James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1885

in the fixtures of the previous trip. The players were thus far m ■ frequently encountered by first-class elevens than their predecessors hai been, and what is very important indeed, they played far more often on hard run- were once getting wickets. With S poffortii absent, the team of igon beaten in a single innings, and with the great bowler available they were beaten by six wickets, ten wickets, and t wenty runs. On the other hand, the last team, with S poffortii always playing, suffered defeat three times in a single innings, once by 170 runs, once by seven wickets once by ninety-six runs, and once by four wickets. The team of 1S82 maintained their form in the most consistent fashion through the height of the summer, but were obviously stale and overdone when the season closed; the last team, on the contrary, had periods of great success alternated with periods of great failure, but were at their best when their long series of matches came to an end. In my opinion, the last team depended far more than their immediate predecessors upon the services of S pofforth . Matches were brilliantly won in 1882, when the famous bowler was comparatively ineffective; last season he had an important share in nearly every success, and when he did not come off long scores against the team were the rule rather than the exception. Having now given what I consider sufficient reasons for ranking the team of 1882 above that of last season, I can fairly congratulate our latest visitors upon the remarkable way in which they carried through an excessively heavy undertaking. They started with two or three of their men obviously out of form; they were placed at a disadvantage by more than one unfortunate accident, and three of their first half dozen matches ended in defeat. This start might well have discouraged them, but the team played on with the utmost resolution, and soon met with a deserved reward. The first conspicuous triumph of the trip was the victory at Kennington Oval over a very strong eleven of the G entlemen of E ngland . The match was a finely played one all through, and was fairly won at the finish by S poffortii ’ s bowling and B lackham ’ s incomparable wicked-keeping. A fortnight later came the first of the three matches with E ngland , and this was left drawn in a position entirely favourable to the A ustralians , the E nglishmen having one v icket to fall in their second innings and being only 93 runs to the good. Ilain prevented any cricket on the first day, and the match was played on an impaired wicket. This favourable draw put the A ustralians on very good terms with themselves and placed them high in the estimation of the public. Boon afterwards, however, came their second period of depression. Between the 21st of July and the 9tli of August they vrere decisively beaten in one innings by E ngland at Lord’s, they bad all the worst of the drawn match with S ussex at Brighton, they vTere beaten by K ent at Canterbury, and had their howling very roughly knocked about by G loucestershire at Clifton. At this period of the season many of the A ustralians , I think, regarded,the tour as a great disappoint­ ment. The drawn game with S ussex and the defeat by K ent were very serious bknvs to their reputation. On the 1-1th of August., however, at. the Oval, came their magnificent performance in the third and las match against E ngland —a performance so great that it made up loi nearly everything that had gone before, and was sufficient in itselt to stamp the tour a success. Winning the toss against the chosen team o the old country, they remained at the wickets until about ten minutes