Cricket 1903

Nov. 26, 1903. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 4 61 (ZTomSponflotce. The Editor does not hold himself responsible for the opinionsof hiscorrespondents. WABNER’S (ticJ TEAM. To the Editor of C r ic k e t . S i b ,— Ma y I , t h r o u g h t h e col um ns o f t h e o f f ic ia l o r ga n, r ai se a p r o t e s t a g a in s t t h e m is le a d in g t i t l e o f t h e t eam n o w p la y in g in A u s t r a lia u s e d b y sev er al pap er s w h ic h o u g h t t o k n o w b e t t e r . I have the very greatest respect for the popular captain (Mr. P. F. Warner), but the team he commands is in no 6ense whatever his team; it is English, or British, or if that is not good enough, certainly Marylebone, or M.C.C. It may be asked, “ What’s in a name ? ” But in this matter there is a good deal. And when the Motherland sends out a team to Australia there should be no suspicion of an attempt to lighten the Imperial responsibility under which it plays, discrediting it to the level of any ordinary tourist-picnic combination by calling it after its leader ! When the Australians come over here, and our newspapers honour the noble game by devoting their contents-posters to advertising their doings, they do not say Darling's team against Sussex, or Surrey. As often as not it is A u s t r a l ia . And when, as has happened, an Austra­ lian team has suffered defeat in England, there has never, that I know, been any attempt to palliate its significance by calling it after its captain. Surely there is a spice of petty meanness in this. An after-thought: if—if we lose, our team is only Warner’s combination ; if we win, then “ hooray for the ashes! ” Be sure that down in Australia no such mistake is made. Rather the other way, for a very large proportion of the crowds who follow and see cricket in Australia have only one faith as to their visitors’ representativeness. They don’t mind whether the papers here speak of their opponents as Stoddart’s team, Maclaren’s eleven or Warner’s combination; they know that by whatever name they come that they are absolutely the pick on form o f the old country’s cricket strength, and all they hear about a Pry or a Jessop left at home because they could not take the journey for private reasons—these they laugh at as idle tales. If they follow the home season’s cricket they know that Fry, Jessop and Jackson and Co. are good men and nearly at the top cf the tree in England, but they think they can quite understand their not coming to Australia because they aie not considered so good as those who actually have come! Win or lose we have to stand or fall by our representatives. Five test matches have to be played, and win or lose the score comes to the same. It will be time enough for us at home to apologise for the Bhort-comings of the present team— if the occasion arises—which I trust it may not, when it has been met and beaten on its return home by the Rest of England team. Yours faithfully, C a n d id , ULTRA-CONSERVATISM IN CRICKET. To the Editor o f C r ic k e t . S ir , —Cricket conservatism runs wild from many points of view, concerning some of which I venture to write you in brief. Anyone would think that, in a game of so many years’ sta ding as cricket, courtesy, and politeness would find some place. In other words, instead of tossing for choice of innings why not let the visiting side have the choice ? This gives a chance for courtesy and politeness, and an out­ look for their return later on. It also eliminates too much good fortune from what ought to be, as much as possible, a game of skill. I therefore propose to amend Rule 1 to this effect. Beyond this, that same Rule stands iu farther need of a m e n d m e n t, for it says “ A m a tc h is played between two sides of eleven players each. But for a ll that, is it not an u n d e n ia b le fact that in all p r o b a b ilit y Yorkshire loBt the c h a m p io n ­ ship th is year (as others have lost it o v e r and over a g a in before) by being com­ pelled (a g a in s t the rule) to p la y w ith only ten m e n and that more than once ? What is the use of having a rule which is broken year after year? You have your Rule 37 which permits a substitute to run or to field, so I ask why not amend Rule 37 (so as to fulfil Rule 1) by saying : “ a substitute to be named before the match shall be allowed to field, run, or bat for any player who may during the match be incapacitated by illness or injury.” I take no interest in one county before another", but let all, I demand, have the same chances, and abolish this ultra conservatism which gives the champion­ ship to a county which with eleven men wins out in the