ENGLAND WINNING TEST

Greymouth Evening Star, 21 December 1936, Page 7

ENGLAND WINNING TEST

AUSTRALIA’S COLLAPSE SEVEN WICKETS FALL QUICKLY [BY CABLE —PRESS ASSN. —COPYRIGHT.] SYDNEY, December 20. At the end -of the second day o[ the cricket test, which was curtailed by thunderstorms. England was still at the creases and. with 426 on for six wickets, now seems to have a very firm grip on the game. The visitors to-day added 147 runs 'for the loss of 3. wickets. Hammond, at 231, is still unconquered, having been in for more than seven and a half hours, during which time he scored 27 boundaries. He was solid rather than brilliant to-day, and did not give a chance throughout his long stay. The attendance was 42,746. ' McCormick and Ward continued the attack, bowling a better length than on the previous day. The fielding was also keener. Hammond and Ames played defensively, waiting for loose balis to score from. These were usually dispatched to the fence. Hammond reached 150 during the first over, after 270 minutes at the crease. Ames was very stodgy, adding only 10 in an hour. The batsmen, however, were untroubled and continued to await scoring opportunities. /When Hammond reached 162. he had scored 2000 runs in test matches against Australia, and the addition of another half a dozen gave him 1000 runs for this tour. The field was set deep for. Hammond and three men were stationed on the fence, but he continued to gather boundaries. The hundred for the partnership was established after 115 minutes, Ames’s contribution being only 27. The bowlers stuck well to their task and were rewarded when Ames was caught in the covers during the last over before lunch. He was at the wickets 123 minutes and played a solid defensive innings, helping to consolidate England’s favourable position. Two fours immediately after lunch carried Hammond to 200. He had been batting for 365 minutes and so far had not given the semblance of a chance. This is Hammond’s third double century against Australia in test matches; all have been made in Australia. He treated all the bowling on its merits. his off-driving and sweeps -to leg being brilliant and effortless.

Allen collected two boundaries during his brief stay, and with Hardstaff in the Australians became very very keen, clustering round the wicket. At 2.55, however, a heavy thunderstorm drove the players to shelter for 20 minutes. Upon resuming, it was expected that the bowlers would be handicapped by the greasy ball, but O’Reilly and Chipperfield had Hammond and Hardstaff playing right back to keep the ball away from the stumps. >

Hardstaff was in dire trouble facing O’Reilly, and he was extremely fortunate; when 11 he pulled the ball into Robinson’s hands squarely, but an easy chance was lost. Hammond, too, was scratching for the first time during his long innings, but a full-blooded cover-drive to the pickets raised 400 after 454 minutes. Both batsmen survived until tea, when England’s score was five for 418. McCormick bowled with a new ball after tea, and Hardstaff’s off stump was sent flying. Hardstaff had been shaky throughout his stav at the wickets. In the same over, Oldfield failed to hold a chance given by Verity before he scored. Heavy rain at 4.30 again stopped play and drenched thousands on the Hill, who were unable to gain shelter. The sun was shining a quarter of an hour later and the captains inspected the wicket, but it was too bad. They took another look at 5.5 and made further Survey at 5.35. The decision was then left to the umpire, who decided at 5.40 that there would be no further play. Scores:—

ENGLAND, First Innings. Fagg, c Sievers, b McCormick .. 11 Barnett, b Ward 57 Hammond, not out 231 Leyland, lbw (new rule), b McCabe .. .. 42 Ames, c Robinson, b Ward .. .. 29 Allen, lbw., b O’Reilly .. .. 9 Hardstaff. b McCormick .. .. .. 26 Verity, not out 0 Extras 21 Total for six wickets .. ;. 426 Fall of wickets—One for 27, two for 118, three for 247, four for 351, five for 366, six for 424. BOWLING ANALYSIS.

HOBBS PRAISES BOWLING SLOW SCORING EXPLAINED s (By J. B. Hobbs, Copyright in all countries. Reproduction in whole or in part forbidden.) [by CABLE —PRESS ASSN. —COPYRIGHT.) (Recd. Dec. 21. 11,30 a.m.). SYDNEY, December 21. Everything worked according to plan for England, up to lunch. Australia’s necessity was a quick wicket or two, while our batsmen’s duty was to dig themselves in. Again Australia failed to get them and it looked as if our fourth wicket pair would go into lunch without being parted. Ward sent down a real long hop. Ames either could not believe his eyes or else it was so near lunchtime that he was afraid to let rip. Trying to cut it past extra cover, he hit up the loveliest of catches to cover point, very much to his disgust. This partnership, like Hammond’s with Leyland, had added a century. England was still in a strong position. But for that wicket, the Australians would have been sorely disappointed with the morning’s work. The batsmen did not worry about scoring runs before lunch, and added only 72. They took no risks. Hammond, who started in his best fashion, was very sound looking, as if nothing could get past his defence. Twice he hit two successive fours, one being a beautiful hit square to the off and a drive off a good length ball that O’Reilly pitched just wide of the off-stump. It beat the fieldsmeh by

sheer pabe. Hammond’s second century was the signal for a wonderful demonstration.

