Cricket 1907

O ct . 31, 1907. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 435 time to com e ; but he is not likely to be sefn in an Australian team, either here or down under. A . W . W righ t has only played in eight first-class matches, but he has already unmistakably made his mark as a bowler. H is first appearance was in the match v. N .S .W . at Adelaide, when the visiting team ran up 556, In such a total an analysis of five for 150 was by no means bad, and already the sapient critics hailed him a com ing man. W h en a fortnight later he secured seven for 66 in the first innings of Victoria at M elbourne, the only regret expressed was that he was not younger. H e is w ell over the 30 mark. Last season he was unmistak­ ably South Australia’ s best bowler, as analyses of four for 42 v. V ictoria, at Adelaide ; six for 91 v. N .S .W ., at A delaide; four for 54 and five for 42 v. V ictoria, at Melbourne ; six for 209 (in an innings of 573, during which he bowled 47 overs) v. N .S .W ., at S ydney; and four for 81 for the Rest v. N .S .W ., show. W righ t is not quite as poor a batsman as the fact that in his first season he batted six times for South Australia without scoring a single run m ight lead one to think. H e has made a fair number of runs in club cricket. As a bow ler he is right-hand, from rather under medium pace to quite slow, and with good notions bs to variation of style. The wheatfield state tried tw o other men of promise in 1906-7, E . R . Mayne and Don M cRae, both batsm en; and moreover, she has in reserve such seasoned warriors as J. F. Travers and J. C. Reedman. Travers only played once, Reedman not at all, last season; but neither should be quite a spent force yet. In 1905-6 Reedman averaged 21*55 per innings, and took 13 w ickets; in 1904-5 he averaged 22*20, and had more wickets than any of his colleagues (19 at 20*57 each). Here are the principal batting and bow ling figures in all first-class matches (in England, South A frica, America, and N ew Zealand, as well as in Australia) to date of the men from whom the South Australian teams will probably be selected this season:— Batsman. Inns. N.O. R. A. H.S. C.Hill ..........333 ... 19 ... 13286 ... 4370 ... 365* J. Darling........ 333 ... 25 ... 10671 ... 34 64 ... 210 C. E. Dolling ... 10 ... 1 ... 311 ... 34 54 ... 93 D .R.A. Gehrs.. 84 ... 9 ... 2372 ... 31*62 ... 170 E. R. Mayne ...6 ...0 ...173... 28 62 ... 65 N.H.Olaxton ... 55 ... 2 ... 1454 ... 2743 ... 199* J. H. Pellew ... 25... 1 ... 602 ... 25 08 ... 87 J. O. Reedman... 147 ... 8 ... 3295 ... 23'70 ... 113 D. MacRae........ 6 ... 0 ... 131 ... 22'33 ... 70 O. B. Jennings .. 33 ... 3 ... 643 ... 2143 ... 77* J. F. Travers ... 69 ...23 ... 751 ... 16 32 ... 77 J. A. O’Connor... 21 ... 5 ... 209 ... 13 06 ... 54 A. McBeath ... 44 ...15 ... 195 ... 6*72 ... 36 A. W. Wright ... 15 ... 4 ... 32 ... 2 90 ... 10 Bowler. Runs. Wickets. Aver. A. W. Wright ................. 1015 ... 44 ... 2306 J. A. O’Connor ................. 1480 ... 64 ... 2312 A. M cBeath........................ 2673 ... 110 ... 24*30 J. F. Travers........................ 3669 ... 116 ... 31*62 N.H.Olaxton ................ 1665 ... 49 ... 33*53 J. O. Reedman ................. 3300 ... 97 ... 