BIG CRICKET.

Waikato Times, Volume 110, Issue 18407, 14 August 1931, Page 11

BIG CRICKET.

THIRD TEST MATCH. GAME AT MANCHESTER. PLAY COMMENCES TO-MoRROW. The third and final Test match between New Zealand and England will commence to-morrow on Old Trafford Ground. Manchester. The match wil! extend over four days. The first Test, a three day fixture, was played at Lord’s and resulted in a draw. New Zealand making a dramatic entry into Test cricket. The New Zealanders compiled 22 i and had dismissed seven of England’s batsmen for 190 when the first day’* play closed. A record eighth wicket partnership by Ames and Allen on the second day left Eng’and with a total of 454, but New Zealand had compiled 161 for the loss of two wickets when the second day’s play had concluded. The third day’s play produced brilliant cricket. T. G. Lowry declaring New Zealand’s innings j closed with nine wickets down for 469. C. S. Dempster 120. Page 104 and Blunt 96 gave sterling displays of batting. England, in their second innings had lost half their wickets for 146 when the game ended. England’s team was: D .R. Jardine. XV. R. Hammond. K. S. Duleepsinhji, F. E Woolley. L. G. Ames. I. A. R. Peebles, R. W. V. Robins. J. Arnold. A H Bakewell, and W. Voce. New Zealand was represented by T. C. Lowry. G. S. Dempster, J. E. Mills, G. L. Weir. J. 1.. Kerr. R. C. Blunt. I. B. Gromb. W. L. Page. G. F. W. Allcott, W. E. Merritt, and K. G. James.

ENGLAND'S LEADER.

The second Test, also a three day fixture, played at the Oval, resulted in a victory for England by an innings and 26 runs. England, batting first, declared their first innings closed with four wickets down for 416, and New Zealand were dismissed for 193. Centuries by Sutcliffe, Duleepsinhji and Hammond were features of England’s innings, while Lowry played a fine fighting innings of 62 for New Zealand. The visitors second innings realised 197. Vivian. 51, Blunt 13, Mills 30 and Kerr 28, •coring the majority of the runs. The teams were:— England.—D. R. Jardine. H. Sutcliffe. A. H. Bakewell. K. S. Duleepsinhji. W. R. Hammond. M. \\. Tate, 1. A. R. Peebles. F. R. Brown. L. G. Ames. H. Verity, ami O .Allen. New Zealand: T. C. Lowrv, J. E. Mills. G. L. Weir. J. L. Kerr, R. G. Blunt, I. B. Cromb, M. L. Page, C. F. W. Alcott. W. E. Merritt, K. G. James, H. G. Vivian. The Final Meeting. England’s team for the final test will be:—D. R. Jardine. K. S. Duleepsinhji, G. 0. Allen. I. A. R. Peebles, F. R. Brown, H. Sutcliffe, W. R. Hammond, H. Larwood, L. G. Ames, H. Verity, E. Paynter. The two new members from the second Test team are E. Paynter and H. Larwood. Larwood is the wellknown Notts express bowler. Paynter Is a Lancashire player. A recent note in the Manchester Guardian refers to the Lancashire left-hander as follows: “Paynter lias come as a Godsemi into the middle place of Lancashire’s going in. lb* is the most likely young batsman discovered by Lancashire since Dip war. Up hits the ball as hard Harold Garnett used to hit it. He possesses cricket sense, and he plays down the line of the really good ball. Sometimes he lets his bat fly across the line of the loose ball, but that is a deviation from the canons which will bring him more runs than mishap?. And as a fieldsman his speed ami the accuracy of his pick-up are a stimulation not only to the crowd but Io the boxvlThe New Zealand team will not be selected unt. the morning of the match The team is hard to finalise, but T. C. Lowry. M. 1.. Page. G. L. Weir. K C. .lames, R. G. B unt. I. B. F. W. Allcott and 11. G. Vivian are practically certain of positions in the side and there will be keen competition for the other two places. The report that Merritt is likely to be dropped is xery surprising. Certainly, he has done moiling of note lately, but to take the fie id without him in this big fixture w mid. it seems It this di"! m-e. bo taking too great 1 risk. The team w.i' need the best of iS ».< ~.»<• bowing strength. Matheson a;.p ar. I to have struck form again ami a? he is the only fast he has st- - thr.M* two were -•• rtcl. Weir would prob.itdy op. n w th Dempster, but it does not ?eem likely that Higraceful left-hander. .1 L. Mill", w il be dropped. I. L. Kerr, the Canterbury colt. "HI be uni icky if ! • n sscs a side. w 1 land in th> important fixture. Hi • supporters of the uame • an he >nr<’ that it will g'p a good o-.-mnl of Ing t ic first Test performance it will be d«»ing "plendidlj.

