James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1899

1 8 L I L L Y W H I T E ' SC R I C K E T E R S' A N N U A L. T H E N G L I S H C H A P T E R II. T E A MI N A U S T R A L . T osay that the record of Mr. Stoddart's Teamin Australia last winter caused general regret in England is far too mild a figure of speech to express the feelings of English cricketers . Completedisappointment would better repre- sent the general view. All round the combination seemed strong enough. So it was on paper, and, indeed , the public form of the memberscomposing it wasquite good enough to warrant the most hopeful auguries . It is no use saying that this all -round amateur or that professional batsmanwould have helped the side of course they would. O nthe other hand, it serves no useful purpose to find extenuating circumstances . Whoexcuses accuses . The team , let us admit, was voted strong enough by commonaccord . That it was beaten fair and square was no discredit -quite the reverse . Theside played pluckily , and did their best all credit to them . They had to give way to a combination of superior all -round capacity under the conditions that existed . The Englishmen naturally suffered to some extent from the extreme heat , and generally from climatic influences to which they were quite unused. But this will in no sort of w a y account for their failure . All-round they were seen to disadvantage , one must candidly confess , in comparison with the representative side of Australia . The batting , on the whole, was of uncertain quantity. "Ranji" and MacLarendid some brilliant performances , andgenerally upheld their homereputations . The samecould hardly be said for any of the rest , although HaywardandStorer on the whole did fairly well . Mason began in most promising style , but fell off towards the end. The heat seemed to affect Wainwright greatly , andhe did little with the bat, nothing with the ball. N. F. Druce, too, did not comeup at all to the high expectations based on his brilliant University record of 1897. It certainly looked as if a batsmanof the stone- walling type would have been of great assistance . But, after all , it was morein the out-cricket that the Englishmenfailed . Thebowling suffered sadly bycomparison with that of the picked eleven of Australia . Richardson workedhard, as he always does, and under trying conditions . The same may be said of J. T. Hearne, another thorough trier . J. Briggs ' long experience , too, madehimalways useful . Butthe rest of the bowling was "mere prunella ." Hirst and Wainwright were complete failures , and Haywardcomparatively unsuccessful . In bowling , as things went, the team wasbeyonda doubt weak. There was not the " devil " which characterised the Australian bowlers-most, if not all of them. There was little or none of the infinite variety which markedthe Australian bowling. Theball came along easily . It did not require the same amount of watching , for it did not do anything like as muchas in the hands of Jones, or Noble, or Trumble, or Howell. Australian wickets require something more than mere accuracy of pitch , and the English bowlers certainly lacked the insidious methods and the constant variety noticeable on the other side . That George Giffen