Cricket 1911

M ay 6, 1911. C E IC K E T : A W EEK LY RECORD OE THE GAME. 120 Gngland’s Greatest Eleven. In the last tw o issues o f C ricket several w ell-known players o f other days expressed their opinion on the question in which year England was able to place her strongest E leven in the field. Appended w ill be found the views o f Messrs. H enry Perkins, Charles Marriott and F . E . R . Fryer and H arry Phillips, all o f whom have follow ed cricket closely during the last forty years. Mr. H enry P erkin s , of the Cambridge Eleven of 1854 and Secretary of the M.C.C. from 1876 to 1898, w r i t e s I do not quite see tbe object of speculating on possible but improbable representa­ tives of England in the cricket-field of years gone by. In those days there was no one representative team ; the best sides were those in the Whit-Monday match and the Gentlemen v. Players at Lord’s. As to the year in which England was able to place her strongest Eleven in the field, many would be of opinion that it must be when “ W .G .” was in his prime : not only the greatest batsman that has ever been but about the best bowler, and one who could field any­ where and throw the ball 100 yards from anywhere. Still, with “ E.M.” and “ G .F.” in addition, I hesitate to express an opinion that they could have made up a better side than the Eleven which represented England twice in 1886 and again, to come nearer to our own time, I am not sure that Jackson’s 1905 Eleven at the Oval was not the very best that ever represented England. But, after all, no two experts would agree on the subject.” [The Eleven which repre­ sented England against Australia at Lord’s and the Oval in 1886 was composed of W . G. Grace, Scotton, Shrewsbury, W. W. Read, Barnes, A. G. Steel, Barlow, Ulyett, Briggs, E. F. S. Tylecote and Lohmann. The side won at Lord’s by an innings and 106 runs and at the Oval by an innings and 217, but the Australian team of that year was distinctly disappointing. The side which appeared for England in the unfinished match with the Australians at the Oval in 1905 was Hayward, A. C. MacLaren, Tyldesley, C. B. Fry, Hon. F. S. Jackson, R. H. Spooner, Hirst, Arnold, Rhodes, Lilley and W. Brearley. — E d . Cricket ]. M r . F. E. R. F ryer , of Harrow, Cambridge and Suffolk, writes:— “ My opinion is that this would occur in one of the years that W . G. Grace was in his prime, but all your correspondents seem to have mixed up players with him who had either given up first-class cricket or were too old. I do not think either Hayward or Carpenter could come iuto an eleven with “ W. G .” Nor were R. A. H. Mitchell or Alfred Lubbock playing much then, and V. E. Walker did not play regularly and had practically given up bowling in first-class fixtures. I have also an idea that Freeman was getting past his best in 1871, but “ W .G.” was very good a year or two previous to this. Freeman is generally credited with being the best fast bowler England ever produced, but it should be remembered , that he bowled on very different wickets from what are played on now, and from watching—I did not, of course, play against him—I should say Tom Richardson, of Surrey, would have been equally terrible to stand up to in those days, when the ball alternately shot or bumped. You may gather from these remarks that the question asked is altogether two difficult for me to answer.” Mr. Charles M arriott, J.P., of Winchester, Oxford University and Leicestershire, says:— “ I am sorry I have not the opportunity of goin g fully into the interesting question that has been raised as to the year in which England was able to place her strongest Eleven in the field. I am, however, inclined to agree with those who select 1871 as about the strongest year. One reason, among others, for estimating the strength of the batting in that year highly is that, in the selection given in your paper, the name of B. Pauncefote has, probably quite rightly, no place. The brilliance of Mr. Pauncefote’s batting against all sorts of bowling was such that his non inclusion provides a strong presumption that, in batting at all events, we have seldom or never had a stronger side.” [Mr. Pauncefote averaged 25 80 in 1871, his best iunings that year being 94 not out for Middlesex v. Surrey and 55 for Middlesex v. M.C.C. and Ground. In the University match he played an innings of 50—the highest score in the game for either side—but did little for the Gentlemen at the Oval. He was not chosen for the Lord’s match. — E d ., Cricket.'] Harry Phillips, the famous old Sussex wicket-keeper, says:— “ I think a team of the year 1871—the year of John Lillywhite’s benefit match at Brighton, in which I played—would represent England better than one of any other year. I should select the following Eleven :—I. D. Walker (capt.), \V. G. Grace, E. M. Grace, It. A. H. Mitchell, A. N. Hornby (or G. F. Grace), Daft, Alfred Shaw (or Southerton), Jupp, Emmett, Freeman and Pooley.” THE SOUTH AFR ICAN TEAM IN AU STRAL IA . (Continued from page 99.) 