THE FIRST TEST MATCH.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17662, 24 December 1920, Page 7

THE FIRST TEST MATCH.

ENGLISH DISAPPOINTMENT. HOPE OF BETTER THINGS. (Received 6.40 p.m.) United Service. LONDON. Dec. 22. Commenting on the first test match, the Manchester Guardian says the English team was absurdly below its true form. An ordinary county eleven could hardly have fared worse. The Evening News says the Australians were superior in every department of the game, except fielding. A. and N-Z. LONDON. Dec. 22. Although the result of the first test match is regarded in England as showing that Australia's cricket strength has been underrated' both in Australia and England, and the play has surprised and disappointed followers of the game, they are by no means downhearted. It is pointed out that the last team to visit Australia, after losing the first game, won the re mainder. The critics are specially struck with the Australians' batting consistency. T'nev consider there are quite eight dependable batsmen. Though the English team comparatively tails off, it contains great batsmen, who only need to strike form to give a very good account of themselves, Austra'ia's victory is accepted ungrudgingly. Many tributes are paid to the dogged, patient batting which is historic in the Australian game of matches without a time limit, and was thoroughly justified in this match. This feature is regarded as taking away some of the disappointment concerning the seeming weakness of the English bowlers in the second innings, but there is some comment on the missed chances. The display made by Armstrong and Collins' century are the subiects of many eulogies. The progress of the match was watched with the greatest interest throughout the country. The newspapers unite in a chorus of praise for the Australians' batting, particularly that of Armstrong, which the Times describes as the most brilliant ox the match, and the greatest he has ever displayed. Other papers liken Armstrong to Dr. W. G. Grace. Despondency is expressed as to England's prospects in the remaining tests on account of Australia's batting strength. AUSTRALIAN COMMENTS. THE BEST TEAM WON. A. and N.Z. SYDNEY. Dec. 23. The attendance during the five days of the cricket match totalled 112,000, and the gate £10,386- ! The Daily Telegraph states that England's innings was not worth discussing, Rhodes alone playing enterprising cricket. Judged by the standard of his colleagues, his innings was a masterpiece, 'ihe t>est that could be said of the Englishmen wa3 that they fought to the end, but not in a generous mood, several disputing decisions, a process which went on to the ] end of the match. They did not show | i first-class cricket, and forced the opinion S that England was not worth 300 runs »n ! any one innings. Parkin was a failure, j and never looked like Dowling a.nyone. The Herald says that Australia collectively and individually outplayed England ! this time, but though the margin of vic- ' tory was tremendous, it was not to be I taken as a criterion of the remainder of ■ the series. It had previously happened | that an English team had been outplayed in the first match and had won the rest. ! England lost the match on Saturday when ' the batting got into difficulties with , Mailey. Thence the victory of Australia seemed assured. Missed chances cont-ri- ! buted to the victory ; Collins, Macartney and Kelleway should have been reduced SO per cent. The writer pays a fineeulogy to Hobbs, who ranks with the greatest players of the past, and prophesies renown for Gregory and Mailey as first-class bowlers. The best team won all along the line. Douglas' team was yet below its proper form, while neither side was as good as in 1911-12. All have deteriorated, which was due to the absence of serious cricket during the war. The Australian batsmen gave a good, sound, defensive display. Armstrong's innings was the most polished display of the match. Seldom, if ever, had a better performance been given. The incident of Waddington being run- ! ont led to much comment. Waddington disputed the decision with the umpire, whose .ruling was widely questioned. Wilson, the vice-captain, who cabled to Lordon criticising the decision, describing it as shameful, afterwards apologised to the umpire (Mr. Jones) for the severity of his comments.