Cricket 1899

BO CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OE THE GAME. A p r i l 13, 1899 1892 there were very few matches in which he did not distinguish himself, either with the bat or the ball. W ith two such bowlers as Alfred Shaw and Morley in the team, the Notts captain did not pass sleepless nights in puzzling his brain as to which of his men he should put on first, but at least on one occasion Barnes was chosen b y Oscroft to begin the attack in place of Alfred Shaw, who would have been the last man in the world to raise objections, seeing that his side might be benefited b y the move. Notts were playing Kent at Canterbury in 1879. The home team had to make about a hundred on a wicket which was so obviously likely to suit Barnes that it would have been flying in the face of Providence not to give him a chance. A t the same time, few captains, knowing what Shaw could do on a tricky wicket, would have ventured to strike out a line of their own. The plan was eminently successful, Notts winning without difficulty, thanks chiefly to the fine bow ling of Barnes, who took eight wickets. Perhaps the bow ling performance to which Barnes would have pointed with the greatest pride was that of taking six wickets for 26 runs for Shaw, Shrewsbury and Lillywhite’s team of 1886 against New South Wales, at a time when the visitors seemed certain of a beating. New South Wales, who had to make 111 to win, were beaten after a desperate struggle b y 13 runs, thanks almost entirely to the way in which he rose to the occasion. Barnes was associated with Midwinter in the longest partner­ ship on record, the two Notts men raising the M .C.C. score against Leicestershire, in 1882, from 19 for tw o wickets to 473. O f this total of 454, Barnes made 226. Again, in 1885, in partnership with Gunn, he helped to put on 330 runs for the fourth wicket for Notts against Y ork ­ shire. His highest score in first-class cricket was 160 for Notts against Sussex in 1887. In conclusion, it may be said that his record in Gentlemen v. Players is as follows :— Batting, 30 matches, 51 innings, 5 times not out, highest score, 130 not o u t ; total, 1,263 runs; average, 27-45. Bowling, 23 matches, 2,630balls, 961 runs, 74 wickets; average, 12-98 runs per wicket. W . A. B e t t e s w o e t h . Below will be found a list of hundreds made b y Barnes in important matches :— Notts v. Kent, Canterbury (1877)......................... 109* M.C.C. v. Es-ex, Brentwood (1879) ... .....105 M.C.C. v- Oxford University. Lord's (1880) ... 118* Notts v. Gloucestershire, Cheltenham (1880) ... 143 M.C.C. v. Cambridge University L.V.C., Cam­ bridge (I860)....................................................107* M C.C. v. Lincolnshire. Lord’s (1881)..............103 M.C.C. v. Lancashire, Lord’s (188.?) ..............119 M.C.C. v. Leicestershire, Lord’s (1882) ......... 266 Notts v. Surrey, Oval (188^) ............................. 130 Notts v. Middlesex, Trent Bridge (1882) ......... 107 Notts v. Gloucestershire, Trent Bridge (1883) ... 120 M.C.C. v. Australians, Lord’s (1884) .............105* M.C.C. v. Suffolk, Lord’s (1884) ........................ 107 England v. Australia, Adelaide (1884)................ 134 M.C.C. v. Yorkshire, Lord's (1883) ................. 140* Notts v. Sussex, Brighton (1885) ........................ 104 M.C.C. v. Cumberland, Lord’s (1885) ................ 123 Notts v. Gloucestershire, Trent Bridge (1886) ... 156 M.C.C. v. Leicestershire, Lord’s (1886) ......... 153 England v. Victoria, Melbourne (1886) ......... 109 Notts v. Sussex, Brighton (1887) .......................... 160 Notts v. Middlesex, Trent Bridge (1837) ........... 115 Notts v. Sussex, Trent Bridge (1887) ................... 120 Notts v. Lancashire, Trent Bridge (1889) ........... 102 M.C.C. v. Oxford University, Oxford (1889) ... 105 Players v. Gentlemen, Lord’s (1889) .................. 130* Notts v. Yorkshire, Trent Bridge (1891) ...........104 Notts v. Sussex, Brighton (1893) .......................... 