THE THIRD TEST

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 256, 13 July 1926, Page 11

THE THIRD TEST

SECOND DAY’S PLAY AUSTRALIANS ALL OUT FOR 494 RICHARDSON MAKES A CENTURY By Telegraph.—Press Association. COPYRIGHT. (Rec. July 13, 1.55 a.m.) London, July 12. For the second day of the third Test match the weather is sultry, with some sun. The wicket is good and wearing well. The umpires were halfway out to the pitch when they discovered that there were no stumps, and they were obliged to return to the pavilion. Woodfull and Richardson on taking the field had an excellent reception. Geary and Tate opened the bowling. The batsmen lost no time. Richardson legged Geary twice for a couple in the first over, while Woodfull legged Tate to the boundary. A single to Richardson from Tate was followed by a maiden by the same bowler. Then Tate, with a magnificent in-swinger, had Woodfull’s wicket shattered, Woodfull playing right across the ball. He had batted for five hours, with superb patience, and gave a chanceless innings. Unlike Macartney, who scored from good length balls as well as from short ones, Woodfull waited for the latter, and punished them severely. He hit twelve 4’s. The score was now four wickets for 378. At 381 Tate raised an objection to the condition of the ball, the umpires upholding the appeal, and another used ball was substituted. There was a five-minute break while one umpire, Mr. W. Reeves, searched for a suitable ball. Further time was lost through the crowd encroaching on the sighting screen,- and Richardson insisting on their moving. Tate had one ball to complete his over. From this Strudwick made a confident appeal for a catch behind the wicket, but was unsuccessful. A couple of overs later there was a similar appeal from Geary, and this time was successful, Taylor being the victim. Five for 385. Taylor lasted only four overs, and never looked like overthrowing the evil genie which seems to be controlling his cricket.

There appeared to be more life in the wicket to-day, the ball coming off much sharper, and it had Richardson beaten frequently, both by pace and break. Gregory at five was badly missed by Sutcliffe at first slip off Tate. Richardson sent an nverpitchcd ball from Tate to the boundary and brought up 400 for 350 minutes' play, Richardson being 87. He was again given the benefit of the doubt on a double appeal for a catch at the wicket off Tate, who kept the batsmen pegged down, most of the runs coming at the expense of Geary, who was bowling an uncertain length, and was hit to the boundary three limes by Gregory. Kilner replaced Geary at 423. Gregory placed Kilner’s second ball hard into the hands of Geary at second slip. Six for 426. Two balls later Richardson drove Kilner low in the direction of Carr, who was fielding at short mid-on. The captain threw himself at the ball, and got both hands on it, but failed to hold it. Richardson. was a striking contrast to Saturday, when he scored freely. To-day he scored almost all singles, getting 25 in seventy-five minutes He was frequently unhappy facing Tate, and dealing with Kilner was equally uncertain. He played one ball, and looked to leg to see its direction, but it travelled past point. Following are the detailed scores:— AUSTRALIA. First Innings. Hardslcv, c. Sutcliffe, b. Tate 0 Woodfull, b. Tate 11l Macartnev, c. Hendren, b. Macaulay ' 151 Andrews, 1.b.w., b. Kilner 4 Richardson, run out 100 Taylor, c. Strudwick, b. Geary 4 Gregory, c. Geary, b. Kilner 26 Ryder, not out 18 Total 494 —Reuter. [The remainder of the scores arc missing.l ENGLAND TRICKED BY WICKET WHY AUSTRALIANS WERE SENT IN FIRST Loudon, July 11. Bardslcy's downfall came as a result of nibbling at Tate’s bowling, and his going away first ball, m consequence, brought a deep roar of delight from the crowd. Another anxious moment followed in the same over, Carr twice juggling with Macartney, who gave high sideways chances at wide slip. When Macartney got going, however, be made England’s bowling look com-mon-place, and created a wonder as to what had ailed Carr’s judgment, if Carr really was the culprit. There arc rumours that the sending in of the Australians was the result of a conclave •>f which the selectors were not ignorant. The idea was that the sun might shine and make the wieket difficult, but the . sun was not so obliging. Another theory was that the emergency wicket was used because the real pitch was flooded by the overflow from the covers and might favour the English bowling, but in ‘the light of this reasoning it is difficult to explain why Parker and Root, who welcome the dampness, were not included. Whatever was in the minds of

