Cricket 1885

MAR. 26, 1885, GRIGKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 35 CR ICKET IN AUS T RA L I A . (B y a C obkespondent ), In your isaue of C kicket , N ov . 2 7 ,1 notice a very excellent likeness of the late Frederick Morley, whom we in Australia remember in connection with the visit of the Hon. Ivo Bligh’s team. Morley was very much liked among cricketers here, as he always con­ ducted himself in a quiet and undemonstra­ tive manner. During his stay amongst us, he suffered constantly from bad health, and the fact of his not being able to do justice in the cricket field, either to himself or to the team with which he was connected, seemed to prey somewhat on his spirits, the other professionals attributing his melancholy mood to '‘ home sickness.” I wasin Sydney during the time the match between the English and Australian elevens was being played, upon the conclusion of which the English team left Sydney for Brisbane (Queensland) by steamer, to play a match at that place. Morley, owing to indisposition, was left behind. On the second morning after their departure, I was having breakfast at the table d’hote in the Metropolitan Hotel, Morley being at the same table, when a telegram was read from the morning paper, which stated that the steamer was reported lo3t with all aboard. I shall never forget the shock it occasioned Morley ; he started to his feet, overturning a plate of fish which he had in front of him, and stag­ gered up to the wall, leaning against which he cried like a child; poor fellow, his bad health had weakened his nerves terribly, and he was quite unable to bear up against such a dreadful misfortune. Meanwhile full par­ ticulars had been wired for, and the answer quickly arrived that the whole thing was a mistake, and that no such accident had occurred to the steamer which was conveying the Eleven to their destination. I saw Morley again during the day, when he said— “ I thought, Sir, I should have been the only one left to carry the sad news to the old country.” Had such a misfortune occurred, poor Morley would never have left Sydney, for I don’t believe he would have survived the shock more than a week. Public opinion here is so strong against the Australian Eleven on account of their recent action in the matter of the English professionals, that I don’t think another team will visit England for years to come, that is on the same lines as the previous tours. The Cricketers’ Associations of New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia may combine to send an eleven, which would be composed of Australians in the true sense of the term, or the Melbourne Cricket Club may send a team under the sheltering care of the Marylebone, which would be like returning the calls of Lord Harris and the Hon. Ivo Bligh. Shaw’s team up to this date, Feb. 6, have still an unbeaten record, but none of the Australian Eleven have played against them, and you know that even in England the cream of cricket lies among the first dozen players, so that in Australia, with our limited population, the withdrawal of the twelve best men weakens our cricket to a very great extent. We have many young players of great promise coming on, but of course they lack that confidence when opposed to first- class players with older heads—which is absolutely essential to success. On Friday, the 6th February, a match was played on the Melbourne Cricket Ground between eleven clergymen of the Anglican Church and eleven representatives of the Bar. A charge for admission was made, the proceeds to be devoted towards augmenting the fund subscribed in England for the widow of the late Frederick Morley. The amount received was about £20, which the Melbourne Cricket Club have under­ taken to forward, and of which you will, no doubt, shortly hear something. The match between the Clergy and the Bar, although several players of other days took part on both sides, partook somewhat of the muff element. The Rev. Walter Fellows, whose performances as a cricketer may be found in the Oxford records of some twenty-five or thirty years ago, captained the clergy. The style, together with all the spirit of the old warhorse, was present, but the activity of youth could not be recalled. The clergymen were quite over-matched, for after putting 89 together in their first innings, they allowed their opponents to respond with 236. In their second venture the clergy had lost seven wickets for 54 when time was called, and it was very improperly remarked that, upon this occasion at all events, the11Devil’s Own ” had got the better of the “ Lord’s Own.” Dr. Moorhouse, the Bishop of Mel­ bourne, was present at the luncheon given by the members of the bar, and at which Mr. Webb, Q.C., presided. His lordship, who is an exceedingly liberal-minded man, advocates muscular Christianity, and con­ siders cricket a game admirably adapted for clergymen, as a preventive of those ills which are engendered by a sedentary life. Mr. A. J. Noall, who is a veritable colt, has played another innings for the M.C.C against the South Suburban Railway Em­ ployes, in which he scored 60, and in the same innings, Mr. G. F. Yernon, of Middle­ sex, by vigorous hitting, put together 140 for M.C.C. The annual match between the Melbourne and Sydney Universities was played on Friday and Saturday, February 6 and 7, at Sydney, and resulted in an easy victory for the Sydney University by an innings and 70 runs. Melbourne scored 59 and 76, and Sydney 205 in