OUT FOR 66

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 6 December 1928, Page 5

OUT FOR 66

AUSTRALIA’S SECOND INNINGS

I MASTERY OF THE BOWLING. DULL PLAY ON BAD WICKET. (United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph Copyright.) (Australian Press Association.) BRISBANE, Dec. 5. England defeated Australia in one of the most remarkable test matches on record by 675 runs. In tlieir second innings the Australians were dismissed after a miserable display of 66 run© The weather was cloudy but warm. The wicket was rather sluggish after ,*4points 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 as a result of it being a foregone conclusion. Following a weak attempt by Kip pax to lift Larwood after sixteen minutes’ play, he was easily caught. Then the bowling mastery, combined with the state of the wicket, brought about a second and sudden collapse. White, with a twist flight, length and pace was ideal for the inferior wicket. Hendry ? Ryder and Bradman all gave easy catches and the batting was scratchy. Fifty runs took 60 minutes. ■ « The remainder of the wickets fell without anything like a stand. The game was lifeless and the attendance poor. The match finished at one o’clock. Detailed scores, are : ENGLAND. First Innings 521 Second Innings 342 for S wickets. AUSTRALIA. . First Innings 122 Second Innings. Ponsford, c Duckworth, b Larwood 6 Wood-full, notout 30 Kippax, c -, b Larwoo.d 15 Hendry, c Larwood, b White .; 6 Ryder, c Larwood, b Tate ■ - 1 Bradman, o Chapman, b White 1 Oldfield, c Larwood, b Tate 5 Grimmett, c Chapman, b White ... 0 Gregory, absent ... .0 Kelleway, absent ................. 0 Extras 2 Total 66 Bowling analysis: Larwood, 7. overs, no maidens, 30 runs, 2 Buckets; Tate, II overs, 3 maidens, 26 runs, 2 wickets; White, six overs, 2 maidens, 7 runs, four wickets; Hammond, one over, 2 runs, no wickets. The wickets fell: One for 6, two for 33, three for 46, four for 47, five for 49, six for 62, seven for 66, eight for 66.

CRICKET ENTHUSIASTS AMAZED.

SYDNEY, Dec. 5. The result of the first test has amazed cricket ‘ enthusiasts all over Australia. The keenest disappointment is expressed. The majority of the people express the opinion that the howling was too superior.

The newspapers describe it as “the test of horror” and the “Australian debacle,” and are demanding radical alteration in future teams. . ENGLAND’S SLOW BATTING. MEAD COMES IN FORi CENSURE. | LONDON, Dec. 4. ] Practically every report from Australia stingingly condemns England’s slow batting in the second innings. Mead and Jardine are particularly strictured. The “Evening Standard”, has an amusing cartoon and a strip across the page like a slow motion picture captioned : Phlegmatic Philip Phails to Phlog.” “Plum”. Warner in the “Morning Post” gently reminds liis readers that the-Australians originated' and are perpetuating play-to-a-finish in the tests. Ho states : “Mead and Jardine are defenders rather than attackers insofar as that at the time concerned there was no necessity, either tactical or strategical, to' depart from the usual style.. “It certainly must he dull, irritating cricket to watch. One fears, however, these things will happen again in play-to-a-finish tests have happened before. Possibly this may cause the Australians to consider whether their wickets are not over prepared and whether a time limit of five d.ays would not be a wise and popular move.” “I have seen some bad knocks in test cricket,” says Clem Hill in the “Daily Telegraph,” “but Mead’s innings stands .alone. I shall be most surprised if he is included in another test. Although England has us in the cart this test I am still confident that when our opening batsmen go in with the intention of staying and taking the sting out of Larwood and Tate fay defence they will make a lot of runs.” The “Evening Standard’s” diarist says: “The result throws disenchanting light on time-limitless cricket. The spectacle of the Australians being slowly pounded to pieces is neither pleasant nor edifying but a gloomy anti-climax 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.” NO EXCUSES. . AUSTRALIA HAD WORST OF LUCK. COMMENT ON THE TEST MATCH. Received 11.45 a.m. to-dav. SYDNEY, Dec. 6. The “Herald” says: “Australia had the worst of luck in the test, hut 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. English fielding and team work are unsurpassed. Every critic was wrong in the surmise that the English team. Has a. tail—it has none. Gregory’s injury is a calamity to Australia. The Australian second innings, although a forlorn hope, was a shocking submission to the Englishmen’.© dominance?/ The “Telegraph” says: “England’s victory was too decisive to allow of 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 Brisbane scores suggest and the destination of the laurels has still to be decided.