BATTING FAILURE

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVI, Issue 310, 28 November 1936, Page 9

BATTING FAILURE

ENGLISHMEN AT BRISBANE. VICTIMS OF PANIC. FIVE FALL FOR 13. (United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) (By J. B. Hobbs. Copyright in all countries. Reproduction in whole or in part forbidden.) BRISBANE, Nov. 27. The English batting was disappointing again to-day when the M.C.C. team collapsed on the first day of its match against the last five wickets falling in half an hour after tea for 13 runs. Great interest was shown in England’s first match at Brisbane, because Australians thought the team doing duty might give an indication of Allen’s ideas of his Test eleven. He of course, has to come in, and possibly Worthington, who is having his first rest of the tour. Much, however, will depend on how Fishlock and Hardstaff shape. It was a beautiful day of sunshine without overpowering heat. The loss of Fagg to the third ball of the day, and before a run was scored, illustrated the difference between a man being in and out of luck. Everything goes wrong for Fagg. A ball from Dixon stood up and hit him on the glove, resulting in a “dolly” catch at third slip. In Dixon’s next over Hammond, when he had scored one, edged the ball safely between third slip and the gully. Barnett was missed off a difficult catch at cover, but was taken at second slip off the same bowler, without addition. He made strokes and played fairly well. In spite of their early loss, England got a quick start, aided by the boundary on one side being short. When Oxenham came on to bowl the rate of scoring dropped 50 per cent. The ball lifted for only about two overs and then the wicket was quite good. Oxenham was the chief instrument in checking the scoring and his first spell was as good a bit of bowling as I have seen here this season in the matter of length and flight. He did not get, the ball past the batsmen nor did he appear to make it turn much, but in his first six overs only two scoring shots were made off him. In Dixon’s second over after lunch, Leyland, at 23, was missed by the wicket-keeper, but Hammond was caught at the wicket trying to cut the same bowler. Hammond was playing well within himself and was on top of the bowling. Two of Hammond’s fours stood out. One was a beautiful forward stroke past point and the other a powerful drive past extra cover. Leyland and Ames, in a fourthwicket partnership, added 107, and looked goocl for many more, but again a slow leg-break bowler did damage. Three wickets were down with 190 on the board, but the ninth man was out at 215, at which figure three wickets fell. BATSMEN’S SHEER PANIC. This won’t do. Being a batsman myself I have held back from severe criticism because I have made allowances for strange conditions, but the time has come to speak out. The tail-enders shaped like Clapham Common cricketers against the slow howling. A dismal feature of the play this tour is the way the advantage of big stands by Hammond, Leyland and Ames has been squandered by what can be described only as sheer panic. To-day everything was in the batsmen’s favour. They should have scored a big total against Queensland, who, however steadily they bowled", are not a gr,at bowling side. If England can’t get runs under to-day’s conditions they can’t expect to get them against Australia. A couple of Patsy Hendreus here now would he worth their weight in gold, although it is worth such a high price. Ames, falling to a middle leg spinner, was easily caught in the slips. Hardstaff was caught and bowled next ball —a great catch. At the tea interval England was 202 for five wickets. Leyland missed his century, being well caught at mid-off in the first over after tea. He was at fault onlytwice, trying to make lofty drives and not timing them, but the ball fell clear. Strong leg play was the chief characteristic of his innings. Like Fagg and Hardstaff, Fishlock’s bad luck still pursued him. Responding to a call for a sharp run he stumbled; otherwise he would have got in easily. Details: ENGLAND. First Innings. Fagg, c Andrews, b Dixon 0 Barnett, c Baker, b Dixon 20 Hammond, c Tallon, b Dixon ... 36 Leyland, c Brown, b Allen 98 Ames, c Amos, b Allen 41 Hardstaff, c and b Allen 0 Fishlock, run out 6 Robins, c Tallon, b Oxenham ... 1 Verity, st. Tallon, b Allen 0 Voce, not out 6 Fames, run out 4 Extras 3 Total ; ... 215 Bowling analysis.—Dixon, 3 for 50; Cockburn, none for 46; R. lv. Oxenham, 1 for 34; G. Amos, none for 11; E R.. Wyetli, none for 44; T. Allen, 4 for 27. QUEENSLAND. First Innings. Brown, not out 38 Rogers, not out 32 Extras 1 Total (for no wickets) 71 Bowling analysis.—W. Voce, none for 18; K. Fames, none for 19; W. R. Hammond, none for 10; R. W. V. Robins, none for 23.

“DISMAL FAILURES” SUPREMACY OF BOWLERS. Received November 29, 11.20 a.m. SYDNEY, Nov. 28. The Sydney Morning Herald’s cricket writer says the English batsmen have recorded another dismal failure against Queensland. It was a bad showing against bowling that was not high-class. The satisfactory feature from the point of view of Australia’s Test prospects was that Brown played with confidence and style. C. G. Macartney, writing in the Herald, says the English side broke down in the middle, and the tail was unable to restore the position. The procession was again mainly attributable to the slow bowling, and the Englishmen, with few exceptions, seem unable* to overcome the wiles of this type of bowling. Continued failures in this direction are sapping the confidence of the Englishmen, and unless they can bring their fighting traditions to the rescue it would appear that the

slow bowling will dog their footsteps right through the tour. In view of the failures which have been the result of pottering about the crease, the batsmen could do worse bv indulging in vigorous hitting, which would force quicker and better footwork. It seems incredible that Hardstaff and Fishlock can fail so frequently, and one inspiring innings from either or both would raise the English outlook tremendously, and that is all the batting requires.