Ward was certainly turning the ball, but it was not coming off quickly, maybe due to the easy pace of the wicket, or because he was too slow through the air. O'Reilly did not bowl so much negative stuff, attacking more, but he still could not get the ball past the. bat, until after lunch, in his thirtieth over’ of the match, he had Allen leg before to his googly. I thought Sievers.looked more like\ getting a wicket than anybody before lunch, and he might have been bowled more. McCormick if not quite so fast, was less erratic than on Friday. - The hundred took us- 35 -rininut.es longer to get on Saturday than on Friday. All credit must be given to 1 the Australians for sticking to their task so well. There was no loose bowling. If there had been it would have been taken full advantage of. Their bowling was far from being collared, despite our big score. Hammond was playing more keenlytthan ever, taking 50 minutes to go - from 201 to 215, his concentration being remarkable. On Allen’s dismissal, Hardstaff started with a brilliant cut for four. A bit of misfielding produced a wicket immediately after tea. The first ball of McCormick's first over was hooked by Hardstaff to long leg. where the fieldsman slipped, enabling two to be run. The next ball knocked his off-stump out of the ground. But for the fielding error, Hammond would have' received, and I think would have played it all right. Hardstaff, like others, played solidly and the wicket added a useful 56.

. HARDSTAFF LU£KY When eleven Hardstaff had had a stroke of luck. Hitting O’Reilly hard to leg he was missed by Robinson fielding behind the umpire, and I am told,.at the same time, he dislodged a bail with, his foot. The umpire could not’ see, and on appeal had: to give him not out. In the press box wq are too high in the clouds to see these things. Verity off the second ball he received was missed at the wicket. Another heavy shower drenched the crowd, and the wicket. England was in a very stjrong position when rain came. Some may argue it would have been advantageous to score faster, but if that had been tried they might have been all out. I was prepared. from the start for a stodgy exhibition from our batsmen. Played out tests are an affair of wearing .the other side down. Still, When the scoring is slow, I like to seek a reason instead of blaming the batsmen straight away. The bowlers seldom receive credit for bowling well, and keeping the runs down, or the captain for a well placed field. Australia’s sfield was again cunningly placed to-day. Another reason was the slow bowlers, Ward especially, were able to turn all day. Even Hammond could not go all out for many strokes. Bradman bowled his pace men McCormick and Sievers, relying very little on the spinners. This rain may help Australia because it will probably bind the wicket together, when the roller comes on. Before that there were signs that th'e wicket was breaking up, and I saw the fielders give it many anxious looks. Prior to heavy rain at 4.30, there had been 192 minutes play to-day, and 147 added. Hammond’s shhre being 84, so let us praise Australia’s bowlers, fieldsmen and Bradman. It was dull cricket, but England secured the runs, and Australia have still to obtain them. The strain of a long innings like Hammond’s is constant concentration, and only a strong man can stand it. Right to the end, when the bad ball came, he hit it hard. He has not so far given an actual chance. He should to-day ' beat his previous highest in the tests of 251, and is going all out to beat Bradman’s record of 334, if anyone can stay with him.

