Cricket 1899

A ug . 17, 1899. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 355 IS EN G L ISH CR ICKET D E C A Y IN G ? With a laudable endeavour to find out whether there is any truth in the rumour which was circulated some time ago that English cricket is decaying, or, perhaps, only with the idea of providing entertainment for its readers during the holiday season, the Daily Telegraph has interviewed Shrewsbury, Mr. Key, and Albert Trott upon the subject. The gist of the varying views of these cricketers is to be found in the following extracts :— ARTHUR SHREWSBURY. He unreservedly expressed the opinion that for the moment Eaglish cricket is under a cloud. We have not got any “ great ” bowler this season—no man equal to Lockwood or Richardson in their prime. But not only is our bowling weak, but, according to Shrewsbury, our batting is not nearly so formidable as it was a decide ago. Whilst admitting freely that the present Australian team is a very fine all-round combination, Shrewsbury maintains that the eleven is not the strongest that has visited this country. It is England’s temporary weakness that magnifies the prowess of the 1899 Australian team. The Colonials have not a Spofforth, a Palmer, a Garratt, a Giffen, a Banaermau, nor a Blackham. Trumble may be a good bowler, but, without disparaging his abilities, he is not, said Shrewsbury, very effective on a good wicket. In the old days England could knock up large scores against what Shrewsbury believes to have been farbetter bowlers than are to b9 found in the ranks of the present Australian representatives. Against the 1882 combination—-one of the strongest, perhaps the strongest, that ever left the Antipodes—England more than held her own. The Austra­ lians have not, Shrewsbury maintains, improved very materially of late years, although the opinion is very general that the Mother Country is being rapidly left in the rear. Everything will be righted in a season or two. A really first-class bowler, such as a Lockwood, a Richard­ son, or an Attewell at their best, would have made all the difference in the world in the test-matches. Respecting fielding, the Australians are, according to Shrewsbury, no better than Englishmen. Our catching and ground work is every whit as good as theirs, and with all due deference to Kelly, he cannot be compared to Black­ ham at his best behind the sticks. Therefore, taking a wide and general survey of the whole question, “ Is English Cricket Decaying ? ” Arthur Shrewsbury holds that, despite the fact that at pre­ sent there is a temporary set-back, we will be able to hold our heads up in a year or two, and once more take the foremost place in the cricketing nations. MR. K . J. KEY . “ Is English cricket going back ? ” “ Certainly not,” said Mr. Key. “ It is advancing prodigiously, and if anything batting has advanced at a greater rate than bowling. But it must not be over­ looked that the wickets have improved wonderfully of recent years. On most grounds a wicket lasts for the whole three days, which it never did years ago.” The suggestion that thereby the advan­ tage of winning the toss had been minimised was accepted by Mr. Key. “ But, of course,” he added, “ it is far better to bat first on a good, true wicket. It is not safe to place too much reliance on our English climate.” “ Are our bowlers, in your opinion, as clever and resourceful as they were a decade ago ? ” “ Our bowling has not deteriorated in the slightest. If our bowlers are not so deadly, it is because they have not the same assistance from the wickets as their predecessors had. If you could put our present-day bowlers on the same wickets, they would do as well—maybe better— than the old heroes. Wickets of the billiard-table pattern have broken bowlers’ hearts, and, moreover, the strain of bowling and fielding through an innings of 400 or 500 runs tells severely on them.” “ And has our fielding fallen offp” “ Not at all. It has improved quite as much as our batting. Our own team is not a very brilliant example of fielding, but take a side like Yorkshire or the Australians—I have never seen fielding like that of the Australians. It is absolutely superb. What do I think of the Australians ? They are undoubtedly the best all-round team that has ever visited this country. They may not have a man who stands out, as Spofforth did, but they are a very strong combination. “ The question whether the Australian bowlers are superior to ours is an awkward one. The attack of our visitors is very steady. They have several very good bowlers, but the trundlers very largely owe their success to the magnificent fielding. Moreover, the way their field is placed is unusual to our batsmen, who find it exceedingly difficult to get the ball clear of the field.” ALBERT TROTT. So far as he has had opportunities of judging—and these opportunities have surely been unique—he does not think that English cricket is falling off. “ But,” he added, “ the Australians are, without doubt, superior to the English teams they have been meeting, although they have had some reverses. They have outplayed the Englishmen all through.” “ Is cricket taken as seriously in Eng­ land as in Australia P” “ I do not think county matches arouse so much enthu­ siasm in this country as the intercolonial game3 do in Australia. 