James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1885

I 31 B y T he EDITOR. L ook ing b a c k u p o n t h e f o u r t h A u s t r a l ia n to u r in England as a whole, one cannot hut regard it as a conspicuous success. Financially it must have more than answered the ex­ pectations of its promoters, and it certainly provided the English cricket public with four months of genuine and continuous excitement. While admitting the general success of the trip, however, and giving full credit to the Colonists for the fine cricket they showed, I think it will be generally admitted that the team was not quite equal to that of 1882. In 1882, A ustralia gave us of her very best, and had the original plan been carried out and E vans come over here instead of J ones , the team would have comprised the thirteen absolutely best cricketers in the Colonies. So much as this certainly could not be said for the team that visited us last summer. The places, which in 1882 were filled by M assie , H oran , G arrett , and J ones , were taken by S cott , M idwinter , C ooper , and A lexander , and there cannot possibly be two opinions that the changes were for the worse. No doubt, had C ooper fulfilled the hopes of his Victorian friends, he would, in a season of dry wickets, have made a con­ siderable difference to the strength of the side, but we must judge the slow bowler by what he was in England, not by his home reputation, and, judged by his performances in this country, he was merely a source of weakness. I am, of course, aware that one or two members of the 1882 eleven had improved on their previous form, the most notable instance being that of M'D onnell , but I am not inclined to think that this improvement compensated for the loss involved in the four changes in the team. In making these remarks I do not for a moment wish to disparage a body of cricketers, who went, with such high credit to themselves, through a peculiarly arduous season, but it is impossible in the case of these" recurring A ustralian visits to abstain from com­ parison, and comparison in this case is, in my opinion, decidedly in favour of the team of 1882. . . . . . . In 1882 the A ustralians played 3 8 matches, winning 23, losing only 4, and leaving 11 unfinished. Last season the Colonists ployed matches, winning 18 losing 7, and leaving 7 unfinished. In coinparing these results great allowance must be made lor the much heaviei programme undertaken by the last teum. There were three matches against E ngland instead of one, two matches against N orth instead of one, two matches each against the G entlemen and the P lai ers instead of one, and two matches with the S outh of E ngland , which had no place