“ENGLAND WITHOUT A BOWLER.”

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 192, 14 August 1931, Page 5

“ENGLAND WITHOUT A BOWLER.”

New Zealand Cricketer’s Opinion of Play and Players in First Test. a TT'ROM the appearance of England’s test side they may as -F well stay at Home as hope to defeat Australia with the material they put on the field at Lord’s. They had no bowler of class, and unless they find two or three howlers of Tate’s

class, will spend a tremendous time fielding in Australia. Peebles bowls a ‘ wrong-un ’ all the time, and Robins has no control of length, bowling one good one in three overs.” *This opinion is expressed by a member of the New Zealand cricket team at present in Eng-

land in a letter to a friend in Christchurch. The letter was written immediately after the first cricket test, which ended in a draw with the honours in favour of New Zealand. “ Jardine is not an inspiring captain,” he states, “ and has not enough life and grip to make a side play above themselves as Lowry does. If New Zealand batting will only improve Nos. 4,5, 6we will have a test side, but at present we are leaving too many runs for the first three, who have not failed us yet. It is time Kerr, Vivian, Talbot, Weir and Cromb started doing their share of run-making. We have two more tests to play in now so it will give the young players a chance to prove themselves and place New Zealand on the map in the cricket

“ By this time everyone knows of the great fight New Zealand put up in their second innings,” the writer goes on, referring to the test. “ It will go down in history as a very gallant effort, especially as we are such a young side, playing our first test. We did not win, but we could not have achieved more honour if we had done so. It was really excellent cricket, favoured for the full three days with glorious summer weather. Wicket Favoured Batsmen. “ The wicket was all in favour of run-getting, and at no stage of the game favoured the bowlers. It was a lot better than the average Lords wicket. “ England were unfortunate in having Sutcliffe and Larwood out of the side, but Woolley, who replaced Sutcliffe amply showed his value to the side by his magnificent batting at a time of crisis. Fluctuating fortunes maintained the interest in the game throughout the three days. On the first day D. R. Jardine, England’s new captain, must have had moments of uneasiness when he watched C. S. Dempster and J. E. Mills collar the bowling during the first hour of play. They put on 58 by beautiful cricket. Mills played his best knock in England, making all the bowling look easy. He is a very graceful bat when going, and played every shot in the bag. He was most unfortunate in getting out, as the ball, a * wrong un ’, struck his pad and bounced on to his wicket. Weir was next in, and he played soundly except when facing Voce, who bowled at him and hit him badly twice. Just before lunch Dempster, who was batting as if he would never get out, went lbw t.o Peebles’s 4 wrong un ’ for an excellently played 53. “ Careless Batting.” “ Immediately after lunch New Zealand, on a plum wicket, lost their wickets in every possible way, mostly by carelessness. M. L. Page batted well, but w’as bowled when trying to tuna the ball off his middle stump for four to leg. Cromb went for a big hit, the ball bumped, and he hit a skyscraper straight up in the air. Shortly after we were all out for 224. Page and Cromb should have put on at least 150 runs between them, as they were going well, and not troubled by the bowling at any time. For this Cromb was to blame, as he should not have taken the risk of hitting Peebles at that stage of the game. Still, experience teaches. “ England opened with Arnold and Bakewell, two youngsters who have been doing very well in county cricket this season. Cromb opened the bowling from the Nursery end, and made the new ball swing dangerously. He soon had Bakewell in trouble, and had him dropped in slips. However, Arnold went lbw, and then Bakewell was caught in the slips with the total at 14. Hammond Lucky. Hammond was lucky to survive the first ball, which pitched on his leg stump and missed the off. Duleepsinhji was very close to lbw off the first he received, the umpire giving him the benefit of the doubt. A few balls later Hammond was clean bowled, the ball pitching on the leg pin and taking the off. At this stage of the game in came Woolley, with his slow stroll to the wicket, as if he did not have a care in the world. After being in trouble for the first three balls, he decided to go for the bowling, and hit a good length ball from Cromb over long-on for 4. After that it was impossible to

bowl him at all. as he hit any length ball anywhere he felt inclined, easily the best exhibition of batting we have seen in England. He was rather lucky against Merritt once or twice, but that was only to be expected the way he was going for the bowling. Merritt finally got his wicket lbw, and deserved it, as he had bowled really well. “ Peebles, who came in to play out time, was soon out, stumped off Merritt. The honours of the first day were slightly with New Zealand, but on the second we lost our grip in the first quarter of an hour, and in spite of the very able manner in which Lowry handled his bowling, did not recover it. As a result, Ames and Allen put up a record eighth-wicket stand of 246, each scoring a century, and England reached the great total of 454. A Sterling Exhibition.

“ On Monday morning we could have done with A. M. Matheson, but Mr A.T, Donnelly would not have anyone in the side who was not absolutely fit. There was one strange thing in regard to our bowling and that was the small use of Weir and Allcott. Allcott bowled seventeen overs for 2 runs each over, and Weir, who opened the bowling with two overs, did not bowl again till after lunch on the second day, when he got Ames, Allen and Robins to clean up the innings. Full credit must be given to Ames and Allen for their free batting. Certainly the wicket was a perfect batting wicket, but they went for the bowling, and deserved their runs. “ Throughout England’s innings the New Zealand fielding did not once relax, all fielding well and cleanly, James’s wicketkeeping being excellent. Then came New’ Zealand’s second innings, as sterling an exhibition of cricket pluck and determination as I ever wish to see. There was a bad start, Mills dragging his first ball, a full toss from Allen, on to his wicket; but that was the finish, as both Weir and Dempster settled down and punched the bowling all over the field. They put on 99 runs before Weir was bowled with a shooter from Voce,, after being hit several times on the body, a really great innings, which put us on our feet again. Then Dempster and Page stayed together until stumps, leaving the score at 161, Dempster 86 not out. The final day was a day of triumph for New Zealand, Dempster and Page both scored centuries with beautiful cricket in face of several odds; both played good sound cricket at a run a minute. Blunt in Good Form.

M Blunt carried on the good work, playing a really good innings, getting back some of his old shots that used to rouse the Canterbury supporters. He was most unfortunate, getting out only four short of a century. Lowry came in and played a really great knock. He had injured his hand rather badly, and yet he carried on and placed us in a very safe position. “ England, left with 240 runs to win in 140 minutes, did not give it a go at all, but sent in Arnold and Bake well, who batted quite well, but without taking any risks. Bake well was lucky to survive his first over, being dropped in the slips by Page off Cromb without scoring. Two overs later he was again missed, a hard chance off the same bower. The New Zealand bowlers all bowled so steadily that the best England could do was to lose five wickets for 146 runs on a wicket all in favour of the batsmen, leaving the result a very open draw. Cromb bowled for two hours and a quarter, one of the longest spells ever recorded in a test match, for 25 overs, 44 runs, 2 wickets.”