Cricket 1905

O ct . 26, 1905 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 437 . M’Leod would have had to walk behind the wicket, he could not have been put out, even if he had got into his dressing room. Remember the case of Stoddart, when he was caught by Garrett at mid-off. I venture to say that the only men on the ground who thought Stoddart was not out were Storer at the opposite end and the umpire. Stoddart retired voluntarily; when he got to the pavilion Storer made some remark, which led to a reply from the umpire; then followed the question put by Storer as to whether his captain was out, and the official’s reply that he was not out. Storer then called to Stod­ dart, who was brought from his dressing room, and he resumed his innings. Had Stoddart to go forward to the pavilion he could have been run out. The umpire should have the power to form an opinion as to whether the batsman was trying for a run or retiring through a misunder­ standing, and if the latter there should be the power of recall. Glancing through some old files of the “ Sydney Mail,” (1885), I came across the following incident:—In Albert v. Carlton, D.W. Gregory bowled to F. Elliott, who ran out to hit, and missed. The batsman went so far from his crease that he gave up all effort to get back, being apparently satisfied that the wicketkeeper had stumped him. When he had gone as far as the pavilion, which was behind the wicket, the umpire was asked how it was. He replied, “ not out.” Thereupon the wicketlceeper took up the ball and knocked the wicket down, and again appealed, and again the umpire said, “ not out.” This was a similar case to the one on the same ground, in which the wicketkeeper was G.Marshall and the batsman S. Jones.— Sydney Mail. UNITED STATES v. CANADA. Below will be found a record of the results of matches between Canada and the States since their institution in 1853. Thirty-two matches have been played, of which United States have won 21 and Canada 9, while 2 have been drawn. Year. Place. Winner. Won by. 1853 Harlem U.S............ . 34 runs 1854 Toronto Canada . . 10 runs 1856 Hoboken ... U.S............ . 9 wickets 1857 Toronto Canada . 4 wickets 1858 Hoboken ... U.S............. 4 wickets 1859 Toronto U.S............ . 4 wickets 1860 Hoboken ... U.S............ . 5 wickets 1869 Ottawa TJ.S............ . 5 wickets 1880 Philadelphia Drawn. 1881 Hamilton ... U.S............. 10 wickets 1882 Philadelphia U.S............ . 8 wickets 1883 Toronto U.S............ . Inns, and 46 runs 1884 Philadelphia Canada . . 100 runs 1885 Toronto Canada . . 35 runs 1886 Seabright ... Canada 97 runs 1888 Toronto ... U.S............ . Inns, and 87 runs 1890 Philadelphia U.S............ . Inns, and 31 runs 1891 Toronto U.S............ . 36 runs 1892 Philadelphia U.S............ . Inns.and 222runs 1893 Toronto ... U.S............ . 5 wickets 1894 Philadelphia Drawn 1895 Toronto Canada 140 runs 1896 Philadelphia Canada . . 40 runs 1897 Toronto Canada . 8 wickets 1898 Philadelphia U.S............ . Innings 1899 Toronto U.S............ . 34 runs 1900 Philadelphia U.S............ . 15 runs 1901 Ottawa U.S............ . 94 runs 1902 Philadelphia U.S............ Inns.and 104runs 1903 Toronto U.S............ . 147 runs 1904 Philadelphia U.S............ . 7 wickets 1905 Toronto ... Canada . ■ Inns, and 29 runs SELECTION OF AUSTRALIAN ELEVENS. (From the Sydney Mail.) I have no wish here to enter upon the claims of individuals for selection in the team now in England beyond saying that C. Gregory was excluded from con­ sideration because the New South Wales selectors omitted him from the interstate team. The Australian Eleven selectors were not afforded an opportunity to see Carter. He was not chosen for the New South Wales first eleven; and how could they select any one whom they had not seen? Here is where New South Wales again suffered. Had Kelly been a Victorian or a South Australian, Carter would now be in England. At least, that is my opinion. Newland was the next best wicket-keeper to Kelly the selectors had seen during last season, and Newland was the correct selection. As to Pye, his case was similar to Carter’s. Not chosen for Now South Wales, the selectors never saw him perform, and, of course, they could act only on what they had seen. Surely if the home selectors do not think a man is good enough, the Australian trio are not to blame if they omit him from consideration. The two men who were overlooked, and yet had good performances to support them, were Johnson and Waddy. With regard to the method of selection, everyone is just now saying that there must be a new system. Whatever the ruling body there must be a committee, whose decision must be final, to pick the team, and that