102 * Signifies not out. THE PLEA OF THE TASMANIANS. Under the heading of “ A Plea for the Man from Tasmania,” the follow ing appears in the Tasmanian M a il :— 1 Among the list of these names appear representatives of South Australia, Victoria, and New South Wales, but not one from Tasmania. Why is this? Is it that Tas­ manians have at any time during the last three or four years failed to justify the good opinions formed of them by their comrades and others when they have had an opportu­ nity of distinguishing themselves P Have not Eady, Bum, and Windsor been almost monotonously consistent in their efforts fighting for their colony against Victoria, the result being four wins out of the last five matches played. Could anyone desire to see a better or more brilliant innings than Burn played against the 1896 Australian eleven— probably the strongest combination which ever played in Australia or England ? Could his innings of 77 not out against New South Wales in Sydney recently, when Noble, M‘Kibbin, and Howell were straining their utmost for a place in the present Australian Eleven, be surpassed in any way, either for brilliancy, style, or effect? Does anybody wish to see a better performance than his 119 recently made against Victoria in Hobart ? Because, if so, one will need to go outside the limits of Australia for it. Only one effort surmounts Burn’s, and that was Clem Hill’s 181 in the fourth test match. That is regarded as one of the best innings ever played anywhere, and is likely to be always known as such. And Burn is not the only cricketer in Tasmania. Windsor’s 181 against New Zealand recently was a fine effort. He was only a few runs short of obtaining his hundred for the match against Victoria also. He averaged over 30 in Sydney each innings, and in the last North v. South match he made a good score in the first innings, and capped this by making 105 not out in the second, and undoubtedly winning the match for his side. His bowling, too, is first-class, and he has rarely, if ever, failed with both bat and ball. Eady, too, is undoubtedly the finest all-round cricketer Tasmania ever possessed, and is surpassed by very few in Australia. So few are they that they could be counted on the fingers of one hand, and then exclude the thumb. For years past his bowling has been the mainstay of Tasmania. Match after match he has won for his side, and the last match played in Melbourne he was actually the only recogaised bowler in the team, owing to the unavoidable absence of the others; but, thanks to his efforts, Tas­ mania was victorious. In the averages of both batting and bowling in intercolonial matches he is well ahead. As a batsman he cannot be separated from Burn and Windsor. Yet, notwithstanding the performances of these three fine players, not one of their names has been mentioned in connection with the English-going team. What more do the selectors want ? Can Tasmanian players do impossible feats ? Have they not shown that they are overwhelmingly superior to the players chosen to play against them? A frequent statement is that the Tasmanians play only second elevens, and that when they did play the first team of New South Wales they received an unholy thrashing. Well, as to the first. Is it their fault that they play second elevens ? Have they not asked time after time for stronger teams to be sent over from the mainland to be pitted against them, and have they not promised them ? and it is surely not their fault that superior teams have not been sent. As to the second state­ ment, New South Wales did certainly give Tasmania a hiding. But Tasmania has suffered in good company; the Englishmen who were in Australia last year—the strongest side England could send away—had over 600 and 400 made against them in a match against New South Wales. So Tasmania, though beaten, is not disgraced. These hard facts are put before the view of the selectors for what they are worth, and in the belief that they will receive due consideration, for they are just and honest and true men. Let them weigh the records and compare the per­ formances named here against the inter­ colonial performances of some of the men whose names have been mentioned as likely candidates. In the limited opportunities which Tasmanian players have to show to advantage, have they failed ?—or have they not done even more than could be expected of them ? Surely they are not expected to do impossibilities; and if the circulation of these facts help to place a Tasmanian in the Aus­ tralian Eleven of 1899 it would be received with genuine favour throughout the colonies.” DURHAM. M AY. 22. Newcastle v. Northumberland 31. Durham, Gentlemen of Durham v. University JU LY. 3. Darlington, v. Yorkshire 2nd X I. 11. South Shields, v. Cambridgeshire 28. West Hartlepool, v. Northamptonshire 31. Sunderland v. Lancashire 2nd X I. AUGU8T. 2. Gateshead, v. Surrey 2nd X I. 4. Durham (City), v. Norfolk 7. West Hartlepool, v. Northumberland 11. Cambridge, v. Cambridgeshire 14. Yarmouth, v. Norfolk 16. Northampton, v. Northamptonshire 18. Oval, v. Surrey 2nd X I. 21. Leeds, v. Yorkshire 2nd X I. 23. Manchester, v. Lancashire 2nd X I. All Two-day matches. THE SEASON BEGINS.