Cricket 1899

102 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. M ay 4, 1899. Australian Eleven. Apart from any considera­ tion of form, the selectors were confronted with the difficulty of the no-ball crusade initiated by Phillips in England in 1898, and the feeling was so strong that McKibbin’s presence in the team would bring down on them the displeasure of the English umpires, that they were really forced into leaving him behind. Again, the slow bowler did not in the test matches maintain the form he showed in Sydney when the South Australians went down before him. The array of batting talent and high aver­ ages obtained would indicate the present strength of Australia with the willow. How fairly the selectors have gone on this year’s form, combined with the performances against the Englishmen, may be fairly gauged from the interesting tables published below. The first seven batsmen are among the chosen, and can be taken as the pick of the colonies at the present time. The same remark will apply to the bowling, as of the leading bowlers the five who are at the head of the averages are in the team. Hill, as the undoubted champion batsman, holds the lead comfortably from Kelly, who, with four not outs may be termed the handicap man. Laver has earned third position by sheer pluck and oonsistency on the good and bad wickets, but unless Noble gets going on some of the dry pitches in England there is a shadow of doubt regarding his reaching the coveted thousand runs. Iredale and Darling, we know, are safe enough; and the wonderful innings Worrall has played during this season, rounded off so brilliantly on Wednesday by the slashing drive for 5, have brought him into competition with Australia’s finest hitters. Good judges now regard him as one of the best wet-wieket batsmen in the world. The most improved all-round man of the year is Giller, who has made rapid strides to the front rank. Though he may scarcely be fit for an Australian eleven, such an earnest, whole-souled cricketer should yet win the highest honours, and he is one of the likeliest of the younger generation of cricketers who will be ready to receive an international mantle when one of the present wearers has to put his on one side. Though McLeod’s batting reputation is under a temporary cloud, no question can be raised as to his success with the ball. He has done good things on wickets that have helped him and pitches that have not given him any assistance, and has thoroughly fulfilled the great promise he gave in 1894-5. George Giffen’s figures, both with bat and ball, indicate a marked falling-off from those of former years, yet he has shown that he has not entirely lost his skill. Trumble, McLeod, Howell, Jones, and Noble, are Australia’s great bowlers, and each in turn has had his “ day out.” South Aus­ tralia twice and New South Wales once were powerless against Trumble. One could go on particularizing the performances, but the averages may fairly be left to speak for themselves, except for the remark concerning our own colony that we badly want another bowler to support Jones. The question of who are coming along to help maintain the standard of Australian cricket is full of interest to lovers and followers of the game. The star of our continent is Bhining with full brilliancy now, but unless care be taken it may be outshone by the radiance of the illuminant of England’s firma­ ment. In other words, we must carefully guard the nurseries of cricket to which we have to look for recruits. The season’s play has shown promise in batting talent, but nothing startling in the bowling. South Australia has introduced Hack, Chinner, and Peters into the arena, and the intercolonial opinion of