ENGLAND'S SECOND TEST VICTORY

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 1, 2 January 1937, Page 5

ENGLAND'S SECOND TEST VICTORY

COMMENT ON PLAY AND PLAYERS

(Written for "The Post" by 0. Wendell Bill, New South Wales Representative.) • After an early run of bad luck there is no doubt that the English cricketers have been enjoying a run of good fortune, Allen's winning of the toss in the second Test again favouring them with first use of the wicket, while the general trend of play further bore out this contention. Still, that's"all in the game, and it will surely swing Australia's way irl the near future. Cricket 1:5 like that; besides, such misfortunes as having McCormick obviously unfit for Test combat and Baicock taken suddenly ill are out of the ordinary.

A,great crowd saw the start of the Sydney Test,' and the wicket, although sparsely grassed, looked good and true for many runs and many days. As a contrast to the disastrous opening in Brisbane, England began in confident style.' Barnett and Fagg scored freely, butin thi? the bowlers helped them greatly. McCormick began most erratically with inswingers which generally passed harmlessly by on the leg side, while Sievers presented the batsmen with several half-volleys which soon found the fence. The occasional •'bumper" McCormick sent down, however, appeared to bother Fagg somewhat, arid I fancy this was indirectly the cause of his dismissal. It was a poor shot that gave Sievers a low catch at second' slip, but the batsman's mind ■was' on ; another "bumper," hence his failure properly to cover the* ball. Had the fast bowler in his opening overs improved his direction—directing his attack at the batsmen and the stumps—England would not have been in so strong a position at stumps, with three wickets down for 279 runs. In Brisbane England had three down for a paltry 20 runs!

PAVING THE WAY. Hammond, coming in when the shine was off the ball, had to contend with some extremely classy bowling from O'Reilly and Ward in the pre-lunch period, and the two spin experts made England's'champion bat play several shots most-uncertainly. It was a pity the'field did not support the bowlers to the extent their efforts deserved. The display in this direction, particularly in the early stages, fell a long way below international standard, and at times became most uncertain and ragged. For a Test match the scoring rate ■was unusually fast, runs coming at the rate of over one a minute, but with the dashing Barnett at the creases this scoring rate can always be expected. This Qloucester batsman was not quite at his best on this occasion, although many of his shots, particularly when taking the ball on the rise, were a delight to the eye. He mixed with these glorious shots too many uncertain ones, and generally gave me the feeling that his dismissal could be expected at any moment. Quite a useful score he put on the board, however, before this actually happened, and he had paved the way with Hammond for England's strong position at the close of play. Ward, bowling splendidly, refused to allow Barnett to play one of his favourite shots, that of lofting the ball into the unprotected longfield, and at last, becoming impatient with the accurate bowling which had temporarily "pinned" ,him down, the batsman endeavoured to force a faster ball from the slow bowler, played over it, and was bowled. The crowd was extremely sorry to see him go, as all like a batsman who takes risks like Bamett. He gave Chipperfleld at short slip a difficult chance when he was 26. POOR FOR LEYLAND. Now came a most dour partnership, which actually, from the state of the game and also from a match-winning point of view, was quite unjustified. The Australian bowlers were tiring, ■the field was lagging, and in all a golden opportunity presented itself to force matters somewhat in the last period before stumps which, carried out properly, should have then placed England in an unassailable position. But Leyland and. to a lesser degree, Hammond were quite content to let the bowlers call the tune, insomuch as runs came at a very slow rate during this last period, and what should have been the fastest was easily the slowest period of tile day. Undoubtedly Leyland was in poor form—he missed ,far too many easy balls on the leg side from Ward to convince me otherwise; but on the other hand it must be admitted that this bowler later in the day took advantage of the patches worn by McCormick just, outside Ley land's off stump. Bradman, sensing Leyland's difficulties. wisely brought on McCabe, bowling leg breaks, which were faster through the air and'came higher off the wicket than those delivered by Ward. "IMMOVABLE PILLAR." The, day's play ended with Hammond and Ames in possession. Hammond in- the later periods batting with a certainty which was bad for Australia, as we found out on Saturday when England's innings was resumed. Gone was the uncertainty" which marked many of his shots early in his innings; he played every ball with the ease and grace of a'master batsman, his mastery and soundness striking fear into the hearts of the Australian players and the crowd, who knew only too well what an "immovable pillar" he is in these circumstances. He kept Ames away from the strike as much as possible, particularly from Ward, who appeared most 'likely, to bring about this batsman's dismissal; and, indeed, it looked as if these two could go on indefinitely, so futile did .the bowlers' efforts to dislodge them appear. It-was not until the last over before lunch, and then to the worst ball sent down in the period, that a separation was brought about. Ames playing an "agricultural" stroke off a long hop straight to cover. ALLEN'S JUDGMENT. Many were surprised to see Allen coming in before Hardstaff, but actually it was very sound tactics on the English captain's part. He must consider the tact that he is the main fast bowler of the team, and must be rested] prior to taking the field to give of his best. If he is dismissed just prior to the conclusion of his team's innings, having been at the creases for some considerable time, then he certainly will not have that fire and zest in his bowling so essential for success. Therefore, he came in as early as possible so as to enable the effects of his batting to wear off, in case his team had to take the field later in the day. But on tills occasion Allen was not destined to exert himself very much at the creases, O'Reilly deceiving him with the flight of his "wrong 'un," giving Australia a chance of gaining a more favourable position than looked probable, provided the remainder of the side could be dismissed in quick time. ' But, with Hammond batting in such masterly style and Hardstaff playing more like his real self, these hopes soon- faded away, particularly as chances from both these batsmen went 'begging." Hardstaff hit a "sitter"'to Kpbirison, while Hammond gave Ward euite an' easy chance off his own bowl-

