“AN OCCASION FOR TEARS”

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLII, Issue 20607, 22 December 1936, Page 9

“AN OCCASION FOR TEARS”

AUSTRALIA’S SORRY FAILURE

STATE OF WICKET NOT TO BLAME

SCATHING COMMENT BY CRITICS

United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright (Received December 21, 11.55 p.m.) SYDNEY, December 21. Neville Cardus writing in “The Bun” says: “Not one of the disasters to Australia’s first innings to-day could be related to the state of the wicket—only to the state of the minds of the batsmen. Bradman’s strike was not fit for public view. This morning’s exhibition was an occasion for tears and the veil. Two Unkindly Blows W. M. Woodfull writing in “The Sun” says: “Voce’s beautiful action and perfect control, wrought the havoc in to-day’s test. Once again, he proved too hostile for our leading batsmen—Voce, plus the thought of a rain-damaged wicket, which only occasionally proved awkward. Bradman and McCabe made poor shots at balls which should have been ignored. For nearly an hour, Fingleton was on the defence gamely without a fault. Then he selected the wrong ball to try to force to the front of the wicket.

AUSTRALIAN TACTICS APPROVED FORMER CAPTAIN’S VIEWS United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright LONDON, December 21. The former Australian captain, W. M. Woodfull, in “The News of the World’’ says that “Bradman made full use of his bowlers, ringing the chances with commendable judgment, but nothing would go right for him, and unless Bradman for once rises to the occasion to the Test at Sydney I feel certain an English victory is assured.” SECOND DAY’S PLAY ENGLISH TACTICS DISCUSSED Untied Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright (By J. B. Hobbs. Copyright in all countries Reproduction in whole or in part forbidden. 1 SYDNEY, December 21. Everything worked according to plan for England up to lunch. Australia’s necessity was a quick wicket or two, while our batsmen’s duty was to dig themselves in. Again Australia failed to get them, and it looked as If our fourth wicket pair would go in to lunch without being parted. Ward sent down a real long hop. Ames either could not believe his eyes, or else it was so near lunchtime that he was afraid to let it rip. Trying to cut it past extra cover, he hit up the lolliest of catches to cover point, very much to his disgust. This partnership, like Hammond’s with Leyland, had added a century, and England was still in a strong position. But for that wicket, the Australians would have been sorely disappointed with the morning’s work. The batsmen did not worry about scoring runs before lunch, and added only 72. They took no risks. Hammond, who started in his best fashion, was very sound, looking as if nothing could get past his defence. Twice he hit two successive fours, one being a beautiful square off-drive, off a good length ball that O’Reilly pitched just wide of the off stump. It beat the fieldsmen by sheer pace. Hammond’s second century was the signal for a wonderful demonstration. Tribute to Bowlers Ward was certainly turning the ball, but it was not coming off quickly, maybe due to the easy pace of the wicket, or because he was too slow through the air. O'Reilly did not bowl so much negative stuff, attacking more, but he still could not get a ball past the bat, until after lunch, in his thirtieth over of the match, when he had Allen leg before to his googly. I thought Sievers looked more like getting a wicket than anybody before lunch, and he might have beefi bowled more. McCormick, if not quite so fast, was less erratic than on Friday. The hundred took us 35 minutes longer to get on Saturday than on Friday.

All credit must be given to the Australians for sticking to their task so well. There was no loose bowling. If there had been, It would have been taken full advantage of. Their bowling was far from being collared, despite our big score. Hammond was playing more keenly than ever, taking 50 minutes to go from 201 to 215, his concentration being remarkable. Steady Batting On Alien’s dismissal, Hardstaff started with a brilliant cut for foul - . A bit of misfielding produced a wicket immediately after tea. The first ball of McCormick’s first over was hooked by Hardstaff to long leg, where a fieldsman slipped, enabling two to be run. The next ball knocked his off stump out of the ground. But for this fielding error, Hammond would have received, and I think would have played it all right. Hardstaff, like the others played solidly, and the wicket added a useful 56.

When eleven, Hardstaff had a stroke of luck. Hitting O'Reilly hard to leg, he was missed by Robinson, fielding behind the umpire, and I am told at the same time he dislodged the bail with his foot. The umpire could not see, and on appeal had to give him not out. In the Press box we are too high in the clouds to see these things. Verity, off the second ball he received, was missed at the wicket.

Play Delayed by Rain

Another heave shower drenched the crowd and the wicket. England was in a very strong position when ram came. Some may argue that it would have been advantageous to score faster,

but if that had been tried they might have been all out. I was prepared from the start for a stodgy exhibition from our batsmen. Play out Testa are an affair of wearing the other side down. Still, when scoring is slow, I like to seek a reason, instead of blaming the batsmen straightaway. Bowlers seldom receive credit for bowling well, and keeping runs down, or the captain for a well-placed field.

Australia’s field was again cunningly placed to-day. Another reason was the slow bowlers, Ward especially, were able to turn all day. Even Hammond could not go all out for many strokes.

Bradman bowled his pace men, McCormick and Sievers, relying very little on the spinners. Forecasts Go Astray This rain may help Australia, because it will probably bind the wicket together when the roller comes on. Before that there were signs that the wicket was breaking up, and I saw the fielders give it many anxious looks. Prior to the heavy rain at 4.30, there had been 192 minutes’ play today, and 147 added, Hammond’s share being 84. So let us praise Australia's bowlers, fieldsmen, and Bradman. It was dull cricket, but England secured runs, and Australia have still to obtain them. The strain of a long innings like Hammond's is constant concentration, and only a strong man can stand it. Right to the end, when a bad ball came, he hit it hard. He has not so far given an actual chance. He should to-day beat his previous highest in England-Australia Tests of 251, and is going all out to beat Bradman's record of 334, if anyone can stay with him.