WHY THEY FAILED.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 144, 20 June 1899, Page 5

WHY THEY FAILED.

NEWSPAPER COMMENTS ON ENG-

LAND'S DEFEAT.

WANTED: A FAST BOWLER

LONDON, June 19

Tlie sporting newspapers commenting ■on the test, match attribute the defeat of All England to the early collapse of the English batting and the abseence of a fast bowler from the team. They admit the sxiperiority of the Australian bowling and fielding, and advise that the next English team should include reliable professional batsmen: gounger and more brilliant cricketers have (they say) been tried and found wanting. They suggest that cither Bland of Sussex or Bradley of Kent be selected as the fast bowler.

C. H; G. Bland, of Sussex, had a bowling average last season of 25 runs per wicket for 72 wickets, .obtained in 17 matches. He opened the season in splendid form, taking' in successive games against Notts, Gloucestershire, and Somerset no; fewer than 28 wickets. He was unable to maintain this form, ; but he bowled finely on other occasions and often with.bad luck, the Sussex men having a fatal weakness, for dropping catches. In 1597 Bland took 95 wickets with an average of 23. His batting average for Kent last season was only 6.G for 26 innings, his highest score being 22. W. M. Bradley bowled with uniform steadiness last season, but on good wickets did not appear to present real difficulties to first-rate batsmen. He had his days of success, but, as Wisden's Almanac points out, a county of Kent's position needs a fast bowler who can get a better average than 24 runs a wicket. Bradley's average for the season reads:—ll matches, 436:3 overs, 99 maidens, 1285 rims,' 52 wickets, average 24.71. He is probably showing much better form this season. His average with the bat last year was only 5.33, his aggregate being 80 runs for 16 matches, highest score 19.