a chance of separating this pair was the advent of the new ball. THE REAL McCORMICK. Then, for the first time in the match, McCormick looked really hostile. He straightway knocked Hardstaffs off stump out of the ground with a beautiful late.oilt-swinger, and Verity should have been caught by Oldfield immediately afterwards. McCormick's pace, direction, and general control in this briei! period were equal to his best, and clearly showed what an asset he would have been to our team had he been really fit. Coupled with this, he mad: the ball swing away, far more dangerous to the batsman than the inswingers we saw on the opening day. But, no doubt, the direction of the wind and general atmospheric condition!: were in great part responsible for Ihe.se variations of swerve. SOUND TACTICS. Allen again showed sound tactics in sending Verity to the wickets to face the 'new ball in preference to Robins, who in ordinary circumstances would bat in this position, as Verity has a most sound defence, far more capable of playing "down" the new ball than Robins, who is somewhat of a dasher. Notwithstanding, Verity should have been out, and Robins would have been forced to face the new ball. In the face of McCormick's inspired burst;, Australia might conceivably have dismissed the remaining English batsmen very quickly had Oldfield held the :atch from Verity's bat, and had not 'ieavy rain caused play to cease for the remainder of the day. HAMMOND'S ELEGANCE. The second day's play ended with only six of England's batsmen disposed of, and 426 runs on the board, a very sound position for the visitors. Of these 426 runs Hammond had scored 231 by an exhibition of flawlessly-sound batting. He may have played late and uncertainly for several balls'' early in his innings, and once did'a "streaky" shot just clear of short slip, but for general soundness, infallible patience, and watchfulness, I have yet to see an innings to equal Hammond's.

Although scoring 231 runs in 460 minutes can be deemed slow going, too slow for the majority of the crowd to appreciate, he was playing to a defin-

ite policy. The same policy we have . seen out here time and time again, that of letting the runs come. Batting first, Engliind could afford to do this, as time ' is no object in Tests in this country, j Personally, I enjoyed every minute of Hammond's innings, for no matter j whether he was scoring or not. there was always'that elegant ease and grace ] abou. his batting, poise, footwork, and i wristwork; a delight to every keen ( student of the game, and an object- j lesson for aspiring cricketers. He literal h/ carried England on his back. ' Tho Sydney ground is certainly a ] happ;r hunting one for Hammond, as ] never has he failed to make a hundred . in T;sts on this ground, and it was here that he made 251 in 1928. ] POOR FIELDING. ] It must be admitted that Australia's < fielding has been very poor indeed, ; and rarely has such a low-class exhibi- ] tion been seen in the international 1 spheie. Apart from the numerous ( catches that were dropped, the ground < work and returns to the wicket were i far below that expected of an Australian ] eleven. Occasionally brilliant things I were done, .but these occurrences were too-fjw and far between to make up for the many lapses in other directions. Brc.dman placed his field skilfully and used his bowlers in the best possible' manner, but I noticed that he did not place much reliance in. Sievers's bowling, using him sparingly, which threw.a big burden on O'Reilly and Ward . once again. Neither of these stalwarts shirked the issue, but found conditions and general support right against them. O'Reilly laboured arduously, but without great results. Nevertheless, . his efforts deserved a far . greater reward. I felt that only Hammond's impregnable bat came between him and great success, particularly on Saturday afternoon, when he commenced to turn the ball from the leg'side and'occasionally made the ball "jump" iri disconcerting fashion. AUSTRALIAN DEBACLE. After a weekend of storms which thoroughly drenched the wicket, Australia faced Monday's play with gloomy feelirgs, as it appeared certain that the pitch would be a paradise for the English bowlers. Allan, after inspecting the wicket, immediately closed his team's innings and left the Australian batsmen to face the vagaries of the wicket, which proved to be very wet underneath, making many balls "pop" awkwardly. Voce started an amazing collapse; as is now well known, the side was out for 80. To my mind, it was not the excellence of the English bowling that was causing such a debacle, but the poor batting of the Australians. They showed not the sightest knowledge of how to bat on a wicket not extremely difficult but occasionally causing the ball to "kick." Fingleton was the only player who looked the part, although O'Reilly made top score. Fingleton alone showed how strokes should be I played safely. He deserves unstinted ! praise for his dogged display. i VOCE THE DANGER. [ An extraordinary; fact- was -tha^

