Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

CRICKET PAST ABD PEESENT.
TO THE EDITOB OF THE ADSTBALASIAN.
Sir,-Truly when a ball, lias once been
set fairly rolling there is no saying when or
how its onward career is to be checked.- A
few'remarks of mine upon the averages of
5 the Melbourne Cricket Club for the past'
season elicited from your; correspondent
Longs top" an expression of opinion op
posed to th&t which I had modestly pat for
?ward simply as my own; and tothe argu
ments adduced by him J endeavoured, to the
ibest of my poor ability, to reply,,.thinking'
;t^at i.wos lxjund'.tp 4? ,so frojm tiiefactof
| his inviting those who differed from liimfco
jsay sp. and giye their reasons, It seems,.
jhowever, that " Longetop" is not - the.
only writer who disagrees with my opinion
I"that.the4jatting-ifl beating the bowling,"
ifor n ^pew antagonist, who , calls , him»
otti^th^he^atti^^fthept^^t^whas
not got the better of thft 'bowling^'iaM that
beforehe -oondodes he " shall have" proved
man to man " (whateVer thatmaymean)
"that /the battingbas ftbt beaten tnB bowl
ittg, ,or, ftaJi thew m> «ar batsmen superior
iiitb'b6<Sontitiupd,' faras'he'J
I Icaii t«8aly«e»6 rttb'aMpmeptin favo'ortif Mb 1
!al8sertion. i Afl far as | cafa make him out, he
?? oonfinBahimself to endeavouring - to - show1
that in years gone <tv the colmlypotsessed
better bowlers than it doei i nS»fr,:Brid,
by way of commencement, Ktae«. lalist
oi the bowlen whofloarished In i the jeans
185)5 to l8tf9,.andgoe8^n.to Bay that We are
now reduced to three bowlwB-H^sttck.
Wills, and Conway, with Allen MdDarke as
possible assistantah-in the next intfcroolonlaL
WJisfc ^ .
bowling worththe*Wfeh^'in Geelons; or BaU
larat-?.. Dan Wilkie lias iipt[departea this life
that-I know of,-nor has he! left! the colony,
i His brother David is noti todespiaed aa. a
bowler; and J think there We;& fe^Sr hr
such as James, M'O^nn, Greaves. C. Rcia, D.
Campbell.. V. Cametvm,-Figgis, OTorres, junr..
M'Harg, WardilL Wilsoii, Oir, ..Dabor«er-And
jj others, who trill compare favourably with
; such men asLowd, Coulgtock, Piek&ring,
' Glen, Ross, Boak, Whitlow, :EiJans, and "Bar-,
ter, the product of three seasonRjicdording to
I " Old Chum." Whyjs ?tucp «f the
list-Bruce, whose.one Mva wa° wosh, in
s bowling, any two of the dtaera? _ Buti±!a no
? use talking about the matter; it is, after all,
! but a question of qpinion. All that " Old
i Chum aays-about the state of the grounds
? favouring the bowlers goes to support my
i opinion, as I pointed out in my last letter,
f Of course, bowlirtg on b^d, ground most be
; more severe and diffieultto play than on
good,- and the more, uncertain and mid on~
: such grounds, thp nidrc difficult to-^lay j, bttt.
(ifby no meaps follows that, because aave'
i now good wickets to play'on,saturated, as
",t)ld Chum " has it, "'with Tan 5Tean/'»ncL\
more runs are consequently obtained,-:*he
: bowling is therefore wbrae. Let us look ait- the
Ifacts. For first-felons' bowlers we* -have how',
Wills, Conway, Cosstick, Alien, Dati Wilkie,;
Greaves, M 'Gann, agajnstEIliott'Will^Bry- ,
ant,Morres, and W; §terwjart"of former.years
(the latter, I believe, is still in^Melbourne,
and might be available at any time). I think
Jf anything we are better off than formerly.
