Rain: No Play Before Lunch In 2nd Test

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30471, 19 June 1964, Page 13

Rain: No Play Before Lunch In 2nd Test

(N.Z. Press Association—Copyright) LONDON, June 18. Heavy rain prevented any play before lunch on the first day of the second test between England and Australia at Lord’s today.

Overnight rain had left the area surrounding the pitch soft and soggy, and a light drizzle was falling when play was scheduled to start. The playing area was covered but when lunch was taken, half-an-hour early, it was again raining heavily.

Queues at three entrance gates stretched to 600 yards, but the gates were not opened.

The M.C.C. announced that it would not allow any paying spectators into the ground until it was certain there would be play.

The umpires made their first inspection at 1000 G.M.T., and decided that the area adjoining the pitch was unfit for play. They planned a second inspection at 1045 G.M.T. and hoped to begin play at 1130 GMT., but a slight drizzle

was then falling and no further inspection was made. England made the Yorkshire batsman, P. Sharpe, twelfth man, and so went into the game with its battery of three pace bowlers and two spinners.

Every indication was that it would be a good toss to lose. With moisture in the pitch and a dull atmosphere, conditions were ideal for pace bowlers. British cricket writers today were mostly confident of victory for England. Brian Scovell, in the “Daily Sketch,” said: “If you are backing the form selection in the Ashes stakes at Lord’s you must go for England. “The Australians, almost beaten by Yorkshire on Tuesday and by Derby last Friday, have been performing as though someone has given them a shot of something in the stable.

“I stand by 6-4 on England. “The Times” correspondent said if ever there was a time for England to make capital from Australia’s weaknesses, this was it.

“In fielding, England for once are Austrtalia’s equals, at any rate on the evidence of the first test. So, too, in bowling.

“England should take advantage of an Australian side that has yet to settle properly into line. “Granted an even share of luck, and no disastrous lapses in the field, I believe England will win,” the correspondent continued. “One fear lurks. Since the war, the Australian batsman has tended to look a better player than usual in test matches with England and the Englishman not so good. “This is a generalisation. Test matches, especially at Lord’s, should inspire a cricketer beyond his common stature. If Australia are to win, this will need to happen.”

Crawford White, in the “Daily Express”: “England are going into the game as the better and more confident side—and England should win.”

The former England test star, T. E. Bailey, writing in the “Financial Times” said unless rain intervened and loaded the dice in England’s favour, the outcome was very open.

“Australia may have a slight edge in the batting, but England’s attack is much more formidable,” he said. “Given good weather, I fancy the side winning the toss will triumph, provided they can put together a reasonable total, because —and I may be entirely wrong—l think that the ball will start to turn appreciably by the third afternoon, or possibly after tea on Saturday. “Whatever the outcome, 1 have a hunch that this will prove a most stimulating test,” Bailey added.