DOUR FIGHT FOR RUNS

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21961, 9 December 1936, Page 14

DOUR FIGHT FOR RUNS

♦ — M.C.C. MAKES 256 IN SECOND INNINGS AUSTRALIA SET UPHILL TASK IN TEST 378 REQUIRED, WITH NINE WICKETS IN HAND , '(UNITED PiESS ASSOCIATION - —COPYRIGHT.) |By J. B. HOBBS, Copyright In all countries. Reproduction in whole or m part forbidden.] (Received December 9, 12.5 a.m.) BRISBANE, December 8. "With nine wickets in hand, Australia requires 378 runs to win the first cricket test match with England. The Englishmen batted almost the whole day 10-day, taking their overnight score of 75 for two wickets to 256 before the last wicket fell, thus establishing a lead of 381 runs. Allen was top-scorer with 68. Ward, the South Australian slow bowler, took six wickets for 102 runs. Opening its second innings with only a few minutes to play, Australia lost one wicket for three runs, Voce dismissing Fingleton with the first bail of the innings. The see-saw of the test swung Australia’s way again in as exciting a pre-lunch period as yesterday, when England got on top. Australia lost three wickets for 51 in 90 minutes. England also lost three wickets, and scored two fewer runs. On both occasions good bowling was responsible. Bradman persisted with the slow bowlers, Chipperileid, Ward, and O’Reilly. The'only time he put on a bowler with any pace was when he gave Sievers four overs just before lunch. Those were maidens. O’Reilly and Ward- bore the brunt of the attack. In this period they kept a perfect length and looked deadly enough to be capable of getting a wicket with any ball. Only four fours were hit. the batsmen being kept in complete subjection. Hammond Trapped Fagg was the first to go. Leyland stepped into the breach, as he has often done lately, holding the side together. Hammond seldom played forward, because Ward was making the ball turn. Perhaps he did not realise that he was being driven back on to the wicket as much as he was, for in cutting Ward he also hit the top of the stumps. Ames was a victim of Sievers, a mediumpaced bowler, with a really good ball. Never can a test have been more dourly fought. Had it not been a test we could not have endured the slow cricket, but realising that a bitter battle was being fought, I think we all enjoyed it. Play was similar after lunch. When he had added 14, Leyland was sensationally caught off Ward. He tried to hook a shortish one over the head of Bradman, who was fielding deep and wide at mid-on. Having sighted it, Bradman suddenly turned round, darted off like a flash, and made a catch while running full tilt with his hands over his head and his back to the wicket. Leyland’s was a useful 33, but six for 144 was not nearly enough to please me. The crux of the match probably came during the period between lunch and tea. Thanks to a seventh wicket stand of 61 by Hardstaff and Allen, things turned England’s way again. Hardstaff took an hour to reach 16. Getting to 20, he left the crease, played forward, and was stumped. The Captain’s Innings During this partnership, Ward went off, after bowling continuously for two hours and a half for 20 overs, nine maidens, 40 runs, and three wickets. When he returned, he got Hardstaff in his first over. Allen raised himself in the batting order, so as to be fresher for bowling. He batted so stubbornly that it may have the opposite effect. Allen’s effort raised him in the public esteem. It was truly magnificent, enhanced by the fact that he came in just before lunch in a crisis, with five wickets down for 122. .He was still there at tea, with 41 to his credit, including six fours, but he hit nothing except bad ones. I said the slow bowlers would come into their own. Ward had done so, but so far O’Reilly has not got a wicket, an amazing circumstance. Allen scored two off O’Reilly, who beat and almost bowled him, typifying his bad luck in this innings. A storm was brewing, with clouds and distant thunder, as the ninth wicket stand laboriously added a valuable 42. At 244 Bradman had to put on McCabe and Sievers with the new ball. Australia was in a quandary, Sievers in his second over got Verity leg before. Slow Bowlers Praised Allen was eventually caught as in the first innings—in having a hit. Fingleton, running from mid-off behind the bowler, made a good catch. Allen hit eight fours and scored most runs on the leg side. This left Australia 381 to get to win. The Australian slow bowlers were great, Ward having a fiel . day. It was only when their fingers became tired that they lost nip. McCormick was much missed. I know that 381 is a flea-bite to Australian batsmen normally in an innings, but considering the way the wicket is wearing I am of the opinion that they will find it too big a task, especially as they lost Fingleton with the first ball. The Australians appealed against the light before receiving a ball, and then Fingleton played on to Voce. I hope that rain does not come and ■spoil things, and that we shall see the match played on its merits. Australia has fought back grandly, but England is in a stronger position ihan last night. Scores:— ENGLAND First Innings IT, S. Worthington, c Oldfield, b McCormick ■ • _ C. J. Barnett, c Oldfield, b O Reilly 69 A. H. Fagg, c Oldfield, b McCormick . • • ’ W. R- Hammond, c Kobmson, b McCormick .. •• •• ® M. Leyland. b Ward • • • • L E. G. Ames, c Chipperfield, b Ward • • • ■ 24 S. Hardstaff, c McCabe, b O’Reilly 43 E W. V. Robins, c sub. (Brown), b O’Reilly .. • • • • 3 “ G. O. Allen, c McCabe, b O’Reilly 33 H. Verily, e Sievers, b O’Reilly .. 7 JW- Voce, not out .. .. *• 4 Extras .. .. •• 8 Total — . .. ..358

