The Press Thursday, July 8, 1930. The Second Cricket Test.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 19970, 3 July 1930, Page 8

The Press Thursday, July 8, 1930. The Second Cricket Test.

Though figures and the breaking and establishing of records have never yet contained or faithfully conveyed the quality of cricket, the shades of which defy mechanical registration, the figures and records of the second Test between England and Australia reflect quite staggering performances, which would be remembered as such, even if they had been less memorably excellent than they were. It is easy to forget that big figures sometimes go with painful and even petty cricket—an example is the first Test at Brisbane during the last English tour —while the finest performances with bat or ball may be most unjustly reduced in the score-book to a small total of runs or the taking of perhaps a single wicket; and it is the fact that so many matches in recent years have been exceedingly dull, though remarkable for enormous scores, that makes the brilliance and the courage of the one just finished especially welcome. The Australians' victory, of course, rests upon the foundation built by Woodfull and Ponsford. Without their stubborn and yet bold beginning even Bradman's dazzling success would not have been enough, and might have been impossible; but thfero is hardly anything to be admired in the Australians' achievement which is not at least rivalled, though not equalled, in the Englishmen's. Nobody who saw him score as many as thirty runs in New Zealand will doubt that in scoring his 173 Duleepsinhji showed batting as fine as can be seen, though be did not, like Woodfull, Ponsford, Bradman, and Kippax, have to face and overcome the knowledge that the other side was already secure, for a win or at worst a draw, against all but extraordinary ill-luck or extraordinary effort; and, when the game had swung heavily against them, the stand by Chapman and Allen, and Chapman's career to his highest Test score, belong to what is best in cricket. They remind ns again that the result worked out in a match is not, like the answer to a problem, the most important thing; the manner of arriving at it is much more important. But the Test emphasises again, though not with the dreary emphasis of some previous Tests, the inequality of the straggle between bat and ball. England played two complete innings, averaged exactly 40 runs a wicket, and yet was heavily beaten. The Australians played two incomplete innings, and averaged 89 runs a wicket. As fine a bowler as Tate, bowling very well, took only two wickets, in 77 overs, for 169 runs, while Grimmett's eight wickets cost 34 runs each. The other Australians took eleven altogether, and Fairfax six of those. The uncertain success of any bowler but Grimmett, who may of course at any time lose form or be injured, is one of the reasons why it is quite impossible to infer from their , present victory, sweeping as it is, that the Australians are certain or probable or even likely to win the next Test.