CRICKET.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLI, Issue XLI, 13 August 1921, Page 8

CRICKET.

To-day will see the fifth test opened at the famed Oval, and tremendous interest will centre round this fixture, because the. only check the. Australians have received was in tlfe fourth— after winning eight tests in succession—and every enthusiast will be interested to see if the Englishmen can again hold up their end. The Oval has been the scene of some historic contests, but it is worthy of special note that Australia has won only one test on that famous ground. This, was in 1882, when the colonials won that historic test by seven runs. F. R. Spofforth ("The Demon") bagged seven wickets for 46 runs in the first innings, and seven for 44 in the second. Towards the end of the game, writes a correspondent on the match, men who were noted for their coolness at critical moments were trembling with excitement; some were shivering as with cold; some even fainted. At times there was absolute silence. Such , a finish was indeed enough to upset the nerves of the coolest and pluckiest. Intense as the excitement was, Spofforth and Boyle never showed a symptom of flurry, Blackham never made a mistake, and the Australian fielding was perfection. M"he result of this test brought into vogue the wellknown term "The Ashes," as applied to test cricket between England and' Australia. „ W. G. Grace-scored 152 in the .first test in England, and W. L. Murdoch, ' the Australian captain, compiled 153 i . not out. "" X In 1884, though Australia/ scored 363 for two wickets (Murdoch 211) the • innings closed for 551 and ' they were handsomely beaten. Murdoch's score stood a test record till 1903, when R. E. Poster, iiu Sydney, trounced the Australian bowling to the tune of 287. In the Englishmen's score of 347 the great W. W. Read scored 11*/ m two hours, while Sutton took 5| hours to score 90. Tondon"* Punch satirised this innings in his wellknown ode (after Tom Moore): "Block! Block! Block! At the foot of-thy wicket, 0 Scotton!" In 1886, 1888, and 1893 the Australians were beaten by an innings. 'This period recalls the great names of W. G. Grace, Lohmann, Abel. Peel, Jackson, Stoddart, and Shrewsbury. Australian scores in 1888 were very small. 80 and 100; and in 1890, 92 and 102, but in the latter England was little better with 100 and 95 for eight wickets. Again, in 1893, Australia scored only 91. Hugh Trimble came into prominence first in 1896, getting six for 59 and six for 30, England scoring only 145 in the first innings; while Syd Gregory made his first century (117) in 1899. Tn that match. Hayward and Jackson made a first wicket partnership (the former was the hero of many more) of 185, and the whole team made the huge score of 756. 1902 was noteworthy tor a sensational innings of 104 by Jessop (the croucher), after five wickets were down for 48. Of the thirteen played ,on the Oval England has won 8, lost 1, and 4 have ..been drawn. AVill Armstrong's team improve the record? Given even hick it is probable they will. The fourth test in the Australians' present tour was a remarkable game which will not soon be forgotten, for while England on a fairly easy wicket rattled up the great total of 362 for four wickets, rain ruined the' wicket for the succeeding day's play, and but for a most resolute stonewall by Collins it is more than probable the Australians would have been beat-

en. Collins was at the wicket nearly five hours for his 40 runs, playing an innings, as the Referee says, that will be remembered after many test cen-

turies are forgotten, and defied all efforts to shift him for 295 minutes. Pel lew, too, deserves his share of

praise. When the wicket was difficult he stayed with Collins for 80^minutes. It was altogether ? great exhibition of dour, dogged del- nninatioh. In London Snorting Life, immediately after tho" decision of the first test match at Nottingham, "Cover Point had the following article: "The

century test match between England and Australia has resulted in a victory for the 'invaders,' and they have now taken a lead in the immortal struggle for the Ashes. We have been beaten. We must admit right away that we have not the cricketers in the coinitry capable of destroying the as-