Verity, on a.wicket which should have suited him perfectly, bowled very poorly indeed. Voce was the only danger, but by judiciously using a dead bat to the rising deliveries and leaving alone balls outside the off stump, the batsmen should have had no great difficulty in combating him. O'Reilly, hitting lustily, materially added to his side's score, but he was lucky that the fast bowlers were not on as he is hopeless against them. It was there that Allen committed a serious error.

The total of 80 runs was very poor indeed in the circumstances. Besides, it cannot be said that the English bow/ers deserved such amazing success. Voce bowled well; that is all. Hardstaff, by dropping O'Reilly early, cost the side 40 runs, but apart from this the fielding was keen and good. Sims was particularly in the picture with the three catches. The total also clearly showed how futile the Australian side is when batting on any wicket affected by rain. THE RIGHT COURSE. Allen was severely criticised in many quarters for sending Australia to the wicket a second time, but personally I consider he did the right thing. The wicket was still playing tricks sufficient to Cause the Australian batsmen some trouble, and it looked probable that another storm would shortly give the wicket another thorough drenching. Moreover, he had 346 runs to play with, a big margin, and therefore was quite justified in taking the course he did. Fingleton played a much sounder knock than Bradman and looked much safer. Bradman played many daring and unorthodox shots, but generally gave me a feeling of great uncertainty. On this occasion he was quite a long way from his best, and was not happy, though he and Fingleton fought magnificently in the face of adversity, holding up their wickets in spite of many narrow escapes and troublesome moments. BURDEN TOO GREAT. Bradman was never at his best during his innings. He seemed to be affected by the great responsibility that rested on his shoulders, and his general mastery of the situation was missing, although he was batting confidently just before his dismissal. McCabe, the saviour of Australia's hopes after Bradman had gone, was a trifle fortunate to escape the "dreaded pair," but gave a glorious display. England's bowlers performed exceptionally well in dismissing the Australians for their total, as the conditions in the second innings were all against them. Hammond was easily the most consistent and most likely wickettaker, again showing what a wonderful all-rounder he is. Verity did not perform up to expectations. Generally speaking, he bowled poorly, but Sims was a curious mixture of good and bad. Voce again met with considerable success, and bowled well on a wicket against his type of attack, which makes his performance all the more meritorious. ENGLAND'S SUPERIORITY. Although in all four fairly easy catches were dropped by the English fieldsmen, their display in general, and particularly in ground work, outshone that of the Australians. Once again England has outplayed Australia in every department of the game, and instead of being two up at the end of the second match, as was confidently expected, Australia is two down, and a great effort will be needed from her players if she is to win the rubber. At the moment, England looks definitely the better team.

ENGLAND MIGHT WIN

A. E. R. GILLIGAN'S OPTIMISM An optimistic forecast of England's chances in the Tests was the keynote of an interview with Mr. A. E. R. Gilligan, former English Test captain, who is now in Australia. He will see Test matches in Australia before visiting New Zealand with Mrs. Gilligan. I "I would quote the odds for the first Test at 5 to 4 on Australia," he said, "but if a full team is available I think that. England will pull off the series. The matches should provide great cricket. I have great confidence in Allen as a captain, and I sympathise with him in his present difficulties. "The injuries suffered by the team have prevented Allen from welding together his side. But lam far from pessimistic. England will give a much better performance in the Tests than it has given in any of the preliminary matches. Form to date has been disquieting, but, as every lover of cricket knows, collapses can be suffered by any team. As Bradman said recently, past performances will not win or lose the present Test series. The unfortunate number of injuries has played a large part in the team's performances. They have had an unsettling effect and have necessitated experiments. In the absence of Wyatt it looks as if Barnett and Fagg will be England's opening pair. The collapse of the English batsmen against Australian spin bowlers is not a true indication of form, as spin bowling depends largely on climatic conditions. I feel that the English players will soon learn to master this type of bowling."