan and just before Turner, but only scored 16 and 6. When Stoddart and Brown had collared the Colonial bowling, however, he—so the tale goes—modestly informed Tom Garrett that he thought he could get them out. He did—bowling both, and in like manner taking the wickets of Lockwood, Briggs and Walter Hum­ phreys, at a total cost of only 44 runs, and this in an innings of 394 ! Since then he has only been absent from one of the most important matches on the New South Wales card, and here are some of his performances:— v. South Australia—4 for 55 (2nd innings at Adelaide, 1894-5), 8 for 88 (both innings at Adelaide, 1895-6), 6 for 40 (first innings at Sydney, 1895-7). v. Victoria—5 for 115 (both innings at Melbourne, 1891-5), 3 for 25 (second innings at Sydney, 1894-5), 5 for 37 (first innings at Melbourne, 1896-7), 3 for 29 (second inniDgs at Sydney, 1896-7). Remember that these performances were all, or about all, done on wickets of the billiard-table type, and you will be able to appreciate them at their proper value. From the cablegrams one gathers that Howell bowled remarkably well in the match j ust finished at Adelaide. J.N.P. A CRICKETER’S INNINGS. Life is hut a game of cricket, Every mortal, bat in hand, Playing; on Earth’s lumpy wicket, Does his best to “ make a stand.” Fate is howler; we are thankful When his awesome sphere flies past; Thankful—tho’ ’tis hut a respite, For he takes our stump at last. At the elbow of the batsman Thanatos, the umpire pale, Watches each deceptive “ yorker” Sweep away the tottering bail. “ Out,” he says with stern decision, “ Take yon carrion away, Send another to the wicket, Now then, bowler ! ready! play.” Hopefully we face the howler, Hopefully, tho’ knowing that Never batsman on this wicket Ever carries out his bat. Hopefully—for I believe it, When our innings here is done, In the Father’s Grand Pavilion There’s a seat for every one. Sydney. J. A. PHILP. N E X T ISSUE , T H U R S D A Y , F E B R U A R Y 24.