TEST CRICKET

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 10 January 1925, Page 5

TEST CRICKET

TREMENDOUS INTEREST. ENGLAND’S DEFEAT. SUTCLIFFE CONSIDERED A HERO. BY CABLE—PRESS ASSOCIATION—COPYRIGHT. LONDON, Jan. 8. Not for years has a test match so gripped the British Isles. It is almost the sole topic of conversation in trains, trams and ’buses. Editions of the newspapers were rushed out with long descriptions of the play, also prophecies by former players. The evening journals, which yesterday published photographs of the remaining batsmen as England’s hopes, to-day apjteared with large headlines, all alluding to England’s limp tail, but they agree that England went down gloriously. The papers feature Gilligan’s message: “I am sure I will win the toss in the next three tests.” Cabled reports of the cutting up of the wicket led to abundant suggestions that Australian wickets are too perfect. Lord Hawkd declared: “I deprecate these easy wickets, which are such a handicap to even the best bowlers.”

Jessop said: “If seven day matches are to continue, I suggest a change of wicket every third day.” Sir Zachariah Wheatley cabled an order for i a gramaphone with physical jerks,' ‘‘the records to be delivered to Gilligan in order to keep the team lit.” Competent cricket opinion, while disappointed at the weak finish by the team, which was regarded a 6 the strongest batting side that ever left England, welcome Sutcliffe’s' triumph, which is all the more praiseworthy when remembering tile cast-iron character of the wicket and the totally different light conditions as compared with those to which he is accustomed. There is intense enthusiasm in Yorkshire, where Sutcliffe has been elevated to an unprecedented pinnacle.. The Hon. F. S. Jackson in a speech considered the English team as good as the Australian, and said it ought to win the rubber. He voiced Yorkshire’s opinion that the team should include more Yorkshiremen. Naturally this feeling is not'universally accepted, but there is nevertheless a feeling that the team is capable of being strengthened.

LONDON, Jan. 9. Sid. Barnes, writing in the Daily Chronicle, says-: “England went down in the test match like the fizzle of a wet squib. Most credit is due to Sutcliffe, Hobbs and Tate, aided by Hearne and Woolley. Others with world-wide reputations failed dismally. This is a disturbing element. The only excuse is that the wicket crumbled to such an extent that it became unplayable. The players will find a different atmosphere in Adelaide. _ln ideal weather the sky is disconcerting. There is never a hint of a cloud to give the fielders a line of the ball, while the heat haze may dance over the ground all day long. Tate should have assistance. Possibly Gilligan will include in the team Howell, who puts more devil in his bowing than Douglas. We are also forced to the conclusion that Freeman is a better man than Tyldesley on Australian wickets.” Mr P. F. Warner, writing in the Morning Post, states: “Marylebone kept the issue ah open question until the seventh day after Australia had scored a record 600. This will increase the reputation of the;team, but despite the hick of the toss we should have won if Hobbs and Sutcliffe, and to a lesser degree Woolley, had been adequately supported. Our unequal batting lost us the match. We do not regard the chance of winning the rubber hopeless, especially if,Hearne returns to his best batting form. If we> win the toss on the 16tli, and our batting gains in consistency, there is no reason why we should not be successful. Kilner is almost certain to play, and Freeman is a strong candidate.” Colonel Philip Trevor, in the Daily Telegraph, says: “Our horse cracked badly in the straight, for home. We have got to take our beating like men, find not like , grizzling infants. With 280 for six wickets the whole team should not have gone out for 290. The English team has got better cricketers for test matches. Sutcliffe is the sort of man wanted for a test. He lias shown pluck and grit. Hobbs. Tate and Strudwick come next. Hearne bowled well for two days. Woolley did fairly well, and so did Gilligan and Chapman-, .as fielding , counts, but for Hendren it was not a good match, while for Tvljlesley and Douglas it was a bad match. The Australians carried no passengers.” _ _ Mr Wilson writes in the Daily Express: “Mailey was too much for our tail. Despite the 600 England thrice had the better of the game. On Saturday, on Tuesday when Australia were 168 for six wickets, and at tea time on Wednesday, but Collins is the equal of Armstrong as a tactician, and he handled the bowling, excellently. _ The Australians’ victory is due. to their consistenev in batting. Gilligan made a mistake in putting Chapman in' ninth. The leg before decisions in England’s second" innings may arouse comment, especially as Woolley has always been an unlucky cricketer. . It appears he was the victim of a mistake, but umpires cannot please both sides. Some Australian umpires lack the experience of English umpires, but there is nothing remarkable; about these four decisions.”