Carr’s advisers, tlie idea was dashingly shattered by Macartney. There was a sporting crowd, who cheered delightedly as the 'little wizard” wielded the bat as a merciless flail, doing what lie wanted, despite how the field was placed, Woodfull acted as

u perfect foil, and was safe, sure, and solid, to Macartney's exuberance. When Macartney’s forcing shot was found in Hendren’s safe hands, the crowd rose, not merely m relief to see the playing of the bowling over, but in appreciation of the most, splendid innings of Macartney’s lifetime. Richardson’s open-shouldered driving inspired Woodfull to more aggressiveness, and they smote the tired bowling at a merry pace till the rain stopped them. The day’s play is regarded as sufficient assurance that the Australians form in the second Test was all wrong ft is stated that no fewer than six selectors and advisers examined the pitch before the decision was inade to ..efid in the Australians. Il is understood that Gilligan is indignant at the course taken. Archie. MacLarcn, at lunch time, was beard to remark? ‘‘lf I had been in

Carr’s position I would have put on Parker and Root to open the bowling.” This sums up the large body of opin-ion.—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn. London, July 11.

The “Dailv Dispatch” says: "The wicket which the experts believed to be tricky and a bowlers’ paradise tricked England. Carr’s bold stroke appeared successful when Bardsley was dismissed first ball, but Macartney’s and Woodfull’s record second wicket partnership and its ruthless flogging of England’s attack, showed that the wicket was not a bowlers’ but a batsmen’s paradise. The truth is that Carr was misled by the sun’s brilliance when he inspected the wicket, and he expected it to continue causing the surface to cake, which would result in trickiness, but the sun was mostly hidden behind clouds.” . _ , B. J. T Bosanquet writes: “Giving full consideration to the expert opinion behind the decision, there is no question that Carr was justified in expecting the bowlers to get considerable assistance from the wicket, and he therefore adopted the bolder policy as the best chance of winning the match. That decision failed, due mostly to Macartney’s wonderful display. . The bowling was exceedingly ineffective and disappointing.” E. H. D. Sewell, in the “Sunday Herald,” declares that never before in the historv of cricket Tests have there been such erroneous tactics. The omission of Parker, Root, and Larwood was tantamount to a decision that it was not a bowlers’ wicket, and therefore when Carr won the toss it was absolutely essential that England should bat. That many selectors mean greater risks and troubles has been humiliatingly proved.” —Sydney “Sun” Cable. P. F. Warner, writing in the Morning Post,” says: “Unavoidable criticism should not be levelled .at Carr, but appreciation of the position as it presented itself to him should be given. Not even the hardest-headed Yorkshireman could tell how the Headingley wicket would play after rain. Even after the close of play I heard it urged that the policy of putting in Australia was, at the moment of the decision, theoretically sound, though against Australia it was admittedly risky. In actual practice, however, it was a failure, but would Carr have been criticised had tlie chance given him bv Macartney been accepted? It was a' nasty catch, though Carr seldom misses a catch. It was an unfortunate day for England, but I have endeavoured to put the facts fairly and honcstlv. The proper sense of loyalty should be to our captain. He took a risk, but his policy was unsuccessful. and there is nothing more to be said.”CARR’S ACTION SUPPORTED (Rec. July 12, 8.15 p.m.) London, July 12. Colonel Philip Trevor writes: “Personallv, I think Carr’s sending the Australians in was absolute!}' right. If the sun had continued shining brightly, as it was when he tossed, his' policy would have come off. But ten minutes afterwards the sun sulkily retired. If Carr’s catch of Macartnev had come off, he would have been idolised for nis good judgment. I believe Macartnev would have been signally brilliant if Lockwood, Peel, Barnes or Rhodes had been bowling. C. Kellcway, at Leeds, on Sunday, said: “Carr must expect criticism, and after the event everyone admits that n mistake was made. But Warner, Gilligan, and Hobbs inspected the wicket with Carr who was hardly a free agent, and may easily have been advised against his own wishes, and naturally listened to sound argument from experienced men. Did the sclcction committee think the wicket would be stickv? My answer is, Yes.. That being so the decision to send in Australia was right, but the wicket deceived its judges, and served them a dirty trick bv playing easy and truly.”—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn. G’ A. Faulkner writes: “At the risk of losing what shred of cricketing reputation I ever possessed, I confess I itn In total agreement with Carr’s decision. Nothing beforehand could have told him the wicket would play ridiculously east. or the bowlers would perform so poorly. The amazing thing was the committee’s decision to limit Parker, after deciding that the wicket was treacherous enough to send the Australians in. With a suitable bowler they would have been dismissed for a moderate total. 1 feel strongly that the English bowlers let Carr down.” Faulkner describes Macartney’s innings as the most amazing he has evex seen.—Sydney “Sun” cables