By Nine Wickets.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XI, Issue 63, 2 March 1921, Page 5

By Nine Wickets.

AUSTRALIA WINS LAST TEST. DULL AND SPIRITLESS FINISH. BATSMEN CAUTIOUS TO END. i By Cable.—Press Association —Copyright.! i — Sydney, March 1. I The last chapter of the fifth test was spiritless and uninteresting. With 68 to win and all the wickets intact, the result was a foregone conclusion, I though heavier rain overnight might; easily have found Australia scratching for runs on a sticky wicket. The out-| field was heavy as the result of the rain and the wicket damp, but not! troublesome, excepting to the bowlers, • who required sawdust to ensure a ■ secure foothold. Woolley and Parkin opened the attack, both batsmen adopting astonishingly cautious methods to the surprise of the few hundred spectators. The first 50 was registered in 54 minutes, Bardsley’s quota being two to one of Collins. Wilson then endeavoured to effect a separation, but the batsmen watched the ball as carefully as if the Ashes hung in the balance. With five runs to win and two for half a century, Bardsley hit Wilson to square leg for • a brace afte* 92 minutes’ play. Both batsmen pottered about for three overs, endeavouring to register the necessary runs, until Collins snicked Wilson into Strudwick’s hands for 37 made in 100 minutes. Macartney scored two singles, one I each from Wilson and Rhodes. Australia won by nine wickets. Australia lost one wicket for 93 runs. Scores:— ENGLAND. First Innings 204 Second Innings . 280 AUSTRALIA. First Innings 392 Second Innings. Collins, c Strudwick, b Wilson 37 Bardsley, not out 50 Macartney, not out 2 Sundries 4 Total for one wicket 93 Bowling analysis.—Wilson one for 8, Rhodes, nil for 20; Woolley, ntf for 27; Parkin, nil for 32; Fender, nil for 2 (one no ball). BARRACKING INCIDENTS. INTEREST IN ENGLAND. VARYING PRESS COMMENT. London, March 1. The fate of the match was lost sight of in the interest displayed in the cabled reports of the barracking. Opinion is emphatic that players should be debarred from cabling to newspapers. The “Star” says a little tact on Wilson ’s part would have saved much. The “Manchester Guardian” refers to “this unfortunate tour,” adding: “It is a consolation to know the team will soon be aboard the Osterley. ” H. P. Warner said: “I feel it very much. After all, such incidents, however regrettable, are trifling compared with the glorious history of Anglo-Aus-tralian cricket.” He always found the Australian crowd the best sportsmen. They invariably gave the English players a most hospitable and affectionate welcome. “You can rest assured the Australian team will be most cordially welcomed in England, and any misunderstanding forgotten. ’ ’ Wilson’s cable to the “Daily Express” merely says that when Wilson was stumped he had a memorable reception, even members hooting him. Hobbs had a wonderful welcome, with three cheers both w’hen walking out and walking in.” The “Daily Express,” in a leader entitled “A Testy Match,” says:—“Good sportsmen will regret the scenes which marred the final test. A section of the crowd jeered at Hobbs’s slow movement, due, as all must have known, to an injury. When Wilson made a criticism of this conduct, the crowd retorted by subjecting him and Fender to violent barracking. The whole thing is wretched, and the explanation probably is that the attack upon Wilson masked a sense of shame which the crowd would not confess. The ovation of Hobbs in the second innings bears this interpretation. It is important that the Marylebono and Australian boards should take measures against a display of temper. We were well and deservedly beaten. It is a thousand pities that our sincere congratulations to the winners should be mixed with any bittermfes. If test matches are to continue, and if cricket is to kedp its place as a clean and wholesome game, the decencies of sportsmanship must be preserved all over the ground, not only inside the boundaries.” The “Daily News” says:—“lt is unfortunate the last test match, which nothing but a miracle can prevent ending in the complete discomfiture of the Englishmen, should be accompanied by an exhibition of ill-feeling towards members of the English team. Fender j and Wilson have once,or twice mildly! criticised, by implication, umpires’ de-1 cisions. They also stated that the spec-1 tators rather senselessly barracked I Hobbs, who was lame and in pain, for j his inactivity in fielding. The Austra- | lian cricketing public, while not exactly i fastidious in its own attitude, seems surprisingly sensitive when a little plain speaking is directed against itself or its favourites. We do not think Fender has been unfair or one sided in his criticism. He bestowed ample praise on the Australians. Besides, there was no rancour in his remarks upon the umpires’ decisions. They were honest, and such as appeal to the daily English press during the season. One would have imagined even the Australian papers would occasionally allow themselves the liberty of saying an umpire had made a mistake. The barracking of Hobbs is in another category. It is impossible that Fender and Wilson made such a complaint if unjustified. Moreover, at least one of the Australian papers admits that there was some jeering. We need not take such incidents seriously. Australian barrackers are usually good-humoured and impartial in their banter. The crowd must not be judged by the less sporting elements. The Australians won fairly and squarely because they are the better side.” Apart from the “Daily News” and the “Daily Express,” which support ; their correspondents, Fender and Wil- ! son, the morning newspapers give little I prominence to the Sydney barracking. ; In several cases regular local correspondents set events in a different perspective to the “Daily News” and the j “Daily Express.” Several, including [“Sporting Life” and “The Sports- ; man,” urge the Marylebone Club to for- ; bid cricketers commenting on their own ! games. The latter suggests that the Marylebono Club Board of Control should hold an inquiry when both teams • arrive in England. ! Fender, cabling to the * * Daily News, ’ ’ i says there were extraordinary scenes, ■! frequently one section of the spectators ; barracking hard, while the remainder, < who were the larger part, provided a ! sympathetic demonstration, though even i a certain section of the members barracked Wilson when he went out. Hobbs had a great ovation, as also had Douglas. The “Daily Chronicle” docs not refer to the scenes editorially, but alludes to , Fender and Wilson in the news columns as “amateur journalists.”—(A. and N.Z.) HEARNE’S HEALTH NOT PRECARIOUS. Adelaide, March 1. Hearne states that he is astounded

