Cricket 1898

20 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. F eb . 24, 1898. Shrewsbury’s in the matches iu which they played against one another, and I think you will be somewhat surprised to find that his average is half as large again as that of the famous Notts pro­ fessional. I work out the figures thus:— Moses, 25 innings, 3 not outs, 747 runs, average, 33 95 ; Shrewsbury, 25 innings, 2 not outs, 486 runs, average, 22'09. Besides, several of the left-hander’s innings were played on bowlers’ wickets, when most of his comrades could do very little. As regards the choice of Palmer, I think that on a real batsman’s wicket the Yictorian has proved himself more dangerous than Ferris, and is generally regarded in the colonies as the best bowler there produced on such wickets. Of course, as you say, Ferris being left- handed, has strong claims.” I believe Palmer was, at his best, remarkably good on a batsman’s wicket, though he had not many such to bowl on here in 1880 or 1882 ; but I don’t think he was better than “ John James.” I saw a good deal more of the latter than of Palmer, whose greatest deeds were done while I was a schoolboy ; and I have always thought that, at his best, Ferris ranked with the very foremost of our hard-wicket bowlers. By the way, some Melbourne critic (was it “ M id-on” of the Leadtr ?), has lately been saying that Australia has not produced a great bowler for twenty years. Well, allowing that Spofl'orth, Garrett, Boyle, Palmer and Giffen (though the last two can scarcely be considered as having been first-class cricketers twenty years ago) date more than twenty years back, what of Turner, Ferris, Trumble, Jones and McKibbin, to say nothing of Howell and Noble ? There seems to be a disposition among the older cricket writers in Aus­ tralia, just now, to cry up Evans, Allan, Kendall, Corstick, Coates, and others of the old times at the expense of the men of later days. I am quite prepared to believe that the quintet named, and others who have been mentioned, were rattling good men; but I really don’t see that they can be held betterthan their successors. I doubt whether any of them would have done aswellasNoble, McLeod, and Howell have just been doing on a perfect wicket at Adelaide, for it must be remembered that twenty years ago evm the best grounds in Aust ralia were very far from being as good as they are now. We have critics of the same type in England, men who point to the great deeds of poor Fred Morley and appear to think that they have thereby given good reason for a lessening of the enthusiasm felt for Tom Richardson. I know that Morley got his wickets cheaper than Richardson does now : but remember the difference in the wickets—remember that a great ] art of Morley’s work was done during a cycle of lainy seasons (there was not one really dry season between 1870 and 1883), and that Richardson has done his in for the most part exceptionally dry seasons (1894 is the only really wet summer we have had since he appeared) —and then say whether Tom’s averages of 14-45 per wicket in 1897 and 16 32 in 1896 are not every whit as good as Morley’s 12-11 in 1878 and 10-19 in 1879. Bstter, I should say. Speaking of Ferris, I note with great pleasure that he is taking up cricket again, though I fear he will have a hard task to win his way back into the New South Wales Eleven. On his batting form in England, however, he is a more reliable run-getter than Coningham; and if his bowling returns at all he should be better worth playing than the somewhat erratic ex-Queenslander. Ferris is one of my favourite cricketers. I believe there are few enthusiasts who have not a kind of feeling that may almost be called affection for some few great players; for my own part, I must confess that any great deed by ~W.Gr., W.W., “ Sammy” Woods, Alec Hearne, “ R an ji” (every­ body’s hero though he be), Murdoch, Ferris, Giffen, Ulyett, Lohmann, Hay­ ward and Richardson has always been a real pleasure to me. An Adelaide firm is bringing out in some half-a-dozen parts, a series of portraits of famous Australian cricketers, in the form of an album after the style of the “ Famous Cricketers and Cricket Grounds,” which won such well-deserved praise in England a year or two back. I have just received from the publishers part 1 and 2, which contain excellent portraits of D. W. Gregory, Blackham, Spoffortb, Murdoch, Harry Trott, Iredale, A. H. Jarvis, C. Bannerman, G. H. Bailey, G. Giffen, Boyle, Evans, Horan, Mc- Kibbin, E. Jones, Midwinter, Massie, Walters