the first-named can be gathered from the fact that in his initial season h« was chosen to play for the Kest of Australia. In Yictoria there are Giller, Stuckey, McMichael, McAlister, and Warne—all batsmen, and only one who has shown any class bowling. The New South Wales colts are Trumper, Pye, and E. A. Duff. These are the names of the players which will occur to the student of the year’s cricket as the most likely to step into the shoes of the present international men. Every year sees one or two or more of the older cricketers drop quietly out —some more quietly than others—and it is of para­ mount importance that others should be ready. Most of the men who are now about to carry the Australian standard to England’s shores are at their zenith, and as the years roll by they will slowly but surely descend. One of the saddest remembrances of the season is the fate of poor Trott—so resourceful in his hatt­ ing, tricky in his bowling, and wise in judg­ ment on all points of the game. He was an ideal captain—of his colony’s eleven and of representative teams. Darling has succeeded to the leadership of his own colony’s eleven, and he will in all probability occupy the position in the Australian Eleven vacated by the great Victorian. The following are the averages in strictly first-class matches for the season just over:— BATTING. Times not Highest Inns. out. Runs, score. Aver. C. H ill................... .. 13 .. 1 .. 753 . . 159 ... 6358 J. J. K elly........... .. 10 .. 4 .. 364 . . 102*.. 6066 F. Laver ........... .. 13 .. 2 .. 581 . . 137*.. 52-81 M. A. Noble .. 11 .. 1 .. 477 . . I ll .. 47-70 F. A . Iredale ... .. 13 .. 1 .. 554 . . 98 .. 46-16 J. W orrall........... .. 12 .. 2 .. 458 . . 109 ... 46 80 J. D a rlin g ........... .. 11 .. 0 .. 465 . . 104 ... 42-27 J. M'Kenzie .. 4 .. 2 .. 83 . . 33*.. 41-50 H. Stuckey........... .. 7 .. 0 .. 263 . . 134 .. 37-57 T. Warne ........... .. 5 .. 2 .. 108 . . 63 .. 36 J. G. Giller........... .. 13 .. 0 .. 463 . . 116 .. 35-61 H. Donnan........... .. 9 .. 1 .. 278 . . 160*.. 3475 J. C. Reedman ... .. 14 ... 1 .. 395 . . 108 .. 3038 H. Graham........... .. 11 .. 0 ... 316 .. 124 ... 28-72 S. E. Gregory ... .. 14 .. 0 .. 375 .. . 89 ... 26-78 F. Jarvis ........... .. 10 .. 2 .. 203 . . 75*.. 2537 V. Trumper .. 13 .. 0 .. 328 . . 75 .. 25-23 W . Bruce ........... .. 7 .. 0 .. ,171 . . 73 .. 24 42 H. Trumble .. 11 .. 2 .. 218 . . 70 .. 24 22 A . C. K. Mackenzie .. 8 .. 1 .. 168 . . 62*.. 24 E. Jones ........... .. 11 .. 1 ... 235 .. . 82 .. 2350 G. Giffen ........... .. 14 .. 1 ... 310 . . 63 .. 23-38 J. J. Lyons.......... .. 10 .. 0 .. 207 . . 42 .. 20-70 A. Newell ........... .. 4 .. 0 .. 79 . . 48 .. 1975 R. A . D u ff........... .. 4 .. 0 .. 76 . . 42 .. 19 L. W . P y e ........... .. 9 .. 1 .. 138 . . 51 .. 17 25 C. M cL eod......... .. 10 .. 2 .. 137 . . 32 .. 1712 H. Chinner........... .. 4 .. 1 .. 51 . . 37*.. 17 W . P. Howell ... .. 10 ... 4 .. 94 . . 26 .. 1566 C. J. E a d y ........... .. 4 .. 1 .. 46 . . 23*.. 15-33 E. A . Peters .. 4 .. 1 .. 45 . . 18 .. 15 S. McMichael ... .. 7 ... 0 .. 95 . . 25 .. 1357 F. T. H ack........... .. 6 .. 0 .. 80 . . 35 .. 13*33 A. Coningham ... .. 6 .. 0 .. 72 . . 23 .. 12 A . E. Johns ... 11 ... 3 .. 78 . . 24*.. 9-75 T. R. M ‘Kibbin... ... 12 ... 1 .. 97 . . 27 .. 8-81 A. E. H. Evans... ... 4 ... 1 .. 25 . . 21 .. 833 V . H ugo ........... ... 6 ... 0 .. 41 . . 25 .. 6-83 A. H. Jarvis ... 6 ... 1 .. 23 ... 13 .. 4-60 A. Green ........... ... 4 ... 0 .. 16 .. 16 .. 4 The following also batted: —G. L. W ilson, 9'25; P. M ‘Alister, 210. BOWLING. O. M. R. W . Aver. C. M ’Leod ........... 284.2 ... 80 .. 647 ... 36 .. 17-97 H. T rum ble........... 329 ... 85 .. 754 ... 40 .. 