Cricket 1898

THE FINEST BAT THE WORLD PRODUCES J uly 14, 1898. CRICKET: A WEEKLY BEC0RD OF THE GAME. 267 BUSSEY’S BUSSEY’S BETWEEN THE INNINGS. The teams for the big match at Lord’s on Monday next have not been published at the time of writing, but probably they will have been before this appears. I cannot quite understand the extreme interest which appears to be taken in the composition of the sides—one of the big daily papers, which devotes a column a day to cricket notes, has fairly tired me out during the last fortnight with its conjectures as to whether “ so-an-so” would lind a place in the Player’s team, or Mr. T ’otherone would be chosen for the Gentlemen—but I think there can be no doubt of the genuineness of the interest. Personally, there is only one cricketer whom 1 should consider indispen­ sable. Need I say who he is? After the first half-dozen or so on each side are chosen, there are twelve or fifteen others, any of whom might be put into the remaining places without the sides suffering. Mr. George Botting favours me with his selection for the two teams ; and a very good selection it is. Gentlemen :—W . G. Grace, F. S. Jackson, A. C. MacLaren, J. R. Mason, S. M. J. Woods, G. MacGregor, C. L. Townsend, G. L. Jessop, F. H. E. Cunliffe, F. G. Bull, A. E. Stoddart (or F. G. J. Ford). Players :—Shrewsbury, Abel, Gunn, Lilley, Hayward, Lockwood, Brockwell, J. T. Hearne, Tunnicliffe, Alec Hearne (or David­ son), Mold (or Richardson). Now one might make a dozen alterations here without materially interfering with the strength of the teams. Personally, con­ sidering that there are seven or eight other bowlers in the side, I should prefer Murdoch, George Brann, or Lionel Palairet to Cunliffe. I am not at all sure that Kortright is not better worth a place just now than Jessop. I should not think for a moment of leaving out Stoddart, even for so great a player as Francis Ford. I should play Albert Ward in preference to Gunn, Tyldesley rather than Tunnicliffe, and Storer instead of Hayward. And yet one could hardly leave Hayward out of a Players’ team. But certainly there is no reason why both Storer and Lilley should not be given places on the same side. A great batsman is not the less a great batsman because he can keep wicket. But of him in whose honour the match is being played —to whom, as it were, it is specially dedicated—what can one say of W.G. that has not been said again and again ? It seems idle to attempt it. Idle, too, in one sense, seems any comparison between him and any other player—yet it has struck me that by such comparison (not with one player only, but with the greatest among his con­ temporaries) one might best show how great has been W .G .’s prowess in the cricket-field. I have, therefore, compiled the first-class averages of thirty really representative first- class batsmen over the whole of their careers up to the present (that is, to July 0, 1898, inclusive), and give them hereunder. Note that all the thirty have been W .G .’s con­ temporaries (all but four or five of them are still playing first-class cricket), that all have played in over 100 innings, and that no one is given a place whose average does not reach 25. Of course, there are many great batsmen whose names are absent (A. P. Lucas, A. J, Webbe, Ulyett, Barnes, Maurice Read, Frank Sugg, and A. N. Hornby among them); but of these none have averages so high as those of the first twenty or so in the table. Those given include five Australians (besides Mur­ doch), ten English professionals, and fifteen English amateurs (including Murdooh); so- that I think I may fairly call it a representa­ tive list. W .G .’s batting figures in first-class matches up to Saturday last are : — 1,244 innings, 90 times not out, 47,463 runs.— Average, 41 12. These probably will not agree with some totals given. I may say, then, that of the matches given in the Rev. Harold A. Tate’ s capital little book of W .G .’s scores, I have excluded the following as not being strictly first-class:— All matches for South Wales Club (1864 and 1865). In 1872. M.C.C. v. XV . Colts and next X X ., and M.C.C. v. Herts. In 1873, M.C.C. v. Herts and Staffordshire. In 1872 and 1873, supplementary North v. South matches at Oval (games p ayed merely to fill up time after the finish of the match proper). In 1877, M.C.C. v. X X II. Colts. In 1893 and 1894, Reigate matches (not included by sporting papers at time, though I think they should have been). As to most of these, I think there can be no real difference of opinion. Anyway, I have not space to argue about them just now. COMPLETE FIRST-CLASS AVERAGES OF 30 REPRESENTATIVE BATSMEN (To July 11, 1698). No. Times Present of not Total Hgst. Batsman. age. inns. out. runs. Aver, score. K. S. Ranjitsinhji... 26 199 24 8,478 4844 260 A. C. MacLaren ... 26 221 14 7,598 36*70 424 Shrewsbury (A.) ... 42 674 73 21,662 36 04 267 J. Darling ... ... 27 12£ 4 4,212 3569 194 Hayward (T.)......... '21 238 24 6,855 32-17 229* W. W. Read ......... 42 749 53 22.330 3208 338 F. A. Iredale.......... 31 140 8 4,217 3194 187 A. E. Stoddart 35 490 13 15,212 3191 215* Gunn (W.) .......... 3!) 682 61 19.719 31-75 230 L. C. H. Palairet ... 28 259 12 7,836 31-72 292 C. T. Studd .......... 37 163 23 4,360 3114 175* Storer (W.) .......... 30 195 22 6,373 31*05 160* Ward (A.) .......... 32 423 31 12,059 30-76 219 F. S. Jackson.......... 27 309 20 8.851 3062 147 Quaife (W.G.) 26 139 13 3.548 3058 178 Abel (R .)................. 88 695 40 19,915 30*40 250 J. R. Mason .......... 24 ‘20i 6 5,971 10,955 29 85 183 G. Giffen................. 39 391 22 29-68 271 A. G. Steel .......... 39 249 22 6,663 29 35 148 H. T. Hewett.......... 34 187 8 5,181 2894 201 Brown (J. T.) .. ... 28 363 84 9,491 28 84 311 Lilley (A. A .)......... 3D 159 12 4,196 23*54 158* W. L. Murdoch ... 42 559 45 14,179 27 58 321 W. H. Patterson ... 89 272 19 6,697 26-47 181 Brockwell (W. H.) 32 325 28 7,849 26 42 2*25 Sir. T. C. O’Brien... 36 429 28 10,555 2632 202 H. W . Bainbridge 35 226 11 5,888 2616 162 S. E. Gregory.......... 28 258 29 5,982 2612 201 K. J. Key................. 33 483 58 11,030 25*95 281 J. J. Lyons ......... 35 277 12 6,769 25*54 149 * Signifies not out. W .G . is within measurable distance of his 50,000 runs. That great batsman, Walter Read, has finished his career, and has only scored a little over 22,000. Arthur Shrews­ bury is still playing, and apparently almost as good as ever; but it is very unlikely that he will last long enough to make 30,000. Of the rest, it can scarcely be said that any but Gunn and Abel are certain of making 20,000. The last-named is so near that he may have passed the mark before this is printed. One batsman has an average superior to W .G .’s. But, with all due deference to the tremendous ability of the Indian Prince, I venture to affirm that none can believe that this proves his superiority to the Doctor. Setting aside the fact that many of W.G.’s earlier scores were made on grounds whose natural difficulties were far greater than any Ranji has had to bat upon, one may fairly call attention to this : That Ranji’s runs were all made in five English and one Australian season; that only one of these six seasons (1894) was a bad-wicket one, and that in that year he had but very few innings. This gives him an advantage, not only over W.G., but over nearly every other batsman in the