IMPRESSIONS OF TEST

Taranaki Daily News, 15 August 1931, Page 5

IMPRESSIONS OF TEST

NEW ZEALAND BATTING.

4?UNGH REVIEWS THE PLAY.

Tlie first Test match between England fend New Zealand at Lord s is dealt with in breezy manner by E.V.L., writing for Punch, the famous London humorous As things turned out, he says, it was New Zealand’s match, ending; as it did at the close of the three days with England needing 94 to win, and five of their best wickets down; a situation which no one, not even the most sapient pavilion critic would have predicted. For what everyone was saying was that New Zealand’s bowling was unequal to the task of getting us outi Well, it allowed us .to make 454 in the.

-innings, or 230 more than the enemy. But there are two sides to everything, and who, at the close of that innings on Monday afternoon, would.have dream-ed-that before England could bat again that 230 deficit would be wiped off and 239 added?'' Glorious uncertainty, indeed. ■ . . ' One proof that the English bowling was inadequate is that the gallant warrior, but most indifferent bat, R. C. Blunt, of Otago, was allowed to make 96 runs. Never have I seen anything less like Test-match form. But, sharing with C. 3. Dempster,, of Wellington, G. L. Weir, of Auckland, M. L. Page, of Canterbury, and T. C. Lowry, of Wellington, the courage and patience which I shall evermore associate with New Zealand, he kept up his end by merely placing his bat before the ball for what seemed like ah eternity. With the exception of J, E.' Mills, of Auckland, a left-handier, the New Zealanders are not graceful batsmen; but they have heartbreaking qualities instead.. . ... Their crack, Dempster, is.no stylist, ''but he is armed at every point; Page, while hitting to leg better than any Englishman, is perfectly content to block; Weir is a tower of defence. But Blunt-is largely an obstacle. Yet hot Allen, not Peebles, not Robins, not Voce, not Hqmmond could get past him until •he had made four short of a hundred. Woolley, the crafty veteran of the team, might have done ‘so, but Jardine never gave him the chance. And so our score

of 454 for ten wickets w a3 made to look foolish by New Zealand’s 469 for • nine, and the old proud Mother Country had to bat on a declaration! New Zealand has every right to be pleased. There were sad disappointments before, in our first innings, Woolley, our •Nestor, came to the rescue. Duleep began with address and confidence, hitting the ball where the men were not, but just as we settled down to enjoy the feast he broke this rule and was caught in the long, field. Arnold, Bakewell and Hammond failed to make double figures, although they all did it in the second innings. Jardine did not stay long enough and was tamely out, making, room for the Ames and A Hen record. -Robins’ round dozen on the score-sheet does not convey the ease and mastery of his strokes, and he particularly delighted me by carrying out the instructions of one of his most illustrious Middlesex predecessors. , * “What,” asked a young recruit of Sir : T. C. O’Brien, “should one do with the first- ball ?” f*Hit it-for four,” said that

{forceful genius. Well, that is what Robins did, and there wasn’t a better stroke in the match until -Hammond’s Second innings. I never saw the purchasable seats at Lord’s so full the first day —the first day not only of the match, but almost of the true summer—but, considering

that this was a Test match, the pavi- ; lion was ill-attended. A great game; < but the next time I see the New Zea- -<

landers I hope that the condition of J affairs will enable W.G.’s maxim, “Go ; for the bowling before it goes for you,” i to be in force. Not, however, that the >

bowling did go for them. It most disconcertingly did not. Coming away, I < saw outside Lord’s a newspaper poster 1 which said,, “England bowling defied.” < ,Tha troubls is that by the Selection i Committee it had been deified. ]