CRICKET

Greymouth Evening Star, 1 May 1925, Page 5

CRICKET

1 NEpCT AUSTRALIAN TOUR - (A istralian and N,Z. Cable Association.) LONDON, April 29. At a meeting of the Cricket Test Match Board of Control, it'was decided that if the rubber depends upon it, the last test'" match shall be played to a finish. v ' m ' Fixtures are being arranged between the North of England -on May 26 at Birmingham, and "between 1 . tliehfand the South of England 'fit Bristol on June 2. These matches* probably " will replace the usual trial matches. At Australia’s "request, the admission charges for the test matchoil are to be the same aS in 1921. ' The-question of'the toss was not djscuJse'd. • The Advisory County Cricket Committee* resolved that the hours of play against the Australians shall be frOm’l2 to’ 1 6.30 p.m. on the first and secdnd'lday's;'"■from 11.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. oh r ithe'(third day, with an extra half liour when" there is the chance of a definite result; ’ " 1 The question of future 1 visits to and from Australia was deferred. The test match dates for the next •Australian tour of England are as follow:— J June -12.—Nottingham. June 26.—Lords. . July 10.—Leeds. Jiily; 24.—Manchester. August 14.—Oval. HOBBS’ TRIBUTE TO WINNERS (“Sydney Sun” Service ) ' ■ ' ■ LONDON, April 30. Hobbs, in an article in the “Daily News,” refuses to attribute England’s failure to recover the ashes to bad luck. He states: Although Gilligan lost four tosses, there were periods in each of the tests matches when England had more than a sporting chance, and with just a little more luck might have won ■ the rubber. The'Australians were the better side because tail batsmen rose to great occasions. Undoubtedly these batsmen are'' better than ours. We were all painfully surprised at Oldfield’s and Malley's ' resistance and ability When the Australian tail was wagging, the ball always reached fieldsmen with more spite and devil. The Australians were always downright optimistic, like cocksure Americ ns. Some of the tail batsmen, whom I privately regarded as “rabbits” came to one and said, “You will have to be smart to-'day Jack; I am going to get a hundred.” That spirit prevailed in the entire Australian side, even in the tail, which wagged us out of rubber. WHY ENGLAND ,LOST. LONDON, April 28. . H. Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire batsmali,' in the “Daily Chronicle,” replying to F. R. Spofforth’s belief that the nerve of English batsmen is not what it used to be, says that it is true that there were certain failures in the recent tests. “When we won the toss, however,” he continued) “we won in a single innings. The Australian policy was ‘playing for keeps’ and some English batsmen could not accommodate them, selves to such a plan. So when the Australians won toss, after toss and adopted tho policy of playing for keep's, often to exhaustion, the strain on our batsmen was very great. I differ from Spofforth. The British failure was nor due to nerveless batting, but to persistent bad luck. z . . “Considering the skill of the Australian attack, and the heavy scoring side which batted first, there is little reason to seek further for the cause of the lost rubber. Hobbs and I were fortunate to make as inmy runs as we did. The strain comes alike in the pavilion and on the field. In such cir. cumstances, the batsmen are bound to treat every ball with almost abnormal respect", and cannot play true cricket. Sandham was unlucky until he found his real- form. When the Australians come in 1926 they will find Sandha ma very different proposition. Chanman. a brilliant hitter, fell through Collins’s fine tactics in speciallv placing the field. I fancy -the English wickets and rains will bring things our way.”