Cricket 1911

M a y 13, 1911. CR IC K ET : A W EEK LY RECORD OF THE GAME. 141 Of the 22 matches played by the side 12 were won, 7 lost and 3 drawn :— D. BOUMPHREY, S hrew sbury. form, should make an exceptionally strong backbone to the Eleven, and, with the promising talent that there is, the omens appear to be favourable indeed. J. D. Lewis and A. B. Blaxland, left and right-handed respectively, are two fast bowlers who generally do fairly well ; M. Bornemarm and R. T. Miller bowl medium-pace and keep a good length. R. B. Stones, who has a very taking style, it is thought is almost sure to be included for his batting. It is considerably easier to select one’s “ crack” players in September than in April, and, with the uncertainty that goes hand in hand with cricket, one might say it is well-nigh impossible to predict who will go through the season most successfully. We are going to take courage in both hands, however, and, assuming that the weather permits the games being finished, foretell the downfall of Winchester and Harrow at the hands of Eton, the overthrow of Rugby by Marlborough, victories for Charterhouse at the expense "of Wellington and Westminster, the success of Sherborne over Radley and Tonbridge, a couple of wins for Shrewsbury—over Uppingham and Rossall, and the down­ fall of Haileybury in the match with Cheltenham. Had one to pick an Eleven from the Schools dealt with in these articles, the side would be M. Woosnam (Winchester), capt., A. I. Steel (Eton), C. Patteson and W. F. Q. Shuldham (Marlborough), F. C. 0 . Nauman and D. J. Knight (Mal­ vern), F. S. Gr. Calthorpe (Repton), I. N. Mason and A. W. C!arr (Sherborne), D. Boumphrey (Shrewsbury), and the last place would rest between K. H. C. Woodroffe (Marl­ borough), the bowler, and G. B. F. Rudd (Westminster), the batsman, with a leaning towards the former. THE EN D . T est Matches (icon 1, lost 4) :— 1st. —At Sydney.—Australia won by an innings and 114 runs. 2nd.—At Melbourne.—Australia won by 89 runs. 3rd. —At Adelaide.— South Africa won by 38 runs. 4th.—At Melbourne.—Australia won by 530 runs. 5th.—At Sydney.—Australia won by seven wickets. O ther First-C lass Matchek^wjom 5, lost 3, and drawn 2 ):— v. South Australia, at Adelaide.-- South Africanswon by 281 runs, v. Victoria, at Melbourne.—Victoria won by five wickets, v. New South Wales, at Sydney.—New South Wa'es won by three wickets. v. Queensland, at Brisbane.— South Africans won by 122 runs, v. An Australian XI., At Brisbane.—Drawn, v. Tasmania, at Launceston.—South Africans won by 209 runs, v. Tasmauia, at Hobart. -Drawn. v. Victoria, at Melbourne.—South Africans won by eight wickets, v. New South Wales, at Sydney.—New South Wales won by 44 runs. v. South Australia, at Adelaide.—South Africans wen by six wickets. Minor Matches (won 6 , lost 0, and drawn 1) :— v. XI. of Toowoomba, at Toowoomba. —South Africans won by an innings and 1 1 runs, v. XV. i f Newcastle and District, at Newcastle.—South Africans won by five wickets, v. XI. of Combined Universities, at Sydney (University Oval).— Drawn. v. XV. of Bendigo, at Bendigo.— South Africans won by an innings and 41 runs, v. XVI. of Hamilton, at Hamilton.—South Africans won by an innings and 30 runs, v. XV. of Ballarat, at Ballarat.— South Africans won by an innings and 206 runs, v. XVIII. of Broken Hill, at Broken Hill.— South Afiicans won by an innings and 278 runs. innings is A. N. Westlake, who, with a little more muscle, should develop into an extremely serviceable player. A. E. P. Grant bats well, but is a better bowler, and will probably find a considerable amount of work fall to his lot during the season. C. H. Bracewell is a capital wicket­ keeper, but has no pretensions as a bat. The other remain­ ing old choice is H. J. Leake, who hits the ball hard and usually in the right place and may be called on at times to bowl. These six old choices, if they can maintain their THE SOUTH AFRICAN TEAM IN AUSTRAL IA . {Concluded from page 129.) The tour which has recently passed into history must, on the whole, be written down disappointing from the South African point of view. The first game—agaiust South Australia—was won with such ease that it appeared probable that the side would be able to make a good tight against Australia’s strongest eleven. Reverses, however, at the hands of Victoria and New South Wales seriously discounted the brilliant opening, and in the first Test match—at Sydney—their bowling was flogged to the tune of 528, and the side beaten by an innings and over a hundred runs. Of tbe five matches with Australia, the visitors won one and lost four, but it is only fair to say that in many ways fortune was not kind to them. More than once a change in the weather handicapped them, illness or injury deprived them of the services of various players, and—last but not least—Vogler quite failed to maintain his reputation. The side would have been strengthened considerably if a fast bowler had been included ; but as yet Kotze has no successor. In the Test matches the Australians were the better team all-round, though one may doubt whether their four successes to one is a true index to the difference between the two hides. It was over-anxiety which caused the South Africans to collapse for 80 on a good wicket in the second Test, when victory seemed to be within their reach, and it is haidly likely that, after the experience derived from the tour, they would fail again in such a manner under similar conditions. They were, in a sense, unfortunate to find Trumper at the top of his form, but, in the spirit of true sportmnnship so characteristic of them, the visitors, far from lamenting the fact, were gratified that they had been privileged to see such splendid cricket. Faulkner was relatively as great a tower of strength in batting to the South African side as Trumper was to his, but his methods were, of course, quite different from those of the Australian champion, who was always brilliant. Apart from Faulkner, Nourse was the best batsman in the side: he made several very fine scores against the States, but was not so consistent in the Tests as Faulkner. Sherwell’s wicket-keeping was spoken of in terms of the highest praise, and the fielding was, ou the whole, good, though at times very faulty. Nourse did a vast amount of excellent work in the deep-field, covering much ground and bringing off some capital catches. More than a word of praise, too, must be given to the bowling of Schwarz, the value of whose work to the bide can be gauged from the statistics which follow.