end over another county which happens for once or twice to have but ten. Supposing next that a player bats ten innings in a season and makes, for instance, 5 runs every time yet never gets out, what would his average be ? Would it not be the highest on record, small as is the aggregate ? For nothing into 50 goes nowhere, and reduces the system of excluding “ not ou t” innings in reckoning averages to nonsensical absurdity. When you see, year after year, how many iunings unfinished at lunch, tea or the end of the day are ended by the next following ball, it is plain that the averaging of any player so much the higher by excluding “ not outs ” owing to mere luck in not being out at a particular stage of the game, is ridiculous, to say nothing of the un­ deniable fact that most “ not o u t” men are the very ones who have protected their wickets with their legs and not with their bats. Leg-batting ought not to be allowed to increase a player’s aver­ age any longer. Finally, I am sorry to see that no one has tried to utilize my suggestion of “ averages earned,” during the past season. If they had, where would your 1903top scorer be, omitting the 700 runs which he made after he should have been out but for the missed catches—to say nothing of that over-rated Australian of 1902 ? Lucky fellows ! I call them, but not the best batters by a long chalk. Victims of good luck and ultra-conser- vatism in cricket. May their averages in 1904 be brought down to where they should be ! J a m e s A. S p a l d in g . Portland, Maine, U.S.A. OLD CITIZENS. Matches played, 14; won, 6; lost, 2; drawn, 7 ; abandoned, 5. Runs for the Club, 2,167 for 125 wickets. Average per wicket 17-33. Runs against the Club, 3,849 for 115 wickets. Average per wicket, 16'07. BATTING AVERAGES. No. Times Most of not Total in an inns. out. runs. inns. Aver. P. W. Hale ... .. 15 .. 3 .. 510 .. 106 . . 42 50 H. T. Blewett... ... 14 ... 3 .. 319 .. 80 . . 29 00 R. C. Cole .. 10 .. 1 . 202 .. 86 . . 22*44 S. M. Banker... .. 6 .. 1 .. 79 ... 36 . 16-80 K. D. Leslie ... .. 6 .. 0 .. 90 .. 50 . . 15 00 J. F. Cole ... .. 10 .. 3 .. 66 .. 24*. . 9 42 J. H. Barnett .. .. 11 .. 3 .. 68 . 20*. . 850 A. R. Green ... ... 7 ... 1 .. 45 .. 15 . . 750 H. H. Laviogton ... 4 ... 0 .. 30 .. 23 .. 7-eo H. A. Hochstrasser 4 ... 0 .. 29 .. 29 . . 725 E. E. Dent .. 10 ... 2 .. 52 .. 14 . . 650 L. Mirylees ... ... 4 ... 0 .. 23 .. 18 . . 575 J. Page .......... ... 4 ... 1 .. 5 .. 3 . . 1-66 The following also batted : L, H . Kenny. 3, 7*, 0 ; M. H. Jenkins, 4, 21; S. Williams, 1, 9*; E. A. Knight, 3*, 2; B. King. 3 ; F. L. Huut, 0; H. 8. Leuw, 8, 2; H . E. W ise,0; E. Gledstone, 0; E . E . Massey, 0; 8. A. Kyffla, 0; L. D. Leuw, 9; F. A. Briggs, 37. * Signifies not out. BOWLING AVERAGES. Overs. Mdns. Runs. Wkts. Aver. H . T. Blewett.......... 160 .,.. 44 .... 4S0 ..,. 42 .,.. 10 24 R. C. Cole................. 6S .. . 16 ... 186 ..,. 16 ., 11-61 J. Pege ................. 19 .... 4 .... 57 ..,. 4 .. . 14-25 P. W. Hale ......... 124 . . 20 ,. 3£8 ... 23 ... 15 56 8. M. Banker......... 24 ... 3 . . 85 ... 5 ... 17’00 J. F. C o le ................ 88 .. 15 . . 259 .,. 15 .,.. 17-06 H. A. Hochstrasser 21 .,.. 5 ... 59 .. ,. 1 . . 59 00 The following also bowled : F. L . Hunt, 5, 0, 25, 2; D. R. Upsdale. 3, 1, 7, 1; A. R. Green, 5, 0. 35, 0 ; J. H. Barnett, 2, 0, 17, 0; E. E. Massey, 2, 0,17, 0. CENTURIES. P. W . Hale, v. N<rwrood, 103 not out. P. W . Hale, v. School, 106 retired. BTJKSTOW SCHOOL. Matches played, 14 ; won, 13; lost, 1. BATTING AVERAGES. No. Times Most of not Total in an inns out. runs. inns. Aver. W oodii... . . ... 13 ... 3 .. 319 . . 109*. . 31-9 Wood i......... . ... 13 ... 2 . . 347 . . 101*.. 31*5 Wesson ii. .. . ... 10 ... 3 . . 95 . . *5* 13-5 Dumaresq i.. . ... 13 ... 1 . . 160 . . 35*.. 13-3 Leadley ... . . 11 ... 2 .. 1)5 . . 23 .. 12 7 Gravett... . . ... 13 ... 0 .. 97 . . 21 .. . 7-4 Dumaresq ii . ... 11 .. 1 . . f2 . . *2 .. 62 Rowbothim. . ... 11 ... 1 .. 54 . . 17 . . 6-4 Tilleard... . . ... U ... 1 ... 54 , . 14 .. . 5 4 Cockell ... ......... 9 ... 0 .. 37 . . 9 . . 41 Edenboiough ... 10 ... 5 . . 8 5 .. 1*6 •Signifies not out. BOWLING AVERAGES. Overs. Mdns. iuns. Wkts. Aver. Dumaresq ii. ... 84 .. 14 .. 228 .. 33 . . 690 Wood ii.... ... 113 .. 29 .. 264 .. 38 . . 6 93 Tilleard ... .. 45 .. 20 .. 131 .. 18 . . 7*2 Dumaresq i. ... 90-5.. 29 .. 268 .. 28 . . 9-2 W oodi. ... ... 8-4 . 4 .. 18 .. 3 .. . 6(0 C RICKET Report Sheets, lOd. per dozen, post free. Order of Going-in Cards, 7d. per dozen, post free. Cricket Score Books, 6d. and Is. each; postage, 2d. extra.—To be obtained at the Offices of Cricket , 168, Upper Thames Street, London, E.C.