A song for the 1878 Australians

[neville cardus]

In which I become a bigshot music producer:

This is probably the first time it's been played in over a century. Certainly it's the first time anyone's recorded it.

 

[Line and Length]

I don't think it would have made the charts .... even back then.

 

[neville cardus]

Yeah. Sunk like a stone. Only tragics like Peter and your humble servant could have ever thought it worth reviving.

 

[The Sean]

Killer tune. I can't understand why it wasn't a bigger hit.

Wonderful stuff Neville. And it also gives me another chance to get on my soapbox and proclaim yet again that the MCC vs Australians match at Lord's on that 1878 tour should have been designated a Test match (and I daresay - cynically - that had the result been reversed it would have been...).

 

[neville cardus]

And it also gives me another chance to get on my soapbox and proclaim yet again that the MCC vs Australians match at Lord's on that 1878 tour should have been designated a Test match (and I daresay - cynically - that had the result been reversed it would have been...).

No match that didn't purport to be nationally representative, at least in name, was ever granted Test status. Certainly it was the first Test-class match ever played in England, but "MCC" only became interchangeable with "England" when they were touring, and that only decades later.

It's worth noting, too, that it was an Australian, Clarence Moody, who first enumerated the canonical list of Test Matches.

Rodney

 

[The Sean]

No match that didn't purport to be nationally representative, at least in name, was ever granted Test status. Certainly it was the first Test-class match ever played in England, but "MCC" only became interchangeable with "England" when they were touring, and that only decades later.

It's worth noting, too, that it was an Australian, Clarence Moody, who first enumerated the canonical list of Test Matches.

Rodney

True, though my feeling was always why it didn't claim to be nationally representative. The Australian team was, and the MCC team was virtually full strength - I've not ever really understood why the team which played in Australia in 1877 was considered to be representative of England, but the MCC side of 1878 wasn't. I'm sure there was a reason (beyond getting rolled in a single day ) but I've just never discovered what it was.

 

[neville cardus]

True, though my feeling was always why it didn't claim to be nationally representative. The Australian team was, and the MCC team was virtually full strength - I've not ever really understood why the team which played in Australia in 1877 was considered to be representative of England, but the MCC side of 1878 wasn't. I'm sure there was a reason (beyond getting rolled in a single day ) but I've just never discovered what it was.

The early visiting teams to England inherited from Clarke's and Parr's dying professional itinerants the title "All-England Eleven," which is about as representative as one can claim to be.

MCC, in contast, put out dozens of teams, of vastly varying quality, all season and every season, none of which claimed to represent England. CricketArchive lists 72 in 1878 alone.

It's really as trivial as that. There was no hypocrisy or conspiracy afoot.

In fact, we vastly overstate the representative quality of the team that played at Lord's in May 1878. It was powerful, but it wasn't the best English team available. Just compare it with the elevens of 1877 and 1880, and see how many names it has in common.

WG is the only member in the top ten batting averages for 1878. There's no John Selby, who headed that list; no Edward Lyttelton, who finished second; no Frank Penn, who finished third both in 1878 and 1877; and no Bunny Lucas, second in 1877.

Nor do we find Allan Steel, the best bowler in the country (and indeed, in 1878, one of the very last to achieve the feat of taking more than 100 FC wickets in a season at less than ten runs a pop). No George Ulyett either: probably the best all-rounder in the country.

As to the players we do find in that side, how many of us have honestly heard of Clement Booth? Remove WG, and despite an median age in the mid-twenties, you get an average Test career of just 2.5 matches. A strong team, but not, I stress, a representative one.

Apart from anything else, this retrospective exaggeration of what the Australians faced in 1878 only belittles what they achieved in 1882.

(Sorry to be such a bore about this. My excuse is that I'm composing a book on the subject.)

 

[mr_mister]

Murdoch's clearing pickets, Spofforth's taking wickets, and Bannerman's still the best we've ever seen....

 

[neville cardus]

Murdoch's clearing pickets, Spofforth's taking wickets, and Bannerman's still the best we've ever seen....

Billy Murdoch puts in a brief appearance in this all-time classic:

 

[The Sean]

The early visiting teams to England inherited from Clarke's and Parr's dying professional itinerants the title "All-England Eleven," which is about as representative as one can claim to be.

MCC, in contast, put out dozens of teams, of vastly varying quality, all season and every season, none of which claimed to represent England. CricketArchive lists 72 in 1878 alone.

It's really as trivial as that. There was no hypocrisy or conspiracy afoot.

In fact, we vastly overstate the representative quality of the team that played at Lord's in May 1878. It was powerful, but it wasn't the best English team available. Just compare it with the elevens of 1877 and 1880, and see how many names it has in common.

WG is the only member in the top ten batting averages for 1878. There's no John Selby, who headed that list; no Edward Lyttelton, who finished second; no Frank Penn, who finished third both in 1878 and 1877; and no Bunny Lucas, second in 1877.

Nor do we find Allan Steel, the best bowler in the country (and indeed, in 1878, one of the very last to achieve the feat of taking more than 100 FC wickets in a season at less than ten runs a pop). No George Ulyett either: probably the best all-rounder in the country.

As to the players we do find in that side, how many of us have honestly heard of Clement Booth? Remove WG, and despite an median age in the mid-twenties, you get an average Test career of just 2.5 matches. A strong team, but not, I stress, a representative one.

Apart from anything else, this retrospective exaggeration of what the Australians faced in 1878 only belittles what they achieved in 1882.

(Sorry to be such a bore about this. My excuse is that I'm composing a book on the subject.)

