Cricket 1899

A p r i l 27, 1899. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 93 That they will do badly I do not believe. It is, of course, nonsense to claim, as some do, that this is the strongest team that ever left Australia, and those who think for a moment of such cricketing giants as Allan, Horan, Murdoch, Spofforth, the Bannermans, Massie, Bonnor, Turner, and many others, will recognise the absurdity of the claim. The improvement in English cricket, too, must be taken into account, and also the fact that Stoddart’ s team, in the absence particularly of Abel, Grace, and Jack­ son, was by no means the best English eleven. However, taking all these things into con­ sideration, we may look forward to a fair measure of success for our men, and expect to see them beat pretty well all the co'mties, even if they do not win the rubber in the test matches. That is a joy Australians hardly dare hope for, and that I for one candidly do not anticipate. Still we have a magnificent batting side, and one in which every man needs a whole lot of getting out. Darling, Hill, Iredale, Gregory, Noble, Trumper, Laver, and W or­ rall are all liable to make big figures at any time on good wickets, while the same men, with the exception of Noble and perhaps Trumper, should be all there when a game has to be fought out in the mud. Cer­ tainly, some of them failed on the Adelaide “ glue-pot ” pitch on Tuesday, but they will not do so always. Worrall’s magni­ ficent not-out innings showed what a tower of strength the sturdy Victorian is likely to be in wet weather, and his choice is almost certain to be amply justified. There can be no doubt that he won the Adelaide match for his side. All the men will make runs at one time or another, and there is probably less “ tail” to this team than any previous eleven. As to wicket-keeping, they have in Johns one of the most brilliant men in the world, and although Kelly’s superior batting will probably give him a place in the test matches, the team would be well advised to use the Victorian instead. Kelly is steady and safe, but Johns’s brilliant work would probably save his side many more runs than the New South Welshman would make against the crack English bowlers. The bowling of the team is the weak spot in an otherwise strong combination. It is all very well to point to the undoubtedly fine list of bowlers, and say that on the English slow wickets there will be plenty of change, but the fatal defect is that the trundling ia too much alike. Does not everyone recog­ nise the value of a man who, when the bowling is collared, can, like Briggs, Giffen, or McKibbin, send down curly slows which the batsmen will sooner or later be tempted to hit at ? In times past many a dangerous partnership has been broken by Trott, McKib­ bin, or Giffen, and, though their averages suffered, they got wickets in time. Trott, alas, will probably never play again, and in the front rank there are now only two men available—Giffen and McKibbin. One of them should undoubtedly have been taken for the reasons stated above. That the weak­ ness in bowling is by no means exaggerated is proved by the experience in the Sydney match, when a far from perfect second eleven hit up 527 in the third innings of the game. If the trundling of the Eleven was as strong as it should be this could never have occurred, and it may well be asked what sort of a time the side will have against All England on a perfect wicket ? Still, the mischief has been done now, and it is too late to alter the personnel of the com­ bination. I heartily wish that my fears may not be realised, and that our men may return victorious, and bring back safely with them the famous “ ashes ” won in fair fight in the camp of “ our friends, the enemy.” SYDNEY. From the Sydney Daily Telegraph. News comes from Adelaide that the selection has produced much discontent there. But the discontent is not confined to Adelaide. In Sydney it is very keen, notwithstanding the inclusion of a local favourite in Trumper, and the criticisms heard on the various cricket grounds on Saturday left little to be desired in the matter of outspokenness. Followers and players of the game had already been irritated at the mystery in which affairs had been enveloped, and were just in the mood to be suspicious and dissatisfied. The team, as finally constituted, is formid­ able enough as