- Jan 24, 2013
Thanks.Quid? That's cheating. You're from the land of the Duke and the willow
As others have said, good for its day. A 17 average might do for a bowler (pitcher), but not a batsman (hitter). Making 100s and 50s (centuries and fifties) is good, but in a single innings, not necessarily a two innings first class match.
His lone mention on my go to site for cricket is that is was the first international cricketer to die in a war. In 1859 he had a truly awful time, scoring one in one innings and a duck (0) in the other. In his second international he scored 11 & 27. The article sites he was known more for his fielding. I can't comment on the state of fielding in 19th Century cricket, but in modern cricket there is a saying: "If you can't bat, bowl. If you can't bat or bowl, keep wicket." There is no room in a modern XI for poor hitting defensive specialist. He did, however, make some decent figures as an 18 year old in local competition.
He was no star, but played in an era where the stars weren't any good by today's standards. At least his U.S. team had the ability to play decent sides. Today's Team USA finished fourth in the tournament played to qualify for the tournament played to qualify for the Cricket World Cup qualifying tournament.