Cricket 1899

390 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. S e p t , 7, 1899. represent England at Lord’s, and miser­ ably failed ; while the Past and Present Universities’ X I ., Leicestershire, and Derbyshire were overwhelmed. England, for the time being, was in absolute despair, and when the third match was played another hollow defeat was freely prophesied. It is amusing to read the Australian newspapers which have just arrived. They give accounts of the second England match, and one would think from them that England had already not only been offered up for sacrifice, but devoured; and yet they only reflect what was said and thought here at the time. It would be useless to attempt to disguise the fact that Englishmen were at this time in the position of Gus Elen’s hero, who “ dunno where ’e are.”Somehow or other defeat did not come, and the match when it was abandoned owing to rain was in an even position, either side being equally justified in claiming that it would have won. England began to pull itself together at once. But we had notquite recovered our equanimity, and when Notts declared and tumbled out the Australians in the famous second innings, we were only mildly interested. The victories, having received a temporary check, still went on, and scratch teams both at Truro and Edgbaston, as well as Gloucestershire, went down before the conquering Australians. So far the record was brilliant in the extreme:— 20 matches played, 12 won, 1 lost, and 7 drawn, of which three were drawn very decidedly in their favour, while none of them could be said to be against them. But slowly the wheel of fortune was beginning to turn. The Midland eleven fought sturdily, and was only beaten at the post, while Gloucestershire gave our visitors almost a fright, and from this time they had to concentrate all their energies to stave off defeat. This new period of the tour began in the England match at Manchester, where Noble played two of the most remarkable innings ever seen in the “ test ” matches, and, almost unaided, saved his side from imminent disaster. Again, in the following match at the Crystal Palace was it necessary to play steadily and persistently for a draw, and then the crash came. The Surrey eleven, smarting under their ignominious defeat at the commencement of the season, turned the tables in an unmis­ takable manner; and although Trumper’s 300 against Sussex, and a decisive defeat of the M .C.C. for the second time at Lord’s made the world wonder, the era of continued success was over. Since the time of the England match at Manchester the reputation of the Austra­ lians for playing an uphill game began to increase rapidly— much more rapidly than their rate of scoring, which at times almost touched the irreducible minimum. In August their slow scoring became a byword. But it is difficult to see why they should be blamed for keeping up their wickets, without bothering about the scores, in matches which they could not possibly win. They frequently had to play for a draw, and adopted the system which suited them best— and this is the head and front of their offending. But of the sweets of winning they tasted very little. They had not the best of the match against Hampshire; they, of course, beat Warwickshire; but to the general surprise (for although Kent was very strong the Australians were still considered invincible) they were beaten by Kent in a match of which the com­ pletehistory will, perhaps, never be written. It was about this time that attempts were made to start newspaper discussions on the subject of the decay of English cricket, but although there were plenty of offers there were no takers. Then came the famous match at the Oval against England— the last and most important of the series. Here again the visitors had to play an uphill game, and did it remarkably well, once more suc­ ceeding in making a draw. A t Bristol, they had considerable anxiety, but again pulled through with a draw. A t Lord’s, where they were invariably successful, they beat M iddlesex; at Taunton they had the best of the draw; at Liverpool, Lancashire were the better team ; while at Scarborough the game was drawn in an even condition, and even if they had been beaten it would not have greatly mattered to them, for it is not natural for men on either side to put in all they know when holiday time is so nearly at hand. They ended the season with a victory over a strong batting but'weak bowling team at Hastings, after being put in first when they lost the toss. It may be well to give here a few details about the tour. The number of matches played was 35, of which 16 were won, 3 lost, and no fewer than 16 were drawn, while of their