Cricket 1888

11 Together joined in cricket’s manly toil.”— Byron. Registered^for Transmission Abroad. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1888. F R IC B C d . T H E S I X T H A U S T R A L I A N T E A M . T he decision of the third match against Surrey at Kennington Oval on September 22 brought to a close the tour of the Sixth Australian Team which has visited Eng­ land. W ith certainly the majority of their own critics against them, and with a general forecast of ill success from their friends in the Colonies, they certainly did not leave Australia under the best auspices, or with the most cheerful of prospects. When Mr. C. W . Beal, the manager of the team of 1882, certainly one of the strongest com­ bination of Australian cricketers which has appeared in the old country, first began his task of collecting the players to accompany him, it was thought that he would be fortu­ nate enough to gather an exceptionally for­ midable lot. Unfortunately, though, these expectations were not realised. H. Moses, the left-handed batsman, who had gained such a deservedly high reputation during two or three seasons, was obliged in the end to refuse to join the party, though it was hoped to the last he would be able to make the trip. On his recent form he was fully entitled to be considered the best batsman in the Colonies, and the disappointment when it was found he was not coming was as keen in English as in Australian cricket circles Another with­ drawal, and one of no small importance, was that of T. Horan, who did good service with the teams of 1878 and 1882, and even now has beyond a doubt very few superiors in Australia as a consistent run-getter. The loss of two such sterling cricketers was a heavy blow, but a worse than either was in store for Mr. Beal in the defection at tne last moment of George Giffen. Several reasons, none of them altogether satisfactory, it must be admitted, were given for his refusal, but whatever the cause, the fact remains that without a doubt the best all­ round cricketer in the Colonies at the last decided to remain at home. The absence of three such well tried men, but more par­ ticularly of Moses and Giffen, was sufficient, it must be owned, to deprive the team of the thoroughly representative character the promoters of the tour had hoped to secure for it, and it is not altogether surprising that the Colonial critics, mindful of the failure of its immediate predecessor of 1886, were not so hopeful of the success of the team of 1888 as they might have been. How they fared in their arduous tour, involving over four months of continuous work, is now a matter of history. Commencing almost immediately on their arrival, with a match against a fairly strong eleven, collected by Mr. C. I. Thornton, for a time they carried everything before them. The two young cricketers of New South Wales, Messrs. Turner and Ferris, moreover, so fully upheld their reputations as bowlers of exceptional powers, that the first fortnight of the tour proved a complete falsification of the prediction of the prophets at home. Decisive victories, and in close succession, over Surrey and Yorkshire, gave the team a status sufficiently good to institute a comparison with the best of their predecessors, and the results of the earlier matches led many to believe that they would be able to show an unusually brilliant record on the conclusion of the tour. As everyone knows, however, these early hopes were not destined to be fulfilled. The sad accident which struck S. P. Jones down with a severe illness, causing him for a time to hang even between life and death, must have had a great and very prejudicial effect on the play of the team generally, while it undoubtedly robbed them for a greater part of the tour of the valuable help of one of the very best all­ round cricketers of the party. In analysing the results of the trip, we think sufficient import­ ance has not in many instances been attached to the loss occasioned by this piece of ill luck, and to our mind its effect can not be over­ estimated. Nor would any analysis of the tour be strictly fair, were no mention made of the fact that without Messrs. Moses, Giffen and Horan the team could not be considered, as many persisted in classing it, as thoroughly representative. Under the circumstances no doubt the best available estimate of the merits of the team is to compare it as well as one can with the best of its predecessors. That it was quite good enough to compare with the combi­ nations whioh-visited England in 1882 or 1884, we hardly think anyone will be bold enough to assert. In Turner and Ferris it had undoubtedlytwo of themost reliable bowlers the Colonies have ever produced, and the former’s continuous success was remarkable, fully entitling him to a comparison even with Spofforth and placing him beyond a doubt as the equal of any bowler of the present day. Opinions may and no doubt will differ as to the respective capacities of Messrs. Turner and Spofforth, but it cannot be gain­ said that the former was succesful against every kind of bastsman, and though the prevailing wickets were in his favour he showed himself very success­ ful, too, when the pitch was true and in favour of run-getting. Many were afraid that Ferris, who only reached his twenty-first birthday while in England, would not be equal to the continuous strain of such a trying campaign. The result, though, proved that he had more stamina than was generally thought, and we are inclined to think that with more strength and experience he will develop into a very fine bowler. After these two, though, there was no very formidable bowling. Trott’s leg-breaks were occasionally useful, but he could not be called a first-class bowler, and neither Worrall, Lyons, nor Edwards ought to be dangerous on good wickets. Jones’ illness deprived the team of a change fast bowler, and as Mr.S.M.J.Woods of Cambridge did not bowl at all up to his University form it is open to question whether it would not have been good policy to have utilised on his arrival in England the valu­ able services of Spofforth for the later matches. In batting there was at times an inequality, and on the whole it does not seem to us that the side could be regarded in any way as re­ liable for runs. In the earlier fixtures McDonnell’s hitting was remarkably and con- istently successful, but towards the close he did little. Bonnor, too, failed altogether to maintain his early form, and indeed his display in the final match agaiast Surrey was the only taste he gave of his extraordinary powers of hitting during the latter part of the tour. Bannerman, though at times of great.use, was