James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1885

T H EP H I L A D E L P H I A N V I S T O E N G L A N D . 4 7 Mr. Armstrong is a thoroughly reliable bowler. But in this match the Phila- delphians suffered defeat. W eare not sufficiently well acquainted with the cricket played b yamateur teams in the North to be able to commentwith any accuracy on the results of the tour in that part of England ; but there are well -knownnames to be found in the different elevens , and at least the victory over the Gentlemen of Liver- pool canbeconsidered one deserving of great credit . T o return South, w efind the team victorious over the Surrey and succumbing to the Sussex and Kentish G e n t l e m e n N o wweshould be inclined to think that in these two matches , and in that with M.C.C. , the Philadelphians met the best bowling they had to contend with during their tour, viz ., that of Messrs . Rotherham, Studd, Foord-Kelcey , Blackman, Lipscombe, Maude, and Hardcastle , and they represent three out of the five defeats , and upon them very much we base our opinion of the merits ofthe team. W ehave no wish to criticise their powers too rigorously , but it would be a mistakenkindness to allow our friends fromacross the Atlantic to form too high an estimate of their o w npowers, to over-value the elevens they played against , and to accept without one " grain of salt " the patting on the back they received on their return . To take the last first , here is a part of a paragraph from the " American Cricketer " of August 7th, 1884 : " The right of the Philadelphian County Eleven to claim equality with the Amateur Elevens of theEnglishCounties is fairly established N o wwe are not prepared to say that after one or two more visits to this country this might not be the case, but we cannot admit it at present . That the Philadelphians are now equal to the amateur elevens of some counties is very possible , but not, we must insist , to those counties who number among their supporters a few first -class amateurs. T h e Lancashire and Yorkshire GentlemenTeams, in our opinion , would have proved much tco strong , as did all those in the South with one exception -Gloucestershire -having any preten- sions to be considered first -class ; for wedon't consider the Surreyeleven in the least a representative one of the amateurstrength of that county. There are several very good names doubtless -Messrs . Bush, Bainbridge , Wyld, Trollope , andLindsay-but with Messrs . Shuter , Read, Roller , Horner, Bowden, Diver, a n dMortonabsent it cannotbe called a representative amateureleven, andmust b eexcludedfromthe comparisonthe " AmericanCricketer " seeks to draw. In the match with Kent again there are several of the best names absent ; the Sussex gentlemen , without their captain and most reliable batsman, scored an easy victory ; and against Middlesex , on paper. our visitors would have stood no chance. W h a the " AmericanCricketer " has overlooked in arriving at its con- clusion is this , that our amateurcricketers were overwhelmedwithworkin 1884, and it was impossible to put really representative elevens in the field whenthe Philadelphians played the best cricketing counties , and it would have been an entirely different thing if the Australian Eleven had not been over at the same time. W e, on this side of the water, took that , and this other fact , that it is not easy in any year to get up county gentlemen's matches , into account in forming our estimate that the Philadelphians would prove themselves not greatly inferior to the majority of such elevens ; but the " American Cricketer " has ignored the former, and claims an equality which we cannot admit. A nequality that is with the best cricketing counties ; for to claim it with others is a feather which the Philadelphians would hardly care to wear in their caps . In arriving at this estimate we are not forgetting that our visitors were playing in a strange country , on grounds they knew nothing about , grounds that varied as to light , pace , and level , and that for a part of the time they were deprived of Mr.Charles Newhall's services ; but the first twoare disadvantages underwhich everyteamthat leaves its ownshores mustlabour; andall these are disadvantages which must be calculated on in a lenghthy tour . D owe think then that the Philadelphians were foemen unworthy of the steel ofthe best county amateur teams ? B yno means; all we advance against them on this visit is that they were not up to the form of such teams at present ; and