and Allan ; groups of the 1878, 1880 and 1882 teams, and views of the Sydney and Melbourne grounds. Some of these will be of great interest over here, on account of their novelty. I don’t remember ever to have seen before portraits of Charley Bannerman, Allan, Bailey or Dave Gregoi y, or a group of the first team. There is one curious omission from the list of portraits to appear in following issues, as given on the back of the cover of No. 2, Harry Graham’s name does not appear there. Others who would not appear to have been thought of sufficient importance (Graham must surely have been omitted by accident) are : A. E. Johns, G. Alex­ ander, F. Jaivis, P. G. M’Shane, J. Noel, P. Lewis, S. Morris, Dr. R. Macdonald, M. Roche, J. Carlton, W. Bradley, W. J. Giller and W. A. Windsor. There are several Australians, too, who, although their cricket fame is principally, if not wholly English, would deserve a place if the album is to be made really complete, notably S. M. J. Woods, G. L. Wilson, C. W. Rock and R. C. Ramsay. By the way, it was not the latter (the Cambridge crack bowler of 1882) who played in one of the recent up-country matches against Stoddart’s team, but his younger brother, M. F. Ramsay, another O.d Harrovian, who, while in England in 1894, batted well for the M.C.C. against Leicestershire, and also played for the second eleven of Kent. I am afraid that even those of us who had the highest opinion of Stoddart’s team must admit now that it is deficient in bowling strength. It would not be fair to lay too much stress upon the immense fcoring at Sydney, since, with Richardson away and Hirst unable to bowl, downhearted at having lost the rubber, and further depressed by the loss of the toss, the men must have been below par. But, even so, scores of 415 and 574 in one match want a lot of explaining away. The truth of the matter would seem to be that the bowlers with Stod­ dart’s team are not capable of getting rid of the Australian crack batsmen on the perfect Australian wickets for anything like a small score. Ten or fifteen years ago 300 was generally a winning score even on Australian wickets. Nowadays a side may make nearly 400 iu each innings, and yet be beaten by over 200 runs. Mr. Stoddart would appear to be right in his verdict that the Australian bowlers of to-day are, on the perfect wickets “ down under,” ahead of our men in headwork and strategy. If I had been asked at the end of the season of 1897 who were, in ray opinion, the best three bowlers iu England, I should certainly have said, without hesi­ tation, Tom Richardson, Jack Hearne and Johnny Briggs. If I had been asked what three English bowlers would be likely to do best on Australian wickets, I should have named the same three, Briggs and Richardson because of their former success out there, and Jack Hearne because he is a bowler of the type which has generally proved more than useful ia the colonies. An accurate length bowler, like Alfred Shaw, “ D ick” Attewell and Hearne (there is a good deal of difference in pace between these three, but their methods are more alike than their pace), has always, until very lately, bothered the very cream of Australian batting. Ten years ago more than one Australian critic spoke of Attewell as the best bowler in the world. He was out there with Mr. Vernon's Team in 1887-8, and his success was very marked. But the general tendency of Australian batting in those days was undoubtedly towards greater freedom, and consequent greater risk, than now obtains. In their own phrase, Trott and his men don’t give away their wickets; they play for keeps. And so long as they do this, having such an array of batsmen at command as they have to-day, we need not expect to see our fellows pull off the rubber with ease. Such accomplished rungetters as Darling and Hill, Gregory and Iredale, would be difficult enough to dispose of in any case; when to their ability to hit they add the power of defence which all have cultivated so assiduously of late, they form a very warm combination indeed. But as to the English bowlers apart from the trio named, Hayward, Hirst and Wainwright to wit. It seems proved beyond all question now that Wain- wright’s style is quite unsuited to Antipodean wickets; for that matter, his bowling was pretty expensive in England last year. But then Wainwright was not taken out solely—perhaps not even N E X T ISSUE , T H U R S D A Y , M ARCH 31.