Fall of Wickets—One for 0; two for 20 - three for 20; four for 119: five for 162; six for 252; seven for 311; eight for’3ll; nine for 343. BOWLING ANALYSIS O. M. R- WE. L. McCormick 8 1 26 3 Ivi. W. Sievers ..16 5 42 0 W. J. O’Reilly .. 40 13 102 5 F. W r ard : . 36 2 138 2 AG. Chipperfield 11 3 32 0 S. J. McCabe ..2 0 10 0 Second Innings Worthington, st Oldfield, b McCabe 8 Barnett, c Badcock, b Ward .. 26 Fagg. st Oldfield, b Ward .. 27 Hammond, hit wicket, b Ward .. 25 Leyland. c Bradman, b Ward .. 33 Ames, b Sievers .. .. 9 Allen, c Fingleton. b Sievers .. 63 Hardstaff, st Oldfield, b Ward .. 20 Robins, c Chipperfield, b Ward .. 0 Verity, Ibw, b Sievers .. .. 19 Vcce. not out ... .. 2 Extras .. .. ..13 Total .. .. . .255 Fall of Wickets —One for 17; two for 50; three for 82; four for 105; five for 122; six for 144: seven for 205; eight for 205; nine for 247; 10 for 256. BOWLING ANALYSIS O. M. R. W. Sievers .. 19.6 9 29 3 McCabe ..6 1 14 1 O'Roillv .. 33 1> 59 0 Ward . . 46 16 102 6 Chipperfield .. 10 2 33 0 AUSTRALIA First Innings J. H. Fingleton, b Verity .. 100 C. L. Badcock, b Allen .. 8 D. G. Bradman, c Worthington, b Vcce .. ..38 S J. McCabe, c Barnett, b Vcce 51 R. Robinson, c Hammond, b Voce 2 A. G. Chipperfield, c Ames, b Voce 7 M. \V. Sievers, b Allen .. 8 W. A. Oldfield, c Ames, b Voce . . 6 W. J. O’Reillv, e Leyland, b Vccc 3 F. Ward, c Hardstaff, b AUcn .. Oi E. L. McCormick, not cut .. 1 Extras .. 10 Total . . . . .. 234 Fall of wickets —One for 13, (wo for 89. three for 166, four for 176. five for 202, six for 220, seven for 229, eight for 231, nine for 231. 10 for 234. BOWLING ANALYSIS O. M. R. W. G. O. Allen .. 16 2 71 3 W. Voce .. 20 6 41 6 W. R. Hammond 4 0 12 0 H. Verity .. 28 11 52 1 R. W. V. Robins 17 0 48 0 Second Innings Fingleton, b Voce .. .. 0 Badcock. not out .. .. 0 Sievers, not out .. .. 2 Extra .. . ■ .. 1 Total for one wicket .. 3 Bowling—Vcce took one wicket for' 1 run, Allen none for 1. AUSTRALIA ON DEFENSIVE REVIEW OF THIRD DAY’S PLAY BRADMAN WRENCHES ANKLE (united press association—copyright.) (Received December 8, II a.m.) j SYDNEY, December 8. The “Sydney Morning Herald’s’’ cricLrt writer, commenting on the first test, says;— “Australia is in a bad position, and this fact made the mishap to Bradman all the more disturbing. Bradman slipped when leaving the ground and slightly wrenched his ankle. He will probably field today with the ankle strapped, and he is hoping that the injury will not seriously affect his batting. “England is now 199 runs to the good with eight wickets in hand. The wicket seems bouqd to give assistance to the spin bowlers before the match is much further advanced. “Voce bowled England into a winning position when he recorded his greatest performance in a test, taking five wickets for 16 runs yesterday, and making his figures for the innings six for 41. Australia’s tailenders made a poor showing, and as a matter of fact the last seven batsmen aggregated only 27 runs. “Fingleton, playing a 1 one hand after McCabe’s dismissal, reached his century after 301 minutes.’’ C. G. Macartney, /riting in the “Sydney Morning Herald,” says:— “Excellent bowling, particularly by V~ce, superb fielding, and sound wicket-keeping, enabled England to gain its handsome lead yesterday. It was one of the slowest run-get-ting days of test cricket and, though the fielding on both sides was splendid and cut down the run-getting, the weakness of stroke play and lack of confidence and enterprise were marked. “Australia’s Chances Sinking” “It was, however, a triumphant day for England, and thoroughly deserved. The Englishmen have a strong hold on the game unless they endanger it by foolish strategic action or poor batting to-im ■ vow. Unless Bradman upsets calculations, Australia’s chances are sinking fast. It is almost unbelievable that nine Australian batsmen could m?' - e only 83 runs in 176 minutes yesterday. Yet that was the gruesome fact —and Fingleton made nearly half of them. From the manner in which the batsmen played, it was. all they deserved. Not one player made any attempt to take the offensive in an endeavour either to make runs or to destroy the position of superiority which the bowlers had gained. Australian batsmen have seldom been so harassed and the cricket was funereal. Voce has seldom bowled with such hostility. He maintained fine pace and an accurate length on an easy pitch. “England’s fielding was grand. Fingleton played his part more than creditably. His task was to hold the fort, and he held it splendidly. The English battiug in the second innings was not sound.” Arthur' Mailey, writing in the “Daily Telegraph,” says:—“ Australia faces defeat in the first test The explanations of Australia’s failure are that Voce bowled too well for the batsmen. Our . men ‘could not take it.’ There was also Bradman’s comparative failure, and Allen’s remarkably fine captaincy.” ENGLISH PRESS HOPEFUL OF VICTORY LONDON, D- cember 7. The evening papers’ posters all indicate expectancy of a win in the first test. The headlines talk of “Bradman and company on the run,” and one says, . “Voce gives them shocks.” The cricket writer of the “Evening News” says: “We should be able to consolidate our position to-mor-row from a reasonably safe one into a winning one.”