LANCASHIRE ROUTED IN GREAT STYLE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17880, 23 June 1926, Page 1

LANCASHIRE ROUTED IN GREAT STYLE.

FIRST-CLASS COUNTY TEAM BATS WEAKLY—BOWLERS DESTRUCTIVE. Proclaimed as one of England's first-class county teams, Lancashire met a sorry fate at the hands of the Australian bowlers. The eleven included such well-known batsmen as Makepeace. Hallows, E. Tyldesley, Watson and Barnes, but it could only follow a poor 149 in the first innings by a poorer 148 in the second. Mailey took seven for 74, and four for 91. Australia won by an innings and 77 runs, her most important victory to date. The result shows almost conclusively that the visiting bowlers are a far deadlier force to be reckoned with than London experts profess to believe.

By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright. Reuter’s Telegrams. (Received June 23. 11 am.) LONDON, June 22. The weather was cold and overcast, but the wicket was good. Macartney and Mailey opened the attack. Six overs sufficed to effect the separation of Barnes and Green, the latter b3' an easy catch at silly point. Macartney again was difficult to

play, and Barnes and M’Donald -were very lucky in saving their wickets from balls which beat them. M’Donald hit a good leg boundary from a full toss from Mailey. Then he’was easily held at mid-on through hitting Mailey against t.he break. After M’Donald’s departure, play became somnolent. A quarter of an hour produced three runs. Macartney bowled eight maidens in succession. Then Barnes drove him to the off for two. Duckworth was streaky. He hit a three over Richardson’s head at midott and a couple almost to the boundary, but made a mistake in hitting out at a curly ball from Mailey. and was easily taken at fine slip by Collins, who just previously had failed to seize an opportunitv of dismissing Barnes oft Mailey. Barnes put up a solid defence, and made good forward strokes, but Lancashire was unable to avoid an innings defeat. The scores were: AUSTRALIA. First Innings. W. W. Bardslev, c Watson b Parkin . 11 11. L- Collins, low b M'Donald .. 3 C. G. Macartney, c Duckworth b Parkin 160 T. J. E. Andrews, c and b Watson 22 W. M. Woodfuir, run out 1 .T. M. Taylor, c Hallows b Parkin .. 14 A. Richardson, c R. Tyklesley b M ‘Donald 05 J. Ryder, c Barnes b M’Donald .. 39 W. A. Oldfield, not out 26 A. Mailey. lbw b Watson 4 S. Everett, b Watson 19 Extras 12 Total 374 Bowling Analysis.—M’Donald 3 for 115; Parkin 3 for 85; R. Tyldesley none for 49; Watson 3 for 66; Iddon none for 47. L AXCASH IRE. First Innings. 11. Makepeace, c and b Mailey .. S C. Hallows, c Everett b Mailey .. 85 E. Tvldeslev, st Oldfield b Mailev 11 F. Watson, c Ryder b Mailey . .9 J. Barnes, lbw b Everett 4 J. Iddon, st Oldfield b Mailey .... 4 L. Green, st Oldfield b Mailey .... 2 E. A. M'Donald, c Bardsley b Mailey 6 . G. Duckworth, c and b Macartney 11 j R. Tyldesley, run out 1 j C. Parkin, not out 0 j Extras 8 j Total 149 | Bowling Analysis.—Everett one wic- I lcet for 32. Macartney one for 19, Mailey ; seven for 74. Richardson none for IG. J

