CRICKET.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XIII, Issue 795, 1 June 1905, Page 15

CRICKET.

The first Test match was commenced on Monday, at Nottingham, the weather being all that could be desired and the wicket was in very fair condition. The teams were made up as follows : — England. —Hon. F. S. Jackson, Yorkshire (captain); T, Hayward, Surrey; A. O. Jones, Nottingham; J. T. Tyldesley, Lancashire; A. C. Maclaren, Lancashire ; B. J. Bosanquet, Middlesex; John Gunn, Nottingham; G. L. Jessop, Gloucestershire; A. A. Lilley, Warwickshore; W. Rhodes, Yorkshire; E. Arnold, Worcestershire. ‘ Australia. —J. Darling, South Australia (captain); M. A. Noble, New South Wales (vice-captain); C. Hill, South Australia; V. Trumper, New South Wales; R. A. Duff, New South Wales; W. W. Armstrong, Victoria; S. E. Gregory, New South Wales; A. Cotter, New South Wales; C. E. McLeod, Victoria; F. Laver Victoria; J. J. Kelly, New South Wales. The spin of the coin favoured the English skipper, who sent his opponents into the field, Jones and Hayward opening the batting to the bowling of Cotter and Laver. Disaster for the home team commenced early, Hayw’ard losing his wicket when only five. Tyldesley came next and immediately commenced scoring, but at 24 lost Jones, who after making four runs played on to Laver. Maclaren’s stay at the wicket Avas very brief, Kelly catching him for two runs. The English captain followed, only to be bowled by Cotter before he had opened his account. On Bosanquet joining Tyldesley runs commenced to come freely, both batsmen showing confidence. As is often the case, the luncheon interval proved fatal to the partnership, Laver bonding Bosanquet immediately the game was resumed after he had made 27. With the score at 119, Tyldesley put one up to Duff. He made 56 by good cricket at a difficult time. Jessop had his stumps knocked back by Laver's first ball, and then Gunn, who had pottered, about for 8, was bowled by Cotter. Rhodes and Lilley hit freely, the bowler being specially severe on L>bie, but then Lilley hit one back to Laver nnd Noble caught Rhodes, the innings c'o.- ; ng for 196. The feature of it was the f»i> bonding of Laver, who captured seven wickets for 64 runs, Cotter taking the other three for the same number of euns. As usual Duff and Trumper led off for Australia, but the former was immediately caught by Hayward. After making 13 Trumper had to retire owing to an in-

jury to his back. Hill and Noble Lit freely, several changes being tried, but after the latter had made half a century he was bowled by Jackson, who immediately accounted for Hill, the Adelaide crack having put together 54. Like the English skipper, Darling failed to score. Armstrong and Cotter were the batsmen when time was called, the score standing at 156 for five wickets.

Trumpet’s injury consisted of the fibre of one of the muscles of his back being torn. He will be unable to play again in the match, this being a big handicap to the side.

Up to the Yorkshire match Armstrong easily topped the batting averages for the Australian team, having made by far the most runs at the rate of 90| per innings. Hill, Noble, and Darling follow in that order, all bein c , in the forties. Of the batsmen pure and ismple Gregory has done the worst. What the team would have dene in the bowling department without their manager, Laver, it is difficult to say, but he has taken nearly three times as many wickets as anyone else on the side. He may be said to be the only bowler who has really come off, although Howell is improving.

The match between Yorkshire and the Australians proved one of those games which are virtually won on the toss of the coin. The County team consisted of Lord Hawke, Jackson, Grimshaw, Denton, Tunnicliffe, Hirst, Rhodes, Haigh, Myers, Ringrose, and Hunter, while Gehrs, Hopkins, Newland and Armstrong stood out of the Australian team. Darling, winning the toss, sent his side in to bat, and some good scoring was done. Trumper made 85, Duff 61, Hill 55, and Darling 54. Showery weather greatly hampered the bowlers, the ball being very difficult to hold, while it made the wicket easy. When the last wicket fell the good total of 322 runs had been put together. Before the wicket got much impaired the Yorkshire batsmen did very well, Tunnicliffe make 52 and Jackson 42, but then the wicket got worse, and the tail end was disposed of very cheaply, all being out for 197. In their second venture the Australians could do no better, Darling top-scoring with 22. and the innings closed for 127, the wicket wearing badly. Owing to this the Yorkshire batsmen could do nothing in the second innings against the bowling of Laver and Howell, and all were out for the poor score of 78, of which Rhodes made 22. The Australians thus won by 174 runs.

