Hammond Another Century

Evening Star, Issue 22526, 19 December 1936, Page 17

Hammond Another Century

A Flawless Display—Unbeaten With 147 England’s Good Start in Second Test Three Wickets Down for 279 Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright i [By J. B. Hobbs.] (Copyright in all countries. Reproduction in whole or in part forbidden.) SYDNEY, December 18. Winning the toss for the second time in the series, England took full advantage of first use of a shirt-front wicket when the test was commenced to-day. A feature of the day’s play, which was favoured by ideal weather, was a magnificent century by Hammond. This player was at the wickets nearly all day, and was not unduly troubled at any stage. Partnerships of 91 by Barnett and Hammond for the second wicket and 129 by Hammond and Leyland for the third wicket have placed England in a very strong position.

i THE AUSTRALIAN BOWLING i ■ LACK Of SYSTEMATIC ATTACK OUTGRICKET ALSO BELOW STANDARD SYDNEY, December 18. C. G. Macartney comments on the first day’s play as follows: Allen was fortunate to win the toss and secure first innings on a wicket that showed signs of wearing more quickly than usual. The Englishmen’s rate of run-getting was satisfactory for a time, but, in view of the tiredness of the bowlers at the end of the day, more runs should have been obtained. ' Leyland was hopelessly out of touch, and gave no sign of the man who compiled a century in Brisbane. His batting was disappointing. Barnett provided entertainment, but his display was marred by blemishes. He was not so certain as usual. Fagg failed to make a fullblooded stroke at the ball which brought his downfall. After Barnett’s departure the batting gradually became passive, and the atmosphere of a test match was entirely absent. Hammond, ■ however, played a magnificent innings, executing delightful, powerful strokes, although his timing, chiefly against O’Reilly, was occasionally faulty. I have to admit I have seen him to greater advantage. Being still unconquered, he may yet exhibit that enterprise for which he is so notable. The Australian bowling generally was not accurate enough to be termed steady. In fact, it did not receive the punishment it deserved; but worst of all was the absence of a policy of direction. There was also the absence of control ih the work of both M’Cormick and Sievers. The new ball was wasted, and the batsmen consequently were permitted to select the scorable ball at will. M'Cormick’s pace was good at the start, but gradually diminished as the day progressed. Sievers transgressed badly in direction, and it is time he appreciated the value of a new ball. Ward, although he sent down some impressive overs, was a long way below his best. O’Reilly was the most impressive bowler in attack, but even he did not present the danger anticipated. He was quite unable to break through Hammond’s splendid defence. The outcricket by the Australians left much to be desired. There was a lack of inspiration and the test match spirit. The fielding fell away as the day wore on, and there were several wild and stupid shots at the wicket. The Englishmen were thus allowed to obtain a grip on the game. Oldfield was given an enormous amount of unnecessary work. England now occupies a strong position, and a great improvement must be shown to-morrow in the outcricket, and there must be a more systematic attack in the bowling if the Australians do not wish to chase a big score. A SPLENDID DAY FOR ENGLAND HAMMOND'S AMAZING STAMINA SYDNEY, December 19. (Received December 19, at 10.30 a.m.) Hobbs, in bis comments, concludes: — To-day was one of those occasions when Hammond failed to give me complete confidence. However, after 60 he went along with his old fluency and got the last 40 very quickly. He gave no actual chance, but once jumped out' and edged Ward just past slip, while another time he nearly played too late to one of Chipperfieki’s googlies, edging it wide of his leg stump. The crowd rose to him magnificently. Leyland was proceeding solidly, ns he has been lately. Ward attacked him on and outside the leg stump, and it was not easy for him to go all out for a shot without taking big risks. This Maurice wisely refrained from doing. It is a test match, not an exhibition game, and neither side cares much how runs are obtained as long as they are on the board. The English colony went to tea in a cheerful frame of mind with 209 on the board and only two men out. What a change from our two previous performances here against New South Wales and an Australian eleven, when we were struggling to avoid defeat all the time. Between lunch and tea the Australians’ fielding was strangely poor, hut I except Bradman and Chipperfield, whose work was always good. _ After tea they improved, helping their bowlers to keep the runs down. M'Cormiclk started the day in great form, but bis speed fell off noticeably, and it seemed a mistake to play him. Wo failed after tea to push homo the advantage, ns should have been done. At that point wo wore in a strong position, but our batsmen started too soon to play for