'Ihe contests between the different colonies are looked upon as international affairs, just as the test matches are here. Thirty or forty thousand spectators are often present at an intercolonial game. Again, there are no draws in Australia. How could it be prevented in tljis country ? By playing out the matches, ot oourse.” Turning to fielding, Trott declared that there were many fine fielders in this country. “ I have never seen, I think, a more brilliant fieldsman than Mr. A. C. MacLaren ; yet I fancy the Australians, taken collectively, are as good a fielding side as could be got together in this country. They study their fielding more than Englishmen. If a man is pottering about a silly point is immediately put to catch him.” INCOGNITI T. LA N SD O W N .-Pliyed at Bath on August 7 and 8. L a n s d o w n . W . Trask, c Prichard, b Miller .................. 35 Rev. J. C. Church, b Schwarz ................... 2 A. J. Deirlove, c and b Miller ...................59 H. L. Macdonald, c Miller, b Hoare ... 6 F. A. Jones, c Neime, b Gibb ................. 55 Capt. Hill, c Murray, b tfoare ...................43 I n c o g n it i . First innings. H . A. Francis, c Heathcote, b Bucknell..........................23 H. G. Barlow, c sub., b Marconi .......................... 15 R. 0 . Schwarz, c Mac­ donald. b M arconi...........45 A. H. Delm£-Radcliffe, c Church, b M -irconi........... 5 Capt. Prichard, c Mac­ donald, b Bucknell...........18 J.A.Gibb, c Church, b Trask 58 A. P. Neame, c Macdonald, b M arconi...........................12 G. R Murray, b Stranac^... 9 H. J. Ho re, b Stranack .. 0 A. J. P. Miller, not out ... 1 W . P. Carpmael, b Trask .. 0 Extras ...........................17 W . MarcDni, c Pri­ chard, b Schwarz ... 56 Bucknell, b Schwarz 8 G. B. Scobell, b Hoare 1 J. C. Heathcote, not out ..........................10 C. Stranack, c Pri­ chard, b Schwarz ... 1 E x tr a s ................. 8 Total ...284 Seconl innings. c and b Bucknell 3 c Trask,b Marconi 11 not o u t .................201 c Heathcote, b B u eineil........... 3 c Hill, b Church 33 b M arconi...........21 c Hill, b Scobell 26 not o u t................. 9 st Heathcote, b Stranack........... 8 Extras........... 8 Total ...................208 Total (7 wkts) 323 CRYSTAL PALACE v. NORBURY P A R K .- Played at Crystal Palace on August 12. C r y s t a l P a l a c e . E. H. Lulham, c Plum­ mer, b Sleat ........... 0 E. vV. Dillon, c Snow­ den, b H olm es.........76 J. M. Campbell,b Sleat 131 W . F. L b’rith, b Sleat 24 Rev. K. Clarke, b Sleat 2 W. J. Parry, b Holmes 24 R. H. Dillon,b Holuxes 0 H.W . Dillon, b Sleat.. 14 A. B. Cipriani, b 81eat 1 G. Cosens, c Cattling, b Holmes.................. 9 E.T.Campbell,notout 4 Extras ........... 9 Total ...294 N o r b u b y P a r k . W . R. Manning, b Lul­ ham ........................... 0 W .E. Hobbs, b Lulham 14 F. Holmes, b Jfl. W. Dillon.......................... Sleat, c E. W . Dil'.on, b Lulham .................. S. G, Bowditch.bE.W . D illon ........................ P. Wilson, runout ... 18 C. J. Snowden, b E.W . Dillon ................... 5 H. Hazell, not out ... 35 S. Cattling, c Lulham, b E. W. Dillon ... 63 H. Plummer, c 11. H. Dillon,bE.W .Dillon 0 H. C. Dight, b Lulham 3 Extras................... 6 Total ...152 STREATHAM v. SURBITON.—Played at Streat­ ham on August 12. S u r b it o n . H. J. Davenport, c H. A. Davenport, b Kerr, b S c o tt......... 49 Hooper .................. 3 R A. Beer, bHooper 51G. F. Allen, b Miller 0 C. E. Finlason,c Miller, F. W. Henderson, lbw, b H oop er.................. 51 b Miller ..................... 0 J. A. E. Hickson, c H. J. Bryant, run out 1 Miller, b Hooper ... 5 W . Philpotr, not out 0 S.Lloyd-Jones, c Scott, B 2, lb 5 ................ 7 b Miller ................ 12 — H. A. C. Sheriff, c T o ta l....................179 Miller, b Hooper ... 0 S t b e a t h a m . C.J.Parton,b Finlason 13 E. S. Bailey, b Henderson ........... 7 N. Miller, b Finlason 82 H. S. Barkworth, c and b S h e riff.................. 16 H. H. Scott, b Sheriff 4 F. M. Leaf, b H. J. Davenport ...........94 E. Field, not out ... 26 J. F. W . Hooper, not out ...........................15 B 10, lb 6, w 2, nb 3 21 Total . 278 D. O. Kerr, Dr. Young and E. P. Pulbrook did not bat.