The match between Lancashire and the Australians resulted in another easy victory for the latter, a result materially brought about by the toss of the coin. As the wicket wore so did the run-getting decline, and as the Home county had to bat last, they naturally failed to make the runs. The Lancashire eleven was composed of Maclaren Spooner, Tyldesley, Garnett, Poidevin, Hallows, Hornbv. Findla' 7 Sharp, Kermode, and Brearley, while Darling. Cotter, Newland, and Armstrong stood out of the visiting team. The Australians led off well, and on the good wicket made - lot of runs. Hill was in his best form, and although he gave two or three chances and was once caught eff a no-ball, gave his finest display of the tour. He made 149 before being caught off Brearle- while Duff (48), Trumoer (36), McLeod (30, not out), and Noble (28) did the best of the others. Lancashire started well, but their wickets fell i-’nidly, the last two men making a jpood stand, however. The total reached 221, towards which Sharp contributed 52 without losing his wicket, while Tyldesley made 45 and Maclaren 28. Going in a second time the Australians were dismissed for 196. Noble top-scoring with 52, while Duff made 37 and Gregory 34. On the worn wicket Lancashire could do little against the bowling of McLeod and Laver, and were all out for 104, of which Maclaren made 23. The Australians thus Avon by 244 runs.

Armstrong’s recent ..aings of 248 (not out) is the highest score of his career in first-class cricket, his next best being 172 (not out) three years ago, against Sussex. It is the fourth highest individual score obtained by an Australian batsman in England. Trumper made 300 (not out) in 1899, Murdoch 286 in 1882, and Noble 284 in 1902. All of these innings, like Armstrong’s previous best, were played against Sussex on the Brighton ground. The partnership of 273 for the seventh wicket is beaten by the 344 of Ranjitsinhji and Newham for the seventh Sussex wicket against Essex in 1902; but whereas the latter partnership was eventually dissolved, that of Armstrong and Darling was not. Though it is not the best seventh wicket partnership, it is the best in which Australian batsmen have figured in a first-class match.

Prior to the present match Jackson has never yet led an All-England Eleven against the Australians.

The match against Yorkshire has always been regarded as one of the hardest problems the Australians have to solve. Twenty-seven contests have taken place. The Australians have won a dozen, Yorkshire five, and ten have been drawn. In 1902 both matches were sensational. The Australians had a first innngs’ lead cf 24. but in the second Hirst and Jackson dismissed them for only 23, the solitary double figure being Gregory’s 10 (not out). Jackson disposed of Hopkins, Kellv, Jones, and Howell in five balls, and Hirst accounted for Trumper, Duff, Darling, Noble, and Armstrong for nine runs in seven overs. What a bag! Yorkshire won by five wickets. The return match was Avon by the Australians by 44, and this was also a bowler’s battle. There were only three scores over 30— Hill 34. Darling 40, and Gregory 42 (not out). Trumble took six for 17 and six for 27.

In connection with the recent episode 'of a lost ball in the match betAveen the Gentlemen of England and the Australians, there was, one time, a good story Avhich tells of a ball that was temporarily lost to sight. It was before the rule providing for the ball when lodged in a batsman’s clothing or pads becoming dead was introduced. It appears that the last man, a duffing batsman, was in, and there were five runs required to win. He played the ball and immediately made for the navilion at express speed. Not knoAving what was the matter no one attempted to stop him, but when he got bevond the boundary he put his hand inside his shirt and pulled out the ball, and holding it aloft called his fellow batsman in. Everyone looked on in amazement, but no one moved, whereupon the duffer” walked to the wicket. Then the following took place: — Captain of fielding side : “ How’s that, umpire, for handling ball?” ■ Umpire: “Not out. The ball became dead Avhen it got beyond the boundary.” Batsman : “ How’s that for a fiver?” Umpire: “I award five. The match is won.” This story is an evidence of presence of mind, for it was probably then the only ( way out of a peculiar difficulty.