Cricket 1914

4 0 6 THE WORLD OF CRICKET. A u g u s t 8, 1 9 1 4 . because human, is it possible to judge of such an action as this with clear and unbiassed judgment. “ Shall we count offences or coin excuses ? ” Trott has gone—by the road that Arthur Shrewsbury and his old friend and schoolfellow, William Scotton, went— the road that many another has gone. And we sorrow for his death, and for the manner of it, and remember him in his prime, a great cricketer, big of heart, full of individuality, getting the utmost out of the game, never sparing himself. Albert Edwin Trott was born in Melbourne on February 6, 1873 , and died at Harlesden on July 30, 1914. Not yet 42 ! But his active cricket career lay some years in the past. He only appeared in seven matches after 1909. Lately he had umpired, and had earned credit by his work in the white coat. But many a man with physical advan­ tages far less than his has been able to go on longer than he did, and in happier circumstances he might still have been playing the game which his brother Harry, his senior by over six years, has not yet abandoned. Trott’s rise into fame was sensational. Few cricketers have stepped into international cricket with so small an ex­ perience of the game in first-class company as he. He had done good work in club cricket before he was chosen for Victoria, of course ; but he had not played long even in the best club cricket, for he was only a trifle over 20 when he appeared for Victoria v. Western Australia at the fag- end of the season of 1892-3. Included in the Westralian team was H. R. Orr, who skippered Bedfordshire for a dozen years or so, and is now in British Columbia. Trott did nothing in that match to make a name for himself. He next appeared (in January, 1894) against Tasmania at Melbourne, another match for which his state did not need to put a representative team into the field. He took 11 for 138 in the game, and was chosen to play v. South Aus­ tralia at Adelaide a few weeks later, but did not score a run in the match, and only took one wicket. He bowled well (8 for 213 in a match of big scores) in Victoria’s first game of the 1894 season, against Stoddart’s Team. MacLaren made 228 in the first innings of this contest, and the total was 416 ; the colt took 6 for 103, splendid figures in such a total. He made some runs, too. Against South Australia at Adelaide he did little, though his 38 was his highest innings in big cricket to that date. It was largely his bowling in the last innings of the Victoria v. New South Wales match at Melbourne, when he took 5 for 55, that gave him international honours, though the high opinion expressed by members of the English side of his promise had something to do with it. Many a man shows fine all-round form for an English county for years, and yet never gets a show in a test. But the English counties are many, the Australian states few. Albert Trott played his first test when his record in big cricket stood thus: i i innings (2 not out) for 128 runs; 27 wickets at between 21 and 22 each. Was any man ever chosen on apparently slenderer qualifications ? Did any man ever more emphatically justify his choice ? He scored 38 not out and 72 not out, hitting in great style, and in England’s second he took 8 wickets for 43 runs. At once he leaped to the summit of popular favour. He was an absolute certainty for the next team to England, of course ; and speculation was rife as to the big things he would do in the old country. And he did accomplish big things in England ; but he never did anything as a member of an Australian team, for he was not chosen. His form in 1895-6 was a trifle disappointing. But he was so young and had done so well in 1894-5 (he followed up his success in the Adelaide test with 85 in the following game at Sydney, and with good work in other matches) that it is difficult to understand now, as it was then, why the selectors failed to put him in. They had a tough task, those selectors of the 1896 Aus­ tralian team—William Bruce, Tom Garrett, and George Giffen. So many men had come to the front since the last trip to England—men like Darling, Iredale, Donnan, Hill, Jones, as well as Trott himself—and so many of the older hands still retained their form. Some people wanted them to leave out Hugh Trumble. They did leave out Lyons. They were going to leave out Hill and Kelly. And they left out Albert Trott. He made up his mind to come to England, and he came, got an engagement with the M.C.C., and proceeded to qualify for Middlesex. It was said that he would be played by the Australian team selectors if at any time they ran short; but he was never asked to play. From the outset he was a success in England. The brief first-class programme of the M.C.C. gave him comparatively few chances in big cricket during his first two seasons ; but in minor M.C.C. games he piled up runs and worked havoc with the ball. In 1898 he became qualified for Middlesex. In all first-class matches that season he took 130 wickets, while his batting average was 20, his chief scores being 77 v. Notts at Trent Bridge and 76 v. Leicester­ shire at Leicester. That was good enough. But in 1899 he rose to far greater heights. He totalled over 1000 runs, and he took 239 wickets. In only one match during the season did he fail to take a wicket; then at the Oval he bowled 56 overs for 113 runs, what time the Surrey batsmen ran up 415. Thrice during the season he took 13 wickets in a match, twice 12, five times 11, twice 10, thrice 9, and thrice 8. He scored 164 v. Yorkshire at Lord’s, batting carefully at first, but afterwards hitting with such tremendous vigour that his last 137 were made in 90 minutes. Against Sussex at Lord’s he scored 123 in the same slashing style and had 12 wickets for 200 in the match. He was a better—or at any rate a more consistent— batsman in 1900 than in 1899 ; one can hardly say he fell away as a bowler, for it seems absurd to talk of a falling away in the case of a man who took over 200 wickets, had all 10 (for 42 v. Somerset at Taunton) in one innings, and took 5 or more in 20 other innings ; but his wickets cost more, and his days of non-success were less rare. Among his scores that year were a brilliant 112 «. Gloucestershire at Lord’s, seven of between 50 and 100, and a dozen of between 20 and 50. And now, at 27, he had done his best work. He took 176 wickets at under 22 each in 1901, and he made nearly 900 runs with an average of over 20 ; but he was no longer quite the terror he had been in those two great years. Among his best all-round performances in 1901 were 112 and 11 for 138 v. Essex at Lord’s, 55 and 13 for 140 v. Notts at Lord’s, and 56 and 8 and 10 for 171 v. Kent at Tonbridge. Again in 1902 he took over 100 wickets, and he scored over 900 runs. He was still good enough for any team ; but he was not the man he had been at his zenith—all too quickly passed. He did not last as George Hirst has lasted, for instance. Against Somerset at Lord’s he scored 17 and 103 and took 9 for 179 ; for M.C.C. v. Cambridge University at Lord’s he scored 67 and took 9 for 151 ; and he was always likely to knock up a good score in quick time and go on to get wickets in plenty, but he was not quite the force of old. In 1903 he took 105 wickets ; but he bowled in as many as 29 matches, whereas in 1900 the same number of matches had yielded him nearly twice as many. His biggest score this season was 103 against the worn-out bowling of Glouces­ tershire at Lord’s. Warner and Moon had sent up 248 for the first wicket, and that fact cheapened somewhat the runs of those who came afterwards. Again in 1904 he had over 100 wickets, though at.a higher cost; but he only twice reached 50 in an innings, curiously enough both scores being made in the same match—67 and 56 v. Lancashire at Old Trafford.