committee must be appointed by the ruling body, whether a board of control or the three associations —New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia. Each of the three was appointed by his association to act, and who ought to be better able to say what conditions are required in England than those who have been there ? It is necessary that active players should be on the committee. In two cases—Noble and Darling—that was secured; in the other, B. M‘Leod, there was no active cricketer to put on the committee, for Armstrong was just possibly an un­ certainty, and M'Leod was decidedly doubtful. If there be any fault to be found with the result of the seleetion, the failure is due to the judgment of the selectors, and not to the system. teams to England. A constitution was agreed to by the delegates for submission for consideration of the associations interested. The committee of this association upon several occasions care­ fully considered the proposed constitution, but no definite agreement having been arrived at with the other associations, Messrs. Blinman and Evan were ap­ pointed to attend a further conference of the associations concerned, which was held in Melbourne during May, 1905. At this conference the matters in difference were discussed at length, and our delegates on behalf of this association, expressed their willingness to adopt in toto the constitution as submitted by the con­ ference held in Sydney. To this the Victorian and New South Wales delegates would not agree, and their respective associations then eliminated the name of this association from the constitution, and formed a board of control on a basis approved of by them. The principal points of difference between this and the other associations are the questions of giving the players direct representation on the board, which this association de­ sires, and the compulsorary financing of Australian Elevens touring England, of which this association does not approve. This association thoroughly approves of the formation of a board of control upon an equitable and workable basis, but previous experience teaches us it is im ­ possible to form an efficient board of control without the co-operation of the leading players. CHARITY MATCH AT RICHMOND. E.G. HAYES’ XI v. W. G. EAST’S XVIII. Played at Richmond on September 21 in aid of the Royal Hospital. W. G. E a s t’s XVIII. THE AUSTRALIAN BOARD OF CONTROL. In the annual report of the South Australian Cricket Association the following references are made to the Board of Control:— In January last, at the invitation of the Victorian Cricket Association, this association appointed Messrs. H. Blin­ man and J. Darling to attend a meeting of delegates of the Victorian, South Australian, and New South Wales Cricket Associations without a view to the forma­ tion of a board to control the visits of English teams toAustralia, andAustralian Geo. Thomas, c Smith, b Davis ................* 5 0. Ratcliff, c Stedman, b Davis .................11 D. Hendren, c Hayes, b Davis ................. 2 J. A. Healing, b Davis 0 T. H. Dodwell, run out 2 J. W.H. T. Douglas,b Smith ................. 2 H. Napper, b Smith... 2 Bruce-Kerr, st Sted­ man, b Hayes.......... 5 Richard Green, c Huish, b Hayes ... 13 W. Lotinga,b Davis... 19 G.L. Robinson.c Moul­ der, b Sm ith..........76 B. Covell, c Ayres, b Hayes .................14 Hon. S. R. Beresford, b Smith .................11 W. Rudd, lbw, b Davis. 5 F. Burton, c Hayes, b Smith ................. 3 E. Hendren, c Stuart, b Smith .................14 O. Gouldsmith,not out 6 W. G. East, b Moulder 3 E xtras.................21 Total ...214 T. Hayward,cThomas, b Bruce-Kerr..........62 F. C. Holland, c Dod­ well, b Douglas ... 1 J. Moulder, b Bruce- Kerr ........................13 W. Davis, c Beresford b Douglas .......... 1 Hamish Stuart, c Rob­ inson, b Douglas ... 2 W. 0. Smith, c Beres­ ford, b Douglas ... 0 E. G. H ayes’ XI. E. G. Hayes, run out... 35 F. Huish, c and b Douglas ................. 4 F. Stedman,c Healing, b D. Hendren..........35 W. L. Lees, c Denham, b D. Hendren.......... 8 G. W. Ayres, notout... 18 E xtras.................21 Total ...200 ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS. H. E. H. (Manila).—Wrote to you at end of July and again October 2nd, but you only give address “ Manila,” so that the letters may not have reached you. E. B oyn s (Eureka, Juab county).—Will write. S. H obson (Oguta).—Lees played in the Colts’ match in September, 1892, and was engaged at once, but did not play for the county until 1896. Nice played once in 1895. Where is Oguta ? A C o rre sp on d en t in B arbad os. —You do not give your name, so that your remarks about the scores made by the school cannot be quoted.