34*02 Newland appears to have retired from big cricket since his unsuccessful trip here in 1905; but the State has a young w icket­ keeper who promises well in the person of H . S. Jarvis, a son of the burly A . H . Jarvis, who was in England in 1880, 1886, 1888 and 1893. W hether V ictoria be strong or weak depends upon quite a number of circum ­ stances. James Mackay has now returned from South A friica and settled in Melbourne ; and the latest news as to the condition of his eyesight, which had been affected through an accident at Johannesburg, is much more reassuring. H e would be a very great asset in the State’ s resources. Then it is said that H ugh Trum ble m ight possibly turn out again; and the veteran retains so much of his old skill that his inclusion would benefit not only Victoria but Australia. Charles McLeod might possibly be prevailed upon, too. He is a far better player than many people in England think. And Frank Laver, though he could do so little in the season of 1906-7, can scarcely be done for as a player yet. On the other hand, it is said that Armstrong is retiring from the game. No severer blow than this could fall upon Victorian cricket. Not even the presence of “ Sunny Jim ” at his doughtiest would quite compensate for the absence of the mighty Warwick. There is an element of uncertainty as to all the players mentioned yet ; but Peter McAlister, J. V. Saunders, Vernon Ransford, E. V. Carroll, T. S. Warne and F. B. Collins may all be set down as certainties if required. And there are also M. Ellis, W. Carkeek, the wicket-keeper, F. Vaughan, T. Rush, Gr. Hazlitt and E. R. Goss, players of less experience or less repute thanthosementioned, but all us ful men. Of Saunders it is not necessary to say much. He is still a good bowler, perhaps hardly as deadly as in 1902, though, and still very much a minus quantity in other depart­ ments of the game. McAlister has been one of the mainstays of the team for eight or nine seasons past, and though he is no chicken he may yet visit England, for he is a safe and consistent bats­ man of the steady type, with capabilities for hitting when he chooses, and a fine field in the slips. In his first season in the Victorian team (1898-9) he ran up a score of 224 v. New Zealand at Melbourne. In 1902-3 his average was 35, in 1903-4 nearly 35. In the latter season he appeared in two Test matches, and scored 139 for his State v. the English team and 104 v. N.S.W. at Sydney. But, like Claxton, he was considerably below his best in 1904-5, and on current form had no chance of being selected for the English trip. In the following season, however, he made 157 v. S.A. at Adelaide and 56 at Melbourne, scores of 128, 53 and 40 v. N.S.W., and 141 v. Queensland at Brisbane, and totalled 610 in nine innings. During the last first-class campaign down under he averaged 36, his biggest scores being 168 v. Tasmania at Hobart, and 51 v. N.S.W. at Sydney. Vernon Ransford, like Jennings of Ade­ laide, has hardly come on as fast as had been expected. He made a modest debut for the State in 1903-4 ; but in 1904-5 his form was absolutely brilliant. In successive innings he made 80 not out v. S.A. at Adelaide, 152 v. Queensland at Mel­ bourne, 23 and 43 v. N.S.W. at Melbourne, 18 and 31 v. S.A. at Melbourne, and 62 and 18 v. N.S.W. at Sydney—427 runs in seven completed innings. In 1905-6 his highest score was only 24; but, accompanying the Melbourne C.O. team to New Zealand in the later part of that season, he did well in Maoriland, starting with 103 v. Auckland, and making later on 50 v. Canterbury and 68 v. Southland. Last season he scored 46 v. S.A. at Adelaide, then failed in the Christmas match with N.S.W., and did not play in either of the return games; but for the Rest of Australia v. New South Wales at Sydney he ran up a dashing 136. He may reason­ ably be regarded as an aspirant for test match honours. Victoria has not lighted recently upon a better man than E. V. Carroll, who in his first two seasons has made a distinctly good impression. His best score in 1905-6 was 48 ; but last season he played innings of 112, 64 and 85 v. South Australia, the last two scores out o f totals of 199 and 170 in a game which his side lost heavily. F. B. Collins, “ the curly-headed collegian colt,” as he was described when he first appeared, is