Cricket 1902

S e p t . 18, 1902. CRICKET A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 427 T H E A U S T R A L IA N S O F 1902 . The opinion that the present Austra­ lian team is “ a one-man team ” has been steadily gaining ground of late, and although it would be too much to say that this is strictly true there is no doubt that Victor Trumper has won match after match for his side, and that without him the record of the season would probably have been very unsatisfactory. He has not only dwarfed everybody else in the team, but also every English player. His performances have been all the more remarkable because they seemed abso­ lutely independent of circumstances ; he was just as likely to make a big score on a shockingly bad wicket against good bowling as on one which was entirely in favour of the batsman. The rest of the Australians have done nothing at all remarkable in the way of batting; but they have all been pretty good, and, as usual with Australian teams, one or two of t>'em have generally risen to the occajion when wanted—but not always —for there have been a few extraordinary collapses during the tour, notably the 36 against England, at Edgbaston, and the famous 23 against Yorkshire. Whether it was due to the state of the wickets, or to a laudable wish to bringing matches to a conclusion, or, again, whether the example of Trumper influenced the rest of the team, it is certain that the members of the present team as a whole have shown infinitely more attractive batting than any of their predecessors. It is true that they hail no Lyons, no Massie, no Percy McDonell, but on the other hand nearly every man showed himEelf c ipable of scoring at a good pace when occasion required, and there were few of those horribly tedious innings which have made some Australian teams a by- word in the land. As a matter of fact, our own players have almost in­ variably taken much longer to make their runs than the Australians, and this not by any means always because they had to play against better bowling— often their slowness could only be attri­ buted to sheer timidity. It has been a real pleasure to watch the Australians at the wicket this year, and their bold methods have been vastly appreciated by thousands of spectators. There cannot be the slightest doubt that they played the right game, for over and over again they won a match when previous teams would almost certainly have made a draw. Nothing has been finer than the way in which the team—or rather, Trumper— has deliberately set to work to try and knock off the runs when the opposing captain has declared—the first M.C.C. match and the second Essex match may be taken as the best samples of this delightful feature in the batting of this year’s team. The bowling has met with striking success in matches against weak teams, and occasionally it has done wonders against the strongest teams of all. The loss of Trumble for the first month, owing to an injured thumb, was very severely felt, and it was surprising that after such a severe accident he should have Veen able to bowl so finely. Although he does not get his arm quite as high as he did during the last tour, there is no bowler of the day in first-class cricket whose hand is so much among the clouds at the time that the ball actually leaves it, and it is this height, almost as much as the subtle variation, which deludes men who are not accustomed to him. Any batsman who has ever played against a man with an extremely high action knows bow difficult it is to judge the flight of the ball, more especially if the arm happens to have a tree or a house behind it. But Tramble is a bowler with far more wiles than most men, and he is admirably assisted by his field. None of the other bowlers could be called really great. They were all very destructive at times, but they gave the impression that it was a fine thing for them that the season was not hot and dry. Always excepting Noble, who, despite his variable success is in some ways the best bowler in the team. He is essentially a man who uses his head, and there is often something weird about a ball from him which is not to be seen in au ordinary bowler. It has often been his fortune to have to go on when two men were well settled and his analysis has not always been good. But for all that he is a fine bowler. Armstrong is perhaps a better leg-break bowler than anyone else at the present time, but this is not saying very much, for Braund has not been seen at his best this year, and the other men have not been at all consistent. In fielding the Australians have always been first-class, and as usual Darling has managed his field with consumate skill. English elevens have as a rule done their best to make the fielding look well by running singles when there was a possible two, and two when there was a possible three. This was especially noticeable in the cases of the outfields, who for some mysterious reason are supposed to be able to throw in from unheard of distances at such a pace that a run is impossible if ' they are on the point of picking up the btll when it is commenced. Englistimen might if they liked learn very much from the Australians in the matter of fielding and placing the field to suit the idiosyn- cracies of different batsmen. There are at the present time as good fields among Englishmen as ever came out of Aus­ tralia, but whereas all Australians seem to excel, there are heaps of Englishmen who do not. As to what position the (earn of 1902 takes wi’h regard to other Australian teams, it is not easy to form an opinion. On the surface, the Australians have been astonishingly successful, but an examination of their perform tncss against what may be termed “ big ” teams would not seem to bear this out entirely. True, theyhave gaiued their chief object, viz., to win the balance of the five test matches, and as they, as well as cricketers in Australia, seem to be perfectly satisfied with beating England twice out of five times, there is nothing more to be said on this particular point. At the same time it is permissible to consider their performances as a whole, and it will be found that they wm eleven matches in an innings, chiefly against notoriously weak teams, five matches by from six to eight wickets, and seven matches by a margin ranging from 3 to 174 runs. The matches against M.C.C. (first match), Essex (first match), Warwickshire, Sussex and Mr. C. I. Thornton’s X I. were drawn in their favour, while those against Lancishire, England (at Lord’s), Somer­ set, Surrey (return) and Essex (return) were either drawn more or less evenly. The matches against London County, England (at Edgbaston) and South of England (at Hastings) were drawn against them, the two latter being in a perfectly hopeless position for them. The really “ big ” matches which they played may fairly be said to bs as follow s:—M.C.C. (first team only) Mr. C. I. Thornton’s X I., the South of Eng­ land (at Hastings), Yorkshire (two matches), London County, England (five matches), and Players at the Oval. That is to say twelve matches in all. Of these they won three, beating England twice, and Yorkshire once, drew favour­ ably with Mr. Thornton’s team and M.C.C., and level with England and Players once. On the other hand they lost to Yorkshire and England once each, drew unfavourably with London County, and very unfavourably with England at Edgbaston and South of England at Hastings. Thus their record reads: Matches played, 12; won, 3; lost, 2 ; drawn, 7 (two in their favour, three against, and two level). This hardly seems a record which is anything out of the common. And what if the balance had turned ever so little the other way in a few of these matches ? But after all st&tistics may be made to prove anything, and as it is the modern fashion to j udge a team by the number of matches which it loses, the Australians can point to a record in this way which is magnificent. In conclusion, it may be said that English cricketers are still won­ dering why it was that the selectors of the team chose Jones instead of C. J. Eady. the former has practically been a passenger during the tour; the latter would have been useful again and again with the bat as well as the ball. Carter was also more or less a passenger, but his case was quite different; it was necessary to bring a second wicket­ keeper, but as Kelly held out without accident, his services were very seldom required. W. A. B e t t e s w o r t h . THE AUSTRALIANS. THE MATCH AGAINST THE PLAYERS. TH IR T Y -N IN T H AN D LA ST OF THE T Played at the Oval on Sept. 15, 16, and 17. Drawn. In thismatch the Surrey County Committee had got together a very strong team, the only noticeable absentees being Shrewsbury who was unable to accept the invitation to play, and Lockwood who was injured. The weather was cold and cheerless, but the wicket was in pretty good order, and the