18-85 J. F. Giller ........... 115.5 ... 24 .. 309 ... 14 .. 22-07 W . P. Howell 304.3 ... 87 .. 788 ... 32 .. 24-52 E. Jones.................. 418 ... 90 ..1187 ... 41 .. 2895 A. Coningham ... 67 ... 15 .. 210 ... 7 .. 30 M. A . N oble........... 328.1 ... 77 .. 942 ... 31 .. 30 38 F. Jarvis ........... 112.4 ... 27 .. 309 ... 10 .. 30*90 T R. M’ Kibbin ... 242 ... 42 .. 861 ... 27 .. 31-88 G. Giffen ........... 311 ... 43 ..1030 ... 29 .. 35-51 V. H ugo.................. 89 ... 29 .. 185 ... 5 .. 37 L. W . Pye ........... 168 ... 55 .. 463 ... 11 .. 4209 F. Laver.................. 150 5 ... 49 .. 439 ... 10 .. 43-90 J. Reedm an........... 58 ... 7 ... 18S ... 4 .. 47 C. J. Eady ........... 66.2 ... 12 .. 222 ... 4 .. 65-50 W ANTED.—Five good Professionals for Glouces­ tershire.—Apply, stating wages, etc., required, to Dr. E. M. G r a c e , Park House, Thornbury, Gloucestershire. INCOGNITI. M AY. 6. Camberley, v. R.M.C., Sandhurst 10. Woolwich, v. R.M .A., Woolwich 13. Hammersmith, v. St. Paul’s School 15. Aldershot, v. Aldershot Division* 19. Oxford, v. Christ Church* 22. Oxford, v. K etle College* 22. W illington, v. Kepton* 24. Oxford, v. New College 24. Uppingham, v. Uppingham* 26. Dunstable, v. L. C. R. Thring’s X I. 27. Vincent Square, v. Westminster School JUNE. 3 Abbey W ood, v. Lessnese Park 5. Sherborne, v. Sherborne School* 7. Clifton, v. Clifton Club 8. Cheltenham, v. East Gloucestershire 9. Cheltenham, v. Cheltenham College* 10. Esher, v. Esher 14. St. Quintin’s Park, v. Kensington Park 17. C ewer Park, v. Sir Henry Gooch’s X I. 19. Bickley, v. Bickley Park* 21. Crystal Palace, v. Crystal Palace* ‘/3. Chiswick, v. C. M. Tuke’s X I. 24. Blackheath, v. Black heath 26. Bury, v. Bury and West Suffolk* 28. Colchester, v. Colchester Garrison* 30. Alresford, v. Tichborne X I.* JULY. 8. Woolwich, v. Woolwich Garrison 12. Potter’s Bar, v. Northaw Place 14. Kgham, v. Baron de Worms’ X I.* 15. Wimbledon, v. Wimbledon 18. Wargrave, v. Wargrave Hill 19. Burton Court, v. Household Brigade 20. Beckenham, v. Beckenham 20. Witham, v. Witham* 22. Chelirsford, v, Chelmsford 24. Portsmouth, v. United Services* 24. Jersey, v. Jersey Garrison* 26. Winchfield, v. Hartley Row* 27. Jersey, v. Jersey Island* 28. Shoeburyness, v. School of Gunnery* 31. Balham, v. Upper Tooting* AUGUST. 2. Blackwater, v. Hawley House* 4. Westbury, v. W . H. Laverton’s X I.* 7. Bath, v. Lansdown* Torquay, v. Torquay* 11. Exmouth, v. Exmouth* 14. Exmouth, v. Exmouth* 16. Seaton, v. Seaton* 18. Sidmouth, v. Sidmouth* 21. Southampton, v. Hampshire Hogs* 23. Portsmouth, v. Hamsphire Rovers* 25. Bournemouth, v. Bournemouth* 28. Krighton, v. Gentlemen of Sussex* 30. Hastings, v. Hastings Club and Ground* SEPTEMBER. 1. Eastbourne, v. Eastbourne* * Two-day matches. OLD CITIZENS. This wandering team of Old Boys of the City of London School enters upon some stiff engagements, Hornsey, Granville (Lee), Clapton and Pallingswick appearing among its opponents. In August Eastbourne and Hastings and probably other South Coast cricket strongholds will be assailed. MAY. 6 Ltyton, v. Leyton 13. Acton, v. Pallingswick 20. Harrow, v. Harrow Town 20. Bexley, v. texley 22. Enfield, v. Enfield 22. Honor Oak, v. Honor Oak 27. Wormwood Scrubbs, v. Kensington JUNE. 3. Woolwich, v. Royal Artillery 10. Barnet, v. Barnet 17. Br. mley, v. Bromley Town JULY. 1. St. Quintin’s, v. South Hampstead 8. Beckenham Hill, v. City of London School 15. Slough, v. Slough 22. Norbury, v. Norbury Park AUGUST. 7. Clapton, v. Clapton 12. Lee, v. Granvflife (Lee) 14. Eastbourne, v. Devonshire Park* 16. Hastings, v. Hastings and St. Leonards 26. Bromley, v. Bromley Town SEPTEMBER. 2. Hornsey, v. Hornsey 9. Enfield, v. Enfie’d * Two-day match.