irations of the Australians. We have ) admit —and I regret to say it—• lat we have not the pluck bo charcteristic of English cricket in the ast. Armstrong is a great cricketer. Ec is a wonderful judge of the game, hit if Armstrong was playing for Vludshire,' and not the Australians, c would have been hit out of the round at Trent Bridge three out of very six balls." It seems strange to.read in a Home aper that "the veteran Syd- Gregory i said to have told his kinsnian Jack -a redoubtable leader of Australia's ttack—to leave cricket well alone. Cricket has been" little good to any 'regory,' was .the great little, batslan's advice, and young Jack hesitatd a good deal between his prospects s sheep station manager and, this our. He came, and in the application if this little story lies much of the xplanation of Australia's prowess." J still, we guess he follows the doings f his redoubtable kinsman with the iveliest interest. Macartney's score of 115 in the third est, although not made with nis isual brilliancy, has set the seal on lis fame. His last four innings have >een 105 against Hampshire, 193 against Northampton, 345 against Not. ingham, and 115 against England, a ptal of 758 runs, with an average of ust under 190 runs per wicket. No )ther Australian has ever made four successive centuries in England, ihough Noble performed the rare feat n Sheffield Shield matches from 1898 ;o 1900. Three successive centuries lave been made by Bardsley, Hill [twice). Macartney (twice), and Mac*ay. With the exception of Clem. Hill the others all hailed, from New ikmth Wales. In my last Week's notes [ commented on the arguments in Sydney before the war relative to the batting brilliancy of the late Victor frumper and the present little champion. His achievements on this tour have, in my opinion, placed Macartney on an equality with Trumper, so far as good wickets are concerned; but he lias yet to prove his mettle on sticky patches. The most wonderful thing about the two men is not their brilliancy, but their consistency. Batsmen of their class—and Ranjitsinhji must be included —plat© absolute "reliance on keenness of vision, suppleness of wrist, celerity of foot movements, and confidence in their own ability to hit ! the ball where they want to. Their j temperament is to make runs and beat the bowling. The mere idea of staying at the wickets does not appeal to' them./ It is not given to every batsman to emulate the deeds and daring of Macartney, yet his methods are a clearMndication that mere stodgy batting is a trial on the onlookers' patience that should never be endur»d, except on rare occasions. Many English batsmen, with' their greater opportunities, have made four successive centuries in county cricket, C. B. Fry holding the record with six, made in 1901; while in all matches the same player also heads the list with seven successive centuries. '• ■ . The cricket critic in the Nation and the Athenaeum of June 4 has a very striking, article on the 10th test, in the course of which h,e has some interesting remarks to'[.make concerning the Australian fast bowling, and especially Gregory's. He says: Much ungenerous criticism has been directed at Gregory because, on Monday he pitched a short; length and made the ball rise intiinidatingly. On Saturday, when he won the match for Australia, his length was. admirable, and hardly ever had in it the menace of physical injury to the batsmen. Surely we must take the advice of Cockane, in Mr. Shaw's play, and be just, and judge Gregory on his best, not his worst, moments. His action, as he runs to the wickets to bowl, is thrilling and, beautiful—it is the run of the demon bowler which every public school boy dreams about in a bad summer night's sleep. Gregory goes to work with an unbridled movement, the ( pace of his run gathers with each galloping step, and at the end—just before the arm swings over and unloosens the ball-H;here is that leap into the air which tfte great fast bowlers of all time have cultivated. At no point in his bowling action 0 does Gregory suffer the slightest maladjustment of body rhythm—to, echo a phrase of George Henry Lewes, the whole man .bowls. A current of youth goes through the free., swinging limbs into the ball, and, it is the sting of youfh that makes the ball's devastating bite from the pitch. In English cricket to-day we have, indeed, few bowlers whose_propelling force, comes from the energy of muscle and limb working impetuously. Our bowlers have fallen overmuch under the fascination'of ringer-spin and swerveP-fine enough shades, but they are perhaps the characteristics of bowling that is in an ageing decadence, not ft those of newborn and eager life. Recently an old cricketer put to the writer in quaint fashion the difference, as he imagined it, between the virile bowlers of his day and the less virile bowlers of ours. "They bowled (pronounced to rhyme with "howled") from 'ere"—indicating the muscles of his back. "Now, th' lads bowl from theer"—indicating the extreme ends of his fingers. Neither Gregory nor McDonald cultivates niceties of finger-tip spin and swerve. They bowl with the entire body swinging into the act 'of propulsion. Both of them make the ball "come back"—that is, break from the offside. But they get their bias even as Richardson and Lockwood, 'by a natural and unfettered fling of 'the upper part of the body to the offside, as <the arm comes over/and a strbng sweep of.the hand across the line of flight at .the moment it lets go the ball. This difference in propelling power between the best Australian and English bowling—the fact that the one carries in it the full force of the body, while the-other is too often a product, mainly of finger manipulation, the arm doing little more than fix an altitude for flight, the body doing little more than provide a convenient pace for the exploitation of swerve or spin—these differences must be stressed to-day, since in them may rest the clue to Australia's power at the present time to do whatever she likes with English cricket. Here, perhaps, we may find a convenient explanation of the presence in the Australian eleven of matchwinning fast bowlers, and the absence ot them in our country just now. The technique of fast howling, in a word has been allowed to go idle with us'