drawn matches only five can be said to have promised morally certain victories—against South of Eng­ land at the Crystal Palace, against England at Nottingham, Yorkshire at Bradford, and Somersetshire at Taunton. Of the 18 matches against counties 7 were won, 3 lost, and 8 drawn— not at all a brilliant record. The beaten counties were Surrey (1), Lancashire (1), Middle­ sex, Warwickshire, Derbyshire, Leicester­ shire, and Gloucestershire (1). Four matches were played at Lord’s, all of which were won. To summarise the results of the tour, it may be said that of the 16 victories one was against England, two against the M .C.C., seven against counties, one against a university, and five against scratch team s; the three losses were all against counties; the drawn games were four against England, eight against counties, one against university, and three against scratch teams. It is to be feared that the result of the tour must be very disappointing to the Australians, for with the exception that the team won the only match against England which was finished, it has done nothing to show the supremacy of Australia. Possibly the one victory over England will be ample consolation for other disappointments, but England has been beaten before without loss to her reputation. After all that has been said and written about Australian tours, it is possible to lose sight of the fact that their nominal object is— or was— the improvement of cricket. From this point of view Englishmen have, undoubtedly, to some extent benefited from the present visit of the Australians. W e have learned— or ought to have learned— that a captain has not done his whole duty when he arranges who shall go in first, etc., and changes his bowling after about every forty orfifty runs and places his field according to diagram. W e have learned, or ought to have learned, that there is something in bowling besides Bping a good length, and that it is a good thing to keep wide awake in the field. In batting we have learned nothing much, unless it be that you can often get out of a difficulty by hanging your bat in a vertical position, and trusting to Providence to do the rest. From us the Australians can have had practically nothing to learn, except in the matter of scoring runs quickly, and even in this they had so many examples of slow scores before them that they may well be excused if they have not profited from watching fast scoring. What might have been the result of the tour if Clement Hill had been able to play all through the season is a matter for speculation; it is certain that the team was enormously handi­ capped by his absence through illness during the second half of theseason. But it is impossible to say what might have happened if such and such a man had played. Of the individual members of the team, Jones still keeps up his reputation as a bowler. Trumble, in addition to being about the best bowler, proved himself to be one of the most useful bats. He has alto­ gether greatly added to his fame. Until the middle of the season Noble was by far the best all round man in the team, while McLeod may be said to have taken his place at the end of the season. Iredale did some brilliant things, but was on the whole disappointing. On several occasions Worrall was a tower of strength to his side. Trumper was often brilliant in the extreme, but was not at all consistent. Except on rare occasions Howell did nothing of note, and quite failed to come up to his reputation as a bat. Kelly, who kept wicket in nearly all the matches, was always to be depended on. Gregory and Laver were only good at intervals. Hill was as admirable as ever until his breakdown. On the whole it may be said that the team was good all round, and that no individual stood out with the prominence of a Spofforth or a Murdoch. As a captain Darling’s judg­ ment was never at fault, and he often showed all his old skill as a batsman. W . A . Bettesworth. HAMPSTEAD v. CHARLTON PARK.—Played at Hampstead on August 30. H am pstead . A. E. Stoddart, c Me- Canlis, q Pease ...60 G. L. Jeffery, bOgilvy 30 L. Holland, b Pease ... 24 J.G.Q,.Besch,c Robert­ son, b Thomas........ 3 E.A.Cox, lbw.bMurrin 21 E. L. Marsden, b Murrin .................62 T.M.Farmi!oe,notout 39 J. C. Toller, not out... 11 Byes ................. 8 Total (6 wkts.)*248 A. J. East, E. 8. Young and R. Matthews did not bat. C h a b lto n P a r k . W. McCanlis, not out 65 R. G. Cowley, b Toller 20 H.C.Ogilvy, bMarsden 4 T.Haslerigg,bStoddart 2 S.R.Sargent,bStoddart 4 8. Robertson,bStoddart 0 ' S.H.Thomas,bStoddart 0 Murrin, b Stoddart ... 5 8. H .Pease, b Marsden 7 A. N. Other, absent... 0 O. N. E. More, absent 0 B 11, lb 2, n b l ... 14 Total .111