James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1887

T H EF I F T HA U S T R A L I A NT E A MIN E N G L A N D. 2 1 stamp would have beyond a doubt often proved of incalculable advantage to the side. Ihaveentered , andat some length , into the influences to which those whowere interested in the well -being of the Fifth Australian Teamfound themselves unexpectedly opposed . On the other hand, it must be admitted that their ill -success was in a very great measure attributable to their own shortcomings . Thoughit was perhaps a high standard for a comparison , it was none the less only a reasonable one, to compare them with the best of their predecessors . Certainly no impartial critic would venture to suggest that they were in any waysuch a formidable combination as that under Mr. Murdoch's commandin 1882. The fears of those who urged that the places of such tried veterans as Messrs . McDonnell, Murdoch, and Bannermanwould be very difficult to fill worthily , proved to be thoroughly well-founded. W h e nthe grounds were in favourable condition for run-getting , with the exception of a brief period of unexpected collapse at the end of July and the commencementof August, the batting was distinctly above the average . The eleven failed chiefly whenthe wickets helped the bowler and special care was required . Thefailure , indeed , waswhenan effort was really required , and it wasjust at these times that the dogged resolution of Messrs . Bannerman, McDonnell, and Murdochwouldhave beeninvaluable . Onthe whole, though, the scoring was creditable , and it was not so muchto the batting as to the two other departments of the gamethat one mustlook for an explanation of the wantof success . Fullallowancehas beenm a d efor the serious effects consequentonthe loss of Mr. Spofforth's bowling. It was here, indeed , that the chief weakness of the team laid . In the earlier matches Mr. Giffen was extraordinarily successful , but as the wickets improved he lost most of his terrors . Mr. Palmerwas at times effective , but his figures will not compare in any waywith those of the previous tours , andhis bowling certainly wasnot as puzzling as of old. Mr. Garrett had to do a great deal of the bowling , anddid his share of the work conscientiously and well . Still , his success was obtained at a muchgreater cost than of old, and he did not give any one the idea of being formidable . Messrs . Evans and Trumblewere at times of assistance , and Mr. Jones occasionally proved useful as a change . The bowlers after the three first named, though, were only of a moderate class , and the high scoring recorded against the Australians , with very few exceptions , would alone be considered substantial proof that the bowling altogether fell considerably short of the standard of the four preceding teams . Agood deal has been written , mostly in Australian papers , reflecting on Mr. Scott's managementof the team. A good captain , as most cricketers know, is something of a rarity , and it is hardly fair , particularly for writers whohave, or ought to have, some idea of the difficulties incidental to the position -difficulties whichit would serve no useful purpose to mention here to visit the failures of the eleven on the head of their commander. Mr. Murdoch was in manyways singularly well fitted to occupy a post requiring no small amountof resolution , and it is no reflection on his successor that the qualities he possessed were wanting. For a team like that sent over to represent Australia it is essential that there should be unity of action and a thorough identity of interests . That these were conspicuous by their absence at times will be admitted by most whofollowed the tour carefully . There was at times an apparent lack of discipline , and a very noticeable want of the dash and energy in the field which was a characteristic of former visits . The fielding was at times , indeed , loose , and as a rule it did not reach a high pitch of excellence . It is stated that Mr. Blackhamdeclined to makethe trip unless a second wicket -keeper was provided , and he byno means unfrequently gave up the charge of the wicket to Mr. Jarvis . In this department , too , the Australians showed to comparative disad- vantage. Mr. Blackham, brilliant as he still is , was not so reliable as of old ; and Mr. Jarvis , w h o mAustralian critics assert to be as good as his great rival , certainly did not impress the English public with the idea that he was the equal of Mr. Blackhamat his best . Inbatting , the principal honours were borne awayby Messrs . Giffen , Jones ,