CHEQUERED FORTUNES. (From Our Own Correspondent.)

Otago Witness, Volume 23, Issue 2684, 23 August 1905, Page 59

CHEQUERED FORTUNES. (From Our Own Correspondent.)

LONDON. July 8. This week's " test" match—^he third of the series — had to 'be left, like the second, unfinished. But whereas the second was abandoned on its third 1 day owing to heavy rain, the third was deliberately "drawn" by the Australians, as apparently the sold way of averting defeat. Nothing has ever been more puzzling- in all cricket history than the kaleidoscopic ■changes which are constantly occimingf in the fortunes of Darling's t«am. -A.t one anoßient they seem to have England's best

ciicketing talent helpless at their mercy. An hour or two later they are failing as feebly as any second-class eleven. But at least the hitherto history of their tour ha^ most clearly emphasised three very important points, all of which have told heavily against them. In ■ the first place, they have no fast bowler of real merit. Cotter is a mere fluke. lie may come off by an occasional — though rare — chance, as he did against Warwickshire, when in one innings he took seven wickets for 76 runs. Or he< may now and then " set up a funk" by excessive bumping. But to class him as a fast bowler of real "class," even remotely comparable to iSpofforth or Turner or Jones, would be simply absurd. And it was Warren's fast bowling that proved most fatal to the Australians in this last case. Secondly, the Australians have no left-hand bowler ; and this, too, is very badly needed in playing against England. Even in this last match England had two fast bowlers, Warren and Hirst — one rightband and one left — and two left-hand bowlers, Hirst and Blythe, one itasfc, tho other slow. The Australians, it is true, have a better supply of right-hand mediumpaced bowlens than has ever been biought against them, especially in Noble, Layer, and Armstrong ; but to win test matches fast bowleis and left-handers are almost indispensable.

In the third place, the choice of fiv^t inning's has in ea.oh case gone against Australia, and that has also meant victory. Had the fairer rule proposed — that the first choice should go by toss a,ud the remainder fall to either side alternately — been adopted in these matches* it would have removed one substantial element of unfairness, from the cricketing standpoint, and would have given Australia a nrnch more equal chance ; indeed, I do not hesitate to say that, on the basis of their play atone, ha.d Australia had first " knock in either of the last two matches it would have meant a win for them. There must, of course, always remain an element of luck in matches played in so irregular a climate as this ; but it is a pity that more should be left to mere chance than can feasibly be avoided.

