Cricket 1886

SEPT. 23,1886. CRICKET* A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME, 488 AN O TH E R AU S T R A L I A N IMBROGL IO . B y M id - on . (From the Melbourne Leader .) When I laid down my pen at the end of April, in deferenceto the invasionby footballers of the turf which we cricketers used once to call our own, I flattered myself that I was com­ mencing the enjoyment of the winter recess, and should not be called upon again to address myself to the subject of cricket until the last week in September. The dispute, discussion, squabble, or whatever it may be termed, at present going on in England between the English professionals and the executive of the Melbourne Cricket Club has, however, aroused me from winter torpor, the subject being in many respects one of such importance as to demand, not only general attention, but com­ plete dissection. I suppose that nearly every­ body is aware of the fact that for some months ast Shaw, Shrewsbury and Lillywhite have een organizing an English team to visit Australia at the end of this year, and that Mr. Wardill, acting on instructions from the Mel­ bourne Club committee, is at the present time endeavouring to carry out a similar project on behalf of his club. One side must fail. Both cannot succeed for many reasons. Two teams are out of the question, for the very im­ portant reason that both could not be made to pay. If they played against each other they would not pay expenses, and if eaoh arrangeda full programme, Australian cricketers, who are nearly all engaged in business, could not, even if so disposed, obtain the necessary leave of absence to take part in the matches. Without further argument, I think it may be accepted that only one team can come, and the question for public consideration (as public patronage alonecanbring aboutasuccessful issue) iswhich of the contending parties has a right to hold the situation and which ought to retire ? The E rofessional triumvirate affirm that so far ack as March, 1885, they made arrangements withMr. J. P. Tennent to act as theirrepresent­ ative, and to form a programme for the team they intend to bring out at the close of the presentyear, and I have Mr. Tennent’spersonal assurance that he was acting in the capacity indicated by Lillywhite, who expresses his sur­ prise at having received no reply to a subse­ quentcommunication forwardedtoMr.Tennent and which that gentleman should havereceived about the end of last November. Unless the truth of Lillywhite’s statement can be upset (and there are no grounds for supposing that it can be), the Englishmen can certainly claim to have been first in the field, which indeed is absolutely proven to be the case by the fact that they had engaged some members of their projected team so far back as last December. This being so, it was surely unreasonable to expect them to retire, wasting the labor and trouble expended during a period of several months, merely on receipt of an intimation from the Melbourne Club's secretary, dated 13th March, 1886, to the effect that his club had on the 6th of that month given him authority to engage an English team for Australia. Whatever may have been the Melbourne Club’s intentions at an earlier date the fact remains that the English professionals had commenced their initiative operations before the M.C.C. made any move or pub­ licly declared their intention. That Aus­ tralians generally would be pleased to welcome another team formed on the same basis as the Hon. Ivo Bligh’s cannot be doubted, but why Shaw and Co. are to be compelled to retire after being first in the field I fail to under­ stand. On the occasion of Shaw’slast visit re­ proaches were hurled at the heads of the fourth Australian Eleven for having militated against the success of the tour, and the poor English professional was held up as a martyr through­ out the length and breadth of Australia. It will be interesting to observe what position the censors of the fourth Australian Eleven will take on the present occasion, now that the influential Melbourne Club instead of a privatelymanagedteam have entered into com­ petition with the English professionals. The argument that because the M.C.C. have taken steps to secure the best grounds for all the most desirable dates the other team must give way will not hold water, as these grounds will be equally available for the English managers in the event of the Melbourne Club withdraw­ ing their opposition. It appears to have been suggested in some quarters that in the event of Shawand Co. persisting in the accomplishment of their undertaking the Melbourne ground would not be placed at their disposal. Surely it would be absurd to suppose that a body like the M.C.C. would resort to such a contemp­ tible measure as the boycotting of a visiting English team. Representatives of the Melbourne Club, including its respected vice-president, Mr. F. G. Smith, have im­ pressed upon the public of England and Aus­ tralia that monetary considerations concern them not, but that the M.C.C.’s sole object in assuming the direction of the fifth Australian Eleven was to re-establish friendly relations be­ tween the cricketers of the two countries. This commendable object has apparently been effec­ tually accomplished, as evidenced by the warmth and hospitality with which the Aus­ tralians now in England have been everywhere received and socially entertained. The Mel­ bourne club’s mission has therefore been worthily fulfilled, allowing that relations were so strained as some people declared,which,how­ ever,I have alwaystakenthe liberty ofdoubting. Shaw and Co. very naturally put the following pertinent and forcible question:—“What would public opinion be in Australia if the Marylebone Glub ran a team to the colonies, and on their arrivalinformedthe oricket authoritiesthat any arrangements they had made touching the for­ mation of an eleven for England must be can­ celled in consequence of their intention to take home a colonial team themselves ?” Carefully considering all that has been said and done in this matter, I can come to no other conclusion than that the Melbourne Club cannot with any degree of dignity pursue this business further, and should they persist in