Cricket 1909

428 CR ICK ET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. S e p t . 23, 1909. THE TOUK OF THE AUSTRALIANS. A t Bray, near Dublin, on Tuesday the tour of the thirteenth Australian team came to a conclusion. The closing stages were very exciting, for up to the very last moment the side were in danger of defeat; in fact, when the game was given up the strong England side which Mr. S. H. Cochrane had got together required only six runs to win and had four wickets to fall. During their trip the side, which was the first to visit England under the aegis of the Australian Board of Control, played 39 matches, of which they won 13 and lost 4, the remaining 22 being drawn, chiefly on account of rain. During the last fortnight of May they ex­ perienced an anxious time, going down before Surrey and the M.C.C. in London, and England, in the first Test Match, at Edgbas­ ton. They lost to Surrey by 5 runs, after having the game in their hands, and but for missed catches, which in nine cases out of ten would have been held, would have pulled off the Lord ’s match. In both games they showed all their old ability to play a great game at a crisis, and those who saw the closing play in the M.C.C. match could not fail to be struck with the difficulty the home players experienced in making the necessary runs. The cricket they showed on tbat occasion stamped them as a team of very great possibilities, and their defeat by ten wickets at the hands of England a week later naturally came as a great disappoint­ ment to well-wishers of the side. In reviewing the doings of the team it must be borne in m ind that eight of the sixteen players had never visited us before and that it took them some time to settle down to the strange conditions. It was very unfortunate for the new-comers that they should be obliged to play the majority of their matches on bad wickets— under conditions quite foreign to them— for it not only prevented them from proving their individual worth but handicapped the team as a whole to no slight extent. Had a dry summer been experienced the team would probably have proved itself the strongest in batting which has ever come over. W ell as Bardsley and Hansford scored— they made nearly 4,000 runs between them with an average of over 45— they would undoubtedly have proved even more prolific run-getters had the wickets been fast. By their excellent dis­ plays they proved themselves worthy suc­ cessors of H ill and Darling, and as they are both young men should prove of the greatest service to Australia for several years to come, although it is probable that Ransford, owing to business reasons, w ill be unable to play in England again. To Bardsley the tour has been nothing less than a triumph, seeing that on the occasion of his first visit to us, and on wickets which, for the most part, were not altogether to his liking, he scored over 2,000 runs, headed the averages, made two separate hundreds in the Test match at the Oval, and played seven three- figure innings during the season. It would be difficult to imagine greater success falling to the lot of a cricketer outside the pages of fiction. Like Macartney, he possesses the ideal temperament for big games and never becomes flurried at a crisis. Ransford was in no way inferior to Bardsley, and, if auything, was the more attractive to watch when thoroughly set. Armstrong was un­ doubtedly the strong man of the side, as perusal of the averages which follow w ill show. He could always be relied upon at a critical time, either as batsman or bowler, his steadiness in the one department being as valuable as his accuracy in the other. Trumper, without approaching his record of 1902, was brilliant at times, whilst McAlister proved himself to be a very sound batsman and by his displays made one think tbat he should have been seen in England with more than one previous team. Noble played some good innings but was not so consistent as in earlier years, but his captaincy was a most valuable asset to the side. The manner in which he placed the field and managed the bowling has not been surpassed, if indeed equalled, during modern times : the able way in which he nursed Cotter in the match against England at the Oval could not have been surpassed. Hartigan, one of the first men chosen for the trip, has very attractive methods but always appeared anxious to collar the bowl­ ing as soon as he went in. The consequence was that over and over again he was dis­ missed whilst attempting a liberty before he was thoroughly set. At slip he was a great success, but he was not chosen for any of the Test matches. As a run-getter Hopkins was disappointing, whilst it was very seldom indeed that Carter showed a glimpse of the form which marked his batting against the la^t English team in Australia. Although the side was very strong in run-getting, there was no recognised first-wicket pair. Four years ago Trumper and Duff generally made a good stand for the first wicket, but this season the opening pair were' frequently changed— a procedure which must have tended to unsettle, rather than give con­ fidence to, the side. The weak point of the team was the bowl­ ing. It was a confession of weakness to choose Whitty, a player with practically no experience of big cricket, for such a tour. In taking