Cricket 1902

Am il 24, 1902. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 83 BUSSEY’S BUSSEY’S AT THE SIGN OF THE WICKET. By F. S. A s h l e y -C o o p e r . At the commencement of what promises to be a very busy season, even for modern days, one may, perhaps, be pardoned for taking a brief glance at affairs in the cricketing world. With the elect of English and Australian players reaching our shores, it is but natural that the mind should revert to the recent Australian season, and the prospects of the team which will shortly commence their tour of this country. It may, perhaps, seem somewhat late in the day to refer, even briefly, to the performances of Mr. Maclaren’s team in Australia, but as no opportunity has previously presented itself of the matter being dealt with in this column, a few remarks on the subject should not be considered out of place. If space is ever granted for a full, true, and particular account of the tour, special prominence will be given to the various batting failures of members of the side. On their English form, Mr. Maclaren’s men should have made thousands of runs. The side, however, like the Gentlemen’s eleven at Lord’s last year, contained too many fast scorers to be reliable. It is, of course, easy to be wise after the event, but one cannot help feeling that had Mr. Mac­ laren chosen safer and less brilliant batsmen the results of the Test matches would have been different. On Australian wickets it is the patient batsman who meets with most success. Of the many players who visited Australia with great reputations as batsmen, it may be safely stated that only two—Mr. Maclaren himself and Hayward—played up to their English standard of excellence. On many occasions, in the return match with New South Wales especially, the two gave the side a splendid start. In the match mentioned the pair created a record for first-class cricket in Australia by obtaining 314 runs before the first wicket fell. The score of 769 made by the side on that occasion ranks as the highest ever hit by an English team in the colonies. Mr. Maclaren and Hayward were always seen to advantage whenever a great effort was required, but their endeavours to win matches were very poorly supported. (It may here be men­ tioned that statistics prove that Hayward generally does best when he goes in first; a fact which should not be overlooked by the Surrey authorities.) The batting of the side, except for the two players mentioned, was very disappointing. In bowling, however, the team proved more formidable. When at full strength, no side appeared to be too strong for the bowlers to dismiss at a pleasantly-reasonable cost. Accidents, how­ ever, to Barnes and Blythe crippled the side sadly, with what result is well-known. The former, for a short time, until his accident in fact, proved to be the chief particular star of the eleven, and it was a cruel stroke of for­ tune which compelled him to abandon match playing when showing such brilliant form. Whether he will ever again prove as effective as he did for a time in Australia is open to doubt, as a damaged knee is always likely to prove troublesome. In the enforced absence of Barnes and Blythe, the burden of the bowling was borne by Mr. Jessop and Braund—men who, in England, would hardly be regarded as change bowlers in Test matches. The chief—one might almost say only—strength of the side was its fielding, which was always reliable and frequently brilliant. Good judges of the game in Aus­ tralia were unanimous in praising the ability the side showed in the field, many stating that a better team in that department of the game never left England. To sum up, the ill-success of the team may be attributed chiefly to the non-effectiveness of the batting, and in part (though to a lesser degree) to the accidents which befell the bowlers. Mr. Maclaren and Hayward alone saved the side from an unbroken series of disasters, and it was only their masterly displays which enabled the team to do as well as was generally anticipated when it left England. During the next few weeks the chief topic of conversation will be the prospects of the Australian team in this country. The idea generally prevalent is, that since the last team visited us—in 1899—the Australians have fallen off in their play, and their recent performances against Mr. Maclaren’s team— an obviously weak side—are cited as evidence to support the contention. What success was obtained by Mr. Maclaren’s eleven was responsible in a great measure to their brilliant fielding. ‘ Good fieldingmakes weak bowling strong ’ is an old axiom, and a certainmeasure of success will always fall to the lot of a fine fielding combination, even if both their batting and bowling be lamentably weak. Despite the fact that the Australians won four of the five test matches, the general opinion seems to be that they should have done better, judging by their form of 1899. The majority of the critics, however, evidently failed to attach as much importance to the fielding of the team as was really due. This being so, it is probable that we shall find it as difficult a matter as in 1899 to win the rubber in the Test matches. The teamwhich will commence playing in a few days’ time is a combination of wonderfulall-roundexcellence. Not a man in it is unworthy to help represent the full strength of Australia, though some doubt exists as whether Jones will regain his pace. The team lacks a fine forcing player of the stamp of Massie, Lyons, Bonnor, McDonnell, or Worrell, though inArmstrong it possesses a player who can at times hit magnificently. lt would, however, at the present time, be absurd to compare him with any of the five men mentioned above. Hill is still facile princeps among the batsmen, whilst Gregory during the past season has shown better form than ever befoie. With Trumper, Darling, Poidevin, Duff and Noble among the other batsmen likely at any time to make a hundred, large scores by the side may be safely anticipated. The bowling and fielding are apparently up to the usual stan­ dard of Australian excellence, and more than that cannot be said. In Kelly and Carter, the team possesses two wicket-keepeis who are quite first-class. The side, in short, will prove a terribly difficult one to defeat. Cricketers in New Zealand have a grievance. One of the cricket fathers of that colony in a letter to me dated December 13th, 1901, writes :—“ We in little New Zealand are not to have a visit from Maclaren’s XI., and so long as English teams come out under the auspices of the Melbourne C.C. we are not likely to have them, the expense and the loss of time which the visit would involve being powerful difficulties in the way. Under the circumstances our hope probably lies in the adoption of some arrangement whereby, as suggested in the article from the Evening Post (Wellington), a team might come direct to our colony from England.” A copy of the article alluded to accompanied the letter, and from it it appears that the last English team to visit the colony was Shrewsbury’s XI. of 1887-8, and that the combination played only at Wellington and Christchurch. Since then —including Maclaren’s team—four elevens have visited Australia, and New Zealanders have been left out in the cold on each occa­ sion. It consequently follows that very