Cricket 1911

Feb. 23 , 1 9 1 1 . CRICKET A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 29 In club cricket—and pennant matches in Melbourne are almost first-class in standard —Graham made many long scores. Even if a full list were available, it could hardly be given here ; but one may note in passing 202 for South Melbourne v. North Melbourne in 1892-3, and for Melbourne, which club he joined after his first trip to England, such as 105 (against his old club) in 1894-5, 136 in 1895-6, 145 in 1896-7, 201 and 145 in 1897-8, and 177 and 121 in 1898-9. Requiescat ! J. N. PENTELOW. M r . W. L. M urdoch . Regret has been universal among cricketers at the news of the death of Mr. Murdoch, which occurred on Saturday at Melbourne. According to Reuter Mr. Murdoch, who had been watching the Test-match, had an apoplectic seizure during the luncheon interval and expired an hour or two later. Mr. William Lloyd Murdoch was born at Sandhurst, in Victoria, on October 18th, 1855, and was therefore in his fifty-sixth year at the time of his death. He will always be best remembered for what he did for the Australian teams of 1880, 1882 and 1884. He captained the three elevens, and of each was admittedly by far the best bats­ man. Of his play Scores and Biographies (xiv., 518) remarks “ He possesses excel­ lent defence, watches the pitch of the ball well, has plenty of vigour, and his style is correct, elegant and scientific. His driving is clean, and his cutting and leg-hitting sure and effective. He is also good at point, and originally came out as a wicket-keeper, but does not often assume that position. He first played with the Warwick Club in Aus­ tralia, and then joined the Albert Club. He soon took his place among the best of bats­ men, and has the advantage of possessing an iron nerve, being also a capital general or manager of a match.” Although born in Victoria, all his knowledge of the game was derived whilst living with his family in New South Wales, and it was for the latter State that he played and that his sympathies were reserved after his return to Victoria. In his prime Murdoch had no rival among Austra­ lian batsmen, and perhaps only one superior, W . G. Grace, in England. He depended a good deal upon forward play, and for that reason was not seen at his best on wickets spoilt by rain. His style, however, was excellent. He was essentially an off-side player, his cutting and driving being equally fine, and the manner in which, by quickness of foot, he would get forward at the ball, and so make up for a limited reach, was ad­ mirable. He always played with a perfectly straight bat, and. if the occasion demanded, could show inexhaustible patience. It is of interest to recall that when he paid his first visit to England—with the pioneer team of 1878, when in his twenty-third year — he owed his place more to his skill as a wicket­ keeper than to his ability with the bat. During the tour, however, he realised that be could not hold his own with Blackham, and so resolved to confine his attention to batting. That the progress he made was not slow is evident from the fact that in December of the same year he played an innings of 153 against Fifteen of Victoria, whose bowlers included Palmer—then at the commencement of his career—and Tom Kendall. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to say which was the most skilful innings Mur­ doch ever played. Perhaps, however, the majority of followers of the game would so consider his 153 not out in the second innings of the Australians against England in the memorable match at the Oval in 1880, for not only was it played against the best bowling in the country, but the runs were obtained at a most critical time and, more­ over, when the majority of his companions were unable to assist him to any very pro­ nounced extent. But he played so many great innings that a book would be necessary to deal with them at all adequately. It is only when one remembers that he was relatively as great a captain as he was a bats­ man that it is possible to obtain an idea of his worth to the sides he led. W. G. Grace has said of him :— “ He was a born tactician, a genial chief, a firm, though gentle ruler,” and Mr. A. J. Webbe has testified to his true sportsmanship by describing him as the fairest man who ever played cricket. Mr. F. R. Spofforth, interviewed during the past week by a contemporary, was as emphatic, saying:—“ As a captain Murdoch was a remarkably fine judge of the game. He always knew by instinct just when to take a bowler off and just when to put him on again. He had confidence in his own judgment, and a gift for inspiring confidence in it on the part of everyone in the team. There were no dissensions in the Australian team on or off the field when he was their leader. Of course, there were times when one did not see eye to eye with him. but Murdoch always had the courage of his opinion, and the result generally proved that he was right. He did not interfere with bowlers much in placing the field. For instance, I always placed the field myself for my own bowling. Now and again he would make a suggestion, and he was