Second Innings. H. Makepeace, c Oldfield b Everett C 0. Hallows, lbw b Macartney .... 4(i ; E. Tyldesley. b Macartney 4 | F. Watson, lbw b Macartney 27 | J. Barnes, not out 38 ‘ J. Iddon, b Richardson G i J. Green, o Andrews b Mailey .... 1) j E. A. M’Donald, c Andrews b Mailey 5 J G. A. Duckworth, c Collins b Mailey 6 I R. Tyldesley. c Andrews b Mailey 2 C. Parkin, lbw b Macartnev 0 Extras 4 Total 148 Bowling Analysis.—Everett one wicket for 24, Macartney four for 15, Mailey four for 91. Richardson one for 7, Ryder none for 7. A Few Notes. The following cricket notes written by Jack Worrall in the “ Australasian ” should be of interest to cricket enthusiasts : A matter of particular concern to all cricketers and cricket lovers is what class of batsmen should constitute the opening pair. In the First Test match under review Carr, the English captain, delegated the opening to two slow scorers in Hobbs and Sutcliffe—stonewallers, judging them on their Australian form with Gilligan’s team—his judgment being severely criticised in the Old Country. And, one should say, rightly so. The wicket was slow and easy, the bowlers were heavily handicapped, it was the first day of the match, runs were wanted badly if the Englishmen were to win, making the policy of safety first one that England should never adopt in the circumstances- They are the under dog at the present time, and playing for. a draw is not in the interest of the side in need of victories to restore confidence. If England cannot win at home the outlook for English supremacy at their own game is poor indeed, especially as far as Australia is concerned. It was more necessary for their side than ours to assume the offensive, and that they neglected to do so is not a good sign by. any means. The question arises what class of batsmen should comprise the opening pair. Personally, and in a three-day match particularly, when time is the essence of the contract, I regard the combination of two slow scorers as suicidal. They may make a lot of runs, and do well in that respect; but the longer they are at the wickets they are lessening the chances of success. One English critic, in commenting on the stodgy batting, bemoaned the fact that if Hobbs had been the Hobbs of a few years ago. what a difference there would have been. Quite so. But Hobbs has to be taken as he is, not as he was. George Giffen, Charlie Bannerman. Jack Lyons, Alf. Noble, Hugh Trumble. .< ’lent Hill, Jack Blackham, Syd. Gregory. Charlie Turner. and Ernest Jones were great cricketers once upon a time, though not now. And we are practically no better off than the Englishmen. Our opening batsmen of repute are Collins, Woodfull, and Bardsley- all slow scorers. Each one, in form, would be an ideal man if tin with a natural fastscoring batsman; but if Collins and Woodfull open, or any other combination that can be made from the trio, it just means wasting golden opportunities. Against Durham Collins took Macartney in with him as a partner. As a straw shows which way the wind blows, it may be that in Collins’s action there is more than meets the eye. Either Macartney or Andrews, or Ryder, in form, should provide the man necessary in opening, with any of the three slow scorers, as variety is j both charming and serviceable. There is nothing of the fighting spirit in ! playing the rock in a limited match, I even though a good commencement mav be desirable. However, time will tell, though there is nothing like a blending of forces. The. cable messages mention that i Arthur Richardson is becoming rather

notorious for his appealing for lbw decisions. It is a habit he has picked up during the last couple of years, and is a very bad one. T hose knowing him personally are simply amazed at some of his appeals, as anything unfair is so foreign to his nature. In the trial match in Sydney, Ryder was given out lbw to one of his appeals, the ball being played, and would have missed the leg stump by inches. It was a slow one going away to leg. Ryder doing the right thing by getting in front and swinging at the ball with all his power. Of course, the anneal in no wav justified the decision, still, it was a bad one all the same. During that evening, when T was in the company of Clem Hill, Jack Ryder, and Arthur Richardson, the subject of the appeal arose during the course of conversation. All except Richardson agreecl that, it was not a legitimate appeal, though he stoutly averred otherwise. assuring me privately that, in his opinion Ryder was dead out. The man from Seven Hills is such a fine type in every way that it is a pity he should lose his good name through over-keenness, for that he would deliberately cheat a man out is unbelievable. But constant appealing is a bad habit, and should be cut. out.

Of course, there are appeals and appeals. Anything close is legitimate, especially as the bowler invariably gives a little to one side or the other after delivery. and, therefore, cannot be sure always whether the ball would have hit the wicket. The umpire is there to decide all close things, and a bowler must not regard a negative answer as a blot on his fairness. I remember on one occasion batting aeainst South Australia when Jones was bowling and Phillips was umpire. Although a bit mercurial, there was no fairer man in the game than “Jonah." and after Phillips gave “ not out ” answers to his fourth lbw appeal, he said to the umpire, “ Jim, you must think nie a cheat for appealing so often, every one of which you have disallowed." “On the contrary,” was the reply, “every appeal was legitimate and close; but; in mv opinion, and that is what I am here for, on no occasion was I justified in saying out. But thev were good appeals, just the ones I like to give a decision upon when umpiring. The benefit of the doubt wnc naturally against you, that was all.” I never saw a more pleased man in my life than the express bowler on that occasion.