Not being a bore at all - this is great context, and fantastic to read. I'd always wanted to see detailed research on this, so I will definitely be looking for a copy of your book when it arrives! I had seen that the 1878 MCC side wasn't 100% representative of the very best compared with the tours before and after, but I'd always assumed it was representative of the strongest available on that particular summer. I may be pre-empting your book asking this question now, but what is the view of why the MCC didn't put up a stronger team if one was available?

This also puts into different context much of what I've read about that particular match, about the seismic impact of that match, of the MCC being routed in a day and Spofforth's humbling of WG. There was even that poem published in Punch magazine (a parody of "The Destruction of Sennacherib")

"The Australians came down like a wolf on the fold,
The Marylebone cracks for a trifle were bowled;
Our Grace before dinner was very soon done,
And Grace after dinner did not get a run."

I'd always assumed that, in terms of public perception in England, this performance - particularly by Spofforth - was second in impact only to The Oval in 1882 in the match which gave birth to The Ashes. But it seems that assumption may have been incorrect.

 

[neville cardus]

Not being a bore at all - this is great context, and fantastic to read. I'd always wanted to see detailed research on this, so I will definitely be looking for a copy of your book when it arrives! I had seen that the 1878 MCC side wasn't 100% representative of the very best compared with the tours before and after, but I'd always assumed it was representative of the strongest available on that particular summer. I may be pre-empting your book asking this question now, but what is the view of why the MCC didn't put up a stronger team if one was available?

Probably because they didn't think they needed to! Little was known of the Australians, and what was known wasn't good: They'd just been mullered by Nottinghamshire. There were only a couple hundred in the crowd to see them at the start of play.

Fun fact, which has fallen down the memory hole: There was a team playing as "England" that season. In fact, it finished a match only a day before the start of the MCC fixture. Its opponent? Scotland!

This also puts into different context much of what I've read about that particular match, about the seismic impact of that match, of the MCC being routed in a day and Spofforth's humbling of WG. There was even that poem published in Punch magazine (a parody of "The Destruction of Sennacherib")

"The Australians came down like a wolf on the fold,
The Marylebone cracks for a trifle were bowled;
Our Grace before dinner was very soon done,
And Grace after dinner did not get a run."

I'd always assumed that, in terms of public perception in England, this performance - particularly by Spofforth - was second in impact only to The Oval in 1882 in the match which gave birth to The Ashes. But it seems that assumption may have been incorrect.

Oh, no. It's a perfectly valid position. The MCC game proved that the Aussies could hack it in truly first-class English company, which came as a revelation to everyone "at home." But they'd have to wait four years to beat a truly representative eleven of England. But for Spofforth's injury, they might have done it in 1880.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

and Bannerman's still the best we've ever seen....

@Prince EWS to comment

 

[mr_mister]

in 1878 he probably had pretty good credit in the bank!

 

[neville cardus]

in 1878 he probably had pretty good credit in the bank!

First Australian to score a century against England. First Australian to score a century in England. First Australian to score a century in New Zealand. First Australian to score a century in the US. All in the period 1877-78. Quite something.

 

[Harry Boyle]

Not being a bore at all - this is great context, and fantastic to read. I'd always wanted to see detailed research on this, so I will definitely be looking for a copy of your book when it arrives! I had seen that the 1878 MCC side wasn't 100% representative of the very best compared with the tours before and after, but I'd always assumed it was representative of the strongest available on that particular summer. I may be pre-empting your book asking this question now, but what is the view of why the MCC didn't put up a stronger team if one was available?

This also puts into different context much of what I've read about that particular match, about the seismic impact of that match, of the MCC being routed in a day and Spofforth's humbling of WG. There was even that poem published in Punch magazine (a parody of "The Destruction of Sennacherib")

"The Australians came down like a wolf on the fold,
The Marylebone cracks for a trifle were bowled;
Our Grace before dinner was very soon done,
And Grace after dinner did not get a run."

I'd always assumed that, in terms of public perception in England, this performance - particularly by Spofforth - was second in impact only to The Oval in 1882 in the match which gave birth to The Ashes. But it seems that assumption may have been incorrect.

I'd always assumed that, in terms of public perception in England, this performance - particularly by Spofforth - was second in impact only to The Oval in 1882 in the match which gave birth to The Ashes. But it seems that assumption may have been incorrect.

I would argue very strongly that this game was more important than the 1882 game and in all probability the most important game Australia played in the the 19th century. It was the first time a representative colonial team had come to England and not just beaten, but thrashed, what was an exceptionally strong English team. Rodney is correct when he says that it was not the strongest English team available, but the fact is that weaker English teams toured in Australia and have received the name of All England Elevens. The other thing that should be noted is that the bowling of Boyle during this game, especially in the second innings where he took 6 wickets for 3 runs off 33 balls was regarded with equal sensation by the English.
After the game, Tom Horan noted that wherever the team went the people wanted to see Boyle and Spofforth.
Pete

 

[neville cardus]

I'd always assumed that, in terms of public perception in England, this performance - particularly by Spofforth - was second in impact only to The Oval in 1882 in the match which gave birth to The Ashes. But it seems that assumption may have been incorrect.
I would argue very strongly that this game was more important than the 1882 game and in all probability the most important game Australia played in the the 19th century. It was the first time a representative colonial team had come to England and not just beaten, but thrashed, what was an exceptionally strong English team. Rodney is correct when he says that it was not the strongest English team available, but the fact is that weaker English teams toured in Australia and have received the name of All England Elevens. The other thing that should be noted is that the bowling of Boyle during this game, especially in the second innings where he took 6 wickets for 3 runs off 33 balls was regarded with equal sensation by the English.
After the game, Tom Horan noted that wherever the team went the people wanted to see Boyle and Spofforth.
Pete

Nothing I've said here undermines your position as to its impact. What I've been arguing against is the notion that it ought to have been classified as a Test Match.