AUSTRALIAN AND FOREIGN CRICKET.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVIII, Issue 11463, 29 December 1897, Page 3

AUSTRALIAN AND FOREIGN CRICKET.

The following is taken from a West Australian journal —“ At a match at Midland Junction on Nov. 13 between the Midland Junction and the Telephone Eleven, Mr A. Leach, local postmaster, put up the record in howling for the season, taking ten wickets in one innings for five runs, doing the ‘ hat trick ’ twice in two overs, and in one over he took four wickets with four successive balls.”

It appears that at the time of the breaking into T. Richardson’s house intelligence of which was communicated by cable, Mrs Richardson was away from home. The thieves succeeded in carnying away a handsome marble clock and a valuable walking-stick, in addition to other articles, including a bank-book. A few years ago it will be remembered (says the Melbourne Argus of Dec. 6) that during the cricket season there was a sudden uprising of the M’Leods one week —when every member of that talented family of cricketers made big scores. The Stuckey family had their turn last Saturday week in a coincidence of not-outs. Harry Stuckey had an unfinished : 206 at Carlton, George 72 not out ab Hawksburn, while a third brother in West Australia, who had not been suspected of any great batting ability, made over 80, and -was also not out. To complete the family triumph, a sister of these crack cricketers played in a ladies’ game, and made something like 70 not. That so many members of one family should all score heavily on the same day without losing a wicket between them is a rare occurrence.

Mr C. J. M. Godfrey, one of tho best known cricketers in the London district, says in the course of an interesting interview in London Cricket :—“I had an amusing experience in another match in the country, when Key was playing. When he was at Clifton, Key was a leg-break howler, and may be now for all I know—perhaps as captain of the Surrey team he does not care to go on without practice. In 1882 he-and I were bowling at Hampton Wick and keeping wicket to each other —mine was the lighter task. F. B. Shadwell was batting and a beauty from Key hit the top of the off-stump, knocking it back an inch or two, and going pn into my’ hands. Shadwell, hearing the noise behind him, and quite satisfied that ho was bowled, walked towards’ the pavilipu. I then discovered that no bails were off.So 1 put the ' wicket down, appealed for stumping, the umpire gave him ‘ out,’ and the incident seemed closed. But in the meantime the bowler’s umpire had called ‘over’ before the wicket was put down, so that Shadwell resumed his innings.” When H. H. Massie made his 206 against Oxford in 1882, Godfrey missed him at 12. Sam Jones, who was not a stonewaller, registered 4 while Massie put up his second hundred, which, so far as my memory serves me, occupied somewhere about ninety minutes. Another amusing incident is told in the interview. In Godfrey’s Freshmen’s match at Oxford a fast bowler named Pickering secured a wicket with his first ball. The second was “ no-balled,” and thereupon the captain requested ’ the bowler to' finish the over with lobs. Tho very first ball of the lobs disposed of the next man to the amusement of the field and surprise of the bowler. ■

The following interesting statistics are taken from the-Sydney Referee : —J. Rosser who figured ,in the Toowoomba team against the Englishmen, is tho old Victorian player. He was one of the eleven, which dismissed South Australia for 28— the smallest score on record in Australia — at Melbourne in 1883. Shewshury lias made more runs in test matches that any other Englishman, his total being 1277 for forty innings (four not out) which gives an average of 35‘47. His scores include 164, 106, 105*, 82, 81, 72, 66, 47, 44, 44, 43, 40 and 37. Stoddart, however, has® amongst those who have played in more than three or four matches the finest record. He has made 935 runs in 25 innings, his average being 37‘4. The scores includejl73, 134, S 3, 69, 68, 42, 41, 36, 35, 34*, and 30*. Robert Abel’s efforts have produced 3,8, 70, O, 32, 28, 132*, 24, 1, 94, 4, 25, 13,, 26, and 21. Eanjitainhji has batted four times in test matches, his scores being 62, 154 not out, 8, and 11. W. G. Grace has made 1069 runs for forty innings in these games. A great sequence of the master’s scores: 170, 10, 24, 1, 38, 0,75* 0, 16,50, 25, 26,5, 58,68,40, 46, and 66. Maolaren’s figures are as follow, scored in the order given 4, 20, O, 15, 25, 35, 1, O, 120* 20*, 0, 15, 20, and 6.

