CRITICS' VIEWS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 147, 23 June 1934, Page 9

CRITICS' VIEWS.

"SOUNDLY CORRECT."

Australian View of the English Batting.

JARDINE NOT OPTIMISTIC

(United P. A. —Electric Telegraph—Copy right) (Received 11.30 a.m.) LONDON, June 22. Commenting on the Test play the Australian Press Association says: "The end of the first day sees England in a distinctly advantageous position. Apart from Chipperfield, whose extraordinary performance was quite unexpected, and occasional overs from O'Reilly, the bowling did not look threatening. Chipperfield spun the ball more than Grimmett, 011 whose stvle lie has modelled himself. "Though Gi'iinliiett, O'Reilly, Oldfield and McC'abe all dropped hard eatclies, the Australian ground fielding was splendid, with Bromley outstanding. "The English batsmen deserve credit for a soundly correct performance, Walters revealing himself a better batsman each time lie meets the Australians. Leyland played a great innings. It was his left-handedness more than anything else which contributed to breaking up the attack." D. R. Jardine says in the "Evening Standard" that England must bat until the tea adjournment on the second day if they want to win without help from the weather. Anything under 400 runs will leave the position unsatisfactory.

The famous cricket writer, Neville Cardus, says tliat tamer bowling could not have been imagined in a Test.

The veteran googly bowler, B. J. T. Bosanquet, says: "Although there is little fear of defeat, England has not scored sufficiently fast to win."

A. E. R. Gilligan applauds the work of wicket-keeper Oldfield, who did not allow a single bye, as his head , and shoulders are the world's best. , Most of the critics pay tribute also to Woodfull's captaincy.