AUSTRALIA IMPROVES

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 17 August 1926, Page 5

AUSTRALIA IMPROVES

IN FIFTH TEST.

SCORES 302 ENGLAND 49 FOR, NO WICKETS.; 3Y CABLE-PRESS ASSOCIATION—COPYRIGHT. Received 10.15 a.m. to-day. LONDON, Aug. 16. The Australians in their first innings in the fifth test made 302. Thenscores follow : AUSTRALIA. First Innings. Woodfull, b Rhodes 35 Bardsley, c Strudwiek, b Larwood £ Macartney, b 'Stevens .'. - Ponsford, run out •••• Andrews, b Lanvood f Collins, o Stevens, b Larwood biRichardson, c Geary, b Rhodes ... lb, Gregory, c Stevens, b Tate ~,.. 73 Oldfield, not out - Grinlinett, b Tate 35 Mailev, c Strudwiek, b Tate ...... O Extras 17 Total 302 Bowling analysis : Tate three for 40, Larwood three for 82, Gearv none for 43. Stevens one for 85, Rhodes two for 35 - Fall of wickets: One for 9, two for 44, three for 51, four for-59. five for 90, six for 122, seven for 229, eight for 231. nine for 298. w England in the second innings has made 49 for the loss of no wickets at the drawing of stumps. Scores are: ENGLAND.

First Innings 280 Second Innings. Hobbs, not out •»*... 28 Sutcliffe, not out- ,-•••-•• 20 Total for no wickets ...1.49 * —Reuter. 'THE FIFTH TEST. CRITICS, REVIEW THE GAME LONDON, Aug.. 15,

The Sunday' papers consider the position generally, not unfaourable for England, Maurice Tate, in Reynold’s Weekly News, states: “I know the Australians are worried. 1 think we are going to win. Larwood bowled perhaps faster than I have seen any other man bowl.” The Sunday Express states: “England’s chances of victory'- at one time "remote, are now at least as. good as when the match started.” _ _ The Australian fielding conies in tor special appreciation. Colonel PMlip Trevor, in the Daily Telegraph, says: “One has nothing but, unstinted praise for the wonderful fielding. You could not get a ball through the fieldsmen unless it was hit hard and quite clear of them, while from the' long, field Bardsley- gave Oldfield catches at the top of the bails with unfailing ,accurcy.” ; Referring to the dismissal of the Australians he says: “To be perfectly frank I cannot, attribute this to the good bowling. Tate and Larwood, bowled too short and Geary was wild. Tate never looked like getting anybody out. “Woodfull, the immovable, always remained unmoved. He never does look like getting out and when he is one is always surprised.” _ Warner says: “The wicket was not easy, despite what has been said to, the contrary.” He pays a graceful compliment, to Oldfield, stating: “The wicket keeping was delightful both in- its extreme excellence and the entire absence of fuss and frills. Grimmett’s. fielding at silly point and- mid-on reminded one of one’s boy'hood. Finer and b,raver fielding than Andrews’, it is impossible to, imagine. Indeed, throughout, there were few instances of misfielding, while the throwing was a delight to behold.” He adds: ‘ ‘Macartney' began in a manner which England’s supporters viewed with the gravest apprehension, but when the great Macartney- went so early- the crowd could hardly believe it, but there is a long way' to' go before the match is over.”

Faulkner writes in the G az-ette: “The Australian batsmen’s unaccountable loss of grip leaves England very much -atop, but it would-be rash to contend that Australia is yet in .the •cart. She has top many stubborn and skilful -batsmen to dismiss, but England has the chance of a lifetime. She only needs the slightest piece of luc-k to gain a commanding first-innings’ lead.” "The Daily Mail critic declares: “Hobbs went out to one of the worst balls of his long career'. Chapman’s captaincy was gratifying. He consulted nobody and did everything, off his Own bat.”

The Times’ critic highly praises.. Chapman’s captaincy -and says Mailey’s was the finest exhibition of slow howling he lias ever seen or is likely to see.