RESULT A FOREGONE CONCLUSION

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIII, 7 January 1929, Page 5

RESULT A FOREGONE CONCLUSION

AFTER HQISBS SUTCLIFFE PARTNERSHIP LONDON, 4th January. P. F. Warner, in the “Morning Post,” says: ‘'The news is almost too good tu be true. After rain we were told that the Englishmen had an impossible task, but true to the traditions the opening pair batted splendidly, as at the Oval in August, 1926. As the pitch should roll out well, England ought to win by more than my prophecy in which I forgot (lie possibility of rain. The greater the difficulties to faced, the greater was the determination of llobbs and Sutcliffe, whose partnership at Melbourne will rank above others, except that at the Oval in 1526. llobbs is at the age when naturally there is some falling off, but the occasion brought out his greatness, while Sutcliffe, as a hac.k-to-the-wall batsman, equals Jiis partner. Every minute lie stayed in was momentous for England, and every run worth a couple. It was superlative batting by men of long experience on. a sticky wicket against bowlers Who, owing to lack of opportunity, did not know how to take full advantage of the tricky wicket.”

“BOWLERS’ PARADISE” ANI) AUSTRALIANS FAILED

Woolley, in the “Daily Chronicle,’ 'says: "The Australians failed when everyone was expecting them to take full advantage of a bowlers’ paradise. As a result England turned pending de-

feat into ail unprecedented Test victory. I know no ground for giving such aid as Melbourne when a linking sen fellows heavy rain. The Australians’ chief tactical mistake was to aim at the leg peg instead of well no to the batsmen on\ the off slump. We must thank the selectors for omitting Ironmonger, win* would have been a trial yesterday. It would be interesting to see wlint Rhodes and other left-handers would

have done on such a wicket. The match confirms the impression formed at the Oval in 1926, that the Australians are so unused to a real sticky wicket that they seem to have lost the art of using the same when offered. Every credit is due to llobbs and Sutcliffe. If the wicket rolls out well England should have won ' when this is read.”

Lord Tennyson, in the “Daily Chronicle says: “The names and deeds of Hobbs and Sutcliffe will live long in cricket history,-. - purely ’the great stand at Melbourne accounted, for one of thg finest partnerships of their marvellous performances, and lias shown what the English team, can do in the tightest corner. Clem Hill, in the “Daily Telegraph” says: “The Australian howling failed miserably to take advantage of conditions. No howler kept a decent length. No blame is attached to Ryder, who did tiie best available. Maybe he wishes he had Ironmonger who would have made good use -of the wicket. England’s performance earned the approbation of even the disappointed Australians.”

£IOO FOR HOBISS AND SUTCLIFFE (Received 7th January, 1.5 p.mJ LONDON, 6th January. The “Daily Chronicle” announces that on behalf of its readers it cabled £IOO each to Hobbs and Sutcliffe in recognition of the magnificent part they played in retaining the “ashes. . It expresses the opinion .that this tribute to England’s opening batsmen will he cordially approved by all cricket lovers llobbs and Sutcliffe rank among the best-liked cricketers and are models for thousands of hoys and youths striving for prowess at the wickets. LESSON OF THIRD TEST

EDITORIAL COMM ENT

(Australian Press Association)

(Received 7th January, noon) LONDON, 6th January

The “Daily Herald” in an editorial says: “If Australia learns the lesson bv the third lost that covered wickets spell lack of howling skill, we may see her in 1930 light back vigorously and successfully”

AUSTRALIA’S NEW TEAM FOR

Clem Hill in the “Daily Telegraph” says: “The Australian selectors have had a grand opportunity to build up a team to go to England in 1930. In Woodfull, Rons ford, Kippax, Bradman, Oldfield, and a’Beckett there is the backbone of a good side. The selectors must comb out the whole country for young material. Jackson and Harris as batsmen and Bettington. and Eliding as bowlers are all most promising.” He does not suggest immediate dropping of all the older players, but two or three can be labelled : “Not wanted on the voyage.”