Cricket 1884

JAN. 31, 1884. CRICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME 11 TH E FO U R TH A U S T R A L IA N TE AM F ro m t h e Melbourne Age, A matter of much greater importance is the prospective constitution of the fourth Aus­ tralian eleven, which, according to the state­ ments of the promoters, will visit England next season. It is scarcely correct, perhaps, to define this as a matter in which the colony has any special interest, for most certainly it has no authority. The project is—as it always has been—purely a private specula­ t i o n , and unfortunately the time when the cricketing associations of the colonies may be expected to take such matters in hand ap­ pears just as remote as ever. The position of the colonies with regard to these under­ takings has been so often defined that but for the absolute necessity of having a clear understanding on the point with the English cricketing authorities, further reiteration would be quite unnecessary. So long as the best cricketing talent available is brought together to represent Australia, and they play the game honestly and ably, and con­ duct themselves as gentlemen, it is a matter of indifference to Australians whether the - main motive for organisation has been cash or the cricketing credit of the colonies. Owing to the reticence of the projectors, it is impossible to state definitely the probable constitution of the eleven, but from what is known on the subject there is some fear that there may be grounds for great dissatisfac­ tion when the ultimate selection i s made known. Had all the members-of the last eleven been able and willing to visit England again it is probable that, except in the sub­ stitution of another player for Jones, who was the failure of the team, no other altera­ tion would have been made. Under any circumstances, this monopoly is not desira­ ble, but when it means injustice to better men it becomes in the highest degree objec­ tionable. Taking the Victorian contingent of the last eleven, we find that, with the ex­ ception of II'Donnell, who was never more brilliant, no player has done anything to entitle him to notice, even under the re­ markably favourable conditions offered up to the present time. Several of the team, indeed, seem to regard club cricket as be­ neath their notice, and to pay no attention to a game that has not some financial aspect to recommend it to notice. It was not in this way that Australia attained its pre­ eminence in the cricket-field, and it is not by a continuance of this policy that superi­ ority is likely to be maintained. Among Victorian cricketers this year there are four players who have specially distin­ guished themselves, viz., Lewis, M ‘Shane, Scott, and Turner; and yet, strange to say, not one of these has yet received an invita­ tion to join the team. Had the management of the affair been in the hands of an un­ prejudiced body, these four players would have been among the first half-dozen chosen. It maybe said, indeed, that the club matches of the present season have been so unim­ portant that brilliant performances under such conditions are not calculated to count for much. This may be the case, but in omitting all notice of the present season’s form we must conclude that those who were unable to score under such favourable cir­ cumstances have no claims whatever to con­ sideration, and the remark wEl apply to most of the members of former teams. Taking past performances as a guide, we find that Lewis, ever since he was strong enough to hold a bat, has scored consistently well against all bowling. As a boy he has taken the field for Ballarat against the best English talent, and yet remained unawed by the reputation of his opponents even when older men have suffered from their nerves. As a member of the East Melbourne Club he has for the first time obtained regular prac­ tice against good bowling, and the result is shown in his remarkable performances up to date. In addition to his skill with the bat, Lewis is a capable wicket-keeper, and first- class field, and certainly no cricketer ever joined an Australian team for the first time with higher qualifications. He is one of the best batsmen in Victoria at the present day, and the fact of his not having been already asked to join the team is one of the remark­ able incongruities in the affair that cricketers outside the Australian Eleven cannot under­ stand. It has been industriously rumoured that Lewis, even if chosen, could not obtain leave of absence, but there is not the slight­ est foundation of fact about the statement. If he is not included in the team, the only reason will be that the necessary invitation to join has never been sent to him. Scott has also shown wonderfully good batting form during the last two seasons in matches -of every character. He is a batsman who avoids the error of suiting his play to the reputation instead of the skill of the bowler opposing him, and who never offers encour­ agement by showing a particle more respect for the bowler’s ability than it really de­ serves. As a bowler he has more than once pulled the colony out of an awkward fix, notably in the last match played on the Melbourne ground. No fault'can be found with his fielding, and the only reason to be assigned for his being ignored in the forma­ tion of the present team is that performances