Cricket 1899

J uly 20, 1899. C R IC K E T : A W E E K L Y R E C O R D O F T H E G A M E . 291 A U S T R A L I A N C R I C K E T E R S IN E N G L A N D . From the Sydney Mail. There is considerable difference between the composition of tbe English Eleven on the present occasion and that which took part in the three matches played in England. Six only have represented the mother country previously, viz., Ranjit­ sinhji, Jackson, Grace, Hayward. Gunn, and Hearne. Two of the remaining five have played in test matches in Australia, viz., Hirst and Storer, while three, viz., Pry, Rhodes, and Tyldesley, made their debut in international cricket. The intro­ duction of so much new blood indicated one of three things— that the new man­ agement of these important fixtures was taking the bold step of discarding those who were leading in the averages last year but who, at the time of selection, had failed this season, that if they were in good enough form they preferred to play for their county in an easy cham­ pionship match to appearing for their country, or that some of them, still feel­ ing sore over the disruption of 1896, had declined to taka pirt. Cjlour was lent to the second and third views by the fact that only one of the Surrey team was in the eleven. It would be regrettable if anything had happened to prevent England being fully represented. Sur­ prise was expressed at the non-inclusion of Abel, and we now learn by cable that he has put up the phenomenal feat of going in first and carrying his bat for 357 in so great a total as 811. Eight of the present Australian Eleven have played against England in England, viz., Kelly, Gregory, Iredale, Hill, Trumble, Darling, Worrall (in 1888), and Jones. Or' the remaining six, three have represented Australia in the colonies, viz., Noble, Howell, and McLeod, and a like number (Laver, Trumper, and Johns) have yet to win their spurs. Seven of the English Eleven have visited Australia—Grace, Ranjitsinbji, Hearne, Hayward, Hirst, Storer, and Gunn—all but Grace and Gunn having been included in Stoddart’s last team. In 1873 the great “ W .G .” first came to Aus­ tralia, and it is a remarkable fact that he was then captain, a position that he occu­ pied in this match. To secure two hun­ dreds in a first-claSs match is considered to be a remarkable performance, and yet of the ten times it has been done no fewer than seven of them are claimed by mem­ bers of the present English combination, W . G. Grace, thrice; Ranjitsinhji, Fry, Storer, and Tyldesley once each, whilst not one of the Australians is in the list. 'Ihe first test match was played in Melbourne in 1877, and was won by Aus­ tralia by 45 runs. It was remarkable for three incidents—C. Bannerman’s score of 165 (retired hurt), the victory was the first gained by Australians on even terms, and thirdly, two Australians, destined to make history in the world’s cricket, Spofforth and Murdoch, champions in their departments, did not take part. Spofforth wanted Murdoch to keep wickets, as ho did not think Blackham could take him. The selectors of the Australian Eleven wanted the Victorian and the latter played. In the second match Spofforth and Murdoch were chosen, and Australia lost by four wickets. It was not until September, 1880, that the first test match in England eventu­ ated. That engagement was remarkable for W. G. Grace’s 152 and Murdoch’s 153 not out. England won by five wickets. Since then the England v. Australia en­ gagements have found a regular place in the English programme. The first sensational finish was at the Oval in 1882, when Australia won by seven runs. The excitement was intense; in fact a sudden death occurred amongst the spectators just as the match was won. No finer exhibition of pluck has ever been witnessed than was shown on the Ken- nington Oval that day by the Australians. When Grace retired there still remained six of the finest bits iu England to make 32 runs, and, on paper, the match was as good as an eisy victory for England. But what happened ? Instead of losing heart, the two bowlers, Spofforth and Boyle, bowled perhaps as they never bowled before. Twelve consecutive overs were sent down to Alfred Lyttelton and A. P. Lucas without a single run being scored; and keeping up that magnificent form they got rid of the remaining six wickets for 25 runs. Many of the bats­ men were said to be in a highly nervous state, and one amateur admitted, as he walked from the pavilion to the crease, that he did not know whether he had a bit or a broomstick in his hand. Massie played a marvellous innings for 55. In 1885, at Sydney, Australia