James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annnual 1881

4 LILLYWHITE'SC R I C K E T E R S' A N N U A L. mind cannot be on this stretch equally for six hours a day in readiness for every ball . But much depends on constant practice in handling the ball , and thus attaining an instinctive perception of pace. One cause of missing easy catches and easy ones are missed to the surprise of all-Clarke once observed to us, is , because it seems so easy that m e ndo not drawtheir handsback. Only try with rigid and unyielding hands, andyou will find the ball bound out of yourhands. But another cause ,' said an Australian , and with muchdisgust , ' is too much“ side " and playing for effect-but for AB's conceit and affectation , that catch in the matchwouldhave been held, and saved us fifty runs ! ' Alfred Shaw, at the Crystal Palace match, was put out in a wayclear enoughby the rules of the game, but which to that time w e had never witnessed , and never even heard of its taking effect . His partner hit the ball through Shaw's wicket whenout of his ground, the same ball having touched the bowler's hands. That bowler, however, said the same curious fulfilment of the three conditions had occurred twice before to themduring theircrickettour! A sto fielding , however, we cannot agree that the Australian was alto- gether better , if as good, as the best of our fielding . They did not quite comeup to us in the extent of ground they could cover , still less in dash and meeting the ball . Weshould call it good defensive and steady fielding , but, save in quick return , there was little to raise a shout of ' well-fielded ' from the ring . In the match at the Oval, considering the length of the innings , they were very steady, and made very few mistakes . In that sense , no doubt, they were very good, and we are reminded of the remark of Mr. E. S. Hartopp, a most experienced long-stop, that it is the long innings that finds out the weakness of fieldsmen who do not workwith thorough commandand with ease to themselves . Still , at the Oval w e preferred our own style as more dashing than their's . Of Lord Harris's KentEleven w e should say the same. There was more sharp practice . The Sussex Eleven , too , compared very favourably with the Australians in the field , and had the best of the game whendrawn. The fact that Mr. Ellis carried his bat through one innings , andwas not out after five hours the second day-having before twice , andall but three times, carried his bat through an innings the same season-this is noteworthy, andto be recorded for the year 1880. A sto the success of the tour of the Australians , it wasmostunfortunate they were not in time for the programme of the Marylebone Club and those of the counties . Theywere unlucky, also , in that a little time was required that a certain cloud ' might clear away, happily now dispelled for ever . Aprejudice to good fixtures could also be traced to a growing dis- like of speculating and travelling elevens . To play for honour , as Lord Harris well remarked at the MansionHousedinner, is one of the great and most honourable peculiarities of the game; so to play for gate -money deprived them of our sympathies . Onany future visit , this , we think ,by good arrangement ,maybe avoided ,more especially because they have at last proved themselves foemenworthy of our steel ,' and because we moreand more feel the need of really interesting matches every cricket season . W ehear too muchof the averages of certain batsmen, and the wickets more or less costly of bowlers , but we hear too little of the prowess and superiority of elevens . No one goes to the Eton and Harrow match for fine play , how- ever muchwe are interested in youthful promise . No, the charm is that both sides are heart and soul set on victory . The Oxford and Cambridge