I at the report that his health is precarious. He says he will play in Ade. ; laide if required, as he is already much improved. STILL MORE PRESS COMMENT. (Received 2, 9 a.m.) London, March 1. The “Daily Herald” says: “The Australians do not object to Wilson and Fender as cricketers, but as journalists and shocking bad journalists at that. I Our former protest against the selec- | lion of amateurs as social assets has | been amply justified.. Their capacity | for sending tactless telegrams is reminiscent of the ex-Kaiser. What English cricket needs is new blood. These amateurs have only contributed i bad blood.” I PURE TACTLESSNESS. | The “Manchester Guardian” say’* editorially: “However regrettable the ! barracking of Wilson and Fender, it • was not altogether unprovoked. The ; main ooint is not whether the allegations of barracking of Hobbs are true, but whether it is tactful that players should have reported the scene. If the crowd made itself a nuisance the tactful course would have been for Douglas to nrotest to Armstrong, leaving the latter to take action. This was not the first instance of tactlessness during the tour. There was for instance Wilson’s disputing of the umpires’ decision in the first test. Such incidents in a country where partisanship runs wild do not assist towards an easeful and felicitous atmosphere. Why will players or spectators insist on importing dreadful seriousness into a joyous game?— (A. and N.Z.) LESSONS OF THE SERIES. ENGLISHMEN’S MISFORTUNES. (Received 2, 10.20 a.m.) Sydney. March 2. The “Herald” says:—“Probably no series of tests were so Completely devoid of match interest or thrilling fluctuations of fortune. In the Adelaide match only was there a semblance of a close fight. Throughout the season the Englishmen have been handicapped by illnesses and accidents to players, entitling them to the genuine sympathy of everyone. Australian superiority with the bat and ball and in the field was never seriously challenged. The bosie style of bowling has been successful and was a dominant feature of the season’s play. Mailev deserves warm congratulations on his success. A striking lesson taught the importance of slip-fielding. It is impossible to estimate the influence on catches held or dropped during the season. It is a tremendous encouragement to bowlers to know that they are supported by -good slips, who should be specialists, just as the wicketkeeper. Both countries are now level pegging—forty tests each. Douglas and Armstrong were interviewed, but both declined to comment on incidents of the game.—(A. and N.Z.; LEADING AVERAGES. (Received 2 12.10 p.m.) Sydney, March 2. The ■ following are the leading averages in the test series:— AUSTRALIA. Batting.—Macartney, aggregate 260, average 86 66; Armstrong, 464, 77.33; Gregory. 442, 73.66; Collins, 557, 61.88; Pellew, 319, 53.16; Kellewav, 330, 47.14. Bowling—Keileway, 15 wickets, with an average of 21, Armstrong, 9, 22.66; Gregory, 23, 24.17; Mai.ley, 26-27. ENGLAND. Batting.—Hobbs, ■ aggregate 505, average 50.5; Douglas, 354, 39 33; Russell, 258, 36.85; Makepeace, 279, 34.87; Hendren, 319, 31.9; Woollev, 285, 28.5. Bowling.—Wilson, three wickets for an average of 12; Fender 12, 34.16; Parkin, 16, 41.87; Douglas 8, 52.5.— (A. and N.Z.)