a fast-medium right-hander who has not yet quite justified the hopes enter­ tained of him . H e made his first appearance for the State eight years ago, and since then has had days of brilliance and periods of ineffectiveness, and has not always kept his place in the team. Thirty-one wickets at a little over 20 each in 1902-3, 27 at 23 each in in 1904-5, and 22 at 25 each in 1905-6, were follow ed b y 9 at a total cost of 287 last season ; and unless he improves on this he is hardly likely to play much more for the State, especially as he is a poor bat. Tom W arne is an older identity. One has to go as far back as 1894-5 to trace the beginnings of his big cricket. For a long time thereafter he was on the fringe o f the eleven, playing in several matches v. Tas­ mania, when full strength was not needed, and occasionally getting a place in a Sheffield shield match when others could not play. In 1901-2 he scored 89 v. N .S .W . at Sydney ; but it was not until 1905*6 that he was ever really seen at his best in big cricket. Then he scored 62 v. S .A . at Adelaide, 115 and 56 v. N .S .W . at Melbourne, and 54 v. N .S .W . at Sydney, and had an average of 38. Last season accidents kept him out of all but one m atch ; but in that he took six wickets for 50 runs v. N .S .W . H e is a very steady bat, and a good change slow bowler. On the whole a capital man on a side, though hardly a “ top-notcher.” In 1906 he was coaching in Philadelphia, and m ight have had a permanent engagement there, but preferred to return to Australia. O f the others named, E llis has been known for years past as a good bat. H e first repre­ sented the State in 1900-1 ; but the one season in which he did him self justice was that of 1902-3. Then he scored 239 runs in eight innings, including 118 v. S .A . at M elbourne, when he and Hastings, the wicket-keeper, added 211 runs for the last wicket. Last season he scored a grand total of 5 in four innings ! H e is known to have a grudge against the Victorian Selection Committee. Carkeek is a hard-w orking wicket-keeper and a fair bat without much style. Vaughan and Rush both gave promise in 1906-7 ; and H azlitt and Goss are bowlers who may come to the front, the form er being still quite a colt. Goss had 6 for 113 v. S A . at Adelaide last season ; and H azlitt, though expensive, earned good opinions. The follow ing are the batting and bow ling figures in all first-class matches (in Australia, England, America, South A frica and N ow Zealand) of the principal players from whom the V ictorian team m ay be chosen :— Batsman. Inns. N.O. R. A. II.S* J.R. M. Mackay... 28 ... 2 ... 1361 ... 52*34 ... 202 W. W. Armstrong 196 ... 29 ... 7297 ... 43*69 ... 335 V. Ransford ... 30 ... 2 ... 1034 ... 36 92 ... 152 P. A. McAlister ... 82 ... 3 ... 2884 ... 36*50 ... 224 T. S. W arne............ 43 ... 8 ... 1028 ... 29*37 ... 115 E. V. Carroll ... 17 ... 0 ... 466 ... 27*41 ... 112 F. Laver ............203 ... 23 ... 4691 ... 26*06 ... 164 C. E. McLeod ...189 ... 23 ... 3645 ... 2198 ... 112 M. Ellis.................... 24 ... 0 ... 510 ... 21*25 ... 118 H. Trumble.............366 ... 70 ... 5926 ... 20 02 ... 135 E. R. Goss .......... 7 ... 3 ... 79 ... 19*75 ... 31 W. Carkeek......... 23 ... 2 ... 330 ... 15*71 ... 52 F. Vaughan.......... 19 ... 2 ... 261 ... 1552 ... 65 T.Rush................. 10 ... 0 ... 154 .. 15 40 ... 62 G. Hazlitt .......... 9 ... 1 ... 72... 9 00... 52 F.B . Collins ... 49 ... 9 ... 213 ... 532 ... 37* J. V. Saunders ... 103 ... 29 ... 338 ... 4*56 ... 29* Bowler. Runs. Wickets. Aver. H. T rum ble........................ 17931 ... 996 ... 1800 W. W. Armstrong .......... 7056 ... 387 ... 1823 J. V. Saunders ................. 7380 ... 314 ... 2145 C. E. McLeod ................. 8952 ... 378 ... 23*68