James Lilllywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1880

2 0 LILLYWHITE'SCRICKETERS' A N N U A L. A R O so well inEnglandin Lawrence's team, wewere put in to get about 50, when w eoughtto havewonin one innings . It was unfortunate for another reason ; owing to a misunderstanding between the captains , as to the time of drawing the stumps , an argument on the ground ensued between them; and the spec- tators , knowing nothing , of course , about the matter , showed an inclination to assume rather a partial aspect . This was avoided , however , by Mr. Boyle (unconvinced it is only right to say) most courteously conceding the point . Iamhappy to add that on the matter being rediscussed the following day, the 'vexata quæstio ' was cleared up, and it was mutually agreed that it was a misunderstanding and nothing more. On the night of the 8th we were en- tertained at a banquet given by the Melbourne Cricket Club. A large number ofmemberswere present ; also the Marquis of Normanby, Governor of Victoria . O nMondaythe 10th our last match was finished , the result being in our favour by six wickets . O n the 11th our party separated into three divisions , one returning by P. and O., the other two meeting at Auckland , and returning home via San Francisco . Those of us who took the opportunity of visiting N e wZealand can never regret it, not only for the beauties and wonders w e saw in those charming islands , but also for the manykindnesses we received during our unavoidably hurried trip through them. On our wayhome, agame wasplayed at Christ Church , NewZealand , and another in NewYork, United States , in both of which mixed teams of Englishmen and membersof the re- spective clubs were successful . F r o ma cricket point of view, was our trip a success ? I say decidedly , yes . For though we should have done infinitely better if we had fielded as we can at home, more could hardly be expected from us, whenthe class of bowling we hadwith us is taken into consideration . Emmettbowled really well, and with wonderful pluck, but to start with only one first -class bowler on fast true wickets is rather a hazardous undertaking . Our failure in catching I attribute solely to the light , which is very dazzling to those accustomed to our sombre skies . Our batting , everyone must allow , was wonderful ; to average over 200 runs per completed innings , some matches being against odds , and three against as good bowling as there is to be found in the world , is an unsurpassed performance , I believe . I think I a m not assuming too much when I say that with one other first -class bowler , and a practised wicket -keeper (for Mr. Hone, though he most kindly undertook that arduous post at the last moment, and worked his hardest , had had no practice whatever on fast wickets ), our tally of victories wouldhave left room for no complaint. Andnowa few words as to Australian cricket . Firstly , then , the sooner professional umpires are employed throughout the colonies , the better for cricket . Not that we are ungrateful to those gentlemen who came forward and undertook that most unpleasant post ; but however impartial they may be, and were, it is utterly impossible for an amateur to get sufficient practice to insure his making the fewest mistakes possible . N o umpire can help making some errors , but a professional umpire is bound to make fewer than an amateur. With the argument that an amateur umpire is more honest than aprofessional I will have nothing to do, because it is introducing into the game a question with which we have no acquaintance in England , and which, I believe , Australians , if they could and would but make the change , would find to be nothing but a chimera of their own making Secondly , in myhumble opinion , the Australians have mastered the art ofbowling more thoroughly than wehave . They try to perfect themselves in it more than in the other departments of the game; they only play matches