CRICKET SURPRISE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 299, 18 December 1935, Page 23

CRICKET SURPRISE.

A "BAG" FOR BAXTER. AUSTEAXJA'S BATTING COLLAPSE. (From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, December 13. Holmes and his comrades went a long way toward re-establishing their credit j in the eyes of the cricketing world last : week, when they beat the "Australian I Eleven" opposed to Uiem by a very subI stantial margin of runs. I Of course the absence of Australia's I chosen representatives in South Africa | —to say nothing of the gaps left' by Tarrant's • Indian tour in our depleted I ranks—meant that the Australian team would be at best below international form; and many critics held that the selectors had thrown away whatever chances we. had by making the team j almost exclusively a New South Wales j eleven. However, the English team had done badly against a team composed ! mostly of New South Wales colts, and their good showing here last week was in many ways an agreeable disappointment. Holmes won the toss, and as the /weather was beautiful and the wicket perfect, he put his men in. But they ! made a very bad start, displaying their : former inability to deal with slow spin I bowling, which was supplied chiefly by j Chilvers, who was backed up splendidly j by Ebeling. The Victorian captained the ; Australian team, and though with his [ usual modesty, he refused to make the best possible use of his all-round ability, he soon showed that the reputation he gained last year at Home was well deserved. Bowling with great pace and an occasional turn from the off, lie got rid of Smith, Human and Holmes. The Englishman 'could do nothing right at first, and five wickets were down for 81 I —a doleful prospect—when Langridge j joined Hardstaff. The young Notts pro- ] fessional been, as in his previous \ displays here, "batting like a book"; and | Langridge gave a chance before he had j scored. If that chance had been held I there would have been six wickets down > for less than 100 runs. As it was Langridge, a steady and persistent bat', stayed ion to ma ke 53 runs and to give Hardstaff al! the .opportunity that he needed for piling up a big score. Tale Of Missed Chances. ' The pair put on 150 runs for the sixth "wicket, and next day Lyttelton aiid Sims helped Hardstaff to carry on the good work till nine wickets were down for 411, and Holmes, closed the innings. Hardstaff had made 230 and was not j'out —one of the finest innings'seen here [ for some seasons past. His play was | marked by confidence, accuracy and | security he dealt with our • slow men effectively by u,siii£ his.feet to reach the pitch of the ball, and he fully deserved the enthusiastic- applause of I the spectators and the memento of the match, which he afterwards received from the New South Wales association. | As Hardstaff , made 230 .out of the 'total of 411, it is evident that the bati ting of the rest of the team was not particularly, effective. But . the score would have been very much smaller if our men had fielded well and seized all t their opportunities. Hardstaff himself I was missed when he had scored 120, j though this was hardly a blot on his ! splendid display. But, the Australians' ' misseel 12 chances ip all and had only themselves to blame when, after their magnificent start the score mounted steadily against them. , Nor did they 'do. much better when ■ their team came I to bat. ' Baxter Starts A Rout. 1 Baxter, who had been "saved" by Holmes from the responsibility of batting soon.showed,what he could do with ! the new ball. Bowling with great pace and keeping a good length he took full advantage of a wind and his. "inswingers" were too much for several of our best men. He got Mudge lbw /under the new rule) with an in-swinger in his first over, and treated Rigg in the same fashion a little, later, and he subsequently clean . bowled both Robinson and Kippax. .Of course, whatever may be thought of tJie.nevy rule) it must be admitted that the practice of "packing up" to stop an off break is an open confession of weakness and Mudge and Rigg fully deserved their filtc. Benstead, who batted well for, 25. also got in front of his wicket to a ball from Sims that "came through," and the rest of our men seemed so disheartened by these reverses that'many of them gave a very feeble .display. Marks scored' 64 with a good deal of luck, reaching feebly at off balls, and McGilvray, our other lefthander, was also "off colour." ■The bright .spots in the .innings were supplied by Robinson, Who batted quite brilliantly for 37 before hitting across a fine ball from Baxter, and by Easton, who once more showed that courage and a determination t'o score off any ball Worth hitting, may make a man an extremely useful member of a team without any of the graces aiid accomplishments of the stylist. But by the end of the second day 'eight Australian wickets were down for 209, and a dozen runs were still needed to save the "follow on." ' That 4i s S ra<:e > vas obviated, but the innings Closed for 227 —under the circumstances, a really miserable total. Another Debacle. The Englishmen' went in again, and Hardstaff again batted well for 03. But the Australians . fielded better than Ebeling again bowled splendidly—he took six for 5S in this innings and eleven for 169 in the match —and the total was only 207 for nine wickets —Baxter being "saved" again to polish off the Australians in their second venture. This was' again a depressing exhibition, and the failure Of the Australians was not by any means due solely to the excellence of- the English bowling. - _ Baxter, though he was troubled by a lamed leg,' and had to moderate his pace, again bowled extremely well and must have "qualified by this time for the next Test team. But Sims and Parks, though steady and accurate, were by no means over-powering, and nothing but lacks of confidence, the refusal ot the Australians to "use their feet and hit the loose ones" can explain their collapse. Mudge, who i.s "_a cautious,, though accurate bat, made a stodgy 30, Robinson was rather reckless than brilliant for 27, Marks, who exploits all the left-hander's aggressiveness on 'the one side, displayed his usual weakness on the off, but scored 40, and the irrepressible Easton once more showed what a sound though ' ugly . bat can do, even under great disadvantages, by scoring 29. But the total was only 188 for nine 'wickets, as White, our left-handed bowler, could not bat —and the "Aus- | tralian Eleven" was beaten by over 200 runs. In-one sense there was nothing disgraceful in this, for the English team includes several bats who are up to Test form, and in Baxter they certainly have a dangerous fast bowler. But it muH.

not be forgotten that a weak New South! Wales team beat Holmes and his men badly less than a month ago, and every -, body who saw the match must admit that the failure of the Australians w is: due mostly to bad fielding, to nerveless and indecisive batting and to weak and inaccurate bowling. To these general remarks one be made in favour of Ebeling, who bowled extremely well, and nothing of this is meant to detract from the credit due to Hardstaff for his splendid innings, to Baxter for his fine- bowling and to Holmes and most of his men for their brilliancy in the field.