22 nd M a tch .— v. XVIII. OF BROKEN HILL. Played at Broken Hill (N.S.W .) on March 15 and 16. The South Africans won by an innings and 278 runs. This match, which marked the conclusion of the first South African tour in Australia, was played on a matting wicket on a rough ground. The visitors carried everything before them, Faulkner, who made 252 not out, making only one run less than the locals in their thirty-six innings. The player named obtained his runs in four hours, gave four chances and hit a 5 and twenty- nine 4’s, setting up a new record for the ground by exceeding Clement Wellington’s 235 and beating Hathorn’s 239 against Cambridge University, which had hitherto ranked as the highest individual effort made by a South African on tour. The innings of 531 lasted 4 hrs. 12 min., and was made with thirteen men in the field. Strachan showed the best form for Broken Hill and hit four 5’ s in his 38. During the course of the game Schwarz obtained his one hundredth wicket of the tour, and the match was won only one minute before time. Score and analysis :— L. Strieker, b Searcy......................... O. C. Pearse, b Gillespie................. G. A. Faulkner, not ont ................ A. Nourse, b Gillespie ................ S. J. Snooke, c Searcy, b Johns . J. H. Sinclair, b B artley.......... C. B. Llewellyn, b Bartley ... . XVIII. First innings. Pearce, b Schwarz ................... Webber, b Schwarz .................. Johns, b Llewellyn ................... Hurley, b Schwarz ........................ Pincombe, b Llewellyn ........... Mitchell, c Llewellyn, b Schwarz Tonkin, c Snooke, b Schwarz ... Lanyon, hit wkt, b Llewellyn Searcy, b Faulkner ................. James, c Llewellyn, b Schwarz Gillespie, c Sherwell, b Schwarz . Doolette, b S ch w arz........................ Rawlings, b Schwarz........................ Mungoven, c and b Schwarz ... Strachan, b Faulkner.................. Benny, b Schwarz .................. Wellington, b Faulkner ................ Bartley, not o u t .......................... Byes, &c................ S outh A frica . 2 j R. O. Schwarz, c Rawlings,b Benny ... 46 [ M. Commaille, b B en ny................... ... 252 j S. J. Pegler, c Johns, b Pincombe 0 ! P. W. Sherwell (capt.), b Searcy ... 69 Byes, &c............................ 34 5 Total ........................... of IJ rokex H ill . Total ... .................. 148 S ooth A frica . Second innings. 7 b Pearse.......................... 3 c and b Sinclair........... 0 c Commaille, b Nourse 1 b Pearse .................. 21 b Pearse.......................... 0 c Sherwell, b Pearse ... 3 run o u t .......................... 6 c Llewellyn, b Pegler 21 b Pegler .................. 8 b Pegler.......................... 16 b Pegler.......................... 1 b Sinclair .................. 7 not o u t .......................... 0 run o u t .......................... 38 c Llewellyn, b Nourse 0 b Pegler .................. i> b Pegler .................. 5 b Pegler......................... 2 Byes, &c................. Total ... 13 20 8 2 6 15 0 0 0 Searcy... Bawlings Gillespie Pincombe Schwarz... Llewellyn Faulkner R. W. R. W. R. W. . 44 2 Webber 81 0 Bartley ......... 34 2 . 98 0 Johns ... 33 1 James ......... 11 0 . S8 2 Benny... 33 2 Tonkin .. ... 25 0 . 49 1 Lanyon 29 0 XVIII. OF B roken H ill . First innings. Second innings. R. W. R. W. ... 57 11 5 0 ... 70 3 13 0 ... 19 3 2 0 Pearse 19 4 Nourse 20 2 Pegler 25 7 Sinclair 14 2 The statistics of the tour will appear in next week’s issue. LEICESTERSHIRE v. LEICESTER Park, Leicester, on April 29. Score L kicester T ow n L eaoue . W. Harding, b Jayes.......................... 2 F. Tomlin, b Shipman .................. 10 C. E. Pallett, b Brown .................. 13 H. Payne, c Coe, b Shipm an........... 6 R. Patterson, run out .................. S G. Hopkins, b Shipman .................. 0 F. Richards, not o u t.......................... 10 J. W. Bream, b Astill .................. 1 J. Lowe, b Astill.......................... ... 2 L. Moseley, c Whitehead, b Astill... 6 W. Frisby, b Jayes .......................... 6 G. Fisher, b Jayes .......................... 0 Byes, &c...................................... 7 Total TOWN LEAGUE.—Played at Victoria L eicestersh ire . Knight, c Payne, b Pallett ........... 30 Whitehead (H.), b Moseley ........... 10 W. R. Riley, b Pallett .................. 38 A. T. Sharpe, b Lowe .................. 39 Coe, b Fisher .................................. 8 Lord, c Harding, b M oseley........... 14 Sturman, b Lowe .......................... 5 Jayes, not out .................................. 25 Shipman, not out .......................... 19 Byes, &c...................................... 13 Total (7 wkts) .................. 196 J. Shields, Astill and Brown did not bat.