THROWN AWAY

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 2, 4 January 1937, Page 11

THROWN AWAY

ENGLISH WICKETS ALLEN'S SECRET STRATEGY HAMMOND'S DISPLAY (United Press Association —By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.) (Received January 4, 11 a.m.) SYDNEY, This Day. Commenting on the Test, C. G. Macartney, in the "Sydney Morning Herald," says:— "Australia have at last secured a lead on the first innings in the present Test series—a lead that may result in victory provided the right tactics are observed and the weather is not unkind.

"For a change England found her

self batting on a rain-damaged wicket, and a worse one than Australia 'had in either the Brisbane or the Sydney Test. Bradman showed good strategy in closing the innings and bringing England in when the pitch was nearing its worst.

"The batting of Barnett, Hammond, and Leyland was masterly. They all showed complete knowledge of the intricacies of the wicket, and Hammond gave a magnificent display. His clever manipulation of the bat against rising and burning balls was a sight worth seeing.

"Up to the time of Hammond's dismissal England were fighting for runs, but after his departure the game-be-came a battle of tactics. The Englishmen evidently received instructions to throw away their wickets, but, at the same time, to disguise their intentions. Verity gave the secret away by being half-way to the wickets when Hardstaff was only half-way out. The Australians then wished to keep the visitors in so that they themselves would not be: obliged to bat again on such a wicke;. Allen stopped that plan by closing the innings when the Australian bowlers bowled wide to waste time. ALLEN'S MISTAKE. "Allen made a mistake in not closing when Hammond was dismissed, as only £ more runs were added to the total, a negligible quantity compared with the great advantage that would have been gained by forcing Australia to bat for an hour. The appeal against j the light and the rain which followed I robbed England of her big chance, as the wicket was at its worst when Australia commenced her second innings. "Although both Sievers and O'Reilly secured good figures, it is difficult to assess their effectiveness from their averages, as it must be remembered that the Englishmen were throwing away their wickets." The "Herald's" cricket writer says: "Experts who examined the wicket late on Sunday afternoon stated that it appeared, to be drying splendidly, and they considered that if there was no more rain it should roll out well." Arthur Mailey, in the "Daily Telegraph," says: "It will definitely be a bowler-' wicket, particularly before lunch, and possibly all day, but Australia should be ajile to add sufficient runs to ensure winning. Everything points to the loss by Australia of a number of wickets before lunch."