ENGLISH CBICKETERS

Southland Times, Issue 19459, 26 January 1925, Page 6

ENGLISH CBICKETERS

AFTER THE THIRD TEST. LEADING NEWSPAPER COMMENT •HONOURS EVENLY DIVIDED." (By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright.) (Australian and N.Z. Cable Association.) SYDNEY, January 24. The Herald, commenting on the cricket, says:— It has been a wonderful match throughout, worthy of being classed among the greatest in the history of Test cricket. The contest was waged with commendable spirit and determination on both sides, and was characterised mainly by the surprising changes in the fortunes of the game, by some memorable performances with bat and hall, by the plucky uphill fight of the Englishmen, and by the extraordinary interest it aroused. The intervention of rain gave England a chance which was availed of to a surprising degree. Australia was clearly outplayed after the rain. The English fielding was better than the Australians’; so, too was the batting. On the side of leadership and tactics the advantage was with Australia; and so was the general fortune, apart from that of actual play. The honours of the game are very evenly divided. The margin of victory represents the difference fairly accurately, except that it should have been the other way round. Though the English team was not actually successful, it deserved success. THROUGH ENGLISH EYES SOME SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS. LONDON, January 23. (Received January’ 25, 5.5 p.m.) The Evening Standard says:— “We have most profound admiration for Hobbs and others advancing in athletic years, but we want more men of the stamp of Sutcliffe, Tate, Chapman and Freeman. We must discover more bowlers, because there are none left in England who should have accompanied Gilligan. We hope to prove our supremacy against Australia here in 1926. Ncbody, at least at present, wants to depose Gilligan as captain, but the day when a professional will lead England has been brought appreciably nearer by the opinion of Lord Forster.” The writer adds: “Warner’s and Jessop’s opinion easily outweighs Lord Hawke’s. After all, Sutcliffe led the troops in the field: why not cricketers ?” “We lost the toss; then the batsmen were handicapped by minor injuries, and so we lost the game and the rubber. How could we hope to float on the crest of the wave in the thirteenth game since our last victory. Happily that is past.” Commenting on the Test match, Lord Harris says: “We lost by pure bad luck. It was a magnificent effort. I do not think there is much between the teams. It is largely a matter of the toss. The weather was on our side more than three years ago.” Jessop says: “It was a fine effort, but the result is disappointing. By the fifth game we perhaps will get as near as possible to beating the Australians.” Fender says: “England did remarkably well. I think it is a great pity that, having got so near, we did not have a bit of luck.” ENGLAND fBATTING.

ENGLISH VIEWi THE WORST OF THE LUCK. VISITORS’ CREDITABLE DISPLAY. LONDON, January 24. (Received January 25. 11.5 p.m.) Barnes, writing in the Daily Chronicle, says: The shower on Thursday afternoon, though it made the wicket easier, proved fatal, as the delay prevented runs being got. Possibly in a similar case in this country, play would have been continued to a finish on Thursday. However, it is no good seeking excuses. Our tremendous recovery is distinctly creditable, though the Australians thrice had the first use of a perfect wicket. England in two matches scored sufficient to win an ordinary match, the difficulty having been that Australia has scored with extraordinary freedom. The newspapers provide a chorus of appreciation of the magnificent and sporting spirit of the Australian crowds and splendid sportsmanship of the teams. They rejoice that England’s prowess has been regained. P. F. Warner, writing in the Morning Post, says: “I am terribly disappointed, but think we are quite as good as the Australians. We thought at the outset that our batting was quite good, but it has not been consistent and in that connection we must heartily congratulate the Australians. Our position has been retrieved and justifies optimism for 1926. I wish Lancashire would do something to restrain Parkin in his writing. He is a nice man and an amusing fellow, but he occasionally loses

that loyalty and generosity of spirit which should be the common bond between cricket. There is no objection to a man like Hobbs captaining our side and I am convinced Lord Hawke did not intend to attack professionals. Sir Arthur Bencraft, presiding at the annual meeting of the Hampshire Cricket Club, said that as an old cricketer he regretted the attacks on Gilligan, than whom no more popular cricketer ever left England. There has never been a cheerier or more optimistic fellow to deal with. The general opinion of cricketers was that the attack on Gilligan was ill-advised. Sir Arthur believed that if Gilligan had won the toss, England would have been three matches up instead of three down. Hon. A. Tennyson was reappointed Captain of the Club. CRICKET AND DEMOCRACY. MUST NOT BE DIVORCED, LONDON, January 24. (Received January 25. 11.5 p.m.) The Observer, in the course of an editorial, says: “Though England is defeated, the taste of defeat is not bitter. We have seen two teams play hard, unyielding and chivalrous cricket. The Englishmen have shown qualities which another day will make them victors. Nobody has shown heartier appreciation of this than the Australian spectators. We regret any provocation drawn from Lord Hawke’s comments which justly raised a storm of protest. So far from believing that it will be a bad day when a professional leads England, we believe that the distinction in the status of professionals and amateurs preserved in the score sheets and elsewhere is obsolete and ought to disappear. We did not discriminate between the men who fought for England and we should not differentiate between men playing for her. If cricket and the democracy are divorced, the great days of cricket will be finished,”

Name. Sutcliffe Inn. N.O. H.S. Total. Aver. 6 0 176 569 94.83 Hobbs .. .. 6 0 154 494 82.33 Hendren 6 1 92 229 45.80 Whvsall 9 0 75 84 42.00 Freeman 4 2 *50 80 40.00 W oollev 6 0 123 210 35.00 Chapman 6 1 58 173 34.60 Kilner .. .. 2 0 24 30 15.00 Tate .. .. 6 0 34 39 14.83 Gilligan 6 1 31 59 11.80 Douglas 2 0 14 22 11.00 Hearne 4 0 23 39 9.75 Strudwick .. 5 1 22 38 9.25 Sandham 2 0 7 9 4.50 Tyldesly 0 5 5 2.50 Total * —Not out. 65 6 176 2129 BOWLING. 36.09 Name. W. Runs. Average. Kflner .. 8 178 22.25 Tate .. .. 22 529 24.05 Hearne .. 5 269 53.80 Gilligan 7 377 53.86 Woollev 5 273 54.60 Freeman . 8 459 57.3P Douglas 1 104 104.00 Tvldeslev . 0 136 — Chaoman . 0 20 — Hobbs . . . 0 13 — Whysall 0 13 — Total .. 56 2369 AUSTRALIA, 42.30 BATTING. Name. Inn. N.O. H. S. Total. Aver. Ryder .. 9 1 *201 289 289.00 Taylor .. .. 6 0 108 347 57.83 Ponsford 6 1 128 343 57.17 Oldfield 6 2 47 186 46.50 Collins .. .. 6 0 114 240 40.33 Hartkopf 2 0 89 90 40.00 A. Richardson 6 0 99 227 37.67 Andrews 2 0 72 73 36.50 V. Richardson 6 0 138 210 35.00 Kelleway 5 1 138 210 35.00 Mailev .. .. 6 ' 1 *46 103 20.60 Gregory 6 1 44 88 19.60 Bardslev 4 0 22 64 16.00 Hendry 2 0 22 25 12.50 Total .. 65 6 *201 2403 BOWLING. 40.72 v Name. W. Runs. Average. Hendrv 3 41 13.66 A. Richardson 7 172 24.57 Ryder .. . 1 26 26.00 Gregory 20 619 30.95 Kelleway . 8 289 34.12 Mailev 20 800 40.00 Hartkopf . 1 134 134.00 Collins 0 48 — Total 60 2129 35.49