go for nothing and old associations for every­ thing. M‘Shane was not a brilliant success as a batsman in club matches last year, and this is the only disability that can be urged against him. A few seasons ago his batting was remarkably good, and had he maintained that form he would have been one of the first men chosen for the last team—after the promoters themselves. It may count for something with the general public—if not with directors of Australian cricketing com­ panies—that he has never yet failed as a batsman in an important match. Irrespec­ tive of this, it is impossible to ignore the fact that he is to-day one of the best all­ round cricketers in the colony. It is said that the present team will be weak in bowl­ ing, but, despite the fact that appearances verify the assertion, this surely cannot be the case. Otherwise it is difficult to under­ stand how the value of M‘Shane’s services in this respect can be overlooked. Playing for the East Melbourne club, he has always secured a better bowling average than Boyle, and although the latter has now passed the meridian, his splendid performances with each successive Australian team will be long remembered. It may be said that Boyle is especially favoured by the English wickets, but the same remark applies to M‘Shane also. On a damp or uncertain wicket he is one of the most difficult of bowlers, and no one can better testify to this fact than some members of past Australian teams. M ‘Shane has another strong recommendation in the fact that he can bowl remarkably fast when occasion requires, and with the development of this capacity by continual practice, would be an invaluable member of the team. It'is stated that in order to remedy the want of a fast bowler in the team, Garrett, who has for a long time past been a most decided failure in Australia, will again be taken to England. Like Boyle, he has in his favour some good performances on English wickets with the ball, but nothing more. M‘Shane’s bowling has the same peculiarity as Garrett’s, with the additional merit of be ng more difficult on perfect wickets, therefore the natural inference is that his success qp an English turf would be more decisive than that of the New South Wales bowler. Leav­ ing, therefore, his greater excellence as a fieldsman and bowler entirely out of the question, M’Shane has superior claims to Garrett. There are few things more trying than a long cricketing campaign, and the continual work has before this found out some of the weak spots in an Australian team. Most people familiar with cricket will remember Garrett’s worn-out appearance after the return of the last eleven from England, and his feeble efforts in the matches played in the colonies. Members of the same eleven have stated that Boyle was frequently com­ pelled to bowl in England when throughly tired out with his continued exertions, and nothing but downright determination and courage brought him through successfully. This is not a reassuring statement, and in the face of such facts the necessity for the inclusion of men like M’Shane and Scott, with youth, energy, and vitality all in their favour, is apparent. When at the critical stage of the great international match at the Oval we hear of sturdy English players being wrapped in blankets, scarcely able to stand through nervous prostration, it is easy to comprehend how necessary it is that in the face of such contingencies a player should feel strong and confident. This merit is especially noticeable in the trio of young players so unaccountably over­ looked. Had Lewis lacked either courage or confidence, the defect would have become manifest when, as a boy, he faced the cream of English professional bowling. Scott has never been known to suffer from nervous­ ness, even during the most critical phases of his cricketing career, and M’Shane, with his fine physique and splendid constitution, never knew the meaning of the word. With an abundance of confidence, he always seems to rise to the occasion, so that the more important the match the more pro­ nounced his success. So far as can be learned the only objection that has been urged against the three East Melbourne players is that the inclusion of colts in an Australian team is a risky ex­ periment. The argument will not, however, hold water for an instant. When Murdoch was admitted to the first team it was solely on account of the desire for a second wicket­ keeper, and because he was, next to Black- ham, the most capable player in that respect. The proprietor of Longmans' Magazine would not then have considered his opinions on the art of batting worth recording. When Bonnor first went to England as a member of the second Australian Eleven he had no claim to notice except a remarkable stature, and that alone was not considered a great recommendation in a cricketer. Thus the arguments as to youth and inexperience— even if admissible in the case of the three players named—are upset by the experience of the very men who use them. Indeed, the only example to the contrary is that of Jones, who may be accepted as the special exception proving the rule. Turner, of the Richmond club, is another player with a decided grievance against the promoters of Australian teams. He has filled pretty much the same position in this Next Issue of CRICKET will be published Thursday February 28-