THE FAILURE OF STODDART’S TEAM.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCIX, Issue 11554, 15 April 1898, Page 7

THE FAILURE OF STODDART’S TEAM.

ITS CAUSES. “Short-slip” in the Sydney Mail sums up the causes of the failure of Stoddart’s team as follows:—“We all know what an element of luck there is in cricket, and during the present tour this indefinable quantity has played a great part in the result of some of the contests, but, taken all through, the Englishmen were defeated simply because they met better men. They met men in their best form, men who, having tasted the bitterness of defeat in the first match, rallied splendidly, and ever afterwards held the lead. There was little luck about the toss; Trott won three out of five, and therefore it leaned a trifle towards Australia. But in only one case —at Melbourne in the sepond test—was the result appreciably influenced by the fall of the coin. All four contests were gained by a great margin. Now, what heat the Englishmen as much as anything was the advent of anew set of bowlers. They had never met Noble or Howell, had seen little of M’Leod, while Trumble, Jones, and Trott always held their own; There was so much variety in the attack, and so dodgy' were those • who carried it on, that the Englishmen after the first match never looked dangerous. I don’t attach much weight to the climate and the wickets. Almost all of the last Australian team had to put up with the same thing, though in a greater degree, while the hot weather was just as bad for the Australians as the Englishmen. I must, however, admit that they were an unfortunate lot from the time they put foot in Australia. There was the captain’s bereavement, over which he had the sympathy of-everyone; Eanjitsmhji, from whom great things were anticipated, was ill during the whole tour. Had the first test match commenced on the day set down, he might not have been able to appear. In the second match—that at Melbourne —he was strongly advised not to play, and also at Adelaide: while in the fourth match he had ; to submit to an operation performed by Dr Brady, of Sydney, who had been wired for. Notwithstanding weakness, and severe throat complaint, he continued playing, and though at times he did remarkahly well, he could not possibly show his best form or do his side most service. In addition to all this, he suffered a great deal from want of sleep, caused by asthma. Under all these circumstances, his average is a remarkably good one ; but if he had enjoyed good health there is no saying what the value of his services might have been, or how much they may have influenced the record in test matches. To make matters worse, as soon as he and M’Laren were out, the rest generally lost heart, and when that shows itself, it is pretty well all over. An absolute stonewaller would have been of great service to the team, and there was a lot in the suggestion offered shortly after the tour commenced that Brown, who was at Capetown, should he . sent for. The bowlers were not class enough. , Hearne may he an excellent bowler on English wickets, but he cannot strike terror into batsmen on Australian wickets; Eichardson has lost mufeh of his pace; still, he bowled well, but was not supported. Briggs, Hirst, Wainwright, Mason, Hayward were easy to negotiate. The weather was fine in all matches, and therefore in favour of Australian batting, while on perfect wickets Australian bowling is much superior to the visitors’. The result of the final test shows that there was not much in the win of the toss ; in fact, in only one match could it be said to have had any influence on the result—at Melbourne in the second match. The Australians, of course, held the advantage which has frequently been pointed out — one that is always held by England in England and by Australians in their own country—each can select its team on immediate form. Had these contests taken place in England.it is safe to assert that half at least of the English eleven would have been omitted. They could not strike form. On the other hand, every one who was finally selected for Australia excelled himself, and the bowlers at times rendered great assistance with the bat. There was no tail on the Australian side. Gillen’s absence from the first team came as a blessing in disguise, as M’Leod filled his place and came off. Lyons went out of form, and Noble was tried with great success. M’Kibbin was retired in favour of Howell, who howled remarkably well, and finally Iredale’s want .of success brought forth Worrall, and he was also of great value. The Englishmen lacked the great combination of the Australians. The English team conducted themselves splendidly.”