REVIEW OF PAST GAMES

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 46, 23 August 1926, Page 12

REVIEW OF PAST GAMES

PLAYERS WEARY OF TRAVELLING

MACARTNEY MOST POPULAR MEMBER OF TEAM.

(United Pres3 Association.—Copyright.) (Australian-New Zealand Cable Assn.)

LONDON, 20th August.

The close of tho final Test match is a fitting timo to review tho conditions of tho tour of tho Australian team. It can be authoritatively stated that the majority will be woll pleased when it ends. There is a unanimous fooling that the tour has involved over-much travel, and also that the programme has been ovor-lengthy. Tho games yet to be played are by no means inconsequential, and on two or threo occasions the visitors will bo asked to moot teams virtually up to English Tost standard. This is regarded as unfair at tho close of a strenuous tour.

There has been no disagreement among the players, and the team may be described as more or less a happy family, but there are certain subjects in which there is distinct disagreement between the players and the manager, Mr. Sidney Smith. For example, except when the Tests are played and on a few other special occasions, the team have had to find their own way to tho ground from their hotel, and in any old way. Players say that taxis should have been provided, as for the Tests, and that the Board of Control should pay. Several go so far as to say that if it is a question of expense, then the manager should consider that aspect of it and dispenso with his assistant, who,; they say, is an unnecessary appointment throughout the whole tour, even if it had been necessary at tho beginning in order to overtake the large amount of the correspondence. It is pointed out that previous managers never needed an assistant, and besides managing oftea played themselves. It is seriously suggested among players that a "round Eobin" should bo signed asking Mr. Sidney Smith to dispense with his assistant.

Others, while agreeing, point out that the question of an assistant is not the business of players, but rather of the Board, of Control. TREATMENT OF HOSTS. Another question which has tended towards disturbing the harmony of the team is the fact that the Australians' reputation has suffered considerably by their manner to their hosts. They have been entertained on nume-ous occasions, but often more were absent than were present at such functions. All over England has spread this damaging reputation, and there is every likelihood that less hospitality will be shown to subsequent teams. It is also fait that an invitation from Mr. Baldwin, the Prime Minister, and members of Parliament should never be declined, as this is regarded as the highest possible honour, and the Australians' refusal has been the subject of considerable comment in certain quarters. Members of the team feel that the Board of Control should place this question on a definite footing, because if invitations are accepted they should be attended. WIVES OF PLAYERS. Much has also been hoard about the wives of players not travelling. The prohibition was felt keenly by one player in particular, whose wife intended visiting with relatives. It ia considered by officials from Australia that the restriction should definitely be withdrawn, especially in view of the fact that there is nothing to prevent a player going from one place to another with his mother-in-law, his aunt, or any women friends frpm Aus- ! tralia who may be visiting England. j Two members of the Australian Board of Control did not even obey their own decision. One brought his wife to England, and the other his wife and two daughters.

I The team is unanimous in saying that there have been too many matches. The opinion of Australian officials now in England is that the programme should be curtailed, and players given longer rest between the Tests than has been the case in the present tour. The tour financially has been a great success, despite the loss of days owing to rain, and the receipts will probably be greater than in 1921, but the prolit will not be as big owing to increased expenditure. THE PLAYERS THEMSELVES. From fhe playing point of view several players have been most disappointing. Everett did not impress at the outset owing to leg trouble, and ho was out of action for many matches. At one time it was suggested that new players should be brought from Australia to make good the deficiency ow|ng to ill-health, and it was also suggested that Murray, a South Australian, ■then in London, should be asked to help. The recovery of Everett and Hendry, however, obviated this, and also gave a rest to others. Taylor had been most brilliant in the field, but failed with the bat. Gregory was never deadly as a bowler, and even when he had a suitable wicket failed to make the ball fly, while even in the field he was not the wonder of previous seasons. He failed to electrify .he crowd, but as a batsman he often came in with a fine score at the right time. Macartney has easily been the most outstanding player, and has been the subject of equal comment with England's idol, Hobbs. Woodfull has been most successful with the bat and in the field, while Ponsford has been a run-getter, but has been weak in the field. Richardson was not as successful as was anticipated, but Mailey was still as vigorous" as ever. Grimmett was obviously more suitable to Australian wickets, but proved useful. Oldfield is still unequalled as a wicketkeeper, and Andrews has been admirable in the field but inconsistent with the bat. Ryder would have been more successful had he played his natural game, instead of pottering about. Bardsley justified his selection, saving Australia in the second Test, and had confounded every critic. Collins, who has had far from good health, had a difficult task owing to the weakness of the bowling and a number of the players not being up to the standard in the field. The team is by no moans the equal of many that have previously been sent to England. It is obvious that could the selectors have put back the clock there would have been many radical alterations. ,