PRESS COMMENT ON SECOND TEST MATCH

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 81, 29 December 1928, Page 8

PRESS COMMENT ON SECOND TEST MATCH

Sir,—l have read with interest the letter written by L. T. Cobcroftj who is an umpire, and an impartial man, and I fully endorse his remarks, and agree that “Burwood” distinctly favours the Englishmen. , „ As regards the letter signed Visitor, well, I am afraid he is tarred with the same brush as “Burwood.” . I have been reading "Burwood's ’ comments of the Englishmen’s tour of Australia from the first match, and regret that his remarks always suggest a pat on the back for the Englismen, with very little praise, if any, for the Australians. When playing the English eleven at Sydney, the NiS.W. team, in their first innings, made about 250 runs: the visitors replied with 734 runs for seven wickets, declared closed, a very fine performance. This score made it necessary for the N.S.W. eleven to bat nil the next dnv to prevent an innings defeat, and if possible, to make it a drawn game. This the home side did; in no uncertain manner, batting all day for the good score of 364 runs, for the loss of three wickets—one batsman run out. Now, when the Englishmen scored their 734 runs. “Burwood” stated that the Australian bowling was "trounced unmercifully” all over the field, quite .true—but what were his comments when the N.S.W. eleven, with their backs to the wall, made the above score, and when young Bradman, under these conditions, made his. century in 12S minutes —surely, the English bowling was “trounced unmercifully,” also, in this match. However, I waited for “Burwood’s” comments on this splendid performance, but, nlas, the cupboard was hare —his only reference to the cricket in Australia was the statement that he was pleased to see the scoring had returned to normal. Here was an opportunity for “Burwood” to give the Australians a little praise. What a lot he could have written in comparing .Bradman’s 100 in 128 minutes with Jardine's 107 in 247 minutes, or Hendren’s 72 in about four hours. However, as an. Australian, I admit that , the present English- team is superior to the Australians, and hope that the. Englishmen will have a reverse, so that your readers will have an opportunity of reading “Burwood’s” comments am, etc,

■Sir.—l would- like to reply through your columns to the letter by “New Zealander,” dated December 24. With regard to the reference to Mc-

Donald, I might say that the Australians have uow acquired Hendren as an official coach for the South .Australian Cricket Association for the purpose of finding young players of promise and coaching them on. Why do they not obtain an Australian for this purpose? When it is stated that the Australian McDonald is the best Aussie bowler, I think that your correspondent is gravely belittling the feats of such men as Mailey, Grimmett, Gregory and many others. McDonald may have been the best bowler in the 1921 tour, but I believe if "New Zealander” reads up a few. records he will find that Hobbs, Sutcliffe and Co. have completely mastered fast bowling. ami it is now the googley bowler’s turn to be "top dog.” Again, if McDonald is the best Australian bowler, why did they not send for him in the 1926 tour? (I am sure the Lancashire County would have released him from his engagement). They did. not send, because it was Mailey and Grimmett who were obtaining wickets, not the fast bowlers. Gregory and Everett. If anyone thinks that it is McDonald who has helped to win back the “Ashes” for England, why is it that England is doing so well without him in Australia at the present time.—l am, etc.. FAIR PLAY. Wellington, December 26.

Sir, —As a reader of “The Dominion.” I was highly amused at some of the remarks of “New Zealander” in his reply to “Visitor” in your issue of December 24. What I principally dislike is the remark “pinched by England” in connection with a Lancashire offer, accepted by McDonald, which suggests a person losing an argument in "bad spirit.” When E. A. McDonald toured with the Australian eleven he was approached by a Lancashire League club and was given an offer which was a tempting one, and he duly accepted it. I might add for the benefit of "New Zealander” that when a player performs a good feat in a match in league cricket they usually go round and a willing collection is canvassed from the spectators, which often amounts to £25. McDonald has lifted many of them. In due time after qualifying, Lancashire C.C. came along and McDonald filled O. Parkin’s shoes. This should surely prove to “New Zealander” that it was a business transaction. It would be interesting to know just how the Australian selectors would look .upon McDonald if he was in Australia just now, as one of them could not conceal his personal opinion when lie declared that “E. A. McDonald was not even a-cricketer’s boot-lace.” That statement was dealt with by' the Australian Press, and the man who made it was the poorer by it. Cricket critics are guilty of saying things that do not just fit in. as for example Clem Hill, accusing Chapman of making cricket a business instead of a game. Why did he not accuse Armstrong of "doing so . some years back? Every cricket lover, despite nationality, does not like the l.b.w. decision, as there is too much doubt attached to it. To state that the present English team is the best for years is purely a matter of opinion— I for one do not think so. Then again, all Test matches are not played to a finish, so one must consider that when weighing up the balance. One does not eye to eye with the selectors—the English made one of their greatest errors when the present Lord Tennyson was omitted for Arthur Gilligan, when one recalls the able captaincy and heroic one-handed hatting display of the then Hon. Lionel H. Tennyson in 1921. Now the “boot is on the other foot,” and the Australian are now making the errors.

The expression used by “New Zealander” that the “Aussie knows how to take a beating” is just what one would expect from an Australian schoolboy, but no one can convince me, a Scot, that an Englishman cannot take a bea*ting with a smile; my experience of sport in the United Kingdom teaches me otherwise.— I am, etc.,

ALBION ROVER, Wellington, December 27.