CRITICS’ EFFORT TO SCORE SYDNEY, -December 20. Cricket commentators all declare that the second test is the dullest affair. , ‘The “Sunday Sun” says: “Two days have- gone with England’s first ■ innings not completed. Next Friday is Christmas pay, and the third test starts on January 1; '.players- please note.” Neville Cardus, in the “Sun,” contends that more runs .should have been made bv England, and adds: “England has probably amassed an adequate^total... We have come to a pretty pitch in the game’s history when more than 400 for six is not an impenetrable fortress against defeat. In Australia’s seemingly endless sunshine, the -governing idea of a Test match is to stay at the crease for days and wear out the wicket until it cracks and so subsides that a seismographic instrument at Peiping will register a severe disturbance of the earth’s crust in Sydney.” C. G. Macartney commenting on the Test says: “It would be difficult to ascribe any theory to the painfully slow batting of the Englishmen on Saturday. The easy nature of the wicket,-the big score on the board and the tiredness of the bowlers all contribute to a position that demanded offensive methods, which were conspicuous by their absence. Every man who went to the crease seemed to have the fixed idea that he must play for Hammond, who* was himself disinclined to take the bit jn his tee’th. Hammond’s command over the bowling provided untold opportunities for a man with his repertoire of strokes to drive the ball to unguarded parts of the field. There were seemingly acres of empty country to which the ball could have been lofted without risk by a batsman of such high calibre. Thus England’s total should be much greater and also Hammond’s, but thanks mainly to Hammond England has consolidated her position. The Australians will require all their skill to equal, let alone pass, England’s total. .. Everything depends oh the weather. • What rain has fallen should improve the wicket. Australia’s out-cricket showed a distinct' improvement on Saturday.”

ENGLISH OPINIONS LONDON, December 20. Commentators lustily applaud Hammond, but are chary of being overoptimistic. The “Sunday Times” expects Bradman to reply in own fashion to the injuries inflicted on his bowlers, who, however, manfully stuck to the job and tied down Leyland, Ames, Allen and Hardstaff to defence. E. H. Sewell, in the “Sunday Graphic,” says: “The paucity of Australia’s attack on-a good wipket suggests the future inclusion of Fleetwood-Smith and Ebeling; also I should not be surprised to see a change of captaincy. If O’Reilly of his own volition is overdoing the policy of keeping down the runs and letting the batsmen get

themselves out, welT and good; -but if at Bradman’s orders, it is perilously near bad captaincy.” ; . The cricket writer of the “Evening News” considers that England’s rate of scoring in the.'face of the amazing weakness pfv'the* s 'Australian bowling showed unprecedented restraint. “It is impossible to praise Hammond sufficiently, but otherwise England’s play was. desperately dull. Only when watohing7.the other'.batsinen can one realise Hammon d’s-immeasur able buperiority;’?.the Ayrifef adds/wo'odfu£lS?Estimate t ‘ J "*•' i (Recd. Dec. 21, 1 p.m.), LONDON, December 20. Woodfull, in *•-■’ the • ‘‘News of the World,” says: Bradman made full use of his bowlers, ringing the changes with commendable judgment, but nothing would go right for him,, and unless Bradman for once rises to the occasion in the Test in Sydney, I feel certain'that fin English victory is assured. BABCOCK’S ILLNESSS. . • (Recd. December 21, 8 a.m.) SYDNEY, December 20. Badcock’s temperature has gone higher. His medical attendant states there is no hope of Badcock playing on Monday. UNSETTLED WEATHER. (Received December 21, 1 p.m.) SYDNEY, December 2L > The unsettled state of the weather has caused anxiety about' the test wicket. Arthur Mailey in th©,/‘Daily Telegraph,” says: The heavy rain which fell early this morning will probably mean that the wicket will he a glue-pot.'-'' The State Meteorologist predicts m further storm and falls of rain during the week. ENGLAND DECLARES. (Recd. December 21, 2 p.m.) SYDNEY, December 21?. ’■> The weather is overcast, and the wicket is rain damaged. England declared with the Saturday score of 6 wickets for 426. i / . A wireless message from Sydney stated that at l.ip! p.m.-, sydrfey time, 7 wickets had fallen for 42 runs, Chipperfield 14, O’Brien _l, Bradman 0, McCabe 0. < • ! r l : —LATER. Lunch score: wickets for 67. SHEFFIELD CRICKET ’ QUEENSLAND FACES DEFEAT BRISBANE, December 20. In its. Sheffield Shield'-Hiatch with Queensland, Victoria in its first innings made 309 (Darling'lll(s Gregory 46, Led ward 57). Dixon took three wickets for 87, Amos three for 67, and Cook four for 60. Queensland in jts second innings has lost five wickets for 105. In the first innings Queensland .made 49. I;'w.' ;; S.A. v. N.S. WALES. ADELAIDE, December 20. In the first innings of its Sheffield Shield match with South Australia, New South Wales made 149 (Cheetham not out 47). Grimmett took six wickets-for 64. South Australia in its second innings has lost five wickets for 144 (Ryan 67). ? .

0. M. R. w. McCormick . . 20 1 79 2 Sievers . . 1C 4 30 0 Ward . . 42 S 132 2 O’Reilly . . 41 17 86 1 Chipperfield . . 13 2 47 0 McCabe 9 1 31 1