LEYLAND’S DAY

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVI, Issue 313, 5 December 1936, Page 9

LEYLAND’S DAY

PRAISE BY CRITICS. I i DISASTROUS OPENING. ! BOWLING UNDER FIRE. (United Press Association—Bv Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) Received December 5, 10.40 a.in. SYDNEY, Dee. 5. Commenting on the first day’s play in the first Test, the Sydney Morning Herald’s cricket writer says :—The match opened sensationally, and England’s position was disastrous when three were down for 20 runs. After thut England had to struggle for runs, but due in large measure to the dour lefthander, Leyland, the team effected a recovery. Leyland secured his filth century in Tests against Australia. He gave chances at 17 and 71, both off Ward’s bowling, but his innings was marked by characteristic doggedness and skill. McCormick, after his devastating burst of success, was affected by lumbago. Ho will not bowl to-day, but will probably be fit by Monday. Mr C. G. Macartney, in the Herald, considers that after Fagg’s success in the recent Queensland match ho was the obvious opener with Barnett, yet Allen changed the batting order with not unexpected fatal results. The wicket at the start contained life, and McCormick secured a iift that proved fatal to Worthington and Hammond. Botli were unfortunate, as the deliveries which dismissed them hung on to the pitch and popped. A GREAT RECOVERY. England, however, staged a great recovery after a poor start, and the association of Barnett and Leyland steered the side out of a nasty predicament. Barnett played a most attractive innings, and is in magnificent form. Leyland, however, was the mail who placed England in a satisfactory position by the end of the day. He is not the Leyland of years ago, probably, as he was" fenced to adopt defensive tactics sb frequently owing to the indifferent batting of the other Englishmen. Many of his enterprising strokes have been shelved for the time being. Ames was not comfortable to the slows, and it was not surprising that he succumbed to Ward. Hardstaff appeared to be a broken reed; there was no semblance of the spirited batsman who played so well in Australia a year ago. His exhibition yesterday was pathetic. BOWLING NOT GOOD. Excepting that by McCormick, the early uowl.ng by Australia generally was not of Test match standard. O’Reilly gave a fine exhibition of accuracy, but the slow bowlers, Ward and Chipperfield, were far too short in length ever to be a great danger. Any batting success cannot be attributed to a mastery of the slow bowling bogey, as those bowlers seldom maintained a length that was menacing. Sievers at no time gave promise of being effective. The fielding was not as keen as usual. Probably the brightest spot of the day’s entertainment was Oldfield’s wic-ket-keeping. He was more than equal to his usual Test standard. A London message says the cricket is relegated to a back seat, except in very carlv posters lionising Leyland. Mr Carson in the Evening News says: Something a good deal bigger than 409 is needed to give us a chance.