seventy-seven wickets for some­ thing over 20 runs each he did some capital work, and he showed promise of developing into a most useful cricketer. Macartney, however, did the best of the new men, although O’Connor, who would have been better suited by faster grounds, took eighty- five wickets at reasonable cost. Cotter was often erratic and was not dreaded as in 1905, Noble had few days of success, whilst Hopkins’ analysis seems, to suggest that he might have been tried more frequently with advantage to the side. The mainstay of the team in bowling were Laver and Armstrong, who very appropriately head the averages. The former, as was the case four years ago, showed such good form that his presence in the Test matches became almost vital to the side. The only one of the fi,ve games in which he did not appear was that at Edg­ baston, which yielded England her only victory in the series. In the Manchester match he took eight wickets in an innings for 31 runs, bowling with great skill a n l judgment. Armstrong proved on several occasions that he retained all his accuracy of former days, and his record of 126 wickets for 16*23 runs each was thoroughly deserved. The side could not truthfully be termed great in bowling, varied and useful though its attack undoubtedly was, but when a special effort was required the man able to do what was necessary was generally at hand, either Laver, Armstrong or Macartney rising to the occasion. Fo r the success which attended their efforts the Australians owed a great deal to their fielding, which was more often than not of a very high standard indeed. Nothing could have been finer than Ransford’s work in the deep field, the amount of ground he covered, his quick and sure return, and his brilliant catching stamping him as a fields­ man of the very first order. Bardsley, Macartney, Laver, Trumper, Noble, and Hartigan were all quite first-class, whilst Gregory, despite the fact that he had reached the veteran stage, was almost as agile as in bis best days. A great deal of work fell to the lot of Carter, and he got through it splendidly and proved himself a worthy successor to Kelly. Carkeek had few oppor­ tunities, but he made a distinctly good im ­ pression. In winning the majority of the games finished in the series of Test matches the chief object of the side was gained. They won the toss on every occasion, and found an unexpected and useful ally in the English Selection Committee, but when that has been stated all has been said which might lead one to suppose that their successes were due to fortune. On tbe actual play, except in the match at Edgbaston (which they lost), they were undoubtedly the better side in all departments of the game, and in the cir­ cumstances deserve to be congratulated very heartily and very sincerely. In these games the English batting was amazingly disap­ pointing. Men who had had much experi­ ence of first-class cricket seemed quite unable to play their own natural game ; at times,, when their chief, if not only, aim appeared to be to play with a straight bat at any cost, they gave one the impression tbat they must see 44 A u str alia n B o w lin g ! !” or something of equally dreadful import written in huge letters across the skv. One cansay it has been a sad year for English cricket without detracting in any way from the merit of the Australian performances. RESULTS OF MATCHES. Won. Lost. Drawn. Total. Test Matches ............ 2 ... 1 ... 2 ... 5 All Matches .......... Id ... 4 ... 22 ... 39 BATTING AVERAGES. (All Matches.) Times Most not in an Total Inns. out. inns. Runs. Aver. W. Bardsley ... ... 51 4 219 2180 46*38 W. W. Armstrong ... 43 9 110* 1480 43-52 V. S. Ransford ... ... 45 4 190 1783 43-48 V. T. Trumper ... ... 45 2 150 1435 33-37 P. A. McAlister .. 33 5 85 816 29-14 M. A. Noble ... ... 48 5 131 1109 25-79 S. E. Gregory ... ... 42 7 74 684 19-54 C. G. Macartney .. 40 7 124 638 19-33 R. J. Hartigan ... ... 33 1 115 603 18-84 H. Carter ................ .. 33 7 61 408 15*69 A. J. Hopkins ... ... 31 3 56* 432 15-42 J. A. O’Connor... ... 29 7 39 295 13-40 F. Laver ................ .. 19 4 25 162 10-80 A. Cotter ................ .. 32 0 37 335 10-46 W. Carkeek ... ... 17 4 37 107 8-23 W. J. Whitty ... ... 26 8 21 136 7-55 * Signifies not out. BOWLING AVERAGES. (All Matches.) Overs. Mdns,, Runs. Wkts. Aver. F. L a ver.......... ... 493-5 161 1048 70 14-97 W. W. Armstrong... 921-3 285 2046 126 16-23 C. G. Macartney ... 532-3 161 1240 71 17-46 J. A. O'Connor ... 611-2 165 1619 85 19-04 W. J. Whitty... ... 666 202 1573 77 20-42 A. J. Hopkins ... 407-3 74 1191 5S •20-53 V. S. Ransford 4 0 27 1 27-00 A. Cotter.......... ... 573 2 68 1862 64 29-09 M. A. Noble ... ... 371-1 91 928 25 37-12 S. E. Gregory... ... 15 0 81 1 84-00 V. T. Trumper ... 29 2 151 1 151-00 The following bowled once only P. A. McAlister (0-2-0-0-1), R. J. Hartigan (1-0-4-0) and W. Bardsley (2-0-7-0). WICKET-KEEPING. H. Carter, caught 26 and stumped 16. W. Carkcek, caught 9 and stumped 3. H undreds M ade for tiie T eam . W. W. Armstrong, v. Notts, at Nottingham ...*106 W. W. Armstrong, v. Lancashire and Yorkshire, at Manchester ..................................................*110 W. W. Armstrong, v. Kent, at Canterbury ... 107 W. Bardsley, v. Essex, at L ey ton ...........................219