CRICKET.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17107, 31 March 1921, Page 9

CRICKET.

ENGLAND. AND THE ASHES. (By Cable—ir ress Association—Copyright.) (Australian and N.Z. Cablo Association.) (Received March 30th, 6.15 p.m.) LOUDON, March 30. l'lio ''Daily News," commenting on tho rmggestion to >. begin She orgo-nising of an J'". cricket side early, say.?: —"Everybody is aware that Murylebono selects in the most haphazard way, giving <;he team no chance of seenrinsr combination." 3,he paper advocates preliminary training and careful trials, otherwise there is nmall liopo of regaining 'he-ashes against the powerful Australians. INTER-' VARSITY MATCH. The cricket match between Victoria, College (Wellington) and Canterbury Collego was concluded at Hagley Park yesterday. One innings only was played, and Victoria College won by 19 runs. Scores:— VICTORIA COLLEGiE. Broad, b Guernsey >•/ Cousins, lbw, b Dobba .. , 21 Morton, c Godfrey, b Guernsey .. 26 Stuinton, not out . • •• " „ O'Douovan, b Guernsey ... - Hnin, h Guernsey .. •• •• 3 " Barker, b Schroeder .. •• " Hall, c Dcbbs, b Guernsey .. •• . 1 Stewart, c Askew, b Dabbs .. • • AViren, o eub, 1> Guernsey .. .. 1" Cowio, c Corbett, b Dobba .. ..30 Extras •• 40

Total •• •• Bowling Analysis.—Buckliurst, no wiolccta for 13 runs; Guernsey, 6ix for 61; Dotobs, three for 51; Baverstock, nono for 19; Schroeder ont for 2'}; Killick, uouo for 3S. ' CANTERBURY COLLEGE. Killick, c Hain, b Mortor. .. .. 51 Corl>?tt, . lbw, h Hall • ■ • • Buvcratock, o Jlorton, b Hall .. .. s Guernsey, c Cousins, b HaJl .. ~>- Hchroedcr, b Hall •• •• " Buckhurst. J> Hall -J Godfrey, b Cousins .. •• « Dolj!>s, b Morton •• •• 22 R Page, b Morton •• " ° Askew, b Morton • • •• •• - Connal, not out .. *• Extras •• •• •• •• Total .. • • • ■ • • Bowling Analysis.—Morton, four wickete for 78 runs; Cousins, ono for S3; A\ircn, lione lor 20; Hall, five for 41.

AUSTRALIA'S 1921 CRICKET TEAM

COMPARED WITH 1899 AND 1902.

A3y Frank Iredale, the ei-Australian bat«' man, iu "Sydney News.")

(Several enthusiasts have asked in® my o; , i n i o a of tho 'strength of the Australian tcjui to tour England, cd&'pared with those I uccompauied. It is hard to mako compnt isons. A plavcr must be prejudiced about the- men of* Ids day, for the reason tb.it he kn«w all obctit ths best worst of them. It-ii just, the Etmc with a selector, more csp*riiil'.v if he be a player in full practice. Ho muM: S'O virtues in his own men, bocaure h> i* gij constantlv with them. On? mi eituatoi i:\-. he b only judges the player on what, hi In iows of him, 0:1 the occasions that lie li.is tfsn him perform. In iiakinj comparisons of team 3 end inclitidr.i.U one lias to tako into account many tain;.';. I'"or insiano, no one should l;o csl>d 11 great cricketer unless he h'i® made rr?oi 01 1 all conditions of wickets, and- in Knsrlanj' and in his homeland. a pluV-cr t nay bo a success in Australia, and only do moderately well in England. Hast 0 E the members of the present team have don ® well this season in Australia

against tho English team, because the con dltioiw liave been sa' typically Australian Had we had a wet summer and a low ba<i wickets, come of our batsmen nuglit not huvfi attained the eminence they did. I raay be Accused of prejudice, but. I-can-not help saying, knowing What I did about th® capabilities of tho players, that Uto present team would never have beaten tho sides of 1599 or 1002, either, on good or bad wickuts. . V In the 1833 team we had an exceptionally strong- team in batting. Even on bid wickets, Trimmer, Darling, Gregory, and Worrall wore oil capable of gettin? rurs u gainst nny of the best bowlers in England, <nd in the bowling we had Jones, Tromble, Howell, Noble, McLeod, and Laver, who were more capable. I think, a« ( a whole, than the bowlera in the present team. 3n the 1902 team, Trumper was nlmosi a team himself on tvnv wicket, and with Darling, Gregory, and Duff to fiupport bim on the bad wickets, the team was never in real clanger of losing matches oii bad wicket?. In the bowling, Saunders, Trumble, Noble, Jones, and Armstrong- were quito good •enough for any English eide of that year.

I have purposely compared these teams Mid certain players, because it is on bud wickets you must study your side when in Kntrland. On hard dry wickets Australian* find themselves at home. The players 1 liavs taentioned are those who really count?! wh?n tha wickets wore against our wn. In the present team there are few balemen who can compare with the English players on bad wickets. I ece no batsman like Trumper, Darling, Worrall, or Gregorv, nor do I bo© a- bowler like Saunders, Howell, or Trumble.

Greg-cry, I think, will bi more surcssafiil than Jones was on the bad wicket, becausa he rises more quickly, and as a. bowler ho seems more certain of his fooihoid. If tlie wickets in England are dry, the Autfralinns are in for a good time. If wo judge l£n?liOi

cricket by Douglas's team/ the opposition to them, even allowing for a 2S per cent, incrc3K> of strength in the English play on their own wicket, will not be preat;r than (hey can overcome. It rj possible tV. ;i t ther-v may be other good. players in England who mav improve the English teom, fiiri if so, it will make our poeition harder, but not insurmountable.

The greatest factor on Iho side, I think, is- youth—barring a few—and or,lhusiasm, and thij counts for a goad <lea'. But v.niwithstanding our regard for thi pas!, cricke':ers and teams, lb* destinies of our cricket aro all the name in worthy hand.*, and we pc-nd forth our cordial wishes for iti success, no matter what land they may bs playing in