Australia has had another misfortune. Badcock is suffering from stomach trouble and is running a high temperature, and was ordered to bed at the luncheon interval. It is seated that he is unlikely to he able to play before Monday at the earliest. The attendance to-day was 35,107. M'Cormiok and Sievers opened erratically, the former bumping short balls. Fagg was struck in the. face in the first over, and' later Barnett was hit on the leg and arm. The batsmen seemed a little unnerved early, Barnett making three uppish shots which just fell short of the fieldsmen. Nevertheless, Barnett and Fagg took toll of loose deliveries, scoring mainly in front of the wicket. Fagg appeared to be set when he made a poor stroke at a ball outside the off stump and was well caught in the slips. Hammond started confidently, playing several perfect cover drives. _ Barnett at 26 was dropped in the slips off Ward, Chipperfield juggling with the ball before dropping it. The batsmen then set about the bowling in_ grand fashion. Five bowlers were _ tried before lunch, quick changes being made, but, with the exception of _ O’Reilly, who opened with three maidens, all were harshly treated. O’Reilly kept an immaculate length, but the others were very loose. Ward was most expensive, five overs from him costing 33 runs. 100 UP IN 90 MINUTES, Barnett reached 50 in the last over before lunch, and 100 came up in 90 minutes. This was certainly fast scoring for a test, but the bowling had been anything but good. Barnett and Hammond continued to call the tune after lunch, scoring all round the wicket. Hammond, at 31, hit M'Cormiok hard to the covers, when M'Cabe jumped and took the ball moat spectacularly, but to the crowd’s dismay, it was a no ball. In Ward’s next over, however, success came to Australia, Barnett playing a ball into his wicket. He batted for 107 minutes and hit five fours. His innings was a mixture of good and.bad. He interspersed nice batsmanship with fluky strokes. Le,viand began quietly, and with O’Reilly and Chipperfield operating the scoring rate slackened considerably. Only three scoring strokes were made off 11 overs from O’Rielly, but as soon as he retired runs came freely. Leyland was scoring most of his runs on the leg side behind the wicket, but Hammond displayed a full repertoire of strokes, neglecting only the cut. HIS EIGHTH TEST CENTURY. Two hundred was made after 190 minutes, and then Hanimond, scoring two fours _ and a two _in quick succession, reached his eighth test century. He had been batting 162 minutes and hit 11 boundaries. It was a flawless display, featured by powerful off drives. England were two for 209 at the tea adjournment and in a very happy position. A new ball was employed after tea, but Hammond went along imperturbably, making the partnership worth 100, of which he scored 70 with two sizzling fours. Leyland meanwhile was very sedate, taking 35 minutes after the adjournment to add to his score. Hammond then also became subdued, and just when it was expected that the batsmen would go for runs they went back into their shells.

LEYLAND OUT. Eventually M'Cabe was given a turn at the bowling crease and before a run was scored off him ho claimed Leyland leg before. The Yorkshireman batted for 154 minutes and scored only three fours. With Ames in 250 was raised after 280 minutes, the last 50 taking 90 minutes. Hammond and Ames played quietly until stumps were drawn. Hammond had been then batting for 268 minutes and had scored 16 fours. Details:—■ ENGLAND. FIRST INNINGS. Fagg c Sievers b M'Connick ... 11 Barnett b Ward 57 Hammond not out 147 Leyland Ibw (new rule) b M'Cabe 42 Ames not out 8 Extras 14 Total for three wickets ... 279 Fall of wickets.—One for 27, two for 118, three for 147. BOWLING ANALYSIS.

6 o’clock. After tea we had added only 38 in 70 minutes, when Leyland was out leg before (new rule) in M'Cabe’s second over. England had a splendid day. We should have enjoyed jt after tea had we scored above the average rate instead of below it. Still, the players may feel satisfied insomuch as Hammohd is still there and likely to-day to add to his already big score. He stuck it very well. His stamina and concentration are amazing. Australia was handicapped by the inability of M'Cormick to come back after his opening spell. Ward wanted watching always. He did not come off the pitch quickly, hut his length was hhmaculate, as can be said of O’Reilly. It is interesting that, including the Brisbane test, he has bowled 55 overs since he last secured a wicket, with 24 maidens. It is remarkable that a man can bowl so well and so fruitlessly. THE LION OF THE HOUR LONDON, December 18. (Received December 19, at 11 a.m.) The cricket comments are couched in a most confident tone. Hammond is the lion of the hour. His name_ is plastered on contents bills, one which contained the unpleasant word “ Bodyline.’’ BARNETT'S USEFUL INNINGS SYDNEY. December 19. (Received December 19, at 9.15 s-m.) Hobbs, in a summary of the first day’s play, says: The second test is on, and, thanks to Allen winning the toss, England has kicked off splendidly. Up to lunch we saw interestin'!- cricket for a while. We lost Fagg, and when the players trooped off wo had 100 on the board, which represented a good start. M'Cormick sent down five very fast overs to start with. He was able to get plenty of life out of the wicket and bowled very short, making the ball fly in a menacing fashion. In his first over a short ball got up dangerously, and bit Fagg a glancing blow on the forehead when he tried a hook shot. Ido not like to see our batsmen trying to book short fliers at this stage. They would do better to duck and let them go, as Worthington got out this way off his first ball of the Brisbane test. Fap-n- was out to a very good catch. The previous ball had flown near his head, and he was still thinking about that one when he hung his bat out to a well-pitched-up ball outside his off stump. Barnett must have been pleased to see M'Cormick go off, because he made some wild attempts to cut short risers in his last over. It was not a good start to lose a wicket at 27. The Australians were on their toes, their fielding being excellent. Then Hammond helped Barnett in a steady stand, and though they gave us u few quick heartbeats they put us on top again. When M'Cormick was bowling I thought the wicket was very fast, but when Ward went on he seemed to belie me. Ho camp off quite slowly, and the batsmen, instead of squarecutting, elected to hook him to long-on. O’Reilly bowled six overs for 2 runs, but it was practically all leg theory, and the batsmen would have nothing to do with it. _We always seem to lose a quick wicket just after lunch or tea. Now Barnett left. A leg-spinner from Ward came through faster than he expected. This was another of Barnett’s useful innings for England, He is nearly, but not yet quite a great player. At Barnett’s dismissal our position was far better than in any big match of this tour. In Australia I think matches are generally won by making a big score on the first day. Hammond and Leyland proceeded to put our noses right in front. Hammond reached his century before tea, when O’Reilly went on to try to effect a separation. Prior to that he bowled 96 halls, of which only eight were scored off. For a long time Hammond had mo beaten. While making his first CO he seemed to he more or less struggling, perhaps because I judge him by his own high standard.

0. M. R. W. M'Cormick ... 14 0 m 1 Ward 22 0 73 1 Siovers Hi u 2(5 0 O’Reilly 20 n 4G (1 ChipperfiekI M'C'abo n 4 n 1 an 15 0 1