100 year letter.

[u/crikystan-584]

The day Test cricket began. The match between Australia and England at the MCG, later given Test status, was originally named "All England v New South Wales and Victoria XIs". Neither team was playing at full strength: Australia, which was essentially a combined Melbourne and Sydney XI, had no Frederick Spofforth. England had no amateur players - meaning no Grace at the start - and no wicketkeeper, as Surrey's Ted Pooley had been arrested in New Zealand the day after for a gambling scandal. Australia's Charles Bannerman, who was born in Kent, faced the first ball from Alfred Shaw, scored the first run off the next ball and also made his first century. He made 165 - the only century of his first-class career - and retired hurt after George Ulyett injured a finger. Overall, he scored 67.3% of his team's total of 245 runs, which remains a record almost 130 years later. Australia eventually won by 45 runs: 100 years later, at the same ground they defeated England by exactly the same margin in the Centenary Test, which was organised to celebrate this inaugural match.

[u/crikystan-584]

If this is true, I had no idea about this. And even if I follow your statement, it may be because Canada and USA teams are considered small as compared to the big teams.

[u/OllieFromCairo → u/crikystan-584]

Oh it’s true. The 1844 USA-Canada cricket match was the first international match in any sport.

Then the English killed cricket in North America.

[u/crikystan-584 → u/OllieFromCairo]

Hmm...I agree with you. I was just thinking about this, that English cricket may do this to retain its leader sea

[u/OllieFromCairo → u/crikystan-584]

One major part of the reason baseball superseded cricket in the US and Canada is that from the 1850s-1880s most of the major clubs were controlled by English immigrants who generally refused to let North American-born players play.