their first and only innings. H. J. H. Scott, a member of the late Aus­ tralian Eleven, played with Melbourne, and Jones and Garrett, of the Third Australian Eleven, with Sydney. Jones played a good innings for 74, but Seott, for the Melbourne ’Varsity, could only make 9 and 4. A Victorian Eleven is now in Sydney, and the return Inter-colonial match with New South Wales will be played there next week. Victoria is not playing any of the members of the late Australian team, and as New South Wales will make use of their contin­ gent, they will probably score a win. Cricket, though, is a funny game, and the battle is notalways in favour of the strong. I have opened this packet on Feb. 11, in order to inform you that to-day an M.C.C. Eleven played eleven professionals from the various clubs around Melbourne. The M.C.C. won the toss, and going in on a perfect wicket, scored 481, of which Mr. G. F. Vernon made 226. In compiling this high total, he only gave one difficult chance, a hard drive past forward point, which not­ withstanding the fact that the fieldsman touched it, went to the boundary. Mr. Vernon played capital cricket for his runs, and the change to Australia has evidently put him in grand form. R eading C ases —(cloth boards) for holding four numbers of C r ic k e t, 2s., can be had at the office, 41, St. Andrew’s-hill, Doctors’ Commons, E.C. THE MARYLEBONE CLUB. The following fixtures have been arranged by the Marylebone Club for the season of 1885:—- MAT. 6, Lord's, Anniversary Meeting and Dinner 7, Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Sussex 11, Lord’s, Colts of North v. Colts of South 18, Oxford, M.C.C. & G. v. R.M C. 14, Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Middlesex Colts 16, Catford Bridge, M.C.C. & G. v. Private Banka 18, Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Kent 18, Oxford, M.C.C. & G. v. Oxford Univ. ‘20, Elstree, M.C.C. & G. v. Elstrce School 21, Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Leicestershire 21, Cambridge. M.C.C. & G. v. Cambridge Univ. 28, Bexley, M.C,C. & G. v. Bexley 25, (Whit Monday), Lord’s, North v. South (Benefit of Morley’s Family.) 25, Uppingham, M.C.C. & G. v. Uppingham School 2(5, Willesden Green, M.C.C. & G. v. Law Club 27, Bedford, M.C.C. & G. v. Bedford School 28, Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Notts 80, Lyttelton Ground, M.C.C. & G. v. Fire Office C.C. 30, Haileybury, M.C.C. & G. v. The College JUNE. 1, Lord’s, M.C.C. and G. v. Yorkshire I, Aylesbury, M.C.C. & G. v. Aylesbury 4, Lord’s, Middlesex v. Yorkshire 6, Richmond, M.C.C. & G. v. Richmond 6, Tonbridge, M.C.C. & G. v. The School 8, Lord’s, Middlesex v. Surrey 8, Ardingly, M.C.C. & G. v. Ardingly College 9, Lancing, M.C.C. & G. v. Lancing College 9, Hornsey, M.C.C. & G. v. Horn-ey 10, hiastbourne, M.C.C. & G. v. Eastbourne Coll. II, Lord’s, M.C.C. & ti. v. Northamptonshire 11, Brighton, M.C.C. & G. v. Brighton Coll. 11, Windsor, M.C.C. & G. v. Windsor Home Park 12, Hurstpierpoint, M.C.C.& G. v. Hurscpierpoint Coll. 18, Carshalton, M.C.C. & G. y. Carshalton Park IS, Eastbourne, M.C.C, & G. v. Eastbourno Club 15, Lord s, M.C.C. & G. v. Derbyshire 15, Southampton, M.C.C. & G. v. Hampshire 16, Walthamstow, M.C.C. & G. v. Forest School 17, Wimbledon, M.C.C. & G. v, Wimbledon School 17, Godalming, M.C.C. & G. v. Charterhouse School 18, Lord’s, Middlesex v. Gloucestershire 18, Winchester, M.C.C. & G. v. Winchester Coll. 18, Bury St. Edmunds, M.C.C. & G. v. Suffolk 20, Hillingdon, M.C.C. &G. v. Evelyns 20, Mill Hill, M.O.C. & G. v. The School 22, Lord’p, M.C.C. & G. v. Cambridge Univ. 22, Clapton, M.C.C. & G. v. Clapton 24, Dulwich, M.C.C. & G. v. Tne College 25, Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Oxfoid Univ. 26, Crystal Palace, M.C.C. & G. v. Crystal Palace 27, Feistead, M.C.C. & G. v. Felstead School 27, Sandhurst, M.C.C. & G. v. Sandhurst — Eton, M.C.C. & G. v. The College —, Harrow, M.C.C. & G. v. The School 29, Lord’s, Oxford v. Cambridge JULY. 1, Highgate, M.C.C. & G. v. The School 2, Lord’s, Bar v. Army 3, Oakham, M.C.C. & G. v. Rutland College 3, Clifion, M.C.C. & G. v. The College 4, Cirencester, M.C.C. & G. v. R.A. Coll. 6, Lord’s, Gentlemen v. Players 8, Kensington Park, M.C.C. & G. v. K.P. 8, Denstone, M.C C. & G. v. Denstone Coll. 9, Lord’s, I Zingari v. Houses of Parliament 9, Pallingswick, M.C.C. & G. v. Pallingswick Club 10, Lord’s, Eton v. Harrow 13, Lord’s, Middlesex v. Kent 14, Bishops rttortford, M.C.C. & G. v. Herts 15, Mitcham, M.C.C. & G. v. Mitcham 15, WeBtgate, M.C.C. & G. v. Westgate 16, Lord’s, Middlesex v. Nottinghamshire 16, Stamford, M.C.C. & G. v. Burleigh Park 17, Llanfairfechan, M.C.C. & G. v. Mr. Platt’s XI. 18, Blackheath, M.C.C. & G. v. Blackheath Mordon 18. Finchley, M.C.C. & G. v. Christ’s Coll., Finchley 18, Epsom, M.C.C. & Gi v. The College fcO, Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Lancashire 21, Hampstead, M.C.C. & G. v. Hampstead 22, Selhurst, M.C.C. & G. v. J. W . Hobbs’ XI. 22, Spring Grove, Isleworth, M.C.C. & G. v. Intl. Coll. 23, Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Norfolk 28, Shrewsbury, M.C.C. & G. v. Shropshire 23, Tottenham, M.C.C, & G. v. Bruce Casile School 24, Stockport, M.C.C. & G. v. Cheshire 24, Chiswick, M.C.C. & G. v. Chiswick Paitc 24, Brookwood, M.C.C. & G. v. Brookwood 25, Wellington, M.C.C. & G. v. Wellington Coll. 25,Sutton, M.C.C. & G. v. Sutton 25. Shrewsbury, M.C.C. & G, v. Shrewsbury School Next issue of Cricket April 16.