James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1893

L O R DSHEFFIELD'ST E A MIN A U S T R A L I A. 2 1 Sheffield originally set to work to see if a representative teamcould be collected for an Australian trip . At the outset he stipulated that the presence of W .G. Gracewasessential , and, as it proved, with wise discrimination . Atall events , the announcement that the Grand Old M a nwould positively visit Australia again after an interval of fourteen years produced a magical effect in Greater Britain . Thenews was received with an amountof enthusiasm which practically assured the success of the trip , and from that momentthere was no hitch in the negotiations . Still there were difficulties to be overcome in the collection of the English team . Shrewsbury , apparently , did not feel justified in leaving his business on the conditions suggested , and Gunnwas influenced , it would seem andnaturally , by similar conditions . Otherwise Lord Sheffield was particularly fortunate in the response to his applications . The question of a fast bowler gavesomelittle trouble , and though Sharpe, on his formin 1891, hadvery strong claims , it was thought by not a few goodjudges that Mold would have been the better choice . In one important respect W. G., who was, of course , selected to captain the team, was lucky in having at his disposal the two best amateur wicket-keepers of the day-G. McGregorand H. Philipson , to wit . O n the whole, too, even without Shrewsbury and Gunn, it was acknowledged that the t e a mw a sa representative one. O f onething at least there wasa consensus of opinion , that with such batsmen as W. G., A. E. Stoddart , Maurice Read, Lohmann, Briggs , Bean, and O. G. Radcliffe , there was plenty of the free- hitting order of batsmen-the best qualified to showup well on the fast wickets ofAustralia . Andwith two, and only two, exceptions the teamfully vindicated theconfidence felt in their capacity . The exceptions , it is needless to remind cricketers even now, were, as already pointed out, important ones . O fthe three matches against a picked eleven of Australia the English players were beaten in two. At the outset there did not seem to be any chance of failure . The first suggestion of hope for the Australians was in the first matchagainst N e wSouth Wales, whenthe Englishmen only managedto win, after an exciting match, by four wickets . As events proved , the confidence engendered by that victory wasnot misplaced . In anycase , the Australian eleven on the first match showed themselves to be a better side than was generally expected , and were able to prove victorious , in a game very little influenced by luck after an interesting finish , by 54 runs . Thesecond meeting resulted in even a greater triumph for the Australian combination . Thetoss this time proved to be a dis- advantage , and the Englishmen , with the best of the luck in going in second , succeeded in gaining a very useful lead of 163 runs at the end of aninnings . With Mosesunable to bat the chances of the Australians seemed to be quite hopeless . Some really brilliant hitting by Lyons, in conjunction with the capital cricket of G. Giffen , Bannermanand Bruce, however, changed the whole aspect of the game, and the result was a victory , of which Australia had good reason to be proud, by 73 runs. Winning the toss in the third match practically meant winningthe game, and the Australians had to bat after a long score of 449 on a wicketso muchaffected by rain , that their defeat was a foregone conclusion . Thisdoublereverseo f courseto s o m eextentdiscountedthe successesof the teamin the matches of lesser importance . O nthe other hand, the good show of the Australians gave a newimpetus to the gamein the Colonies , and if only for the effect it hadin reawakening public interest , the tour fulfilled its mission in one important respect . Nouseful purpose would be served in going through the performances of the English team. They were , as was only to be expected , too strong for the Colonies , and matches against odds of course savoured more of practice gamesthan serious contests . A n analysis of the cricket showedsome defects which were not altogether expected . The out-cricket altogether quite came up to expectations , with quality as well as quantity -four thoroughly reliable bowlers with variety of change. Sharpe did not prove as effective as was hoped, but he was the only failure . In fielding the side was brilliant to a degree , andthe wicket -keeping was quite up to the best standard . It was the batting which created disappointment . The want of a steady batsman or bats- men, like Shrewsbury or Gunn, was severely felt on more than one occasion , and