Cricket 1899

M a y 25 , 1899. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 155 To choose a team to represent England is always difficult; to choose it to the satisfaction of the majority of cricketers is next to impossible. This year the three members of the board and the two additional amateurs w ill have a task which w ill be envied b y nobody, for there is a multitude of batsmen and bowlers of about equal merit, while hardly any of them, more especially the latter, stand out prominently as better than their fellows. It is re­ ported that already six men have been chosen—W . G. Grace, F. S. Jackson, C. B. Fry, Mead, C. L. Townsend, and Storer. We imagine that not a voice would be raised against the choice of Jackson and Storer, and possibly Mead. A week ago C. B. Fry would have been chosen b y universal suffrage. There is only one thing that is absolutely certain about the selection of the team ; it will not meet with general approval— and would not do so this year if all the first- class cricketers in the country had been on the selection com ­ mittee. For there are not ha’f-a-dozen men whose selection would meet with universal approval. S o m e t h in g would seem to be wrong with cricket in Glas­ gow . “ It is now a full month since the cricket season started, ’ ’ says Scottish Sport, ‘ ‘ and the Glasgow public have only seen a single match. This is partly attributable to the dreadful weather, and partly to the luke­ warmness of several of our players. While we do not go in for playing in rain, we certainly think players ought to turn up, and wait to see how matters will go. A correspondent writes us regarding the non-adherence to Law 43, and states that really only one umpire decided on the unplayableness of the ground, when several of the less enthusiastic players departed. This is decidedly wrong, and no doubt it does seem strange that while some clubs can play, others can’t, or won’t. We fancy this is entirely due to the indecision of the captain of the teams involved.” I t may be that the question of the eligibility of K . 8. Ranjitsinhji to play for England and of Albert Trott to play for Australia will not be asked this year. There has never been any definite rule as to qualification, but in a general way a man has played for the country in which he learned his cricket. Percy McDonnell and Midwinter were b om in England, but they learned their cricket in Aus­ tralia and played as Australians. On the other hand, S. M. J. Woods was born in Australia, but learned his cricket in E n g­ land, but nobody questioned his right to play for Australia if his services were required. Albert Trott learned his cricket in Australia, and was born there. Ranjit­ sinhji learned his in England, though he was born in India. Would anyone have questioned the claim of W. Yardley, the famous batsman of times gone by, to play for England ? Y et he was born in Bombay. T h e cricket chroniclers, in commenting on Howell’s remarkable bow ling at the Oval against Surrey, most of them made reference to Barratt’s similar performance on the same ground in 1878 for the Players of the South against the first Australian team, the only occasion, it may be as well to reflect, in which a bowler has taken all ten wickets in an innings against any one of the ten Australian com ­ binations which have visited England. THE AUSTRALIANS COMING IN TO LUNCH, But none of them, as far as I have seen, |noticed a noteworthy incident in con- ! nection with the match of 1878. Barratt had the best of reasons for remembering it. To show appreciation of his fine bowling, a collection was made on the ground, and a goodly sum o f money was subscribed b y the Surrey crowd. The worst of it was that not a penny of it reached Barratt. The public had been “ h a d ” b y two of the light-fingered gentry, who went off quietly with the spoil. And so poor Barratt had none. “ S u c c e s s it is that makes the man, the want of it the villain.” S o the poet says, and he is not far wrong. Cricket captains have good reasons to appreciate the force of the quotation at times. One of them who has not been doing well this season received the follow ing anonymous com ­ munication : “ Dear Sir,—Permit me to call your attention to the fact that 1 have a large assortment of high-backed chairs for players who are past cricket.” What captain was it ? Can’t you guess ? A g o o d and keen cricketer has been lost b y the death of J. A. Gibb. If I remember rightly he was in the Eton eleven, at all events he was an Etonian. Subsequently he played a good deal in Surrey, and to the best of my recollec­ tion figured in the Somersetshire eleven on a few occasions. A book of his on cricket grounds contained a deal of valu­ able and practical information on their management and care. R e f e r r in g to Mr. Jessop’s big innings at Cambridge, a writer in the Oranta says: —“ I regret to say I was not one of those who were lucky enough to watch him compiling his runs. I never am. When I go to Fenner’s some idiot catches Mr. Jessop in the lon g field off his fourth ball — that is, after he has made twelve. When I do not go, he makes sixty a minute. I wonder why I have this sinister influence over him ? I think I shall goj next time di-guised as an aged don or bedmaker, to try to break the spell. _ r A CORRESPONDENT, whose ideas of what spring-time ought to be like do not seem to coincide with those of the clerk of the weather, writes that he recently went to see a first-class match. A t various intervals he saw four overs bowled, and he esti­ mates that his visit cost him at the rate of lOJd. per over, in­ cluding railway and omnibus fares. The follow ing are some of the latest hundreds:— APRIL. 8. H.Donnan,Burwoodv. Paddington (Sydney) 128 M AY . — K . 8. Singh, Pembroke v. Caius (Cambridge) 149 — G. E. "Winter, Trinity v. Jesus (Cambridge) 143 — J. H. Stogdon, Trinity v. King’s (Cambridge) 112 — E. F. Penn, Trinity v. Jesus, (Cambridge) ... 109 — T. B. Sills, St John’s v. Trinity (Cambridge) 103 — R. N. R. Blaker, Jesus v. King’s (Cambridge) 101 — T. S. W . Thomas, Queen’s v. Sydney (Camb.) 100* 15. C. C. Higginbotham, Aldershot Division v. Incogniti .......................................... HQ 17. Y. F. S. Crawford, Wanderers v. Bishop’s Stortford .......................................... 204 18. G. L. J essop , C am bridge U n iv . v . Y orks ... 171* 18. K. B, Alexander, Crystal Palace v. St. Bar­ tholomew’s Hospital.......................... 120 19. G. H. Swinstead, Artists v. Allahak-Barrie 106 19. B row n (ma.), Y orks , v . C am bridge U n iv . 168 19. F. S. J ackson , Y o rksh ire v . C am . U n iv .... 133 20. R. B. Brooke, Queramore v. S id cu p .......... 107 22 . A. Jones, Honor Oak v. Old Citizens......... 100* 22. E. Hudson, West Shene v. St. Mark’s, Ken. 110* 23. S. H. Day, Cambridge University First X I. v. Next X V I......................................... ico ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS. H. F. P la tt.— Sorry we cannot give you any surees- tioiu for a “ Novelty cricket match.’’