NEW ZEALAND’S CAPTAIN.

THE FIRST TEST. OPINION IN ENGLAND. LONDON DAILY TIMES' VIEW. CHALLENGE NOT ACCEPTED. The London Daily Times commenting on New Zealand's first Test match against England, which was played at Lord’s on June 27, 29, and 30, states:— The New Zealand team, in their first supreme test against the chosen eleven of England, played a drawn game at Lord's, and, in a match which was full of incident, gained honours as high as can be granted to a team which was for so long fighting a losing battle. In the end England, with five wickets to fall, wanted only 93 more runs to win. T. C. Lowry had given them their chance !•» make the runs be for 3 half-past <». and the fact that a splendid cricket match finished just a litile timely must be accredited to the policy of England's captain rather than to anything that had gone before. Lowry left England two hours and 20 minutes in which to score 240 runs to win. but the challenge was not accepted, and so much of the pleasure of the game failed out in the afternoon.

“New Zealand, for their part, had to work desperately hard to avoid being beaten and, once having placed themselves in the position of challengers, it was scarcely to be expected that their bowleis should have to do no more than bowl the evening through with no more chance of a finish than is offered in a normal county match.

“England had a wonderful chance of responding to New Zealand’s gesture with at least four fast scoring batsmen, and another four to cover up if things went ill, but it was decided once again to send Blakewell and Arnold in first. Well as these two young men tried, they were not suited for the part, and subsequent efforts by Hammond and K. S. Duleepsinhji could never recover the lost initiative So much to explain why England did not win the match.

“New Zealand saved it, and at one time actually placed themselves in a winning position, because, first, G. S. Dempster and afterwards M. L. Page and R. G. Blunt, gaxe as brave an exhibition of batting as has ever been seen in a Test match. Figures in such a case as this speak for for themselves, requiring no flattery.

i “If only all Test matches were las enjoyable as this one has been, I with always the possibility of one side ’ beating the other in three normal j days, there would be little demand I for positive, and sometimes unsatis- | factory, results." The following interesting excerpts are from the report by the paper : quoted:— “The value of Dempster's batting in the first innings was enhanced on the final day's play, for it was he who explained to the rest of the side how easily England’s bowling could be played. The solidity of the New Zealand batting, more especially if they are sent in, in the following order: Dempster, Mills, Weir, Page, and Blunt, depends to a large extent on Blunt and Page. Page, when Joined by Blunt, had established his superiority over the bowlers, but Blunt had several anxious moments. ■ once settled down, however, he j saved the game and was most unlucky not to make the century he thori oughly deserved. ■ “G. s. Dempster, no doubt, played I the innings of the highest value, in ■ the first innings, but it was .1. E. Mills i who gained Hie heart of the crowd • with lhe grace of his play. ‘ The greatest credit is due to R. C. Blunt, who for a long period kept on tossing up his slows and withal kept ; Hie run." down. The accuracy of his i bowling and lhe superiority of Woolley : over all other batsmen were the two | outstanding features of the first day’s