TEST FIASCO

Greymouth Evening Star, 6 December 1928, Page 5

TEST FIASCO

AUSTRALIA’S POOR SHOWING

-A WOODFULL’S LONE ATTEMPT

(Australian Press Association.) (By Cable—Press Assn.—Copyright.)

BRISBANE, December 5.

The weather was cloudy but warm for the concluding day of the first test. The wicket was rather sluggish, after 54 points of rain, and there were bad patches. The outfield was slowish. Tate’s and Larwood’s bowling sometimes bumped shoulder high.. The game generally -was uninteresting, the result being a foregone conclusion. Following a weak attempt by Kippax to lift Larwood, after 16 minutes’ play, he was easily caught. Then the bowling became masterly, and combined with the state of the wicket, brought about the second and sudden collapse. White, with twisty flight, length, and pace, was ideal for the inferior wickets.

Hendry, Ryder and Bradman all gave easy catches, and the batting was scratchy, 50 runs taking 60 minutes. The remainder of the wickets fell without anything like a stand, and the game was lifeless. The attendance was poor and the match finished at one o’clock. Scores: —

ENGLAND. First Innings 521 Second Innings .. , 342 AUSTRALIA. First Innings *. .. .122 SECOND INNINGS. Ponsford, c Duckworth, b Larwood 6 Woodfull, not out . .. 30 Kippax, c and b Larwood .. .. 15 Hendry, c Larwood, b White .. 6 Ryder, c Larwood, b Tate .. .. 1 Bradman, c Chapman, b White .. 1 Oldfield, c Larwood, b Tate .. .. 5 Grimmett, c Chapman, b White ... 1 Ironmonger, c Chapman, b White 0 Extras 1 Total 66 Gregory and Kelleway did not bat. Bowling: Larwood 7 overs, no maidens, 30 runs, 2 wickets; Tate, 11 overs, 3 maidens, 26 runs, two wickets; White, 6 overs, 2. maidens, 7 runs, 4 wickets; Hammond, one over, no maidens, 2 runs, no wickets. The wickets fell as follows: One for 6; two for 33; three for 45; four for 47; five -for 49; six for 62; seven for 62p eight for 66. AUjSTRAMAAMAZED. SYDNEY, December 5. The result of the first Test has amazed cricket lovers all over Australia. The keenest disappointment is expressed. The majority of the people express the opinion that the bowling was too superiorThe newspapers describe it as “a test of horror” and “Australian debacle,” and are demanding a radical alteration in future teams. <

SUPERIORITY ADMITTED.

(Recd. Dec. 6. 11-30 a.m.) SYDNEY, December 6.

The Herald says: Australia had the worst of luck in the test, but this is no excuse for the failure. It seems that Australia got its tail down. Not 'the least remarkable feature is the recovered standard of English bowling, Egnlish fielding and team work which are unsurpassed. Every critic was wrong in the surmise that the English team has a tail. It has none. Greg ory’s injury is a calamity to Australia. The Australian second innings although a forlorn hope was a shocking submission to the Englishmen’s dominance.

The “Telegraph” says: England’s victory was too decisive to allow excuses. Luck was on the side of the visitors but their. superiority was beyond all cavil. However, the margin of difference between English and Australian cricket is nothing like what the Brisbane scores suggest, and the destination of laurels has still to be decided.

SLOW PLAY CRITICISED LONDON, Dec. 5. Practically every report from Australia stingingly condemns England’s slow batting in the second innings, particularly Mead and Jardine. The “Evening Standard’s” diarist says: The result throws a disenchanting light on time-limitless cricket. The spectacle of the Australians being slowly pounded to pieces is neither pleasant or edifying, but a gloomy anticlimax to the keenness and sparkle of the first couple of days. Scratching about against an almost beaten team, minus two of its best bowlers, may have detracted to some extent from moral ascendancy.

Warner, in the Morning Post, gently reminds that the Australians originated and are perpetuating play to the finish in the tests. He states that Mead and Jardine are defenders, rather than attackers. In so far as that at the time concerned, there was no necessity, either tactical or strategical, to depart from the usual style, it certainly must be called irritating cricket to watch. One fears, however, that these things will happen again in “play to the finish” tests, as it has happened before. Possibly this may cause Australians to consider whether their wickets are not over-prepared, and also whether’ a time limit of five days would not be a wise and popular move. Clem Hill, in the Daily Telegraph says: “I’ve seen some bad knocks in test cricket, but Mead’s innings stands alone. I shall be most surprised if he is included in another test. Although England has got up in the cart this test, I am still confident that when our openers go in -with the intention of staying and taking the sting out of Larwood and Tate by defence, ’they will make a lot of runs.’’

S. AUSTRALIA V. VICTORIA. ADELAIDE, December 5. The Sheffield Shield match was continued to-day. Victoria, second innings, A28 —Ellis 119, Ebeling 72. Bowling: Williams 5 for 192. South Australia, second innings, 82 for 2—V. Richardson (not out) 57. South Australia won on the first innings,

ESSEX CAPTAINCY. LONDON, December 5. Douglas declined comment on Morris’s captaincy. He stated that he must have a few days to think it over. He is also considering whether to continue to play for Essex.