SACKCLOTH AND ASHES

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 531, 7 December 1928, Page 10

SACKCLOTH AND ASHES

WHAT the Australian Press terms a “test of horror” is not without its humorous side. Critics who are now unanimous in demanding- “radical changes” in the Australian eleven were only a fortnight ago assuring their readers that it was “the best team that could, be chosen.” Even such a level-headed fellow as Clem Hill joins the chorus of expostulation at the Englishmen’s “play-to-a-finish” tactics, quite forgetful of the fact that it was the Australians themselves who introduced these marathon contests. The same critics who are now denouncing Mead for his barn-door batting were loud in their praise of Kelleway’s famous two-day stonewall at Adelaide some yeai-s ago under similar conditions. How circumstances alter cases! The noble band of English player-writers also have their funny spasms. It would be hard to beat the portentous gravity with which P. F. Warner put his long-distance telescope to his eye, and solemnly reproved members of the English team (only ten or twelve thousand miles away) for going into the field at Brisbane without their caps, for fear they might catch sunstroke. Even in England’s foggy December, the sun must be troublesome in London just now! The plain truth of the Brisbane debacle is that Australia has been given a taste of the medicine which she so successfully administered to England in the last two Test series in Australia. Even Warwick Armstrong, confined to his room in Brisbane with a bad foot and. a listening-in set, did not need to stir from his hotel to write the self-evident facts of the match. There is a suggestion in the cabled comment that Australia has reached that undesirable frame of mind which is known as “getting the wind up.” The ageing Eleven has been so long used to being on top that it seems to have temporarily lost that great characteristic of previous Australian teams —the ability to rise to the occasion when apparently in a hopeless position. Nobody would be foolish enough to suggest for one moment that Australia had any more than a million to one chance of pulling the game out of the fire in the fourth innings, especially with two good batsmen out of action, but the side steadily lost ground after a reasonably good start the first day, and never looked like regaining the position. For all that, the Australian team’s form was too bad to be true. Admittedly, the “Old Guard” is not the potent, matchwinning factor it used to be under Armstrong’s astute leadership. Australia is now paying the price for leaning so heavily and so long on the old-stagers, instead of bringing on new players to take their places. With the possible exception of Richardson, Pritchard and Noth ling, all of whom are well past the “colt” stage, Australia is almost destitute of fresh talent, with big cricket experience. Shrewd and commonsense men-like E. E. Bean and W. Bardsley are not likely to lose their sense of proportion by even such a staggering defeat as that inflicted at Brisbane. It has happened to many a good team before now, and it is safe to say that the bulk of the badly battered first Test side will go into the field again at Sydney next Friday, grimly determined to regain the balance of power. They may not do it at Sydney, but by the time the third and critical Test arrives, England should find the Australians a vastly different proposition from what theye were at Brisbane.