Cricket 1899

Nov. 30, 1899. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF TIIE GAME. 463 reserved himself for the great occasions, taking it somewhat easier in the minor matches, “ and he did right,” added A. E., for the fight for retention of the “ ashes,” was, of course, the chief object in view from first to last. The splendid stamina of Jones kindles our wicketkeeper into enthusiasm, but “ I think he would have performed even more creditably if he had bowled for the men in the slips, instead of being so constantly eager to knock the stumps over.” As to H. Trumble’s brilliant work with ball and bat, A.E. is loud in his praises, and the decision by Sherwin in the test match at Leeds, when he gave Trumble run out, is described as a “ terribly bad one.” Hughie was batting beautifully at the time, and was knocked all of a heap when he found he bad to go. The popular Melbournite fairly “ performed ” when he got into the dressing-room, and all who know him are well aware that when he “ performs ” he must have very strong reasons to do so. Barlow’s umpiring in the test match at Notts gave such grave dissatisfaction to the Austra­ lians that they wrote to the Marylebone Club about it, with the result that Barlow did not umpire again in their matches. An Australian who receives a very high commendation from Johns is M. A. Noble, whose betting was an important factor in the success of the tour. “ Do you know,” said Noble, “ I find I have to play a different game in England from that which I played in Australia. There I could play out fearlessly at the pitch, feeling sure that the ball would come along all right; here I find that I cannot do so, but have to watch the ball after it pitches.” This makes a big difference, but Montague Alfred so readily responded to the extra call upon his batting resources that he gains the following comment from Johns: “ I have never seen an Australian bats­ man in Eugland so speedilyadapt himself to altered conditions as Noble did, and when he got set he seemed so like a rock that you felt as if nothing could shift him.” A.E. states that in the test match at Nottingham the accommodation pro­ vided for Australian friends of the team was of so poor and primitive a character that the Major plainly told the secretary that the friends of the Australians would, not go there, but would have to be allowed into the pavilion reserve. The Major was so decided in the matter that after some slight demur the secretary gave the necessary instructions to the man at the pavilion entrance that on production of the Major's card Australianvisitors could enter the reserve and pavilion. The “ barracking” in the Middlesex match at Lord’s appears to have been of a distinctly objectionable type, so much so that Major Wardill induced Mr. Lacey, secretary of the Marylebone Club, to in­ struct the police to put a stop to it if possible. Mr. Lacey did so, and the ob­ jectionable “ barracking” was suppressed. “ In 1896 I thought the English Press and public all that could be desired,” observed A. E., “ but in 1899, with very few exceptions, the newspaper reports were one-sided, and the manifestation of public feeling very different from what we expected. I regretted the change very much indeel, and can only attribute it to the severe reverses sustained by A. E. Stoddan’d last team in Australia, and to the fact that in the first and second test matches the play of the Australians was in <very way superior to that shown by the representatives of England.” As an instance of the un­ fairness of certain Press reports, I may mention the first test match. Big head­ ings were published, telling how that match was saved by “ magnificent defensive cricket on the part of Ranji.,” yet when our men had to adopt defensive tactics in the fourth test match, instead of the Australians being lauded for “ magnificent defensive cricket,” the headings were “ The Australians play the goose game.” Again, when J. T. Brown was unable to play, owing to an injured hand, quite a big paragraph was written about the great loss of his services, but all that appeared as to the absence of our best batsman, Clem Hill, was simply, “ The Australians left out Hill, Laver, and Johns.” THE AUSTRALIAN ELEVEN. A GLANCE AT THE TOUR. (By J. Phillips, in The Australasian.) In glancing back at the tour the first thing that claims attention is the ease with which the players have won or drawn the majority of the best class of matches. It is when the opposing side is composed of picked players that defeat would be most likely. Yet, strange as it seems, a reverse was not met with in any of those fixtures. One of the things that they have rea­ son to be most proud of is that they have addod to the reputation of Australian cricket in playing an uphill game. Time and again it seemed as if certain defeat was in store, but in the end it resulted in either a brilliant victory or in an even draw. Some of the instances of this will be referred to later on in writing of the players individually. For the first time in England five test matches have been played, and of these only one was finished, resulting in a pronounced victory for Australia. Of the drawn games it is admitted on all sides that the Nottingham match was morally a win for Australia, and the final one at the Oval in favour of England. At Leeds matters were even, but I must differ from those critics who attempt to show that the Manchester match was in England’s favour. We must criticise it only up to that point immediately before Darling closed the innings, when seven wickets were down, and Australia were 170 runs on in the secondinnings. With the English bowlers practically bowled to a standstill it was reasonable to suppose that the total would have been v?ry considerably increased had the match been played to a finish. However, discussing probable results never carries us any nearer a correct solution of the problem. The result of the series is that Australia still retains the supremacy of cricket. In comparing English cricket of this season with that of three years ago, when Trott’s team were defeatel, it must be admitted that England is now much weaker in bowling. Richardson has gone off, and no one could be found to fill his place. O.ving to an old strain Lockwood is rarely able to bowl up to his old form. The only glimpse of it was shown in the final test match, when his feat in the first innings of taking seven wickets for 71 runs on a perfect pitch was, to my mind, quite two to one the best thing done in the match. At the present time the usual com­ parisons are being made as to whether this is not the best team that has ever visited England. On actual perform­ ances they are, but I an certain they have had poorer bowling to play against than the 1896 team had. In comparing the relative strength of England v. Australia I am sure that Eug­ land posseses better batting, but the ad­ vantage held by Australia in bowling more than counterbalances that. In fielding the sides are, on the whole, equal —Englishmen a little more reliable iu catching and the Australian fieldsmen in covering ground, and gathering the ball, and returningbetter thantheir opponents. In generalship the Australians are easily first. They play more in unison, they exchangeviews in the dressing-room, and their captain is thereby assisted materially in many of his plans. A varied past experience in cricket in both countries leads me to attribute much of their success to this. Off the field an Australian captain receives the benefit of the opinions of his comrades as if he were chairman of a board of directors. The average English captain is more of an autocrat. He rarely seeks advice from his men. If a con­ sultation be held it is invariably confined to the amateurs and the batsmen, not the professionals and the bowlers. I can recall instances when I have been stand­ ing umpire when able and intelligent professional players on an England side have seen the tallacy of some plan of their captain, but nothing has been said by them, no suggestion made, to remedy the mistake. Another mistake is made in England which does not improve cricket as a science—that is, the system of isolating professionals off the field. Surely, if a man is good enough to play on the same side he is good enough to dress in the same dressing-room. It is there most useful hints and ideas are exchanged when a game is in progress, which cannot be done so well on the field. One of the great factors to success in cricket is abstemiousness. In this the 1899 team have excelled to a greater degree than any other team I have known. Eirly in the tour it was decided that no banquets would be attended, and at the risk of giving offence this was adhered to. Financially, the trip has been success­ ful, but the expenses of an Australian 'team in Eugland are very great, and though 50 per cent, of the outer gate goes to the visitors, yet the borne side on