ENGLAND V. AUSTRALIA.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 204, 30 August 1888, Page 5

ENGLAND V. AUSTRALIA.

THE ENGLISH DEFEAT EXPLAINED.

When Mr .Bears contemned eleven first arrived in this country andjWere being njdre or less caustijCiilly criticised by the experts how everyone would, have derided the possibility of their brilliantly beating pur almost invincible All England team Nevertheless, this is just (as you know) what they have done and without the use1 ul services of Jones into the bargain. Only once before have English cricketers had to own themselves bested by Australia arid that was in 1882, when they had to go in and play the fourth innings on a difficult wicket against superb bowling. They had once again to play the fourth innings on Tuesday, the wicket was even worse than it was six years ago, whilst the bowlr ing was better. Comparisons are odiousj and it is not necessary to discuss whether the wonderful performances of Spofforth and Boyle have been outdone by Turner and Ferris. Suffice ib to say that it was to the admirable play of this phenomenal pair of trundlers Australia owes the victory of Tuesday. "Our own fieldewon," says Andrew Lang in the "Daily News," made mistakes, and our batsmen lacked resolution besides losing heart towards the last." The victory was, I am very glad to to say, very well receivedi and the colonists (particularly, Turner and Ferris) loudly cheered.

Cricket experts console themselves for the defeat by characterising ,it a fluke. "Candidly speaking," says the greatl authority of the "Sporting Life," "we do not think the form shown during the game was much truer than that when Leicestershire beat the Australians ten days ago, but whether our opinion is correct or not, the result is, to use a familiar expression, ■" down on the .slate," and, what is more, the team which left Australia amid so much misgiving in Sydney and Melbourne last March, has achieved a distinction greater than phat gained by any previous eleven from thecolonies. Wesaythiswithoutfearofcon tradiction, for whereas England last the match in 1882, Australia won, and always looked like winning the match under notice. On a dry wicket the best team in England would probably beat the conquerors of yesterday nine times out of ten, but on a trecherous wicket the better batting counts for little or nothing, and we admit that with the ground to .help them, Turner and Ferris are quite the equals, of any bowlers in this country.', .Moreover the fielding of the colonists was Bafer than that of the Englishmen, and, still more, our opponents played as a rule a more effective game than the majority of our. representative eleven. Orthodox cricket when the ground is as difficult as it was in this instance goes for very little, and unless a man can watch the ball like Barlow, he had 'much better make up his mind to hit. Frank Sugg-in the North of England match at Manchester three weeks ago, played the sort of game which: would have been invaluable yesterday; but there was practically no one at Lord's to try it, and none at all except Grace and1 Brings batted with ''''resolution.' It did not pay Briggs in the second innings^ but his 17 was a fine achievement,:and a few more seventeens, eve,n if alternated with ducks eggs, would have helped to win the gamd. Our men, however, tried ;to . play correctly rather than hit, at a time when cricket was really " skittles," and the result was disastrous to England. ' , r •