1 Elliott $rid Bryant were certainly first-class
bowlers, and Stewart a most-dangerous one;
bat Conway and Cosstick are, in- my opinion,
as good as the-two first* while Alien has been
hitherto aa successful as Stewart, and Dati
Wilkie lias never been beaten yet .here at -
"slows." Mr. V. Cameron, also, .though as
yet comparatively unknown as a bowler, has
given promise of excellence in that branch of
the game, and: I sh'all be surprised if we do
mm
last match Jjetween M«C,?L aiwl
boujTObe^Wed^e ^wltog^fecSar^
:Mr, Wills, taking lour wicltets ([and good
lones, too) for twenty runs. No, no, I don't
; think we are hanj- flp for bowlers, or likely to
be so, notwiths'tandinK that "Old Chum"
cannot, to say/; .his'lne, tirink.pf another
bowler besides . Will4-Coowfey, ^Ssstick, and
'Allen, than young Darke of ltichmond (who,
I admit is very good); Nor do-I think that
the bowling ot the present day-is one whit
inferior to what it was in the years 1656 to '59
or 'CO.
.With regard-to batting.'" Old CJram"admits
that there are more batsmenat present than
there were in olden times, though he thinks
be can prove that the men pf old were
just as good-as' aby"that can be. found now- *
a-days. On this 'point I 'will.' reserve, my.
remarks until I see what more "Old Chum "
has to eay. . I will merely, for roe present, '
endeavour to set your readers right about the
comparison which be institutes betiveen the
scores, obtained at the lato intercolonial
lnatch -and one played in 1860 between the
M.C.C. and the Kichmond Club. Jn the iirat
'place, Stewart did not bowTfor the M.C.C. in.
that match; and," in the second, ? Jaoomb
scored thirty runs only, instead: of fifty-nine,
as stated by; " Old Chum.!' The bowlers for
Melbourne' \vere Conway (whoiwas then a
"<x#,"«nd did.not .bowlsaore :thana
;few oven),. Bryant,. Coaaticki d M'Ponald, >
and "Wnjy (slow-s),., ami the Riding was
very indifferent no les3 than four sub- .
stitutes 'liaring "been engaged1 .for - the
M.C.C. *;B6ddles"toniR, tnoreover, sOfar from
having given only one chance, was missed
three orfour ttra'efe: ? In «ayiftg thts'/T do net
wish in llhe slightest degree to detoactfrom:
Huddlestone's merits a batB«»iau::he:was
undoubtedly, a fiost-class maajviih thew^Uow,
(rather Veak at slow' W
excellent at Cast),' and I should be glad if 'we '
had many 'more like hinl; bntr I ao Hmn to
show that the Comparison drawn ^ar ^'Old
'Chum " between ite two- matches fe«et 'a
fair one, and will not bear the light - On
the subject o£ .this match, I find tfcat the
editor of the Victorian Cricketers' Guide for tli&
season 18G0-61, makes thefollowingremarks:;
-" This match resulted In the mbst signal
defeat of the M.C.C. chiefly through the
splendid innings obtained by J.EEnddlestone'
of 142runs, against the bowlings of Bryant,
CoBstick, and M'Donald. ; Bad generadship
and loose fielding were: most conspicuoug on -
the side of the iLC.C." The bowling of
Brjant, Cosstick, and M'Donald at that fame
was not as good as that which odr men had
to contend against in the lite intercolonial,
and the fielding in the two matches icannot
be compared,* to say nothing of the nerve re
quired to enable a man to play steadily and
well in the presence of an assemblage of thou
sands as compared with a match between
two clubs, even though the leading clubs
of the colony. It is, moieover, ungenerous
in my opinion to attempt any such slighting
comparison. I consider Mr. Wardill's batting
in tne late intercolonial match'the most'
brilliant display of colonial cricket that has
been seen her^, and the more sp when one.
rerrcmbers what a splendid team New South
Wales brought into the field-two AH Eng
land theni one of our own former players
(Hewitt), and not a weak man ih the whole
eleven. To compare Robertson's b&ttirig, too,
with Jacomb's is just as unfair, ami more
over supremely absurd. Fifty-nine runs ob
tained in an mtercoloijial match (and well
obtained, not a fluke awon? them) are
surely worth far more than thirty in a club
match, however good-a score whilh does not
even equal Mr. Robertson's average for the
past season, which was thirty-two.
. If " Old Chum" has nothing better to offer
in support of his opinion; V that the -men of
old were just as
can,!
mine,
!own. Buti is I _ _
: further remarks unttl ttib"cdnt3toiitii' of
lupporx oi nis opinion, , tnat toe -men ot
were just as good batemen as any that
,fbe found now-a-daya," ie wifl iiot alter
ic, rorl.I think, mduce-many to ac ypi, his.
.letter appears.
$