Cricket 1905

S ept . 21, 1905, CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 427 financial arrangements, the matter will be practically “ up to ” them, but it must be borne in mind that New York is equally willing and able to take care of her end in this respect and will gladly co-operate with them in this effort. There are a large number of enthusiasts in this city who would “ go down in their pockets” just for the sake of seeing their New York favorites represented on an all- American team, and from a sportsmanlike point of view there should be no reason why Philadelphia should not agree—and there is no other reason. Y e s te r d a y , Canon the Hon. Edward Lyttelton entered on his new duties as headmaster of Eton College. In the course of the charity match at Twickenham on Tuesday between Mr. Strutt-Cavell’s X I. and XT II1. of the local club, R. Hiscock made 28 runs off six consecutive balls from W. G., who, nevertheless, took 8 wickets. Hiscock’s innings of 82 included three 6’s and twelve 4’s. E ig h t or nine thousand people watched the match, and although there was no charge for admission, a good sum was collected on the ground for the local hospital. The proceeds were increased by a raffle for the bat used by W.G. in the match, and a letter written by him. T he final match of the season in con­ nection with the Metropolitan District, and Separate Schools Association will take place on Mitcham Green this after­ noon, commencing at one o’clock. The winners of the respective divisions this year are Bethnel Green (East) and North Hyde (West). The latter are easily first in their section, having won all their twelve matches outright. Tbe annual exhibition match will be played at the Oval on Thursday next. T h e poor attendance at the Oval on Saturday to witness the last stage of the Champion County match must have been a distinct disappointment financially to the Surrey authorities, who had gone to a great deal of trouble in the hope of assisting the two very deserving institu­ tions, in whose interest the fixture was arranged. As there was every possibility of a fairly good finish too, Saturday’s experience can hardly be regarded as strengthening, in the case of London at all events, the arguments of those who advocate commencement of matches on the Saturdays to catch the cricket crowd. One explanation of the failure of this year’s game most likely is that September 14th is far to 3 late. After a heavy season it is hardly fair to expect the assistance of the leading amateurs, many of whom have to go to work when August is over. Another cause of the small numbers on Saturday is perhaps to be found in the football boom in London. Whatever the reason, the fact remainsthat this year’s Champion County match was a big disappointment. THE F IR ST -CLA SS SEASON . I n these days of five test matches a great cricketer is judged almost entirely by what he does in the games between England and Australia when a tour is in progress. From this point of view the man of the year is undoubtedly the Hon. F. S. Jackson, who heads the batting and bowling averages in the Test Matches. In his case the averages fairly represent his worth, for he dis­ tinguished himself in every match in the series. In ordinary first-class cricket he does not stand out prominently above his fellows, nor is he the equal of some of them, but he has always been essentially a man who is at his best on a great occasion, and this year he has excelled himself. Putting aside Jackson as a man by himself, one comes to C. B. Fry, who is without question the bats­ man of the year. He has now satisfied his critics that he is quite able to take caie of himself in matches against the Australians, whether he is playing for England or for a scratch team, and, as usual, in ordinary first-class cricket, he has covered himself with glory. Yet there are two men, Hirst and Armstrong, who must be considered as greater cricketers than he on the past season’s form, for although he has scored some hundreds of runs more than either of them, they have each taken over a hundred wickets, and can justly claim the right to be considered the two best all-round men of the day. The fourth place must be allotted to Hayward, whose wonderful consistency in test matches, as well as ordinary first-class cricket, has been the subject of frequent comment throughout the season. He has had a splendid year, and has scored nearly as many runs as Fry, although to be sure he has had many more innings. Rhodes ought certainly to be placed fifth, for his all-round form with the bat, the ball, and in the field has been extremely good. It is said that his great ambition is to be chosen for the test matches chiefly as a batsman, and there are many who think that, even now, he is quite worth playing as a batsman and a fieldsman ; he is, perhaps, the best field of the day in the slips. As a bowler he is about as good as ever —he was at no time a very great bowler on a perfect wicket—and his so-called falling off is due to the fact that bats­ men have naturally become somewhat more familiar with his methods than they were a few years ago. But a man who can take 182 wickets in a fairly dry season at an average of 16'95 is a pretty good bowler still. No one will question the right of Noble to the next place. He has, it is true, lost some of the fire which used to make his bowling so difficult, but as an all-round man he has quite held his own. Three other all-round men, Relf, Killick, and J. Gunn, have had a fine season, and they all deserve to be placed high up in the list. Willie Quaife has certainly increased his reputation, and his consistent batting Ihas been one of the most interesting features of the year. It was a great pity that a place could not be found for him in one of the English Elevens. Another man, who was always making runs, is E. W. Dillon. He also has increased his reputation. P. F. Warner has quite held his own, and some of his inning*, played when his companions could do nothing with the bowling, were models of what good batting should be. If he were a brilliant field his place in all the England Elevens would have been almost assured. In few previous years have so many reputations suffered as severely as in 1905. It is sad to say that the Aus­ tralians are to be included in this category. They set out on their voyage to England with a firm determination to regain their lost supremacy in the cricket world, and, abandoning attack for defence early on the second day of the very first Test Match, continued to act on the defensive far too soon in the next three matches, thus losing all chance of meet­ ing with success. The well-known theory that in war the side which always acts on the defensive must lose in the long run, is as true of fights on the cricket field as of battles between armed men, and if the Australian bowlers had been allowed to attack with as much deter­ mination as the batsmen, the team might have done very much better—it would not have been a miracle even if it had beaten England in the Test Matches. It may, reasonably enough, be argued that the Australians adopted what seemed to them the best and wisest policy, and that if this policy ended in failure, the worst that could be said of it was that it was due to an error of judgment. But the truth of the whole matter is that all English-speaking people have alingering admiration for the man who shows valour when policy might suggest discretion to him. After all, cricket is not a game of to-day or yesterday, and Australian teams of the future will soon be able to convince Englishmen that the spirit of old war horses like Spofforth, Turner, Trumble, and Harry Trott, is very much alive still. Of individuals whose reputation has suffered, the most conspicuous are Trum­ per and Jessop. It is true that Trumper has played many splendid innings, and that he is still a great cricketer. But in 1902 he was a cricketer who was com­ pared to Dr. Grace in his prime, was counted as at least as good as Ranjit­ sinhji among modern players, and better than Fry. .Ranjitsinhji has not played this year, but in 1904 he was still Ranjit­ sinhji, Fry is still Fry, “ and a little more so,” but Trumper is not himself. Many English cricketers of sound judg­ ment who saw much of Trumper in 1902 were of opinion that they would never see him again as he then was. He was as dazzling as Ranjitsinhji, and like him, sesmed to juggle with the ball, but Ranjitsinhji’s juggling was scientific, while Trumper’s was only the result of a combination of a wonderful eye, great confidence, much good luck, and a certain panic among the bowlers, who for the most part were unable to do themselves justice when opposed to him. But if