James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annaul 1897

1 6 L I L L YW H I T E ' SC R I C K E T E R S' A N N U A L. C H A P T E R II. T H EN I N T HA U S T R A L I A N T E A M . T H ESuccess which attended the Australian teamin Englandwas not fore- told b ythe critics either in Australia or the Old Country. The general impression of the experts at home, who knew their capabilities best , was that they ought to prove to be a run-getting side if the wickets were fast andtrue, andthat they wouldbe distinctly above the average in the field . The doubts were about the quality of the bowling , and on this point serious misgivings were expressed . There was some reason , too, for the fears that there were too many players new to English grounds . The experience of the past had shown that few reputations had been made in England by Australian cricketers on the occasion of their first visit , so that with nine of the team strangers to the peculiarities of English climate and English grounds the sceptics seemedto have somejustification . Thatthe team proved to be superior to the difficulties which their friends had foreseen for them was due partly to a certain amount of luck, but mostly to facts of their own creation . In the first place the hard wickets prevalent during the greater part of the season favoured their batting. The generally fine weather, too, enabled them to play under somethinglike the conditions to which they are accustomed in their o w n cricket . Theywere morefortunate than the majority of previous teams in escaping the depressing influences of rain and heavygrounds, whichhave so heavily handicapped Australian cricketers over here . They had, indeed, muchmore than the average of sunshine for an English season , and it was only at the last that they felt any of the disadvantages inseparable to wetandslow wickets . Theluck which followed themin the toss , too, was remarkable . Trott for a long time, like the king, could do no wrongin the spin of the coin . His good fortune , indeed , became proverbial , and un- doubtedly batting first so often when the wickets were at the best was of very great advantage to them. B u tafter all ,whenallowance has been madefor this , the fact remains that the Australians showed themselves to be above the average of their prede- cessors as an all -round team. In Trott they had a Captain whomthey could thoroughly trust . Singularly tree from prejudice , and a really good judge ofthegame, every memberof the team felt that hewould have fair treat- ment. This feeling of confidence had naturally the best possible effect in ensuring the hearty co-operation of all , and had one obvious result , that as a rule the mennot only did their hardest but were seen generally at their best . H o wfar the team could fairly compare with the best of their predeces- sors-saywith that of 1882-must be a matter of opinion . Theywouldhave beenundoubtedly a most formidable side on occasions when wickets favoured bowlers had they had a hitter like McDonnell or Lyons . The absence of one batsmanwhocould force the game was very noticeable at certain matches . Still , taking their performances as a whole, every credit can fairly , as it will cheerfully , be accorded to them for a succession of excellent all- round cricket , which would favourably compare with the record of the very best of the Australian combinations which preceded them.