James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annaul 1897

T H EN I N T HA U S T R A L I A NT E A M. 1 7 Thatthey were essentially a good wicket batting side will be generally admitted . Whatthey would have gained by the presence of such bowlers as Trumble, M'Kibbin , and Giffen , they would have lost had the pitches been slow , as they often are in England , by a corresponding diminution of their effectiveness in batting . If there were no great amount of style , they were undoubtedly a very difficult side to get out . Nine at least of their best eleven were all capable of making a good score , and even Kelly , the wicket -keeper , if not a taking batsman , could generally be reckoned on for twenty or thirty . The fielding hardly , perhaps , fulfilled the high expectations which pre- ceded them to England, There were brilliant exceptions , of course , and Trott at point , Gregory at cover -point , and Iredale in the country , could not be surpassed . Still , the fielding was a little uneven, and not quite up to the bestAustralianstandard. Singularly enough , it wasin the one department in which the team were supposed to be weakest that they showed to the best advantage. Remember- ing the run-getting character of the wickets , no better test of the excellence of their bowling could be furnished than the smallness of the scores mostly made against them. In only two cases was an innings of over three hundred runs scored against them, and both of these were made in the middle of July and withintendays of each other. England scored 305 in the second test match at Manchester , but the highest total against them was the 367 by M.C.C. and G r o u n dat Lord's. In respect of the test matches , their surprising collapse at Lord's at the commencement of the first of the three fixtures seriously prejudiced their chances of winning the rubber . Eventhen they made England play hard to winthat match, and had they had only a fair amount of good luck instead of having all the worst of the wicket for the final tussle at the Oval they mighthavewontwo out of three . As it was, they had no reason to be dis- satisfied with their record in these representative matches . Onthe contrary , with the one exception of the combination of 1882 of immortal memory, their performances against England will bear comparison with those of the best of their predecessors . Altogether the ninth Australian team took part in thirty -four matches . Ofthese nineteen were won, nine drawn, and six lost . Inone respect again their doings can be favourably compared with any previous Australian team inEngland bar one. The exception , as before , is that of 1882 , and, like them, Trott's combination was not beaten by an English county . Considering the form the Yorkshire Eleven showed throughout the summerit says a great deal for the strength of the Australians that they beat the Yorkshiremen twice decisively . Twice , too , they defeated Lancashire , and were successful over Gloucestershire twice , Surrey , Essex , Notts , Somersetshire , Hampshire andSussex once . Middlesex was the only first -class county they did not play, and, as with the one exception of Somersetshire , who would have probably wonat Taunton, they had the best of the drawn games with the other counties , their success against every variety of English bowling was pronounced . Of the nine drawn games, in addition to that with Somersetshire , Surrey might have won the return , although , as Surrey were playing then, this is a little dubious . The matches lost were the test matches at Lord's and the Oval, and those against M.C.C. and Groundat Lord's , the MidlandCounties at Birmingham, Earl de la Warr's Eleven at Bexhill , and Mr. C. I. Thornton's Eleven at Scarborough .