As regards batting, I do not think there is much to choose- between the best of England and of Australia. But if England has not superior quality, she at least has vastly larger quantity of gcod batting available to choose from. Nor can it be denied that, tested by averages, Austialra does come out underneath in this respect. Further, while the Australians as a rule have been superlatively good in the field, they are distinctly wanting as compared with England in respect of the two most important places — wicketkeeper and shortslip. Keily is, of course, more than respectable behind the sticks, but it would be absui-d to think for a moment that h© can be compared with Blaekham, of Australia's glorious past, or with such English wicketkeepers of the present day as Macgrepor, Martyn, Lilley, Sborer, aa'd Huish. Thus, with batting admirable" at times, but certainly spasmodic and variable ; with bowling perhaps superior to the English of its own particular type, but limited to that c-ne type — right-hand medium pace, — although with_ infinite variety of sub-classes ; with fielding superb except as regards two places, but those two unfortunately of the highest importance,- it must, I am afraid, b& confessed that the colonial team has in the long ran come out much less favourably than its earliest performances led its admirers to anticipate. It is idle to speculate ijpon future events whose results will have been known by cable long before this letter can arrive by mail, but it may be interesting to note that at the time I write the feeling in England is one of almost unbounded confidenoe as to the outcome of the rubber. There are, it is true, a few mere knowing ones who recollect some of the wonderful "surprise packets" with which the Australians havo slain English self-confidence; in the later stages of these contests. At fche same time, it is remembered that Australia no longer has a Spofforth, a Turner, or a Trumble to demoralise the English batsmen all in a moment by some unexpected flash of bowling genius, as happened more than once in the old days when Murdoch was captain. But if the Australians no longer have batsmen who, on their own side, could demoralise the best English bowlers, as Murdoch, Massey, Lyons, and Bonnsr were wont to do in days of yore, there are yet such batsmen es Trumper (sadly out of form though he be). Hill, Armstrong, Duff. Darling, and Gregory, who on their days have closely approached those famous predecessors in respect of bowler-demoralising powers. Layer, it must be admitted, has not "lived up to" the standard which he set for himself in the beginning. He has not turned out, as it once was hoped ho would, a new Trumble. Still, he has proved on the whole the most successful of the Australian bowlers. In the test matches, howover, Armstrong has been the more effective. At Lseds this week, as at Nottingham in the previous test match, he proved a veritable thorn in the sides of tho English batsmen. Indeed, his performance against the Englishmen in their second innings must be admitted to have been a very fine one, for he not only took every one of the fivt3 wickets that fell "(five for 122 runs), but he also so completely puzzled the batsmen with his leg balls as to keep down the rungetting just at the time when this was the most important function he could fulfil Indeed, so successful was he that at Leeds, as at Nottingham, the spectators were enraged to see the way in which he paralysed the efforts of their favourite bats, whose attempts to hit him without being caught off him were usually ungainly and awkward and ludicrous in the extreme. Once more the ridiculous cry has been raised by certain ignorant -writers that his bolwing is not fair, that it is " killing crioket," and so forth, because the spectators go to sep the batsmen make runs, and if the wicked Armstrong will not let them do it then he is depriving the people of the inducement to pay for admission. On the other hand, all the leading cricket authorities — notably Maclaren to-day — have virtually declared that Armstrong- is playing the true .name as well as acting in the interest of his when ho bowls to the batsmen balls of perfect length which they can scarcely venture to touch without lunning the risk oE giving easy catches to the seven fipldsmon who are standing on the leg side for the special purpose of receiving them. The grumble, therefore, that he does not bowl to get wickets, but only to keep down runs, is obviously absurd. He bowls to get wickels by means of catches juvi the same as the majority of bowlers do by keeping the ball well on the off side of the wicket. Only it happens that Armstrong — like Quaife, of Warwickshire — prefers to bowl leg balls., and thus to

attack the batsmen on their weaker side. When he can show as a, result that every wicket in tho second innings of such an important match fell to him at tho a\erage cost of 24 runs per wickef. he may fairly claim thafc his method is justified by tho result, especially seeing that it ha? bean admitted on all hands that lv's length has always been the perfection of accuracy, and that this hss had as much to do with the failure of batsmen opposed to him as his leg method. Howe'.er, after reviewing the entire situation, one comes back to the conclusion thai I have already indicted—namely, such ill-fortune as has &o far befallen the Australians is due on the one hand to their possessing neither a fast nor a left-hand bowler, and en the other to their bad luck in always losing the toss. Apart from these drawbacks, there is little to choose between Australian and English cricket. Tho 'atlcr may have <ome element of slight superiority, but bha real difference between the two sides may be summed up as above. Since their unexpected and somewhat ignomip'ous defeat by rhe County of Essex

— ignominious because, although the defeat was only by 19 runs, the Essex team is now among the weakest; of all the county elevens

— the Australians have been much more careful even when contending against ordinary county teams. Accordingly they be?.t Warwickshire by an innings and 51 runs; Goiter .taking sevan wickets for 76, hk first bowling success in England. They followed this up by scoring 527 against Gloucestershire, including 108 by Trumper and 93 by Hopkins, while Armstrong took no fewer than eight wickets for 17 runs ; the match, however, was left unfinished. Finally^ in the- match now going on w:ih Hampshire, thp Australians made as many as 620 in their first innings, including three individual centuries — viz., Gregory 134, Hill 115, Noble 101, — and very nearly a fourth from, Trumper, who made 92. So far, the Australians, when they have really taken any pains, have had each English county at their mercy, but in the 'test matches somehow, while doing many brilliant things, they have in the long run been outplayed, although, as I have already said, their winning the teas instead of losing it \ ould probably have meant, owing to their more vigorous style of batting, tho winning of at least two of the test matches already played and the finishing of all of them.