doing so a far graver charge lies at the door of the “ Marylebone of Australia” than was ever maintainable against the much maligned fourth Australian Eleven. On no possible grounds can I see any justifica­ tion for pressure being brought upon Shaw and his partners with a view to forcing them to relinquish their projected undertaKing, and the action of Mr. Tennent in having (after alleged months of silence) suddenly deter­ mined upon advising them by cable to stay at home, reads very like “ a weak invention of the enemy.” By refusing Shaw and Co. the use of their ground, or even demanding more than the usual terms, the Melbourne Club would place themselves in a most invidious position, and more than undo any good that may have resulted from their recent enter­ prise ; indeed a more glaring case of might constituting right could not be conceived. I certainly sympathise with Mr. Wardill, whose personal feeling towards the English profes­ sionals I am sure are of the most friendly nature, but who is probably at the present moment looked upon by them with some un­ friendliness, through being called upon to carry out the instructions of this committee. If the publicly proclaimed assurance of the Melbourne Club thatthey are not bent onmoney making, but simply desirous of cementing good fellowship between English and Austra­ lian cricketers, be genuine, they will surely at the present juncture lose no time in instruct­ ing Mr. Wardill by cable to withdraw from competition with the English professionals, whose last colonial venture was attended with such unsatisfactory results. Before Shaw and his comrades left Australia in 1885 one of the last acts of friendliness shown to them was the granting by the Melbourne Club the use of tneir ground ior the farewell match without charge —a kindness which was much appreciated and feelingly acknowledged by the English pro­ fessionals. To knock them clean out of the market and deprive them for at least another two years of the means to make up for their former disappointment would be rather a strange set-off against that small act of gener­ osity if persisted in by a wealthy body like the Melbourne Club,who profess to look upon gate monej' with contempt. Already the people in England must be puzzling their brains to re­ concile the opposite actions of the premier cricketing body of Australia, whose first and indeed self-imposed duty is to preserve the unanimity of English and colonial cricket. The Melbourne Club by persisting in their claim to dictate as to what English team shall visit Australia and under what circumstances the trip shall be undertaken have adopted a somewhat left-handed way of cementing Anglo-Australian brotherhood, and their con­ tinued competition with a band of English professionals, in a financial speculation, in addition to being undignified, places the reputation of Australia in a critical position. Nobody more than myself appreciates the fact that Australian oricket owes a very great deal to the Melbourne Club, which I hope may long be recognised as what it has always been, the leading cricket institution of Australia, nor do I overlook the fact that the financial result of this season’s visit to England will be affected to a most unfortunate extent by the adverse weather which has dogged the footsteps of the Australian Eleven in England. The individual members of the team will be the chief sufferers on this account, however, unless an actual loss should result, which is not likely to be the case. I am also perfectly aware of the fact that although the Melbourne Club committeedid not look to the Australian Eleven’s tour for profit, they anticipated a satisfactory financial result from the importation of an English Eleven, and the disappointment at being forestalled must be very great. The executive are, how­ ever, to blame, for not cabling to Mr. Alcock or some other recognized identity to take some initiative steps immediately they had arrived at their decision. Had they been first in the field their position might have been easily justified, especially as the most gratify­ ing results attended their former efforts in connection with Lord Harris’s team and that captained by the Hon. Ivo Bligh, but having been dilatory they gave the whip hand to the professionals, who, I must confess, have used it cleverly. The Melbourne Club, I hold, have as much right to run a team through the colonies or through England, and make it pay, as any privatecompany, notwithstanding Lord Harris’s opinion to the contrary, which I take to have been unnecessarily expressed on the arrival of the Australians in England. In the present case, however, the facts stand t h u s - Before the Melbourne Club announced in England their intention to form an English team for Australia, the English professionals were doing so on their own account. The Mel­ bourne Club wish them to clear the road and retire, and the pros, reply No, we think you ought to do so. The Melbourne Club is the most important body connected with cricket in Australia, and by far the most wealthy ; they have declared that in sending a team to England they had no desire for gam, but merely wished to cement a good feeling between the cricketers of the two countries. If then after having allowed the professionals to strike the first blow they persist in either bringing pressure upon them to retire, or run a rival team against them, how can these pro­ testations be believed? It would surely be splitting straws to say we did not go to Eng­ land to make money directly, butwe had agood payable programme to carry through before we had finished. The mistake made by the Melbourne Club was in not making certain of being first in the field actually, as well as intentionally, and thus securing the position which the English professionals had acquired. This is of course looking at the affair as a matter of business, and I certainly decline to view it in any other light. The Melbourne Club are perfectly justified in bringing out a team if they like, and making it pay better than they were able to do for various reasons in the case of Lord Harris’s eleven; but they are certainly very wrong in professing to have no regard for gate money, and then fighting for