a captain who was not above consulting with two or three members of the side.” After his return to Australia on the con­ clusion of the 1884 tour, and following his marriage, he gave up first-class cricket and little was seen of him again until 1890, when he paid his fifth visit to England. It was an ill-starred team, and, although Murdoch hardly played up to his reputation, he had the personal satisfaction of heading the averages, in addition to leading the side with skill. Afterwards, as all who follow the game at all closely will remember, he settled in this country and qualified for Sussex, for which county he commenced to play in 1893. In the meantime, however, he had visited South Africa as a member of the late Mr. W . W. Read’s team in 1891-2, when, in all games, he scored 633 runs with an average of 27*52. It is interesting to recall that it was during that tour that he made his only appearance for England ia a Test match. He played in the game with South Africa at Cape Town and contributed 12 to the total of 369, which enabled the visiting side to win by an innings and 189 runs. His doings when he had made his home in this country, captaining Sussex for several seasons, and afterwards playing with “ W . G .” for London County, will be fresh in recollection. Within the last two years he was asked what he thought of cricket in England at the present as compared with that of twenty or twenty-five years previously. He did not think the cricketers of to-day (especially the bowlers) were anything like so good as they were in the eighties. And then he paid a high compliment to his great rival of old. He said Australian teams touring in England now had a great advantage over those of years gone by in that they had not to face W. G. Grace. He was the stumbling- block. His wicket was worth two or three others. During his long career in first-class cricket Murdoch had several unusual expe­ riences. The earliest, and by no means the least remarkable, occurred in the match between New South Wales and Lord Harris’ team at Sydney, in February, 1879. In his first innings Murdoch had played a splendid game for 82, going in first and carrying out his bat, and when his side followed on it was on his efforts that the hope of evading defeat rested. It is a matter of history that when he had made ten he was adjudged run out— a decision which caused such a severe dis­ turbance that the game was suspended for some time. Lord Harris was requested to change the umpire (Coulthard), but this he wisely refused to do. The match was eventu­ ally proceeded with, Ulyett took four wickets with consecutive balls, and the Englishmen won byan innings and 41 runs. Four years later — in the Test match at Sydney—Murdoch lodged a protest on the second day against Barlow playing with large spikes in his boots, on the ground that they tore up the wicket. The matter dropped when it was pointed out that Spofforth was even worse an offender in this respect, and it is interesting to note that the Hon. Ivo Bligh, writing in the Red Lillyivhite, recalled “ the wicket being cut up at both ends by Spofforth’s heels to such an extent that Horan became an unplayable bowler.” Another unusual experience befell him in the match between Middlesex and Sussex at Lord’s in 1893. On the first day of the match a ball from F. H. Guttridge rebounded off the wicket­ keeper’s pads and removed the bails. Mr. C. P. Foley, the batsman at that end, upon stooping and taking up one of the bails to replace upon the wicket, was actually given out upon appeal by the old Kent player, Henty. The decision was so absurd that Murdoch requested the batsman to continue his innings, which he did. And, lastly, it may be recalled that, when playing against Surrey at the Oval in 1895, he was bowled by Richardson with a ball which sent a bail 55 yards 3 inches. For some years, first in New South Wales and later in Victoria, Murdoch practised as a solicitor, and, being a crack shot, repre­ sented the former State more than once in rifle matches against the latter. Cricketers everywhere would rejoice if the familiar name should appear prominently again in connection with the game, and that more unlikely things may happen is evident from the fact that W. R. Murdoch, a son of the Australian champion, had a batting average of 45 for Repton six years ago. M r . MURDOCH’S HUNDREDS IN IMPORTANT CRICKET. 321 New South Wales v. Victoria, at Sydney, 1SS2-3. 286* Australians v. Sussex, at Brighton, 1882. 279* Fourth Australian Team v. Rest of Australia, at Melbourne, 1883-4. (He batted on each of the three days for this score.) 226 Sussex v. Cambridge University, at Brighton, 1895. (During this innings he took part in three separate stands of over 100.) 211 Australia v. England, at the Oval, 1884. 172 Sussex v. Hampshire, at Southampton, 1894. 158 New South Wales v. Victoria, at Melbourne, 1883-4. 158 Australians v. Sussex, at Brighton, 1890. 155 London County v. Lancashire, at Manchester, 1903. 153* Australia v. England, at the Oval, 1880. 153 First Australian Team v. XV. of Victoria, at Melbourne, 1878-9. 144 Sussex v. Somerset, at Brighton, 1896.