CRICKET

Southland Times, Issue 20010, 26 October 1926, Page 10

CRICKET

AUSTRALIANS AT HOME. That the Australians were beaten fairly and squarely in the last test match was the opinion of Mr Clem Hill in Fremantle on his return to Australia by the P. and O. mail steamer Naldera. “It was a good win, and there was not much difference between the teams,” added Mr Hill. Referring to the test matches, Mr Hill said that two were not worthy of comment, as one of them lasted about fifty minutes and the other barely two days. At Lord’s the Englishmen gave away an excellent chance of winning by playing “Scotch,” but the Australians were to blame at Leeds for a’ similar offence. In the last test the Englishmen had the worst of the wicket, and the Australians lost because they did not possess a Turner, Noble, or Trumble, who could make use of the bad wicket. On the Tuesday the wicket for an hour before lunch, and for half an hour afterwards, was in a very bad condition, and with an experienced bad-wicket bowler England might have lost five or six of its best wickets, or might have collapsed. Because the conditions were so bad, and Hobbs and Sutcliffe were superior to them, the Englishmen’s win was the more creditable.

When asked to comment on Colonel Trevor’s statement that only Macartney, Oldfield, and Mailey were worthy of a place in the English eleven, Mr Hill smiled and said, “Well, that is only his opinion.” Macartney, he said, had been the success of the tour. He stood alone as the best batsman in the world, not excepting Hobbs,who, despite his former brilliance, was now a defensive batsman and a run-getter. A feature of the tour had been the brilliant performance of Oldfield, who was the world’s best wicket-keeper.

“Never have I seen Barney keep so exceedingly well. He was as game and as sure as it was possible to be,” Mr Hill said, with evident enthusiasm. The performances of Mailey and Grimmett had been excellent, but it was a commentary on the strength of the Australian bowling when it was necessary for Collins to depend on his spin bowlers for the attack in all the principal matches. Andrews’s fielding at silly point was commended from every quarter, but Mr Hill could not account for the extraordinary loss of form of Taylor, who, when Gilligan’s eleven were in Australia, was the Australians’ best batsman. Richardson had been a utility man; he had bowled a good length, and kept the batsmen busy, although his batting was not as free in England as his Australian form had suggested. Gregory had not received any help from the English wickets, but he certainly had lost some of his pace. Mr Hill highly praised the performances of Woodfull and PonsfOrd. “Australia is indeed lucky to have two young players of the calibre of Ponsford and Woodfull,” he said. “These two will be the opening batsmen against the Englishmen for many years. Either or both may lead the Australians at no distant date, as they both possess fine personalities, as well as a flair for cricket. Bardsley’s innings at Lord’s was a credit to himself and to his team. Although on fast wickets, the left-hander was not the Bardsley of old; on slow wickets he was still a power to be reckoned with. Collins had led the side ably, and, although handicapped by ill-health, he had shown what a dour fighter he was in the last test. The most critical judge could find no fault with his leadership.”