Apropos of the statement that it is a question of money between George Giffen and the promoters of the Englishmen’s tour, the following is mentioned by “ Short - slip ” in tho Sydney Herald. Prior to the match between the second Australian team and Notts, in consequence of the former having but teu men available, the Anglo-Australian Midwinter—now gone to that bourne from which no traveller returns—offered his services, which were refused. “ Middy ” had previously backed the Australians, and naturally felt much chagrined at the action of the team in not accepting his offer, but his subsequent feelings can more easily be imagined than described, when it is stated that tho match was lost by tho Australians by one wicket. If the records are turned up by it will be seen that tho defeated .team , played one -man short -in each in-

rungs. Midwinter vowed that he would have some of lus money hack. He happened to arrive in Melbourne just before Christmas of 1880, in fact he played against Mew South Wales in the intercolonial match at that time, and was selected for combined Australia against the 'BO team. On learning that his services were required he said that his fee was =£s a day. The Australian eleven objected to pay this, but the management was informed that the financial arrangements for the match were no business of the selectors, and if the latter could not put their best team into the field the match would not take place. It is needless to say that Midwinter received his fee.

The excitement in Sydney was intense while waiting for the names of the Australian team to he announced, and in connection therewith there were (writes Short-slip ”in the Sydney Mail ) some rather amusing incidents. The selection committee, Trott, Iredale,!and Darling, met at about 11 o’clock, and after a few minutes’ conference decided upon the eleven, the, twelth and the thirteenth. Each one wrote out a list for his own use. Trott was chairman of the committee, and in due course he waited upon the secretary to the Sydney Ground and handed the list to .him.. Mr Fairland (with surprise) : “Are you quite sure this is the team?” Mr Trott (thinking that the surprise was caused hy the inclusion of Giffen, and perhaps Lyons) : “Yes, quite sure! I, as chairman of the' committee, officially hand you that list.” Mr Fairland had, of course, to be satisfied; with this. The Victorian, in company with Darling, walked round to Gregory and Outram’s cricket depot in Pitt Street, and Trott handed a similar list to the crack New South Wales batsman. After a brief examination, Gregory said, “I see you have selected twelve.” “No,” said Trott, “thirteen.” “Well, there are only twelve here, at any rate,” replied Gregory; and tlien, after a pause, “ Why, you have left Joe Darling here out.” “By Jove,” burst- out Trott, “so I have,” In the meantime the, incorrect team, with the words “Darling is left out,” had been posted at the Daily Telegraph and several other .places in town, and had also been wired all over the colony to Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, and to London. I myself was particularly fortunate. Calling at Gregory and Outram’s just as Trott and Darling laid left, I received the correct list, which was shortly after posted at’the Herald. The difference in the list at the offices of the two morning /papers caused much speculation as to which was correct, while others who had wagered drinks that Darling would be selected went off to the nearest fountain and paid them over. Inquiries at the secretary’s office-supported tho exclusion of Darling, and on the strength of that more wagers were made.. Finally the mistake was rectified, and' there were many sadder and poorer men ■about.

“ Point.” in the Adelaide Observer, wrote: recently:—“ I doubt whether we shall hear much-more during this season in objection to Jones’s' ' delivery. The effect of the action of Phillips here has been ,to direct attention to Eichardson’s arm. Eiebardson when he bowls his fastest ball, ; that one which nips back from the-off—Noble was bowled' in the firstinrungs with such a one —is no'more above" suspicion than Jones is, and if Phillips should no-ball Jones again I should not be surprised to hear the ominous call come from an Australian umpire when Eiebardson sends along his extra-fast one with the off-break. That would.not suit the' Englishmen’s book. They cannot afford to have their best bowler ‘ called.’ In these circumstances they may deem it wjse to say no'; more while ■ .they are in Australia about the fairhess'of Jones’s delivery, though iffthey lose the test matches they would doubtless ‘ squeak ’ about it when they readied their own land.” Our friend “ Point ” (writes “Short-slip” in the Sydney Mail) must have meant the ball that bowled Trumpet* in the second innings—not that which scattered Noble's timber yard in the first. Noble’s dismissal was effected by a rather slow one, while Trumper’s was very fast, and came from the off stump and smashed the leg* stump. I don’t agree with some portion of the above.' Each umpire is supposed to act entirely on his own judgment, and it would be a bad move if because one umpire “ called ” a bowler the other umpire should do likewise to one on the opposite side. There is, however, as “ Point ” says, a big suspicion attaching to Eichardson’s delivery. In the recent match against New South Wales, I was sitting at the desk set apart for the representatives of the fourth estate, writing my “ copy ”as the match progressed. The position I occupied was as good a one ■as can he obtained anywhere outside the actual playing ground. I am, however, prepared to admit that, of course, it was not as favourable as, that occupied, by the; howler’s umpire. In fact, I simply mention the matter as an incident not altogether without interest to the-question of no-ball-ing. Eiebardson had been given a spell, and during the changing for over I was snatching a few seconds to get through my work. Allowing, as I thought, sufficient for the play to be renewed, I lifted my eyes and was just in time to see an arm fly over and nothing else, not even the owner of the arm. At once I instinctively whispered, “ That’s a shy !” Then I looked further and saw that Eiebardson was being tried again. Thus, there could have been no question of pre-» j udice. If the flick of the-elbow from where; I was appeared to be so pronounced, how much more so should it have appeared to the umpire.