WELL-DESERVED VICTORY

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21967, 16 December 1936, Page 12

WELL-DESERVED VICTORY

ENGLAND'S WIN IN FIRST TEST

"AUSTRALIA OUTPLAYED IN EVERY DEPARTMENT"

FIVE DAYS OF CHANGING FORTUNES

[By WENDELL BILL.] BRISBANE, December-10. The first cricket test of the 1936-37 series began in weather that was decidedly oppressive. Rain was threatening, and Allen, the English captain, must have felt greatly relieved when the toss favoured his call. At least he* would have the use of a perfect batting wicket, where as Australia stood a good chance of running into a sticky pitch before the match was out. One thing, however, favoured Australia. This was undoubtedly responsible for the wickets of Worthington and Hammond being captured before lunch, each out off the first ball he received from McCormick. The liveliness of the wicket in the early stages caused many of McCormick's shortpitched deliveries to fly alarmingly. There is always a good chance of this on the first day at Brisbane, whereas afterward it is difficult to bring the ball up higher than the stumps. The start was as dramatic and sensational as one could wish for, as with three wickets down for 20 runs, including the champion, Hammond, the initial advantage of winning the toss had been lost. McCormick was bowling like a demon, and it appeared that England would be pressed to a total of 150 runs. With the advent of Ley land things improved considerably from England's point of view. Leyland defended grimly, while Barnett swung properly into his stride and dealt with the bowlers in no uncertain manner. A trifle uncertain at the start to Ward, he then became aggressive. Out of the first 50 runs 42 came from boundaries. Loss of McCormick With the century hoisted and Barnett batting brilliantly, great hopes were entertained that a good recovery would be made. McCormick's pace after lunch was appreciably slower, and one readily perceived that he was labouring under a strain. It was not surprising, therefore, when after several unimpressive overs he left the field, obviously in pain. The position threw great responsibility on O'Reilly, Ward, and Sievers, Australia's other stock bowlers. Luckily for Australia, O'Reilly was successful in dismissing Barnett through a neat catch by Oldfield on the leg side. It was a rather fortunate dismissal, I thought. Barnett bids fair to become an even greater plaver than Hammond, having already a wider range of shots than the present champion. Leyland frequently employed a sweep shot which, although generally effective, appeared quite likely to bring about his dismissal. He was missed twice, but with commendable spirit fought on. When he was dismissed near the close of play because of playing a ball on to the wicket, he had placed his side in a position which, if not entirely comfortable, was irtOßt satisfactory in view of the shocking Etart. Ames, as has bc?n his custom for the leur, batted splendidly, but as usual succumbed to the slow bowler Ward. His was a useful contribution and paved the way for Hardstaff. who faced the crisis of England's innings. A Critical Partnership England had taken a heavy gamble by including this player, as his form in recent matches was shocking, but a great player like Hardstaff had proved himself to be does not stay in the depth of despondency for ever. His partnership with Leyland was most fruitful, as they together pulled the game round England's way considerably. It is indeed hard to estimate the value of Leyland's innings, as, had he failed, England would have been a beaten team. Leyland was missed several times off Ward. Australia's out-cricket was not entirely all it should have been and wilted under the stand made by England's later batsmen. Several dropped catches, seemed to lake the vim out of \ho fieldsmen's efforts as it did of the bowlers'. McCormick's opening spell) was the most impressive since Larwood. but undoubtedly the wicket helped him. It was most unfortunate that he developed lumbago. O'Reilly en such a perfect wicket could only rely on the batsmen's own indiscretions to bring about dismissals, and he bowled steadily for this purpose. Ward's Display Australia's successor to Grimmett— Ward—appeared nervous and was unable to produce the length which has marked his displays on other occasions this season. This fault caused his bowling to be very expensive, but had he taken several chances that came his way his figures would have been improved greatly. I have no doubt that he will do much better than this later, when he settles down to the environment of test cricket. The greatest feature of Australia's out-cricket was the magnificent wicket-keeping of Oldfield. He rose to heights equal to those of his very best days. In the absence of. Brown, Australia had to open with Badcock as a partner for Fingleton. This was unfortunate, as the brilliant young player is better suited lower down the list. On this occasion his aggressive methods' led to his downfall. Fingleton played a sterling innings; if not full of stylish shots, it was full of courage and skill of; the highest order. The English bowlers gave a lesson in accuracy and in bowling to the field. After Bradman's dismissal, no effort was made to knock the bowlers off their length, all the cricket being defensive. Voce was easily the most impressive of England's bowlers, his ability to make the ball "run away" being a revelation and securing him most of his wickets. Allen bowled very fast, but put so much vim and zest into his work that he was inclined to be erratic. Another Poor Start England was destined once more to make a very poor start. Barnett found the bowling of O'Reilly and Ward much more difficult than in the first innings. Hammond was a comparative failure with the bat in this match, although he showed his mastery in the second innings. Allen played a wonderful fighting innings, holding nis side together in its hour of uncertainty. The Australian bowlers laboured under a severe handicap in that McCormick could not take the field and Ward and O'Reilly bore a tremendous burden, Both were worked to a standstill, but Ward was far more successful than O'Reilly. After four days of fluctuating fortunes and fighting cricket by both sides, the match finished in a fiasco on the fifth morning. Overnight rain had made the wicket suitable to the English bowlers. It was »not particularly wet, but just damp enough to make many deliveries kick up sharply, causing slip catches to be givan. England thoroughly deserved its win, which would have come its way rain or no rain. It outplayed Australia in every department o£ the game..