secured a six runs’ victory; in 1887, also at Sydney, England won by 13 runs ; and at the Oval in 1890 by two wickets. In 1894, at Sydney, Australia required 19 and had four wickets to fall, and lost by 10 runs, after having had a great lead on the first innings. Gregory scored 201 in 244 minutes, and, with Blackham, added 154 for the ninth wicket. In 1896, at Man­ chester, the finish was so exciting that those Australians who had lost their wickets left the ground before the finish. They, however, won by three wickets. Ranjitsinhji sored 62 and 154 notout, and Iredale 108. Of the 51 matches that have been played, England has won 26, Australia 19, six have been drawn, and one (at Manchester) was abandoned without a ball being bowled. SOUTHGATE T. FINCHLEY.—Played at South­ gate on July 15, F in c h le y . W . P. Harrison, c and M. McLutchie, b b Bawtree.................. 56 Roberts .................... 5 L. Neiderheitmann, c V. Riehnburg, b Beviogton,bRicketts 20 Ricketts ...................15 B.Venables, b Ricketts 1 L. Fennell, b Roberts 5 W . B. Fowler, c Rick- J. N. Walsh, c Harris, etts, b Bawtree ... 14 b Ricketts ............ 1 F. A. Tuck, lbw, b F. Fower, not out 0 Bawtree ................. 7 Leg-bye..................... 1 Drewell, c Bevington, — b Rose ................. 7 T o t a l.......................132 8 o u t h g a t e . L. D. 8mith, b Neider- heitm ann...................?8 F. S. Lewis, lbw, b Neiderheitmann ... 7 A . Ricketts, not o u t... 67 J. C. Bevington, not out ......................... 48 B 9, lb 9, nb 2 ...2 0 Total (2 wkt8)...180 8. W. 8c»tt, H. F. Bawtree, E. F. Rose, F. D. Roberts, T. H. C. Levick, A . 8. Harris and A. W . Sharp did not bat. C lo r rfS p onO cn ce . The Edit.r does not hold himself resoonsible for tht opinions of h>s correspondents. SPORT IN CRICKET. To the Editor of Cricket. S i r , —In your last issue, speaking of Abel’s run out, your reporter writes :— “ He was accordingly run out, although Mr Jephson, with a pardonable ( s i c ! ) hesitation, did not return the ball as promptly as he might and would have dme under ordinary circumstances.” May I ask, as one of the most faithful readers of Cricket since Vol. I., No. 1 was published, if this is purely reportorial, or if it represents the editoral view of the incident likewise ? If the latter is not the case, surely the organ of the game should disavow with no uncertain voice such rank heresy. Por what does it amount to ? Clearly that Mr. Jephson deliberated as to whether he should not alio v Abel to remain in and pile on more runs. Pardonable hesitation, forsooth ! It is sincerely to be hoped that your reporter grossly maligns Mr. Jephson, for if there is any justification for his suggestion, Mr. Jephson should bs taught what cricket is, and wherein it differs from a feeble form of “ bumble puppy.” Chivalry at cricket is all very well in theory, but surely out of place altogether under such circum­ stances as these, and I wond :r what would have been said if-assuming Mr. Jephson’s hesitation was correctly gauged —-he bad had the spirit to do as he at one time intended ! Besides, if such chivalry ( sic!) is allow­ able in one case, why not in others? Where is the line to be drawn ? It is grievous hard lines for any man playing in a test match, Bay, to be bowled neck and heels for a “ round ’un.” Would but chivalry suggest that it should always be considered, under such circumstances, “ a trial ball ? ” Or, when a man, playing for his talent money, has got into the “ forties” or “ nineties,” and has the cruel luck to get out. Should not the opposing captain have at least just as much “ par­ donable hesitation” in allowing him to retire to the pavilion, and would not the truer chivalry prompt him to say, “ Never mind, old chap, we won’t count that ball, have another kuock ! ” Turee years ago, in 'the test match at Lord’s, Mr. P. S. Jackson was caught just in front of the members’ dining room by, I fancy, Donnan—I have no work of reference handy, and so cannot verify. The previous ball— also hit by Jackson—might have been caught by the same fieldsman a little further back, i f the spectators hadn’t been crowding over the ropes and so cur­ tailed to an appreciable extent the field of play. At the time—and Wisden of the following year, if memory serves me, makes a similar statement— it was said Mr. Jackson “ deliberately threw away his wicket,” became Donnan might have caught him off the previous ball but for the crowd. All I want to know is whether Cricket, the weekly record and recognised organ of the game, affirms this as being cricket.