THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 1938 THE NOTTINGHAM TEST MATCH

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23065, 16 June 1938, Page 12

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 1938 THE NOTTINGHAM TEST MATCH

It is doubtful whether any better test match, England against Australia, has been played than that concluded at Nottingham yesterday. The four days allotted were full of good cricket. With great zest and in fine spirit the teams fought; skill and courage, enlerprise and restraint, abounded in keeping with the best traditions; it was a test indeed, of physical stamina and moral quality no less than of expertness in all departments, and both teams left the field with honour. Altogether, it was a good augury for the four games yet to be played in this series. A comparison of the elevens, on the run of the play, reveals so even a balance that a draw was a fitting result. Not always does so just a verdict result from a cricket trial—that fact is part of the attraction—but when it does every rational demand is satisfied. In fielding, the Englishmen gave a display more finished, less marred by lapses, than did the Australians; yet some among the latter were equal to any of their opponents. Between the two wicket-keepers there was nothing to choose: Ames was his accustomed self, and Barnett proved a worthy successor to Oldfield. Of the bowlers, England's showed to advantage, especially those new to test cricket. Taken all round, the English side was so good that it probably surprised itself; it certainly surprised many Homeland critics, as some have promptly confessed. As to captaincy, Hammond was so capable that his leading of the Englishmen in the forthcoming test at Lord's is obviously a sound decision; and Bradman, making his debut in England in a like capacity, was not a whit inferior to Hammond.

The batting deserves particular mention. Seven centuries in three innings, two incomplete, is a wonderful achievement, alone enough to give this game distinction. An excellent pitch contributed no small share to the success of the seven. The pitch was, perhaps, too true to be good, for until the third day its even surface tended to neutralise spin. This put a premium on the winning of the toss, for which good fortune Hammond must have had many a moment of thanksgiving. The Australians' centuries were thus the more meritorious, attained as these were when the pitch had begun to play a few tricks after the manner of its kind. But, when all allowance is made for conditions, the batsmanship of the seven stars —most notably that of Hutton and Compton, two out of the three English players promoted early to test rank—was magnificent. Paynter's determined, unbeaten defiance gave his side practically a third of its colossal total for eight wickets, and his comrade Barnett did much to lay the foundation of that score. For the Australians, McCabe's superb 232 was an exposition worth going across the world to see, a masterly flogging administered with perfect alertness to every phase of an exacting position; it will live among the world's best cricket exploits. The circumstances in which Bradman and Brown took toll of the English bowling were vastly different: the utmost self-control and patience were required to hold the attack at bay, and runs were of smaller importance than a defeat of the clock, yet they both got into the constellation of century-makers. Bradman played an exemplary captain's innings, and Brown answered every expectation that he would return to form.

Figures tell, however, only the obvious part of the story; to the Australian eleven must be handed the award for their splendid refusal to be dismayed by adversity. They could not win the match, but they manfully won the draw, steadily compelling the Englishmen to relinquish their hold on probable victory. That is real cricket, in spite of the bad behaviour of Nottingham onlookers—about which Hammond, Wyatt, Arthur Gilligan, Howard Marshall and others have pointedly expressed their pained disapproval. As it was, the slow batting of Bradman and Brown during the long critical period produced, to within ten runs, the total of Barnett and Hutton for the same length of time, two and a-quarter hours, when England had conditions wholly favourable. But, if excuse for the organised, incessant "barracking" is to be sought, it may be found in McCabe's spoiling of the crowd, with his brilliant batting, on the previous day. No doubt the severe castigation administered by eminent English cricketers will prevent a repetition of the annoyance. One thing alone is giving concern. With such a galaxy of batting talent, the likelihood of finishing a test match in four days is not great, and a succession of draws under a time-limit is highly unsatisfactory, even with the provision about the fifth match. Nobody can tell what would have have happened in this match had it been continued beyond the fourth day. Hammond would not have enforced the follow-on; but, even so, the English side would have had a share of the deteriorating pitch. Moreover, weather conditions are incalculably fickle in England. "But we have a fine climate," sardonically remarked a counter of chances a month or so ago. So it is rather idle to speculate about this match, had it been played out, for tactics then • would have been different. But it is worth considering whether three tests, all played out, would not be a better arrangement. If they are so extended theoretically, there must be a reduction in number, in order to cope with the counties' complaint that so much time spent on test cricket interferes seriously with the county contests, which after all are normal cricket. Experience at Nottingham suggests a review of rules governing the biennial tests. Even one year in four, in either country, must be an embarrassment.