regards batting and fielding, but the bowling is likely to be found wanting at a pinch. It is significant that, according to the cablegrams, the London Press has been swift to put its finger upon the weak point. There is little variety in the attack. With the exception of Jones, the bowlers are simple length bo wlers, working a little from the off; and if Jones is no-balled—which is not unlikely, for there is now a crusade at home against the chuckers—the sameness threatens to be fatal. This could have been avoided by the picking of Giffen or McKibbin—and only three months ago, it will be remembered, the bowling of the former won the match for South Australia against New South Wales. Our batsmen, according to the testimony of their captain, could not find him. In connection, too, with Giffen, it has to be borne in mind that, like all great batsmen, he is especially valuable at critical times—and critical times are to be ex­ pected when the matches against England, the Marylebone Club, and the Players come on. Curiously enough, it has so far been found impossible to arrange the usual fixtures against the Gentlemen. It is to win these matches that the team is being sent, and not to whip Leicestershire and Hampshire and “ Lord Wilton’s Eleven ” in phenomenal fashion. In so far, then, as the primary object of the tour is concerned, the omission of both Giffen and McKibbin appears to be suicidal; but it is to be admitted that, since both of these had to be left out, the next best men havo been selected. NOTTS v. LANCASHIRE. The team to play against Lancashire at Trent Bridge, Nottingham, on May 7th, is as follows:— Notts: J. A. Dixon (eapt.), A. O. Jones, Shrewsbury, Gnnn (W.), Attewell, Gunn (J.), Oates, Drury, Dench, Daft, and Guttridge or another. HAMPSHIRE v. CAPT. HOARE’S X I. At Southampton on Friday and Satur­ day, April 28 and 29, the following will be the teams:— Hampshire: A. J. L. Hill, C. M. Sprot, C. Heseltine, O. Robson, A. H. Deltce- Radcliffe, D. A. Steele, E. A. English, A. N. Other, with Barton, Tate, and Sutherland. Capt. C. A. R. Hoare’s X I .: C. B. Fry (captain), K. S. Ranjitsinhji, W. L. Mur­ doch, G. Brann, C. G. Ward, and G. D. Hirtzell, with Alfred Shaw, Mead, Car­ penter, Rawlin, and A. N. Other. GOLDSMITHS’ INSTITUTE. APR IL. 29. New Cross, v. Ashburton MAY'. 6. Bromley, v. Bromley Town 13. Chariton, v. Old Charlton 17. Gravesend, v. Gravesend 20. Kevington, v. Crays and Orpington 22. New Cross, v. Bromley Town 27. New Croes, v. Bexley JUNE. 3. New Cross, v. Bexley Heath 5. New Cross, v. Enfield Wanderers \ 7. New Cress, v. Reigate Priory I Home 8. New Cross, v. Battersea I Week. 9. New Cross, v. London Hospital / 10. Honor Oak, v. Llovd’s Register 17. New Cross, v. Chislehurst Wanderers 20. New Cross, v. Pearl Assurance 24. New Cross, v. London Rifle Brigade 27. New Cross, v. Mr. Woodward’s X I. JU LY. 1. New Cross, v. Chislehurst Wanderers 8. Bexley Heath, v. Bexley Heath 13. New Cross, v. Crays and Orpington 15. New Cross, v. Old Charlton 18. New Cios8, v. Pearl Assurance 22. Honor Oak, v. Honor Oak 29. New Cross, v. Champion Hill AUGUST. 5. Beckenham, v. Newlands Park 7. OeUey, v. Ockley , 8. Ewhurot, v. Ewhurst lo! S e:vV Ru " ^ ePri0ry f Annual Tour. 11. Dorking, v. Dorking 12. Holmwood, v. Holmwood 19. Ashburton Park, v. Ashburton 26. New Cros-s, v. Honor Oak SEPTEMBER. 2. Bexley, v. Bexley 9. New Cross, v. Newlands Park 16. New Cross, Tour Team v. Rest of Club SPENCER. APRIL. 22. Home, v. Club Match 29. Home, v. Croydon M A Y . 6. W ormwood Scrubbs, v. Kensington 13. Home, v. Norbury Park 20. Home, v. Addiscombe 22. Havant, v. Havant 23. Ho-sham. v. Horsham 27. Hi me, v. Norwood JUNE. 3. Home, v. Brixton Wanderers 10. Sutton, v. Sutton 14. Home, v. London and Westminster Bank • 17. Croydon, v. Croydon 24. Home, v. London County Council JU LY. 1. Norwood, v. Norwood 7. Forest Hill, v. Forest Hill 8. East Dulwich v. Brixton Wanderer* 15. Norbury, v. Norbury Paik 22. Dulwich, v. I vis 24. v. St. Swithin’s 25. v. Gnats 26. v. Surrey Club and Giound 27. v. Mitcham 28. v. Forest Hill 29. v. Kensington AUGUST. 3. Home, v. Colveston 5. Addiscombe, v. Addiscombe 7. Home, v. Grecian 12. Acton, v. Pallingswick 16. Denmark Hill. v. Gnats 19. Mitcham, v. Mitcham 26. Home, v. Sutton SEPTEMBER. 2. Home, v. Ibis 9. Cane Hill, v. Cane H ill Asylum 16. Home, Married v. Single • Three*day match. |>- Home W eek