deny that Spofforth is the best bowler ever seen on English grounds, at any rate in modern times, and yet these statistics show that he is not at the head of the average list.
The following is the list of the first eleven bowlers:—
| Overs | Runs | Wickets | Average | |
| Attewell | 855 | 762 | 64 | 11 |
| Shaw | 1,319 | 1,136 | 88 | 12 |
| Emmett | 1,213 | 1,535 | 117 | 13 |
| Spofforth | 5,866 | 9,551 | 715 | 13 |
| Boyle | 3,316 | 4,624 | 329 | 14 |
| Peate | 1,789 | 2,305 | 163 | 14 |
| Morley | 736 | 863 | 58 | 14 |
| Barnes | 1,494 | 1,843 | 122 | 15 |
| Palmer | 5,713 | 8,748 | 548 | 15 |
| Barrett | 475 | 824 | 51 | 16 |
| Garrett | 3,993 | 5,657 | 345 | 16 |
The English averages against English batsmen during the same period are very nearly the same as the above. The best all-round cricketer the Australians have brought to this country in our opinion is G. Giffen. He was a thoroughly sound and hard-hitting batsman; his bowling was at times most deadly even to the very highest class of batsmen. He had a big sure pair of hands, was a good field and fine, thrower. It would be a difficult task to find any man (the English champion excepted) either in Australia or at home who has done in the last six years better all-round service to his side.
It will seem strange to all English cricketers that Spofforth should be surpassed by three English bowlers. His power of pace, command over the ball, loose shoulders, long arms and fingers, made him far and away the best bowler of the day. How is it, then, that he does not come out at the top of the averages? There are two reasons. First: because of bad captaincy—that is to say, he used to be kept on far too long when not taking wickets; and, secondly, because he never bowled to keep down the runs. His object was to get men out, and he tried every artifice with this in view, quite irre-
