The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 1934. FIRST BLOOD.

Evening Star, Issue 21745, 13 June 1934, Page 8

The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 1934. FIRST BLOOD.

Ausibalia has won the first test match. She won very comfortably, and, we think (despite Mr Jardino’s view of the early play), entirely on her merits. By the law of averages it was due to Woodfull to win the toss, and undoubtedly Australia gained some advantage thereby, but what English estimates there were of its equivalent fell very far short of the 238 runs by which the game was won. And it must be remembered that it was not only in the fourth innings that the wicket very definitely helped the bowlers. Worn, patches appeared during the Australians’ second innings, and a certain fieriness contri-but-d to the further success of England’s fastest bowler. Fames. Curiously enough in that innings England’s spin bowlers, notably Mitchell and Verity, met with poor success. When it came to England’s turn to bat shortly after noon on the fourth and last day tho Australian captain soon found that his one fast bowler was as innocuous as lie bad been in the first innings—it has proved a very disappointing match for Wall—so Woodfull relied on his spin bowlers, and both O’Reilly and Grimmett must be counted the big factors in Australia’s triumph. In fine weather it is far more difficult to turn the ball on Australian wickets than it is on tho best English wickets, consequently Australian spin bowlers have to cultivate and command a big break. When an English wicket will respond to this twist, without being of the easy typo which kills all “ devil ” from the pitch, the best English batsmen have often proved all af sea. The long-continued outstanding success of Freeman in county cricket, which normally should make him the first bowler picked foi England, indicates an English batting weakness against leg breaks, but Freeman turns the ball relatively little, even in England, and has so signally failed against the Australians that he is not chosen for test teams.

It js doubtful if on the last day the Englishmen ever thought of going for the runs. Their opening batsmen gave them a moderate start, and they were not faring so badly when the board showed two wickets for 83 runs. But then men who can play aggressive cricket lost their wickets rapidly, apparently not through the taking of any risks, and it soon became a case of n desperate struggle to sec out limn

against a pair of bowlers keyed up to extend individual success into a win for the team before the clock hand reached a certain point. There was only ten minutes to spare. Had the wicket been too perfect this great fighting finish could not have been. In view of the past reputation of Trent Bridge wickets, with their coating of Nottingham marl, it may truly be said that the drought in England has rather helped Australia to first leg-in in the test match series. Cricket history suggests that this is no mean psychological advantage, apart from the bare fact of the numerical “ one up.”

In the game just over some individual reputations have suffered dramatically, even though it be, perhaps, only temporarily. So far this season scoring has been very heavy in county cricket, and if anyone has been among the runs it is Ames, who collected here only 19 runs in two innings. When it is seen that such prolific batsmen as he, Hammond, Pataudi, and Leyland—all familiar with the Australian howling—amassed between them only 106 runs for eight innings, with only one score of over twenty among them, one reason for England’s failure is apparent There were one or two relative batting failures on Australia’s side also, and among them most people would count Bradman, who in two innings totalled 54 runs. But to leave out him or Woodfull in the' next team for the Lord’s match nine days hence would be almost unthinkable, besides depriving the team of both captain and vice-captain. And, while on this subject of the Australian selection, Mr Bushby, the manager, has found it necessary to contradict rumours of dissension in the team, culminating in blows, because of jealousy over omission from the test eleven. We know' that in Jardine’s last'team touring Australia the test “discards,” as one may call them without offence, coined an apt phrase descriptive of their status, hut there seemed to be no rancour about it. We know also that Tate found it necessary to contradict rumours concerning his alleged pugilistic essays on that tour. This idle gossip aVid scandal-search-ing is greatly to be regretted. The Press, or some sections of it, is not altogether blameless, but there are other media of publicity. In the same article from which we recently quoted, Mr P. F. Warner complained that it was hardly possible for a prominent cricketer travelling with a team on board ship to light a cigarette or play deck tennis without it being wirelessed to the ends of the earth. His view that this was not only bad for cricket but was “ utter rot ” was passed unaltered by the editor of the ‘ Spectator.’ Nevertheless, the intrusion of feeling is being fostered by the bias shown by cricket writers even on papers with a reputation for impartiality. It is evident that many English cricket writers arc still thick-and-thin supporters of Larwood. Apparently he is fit again, and unrepentant; but the English selectors are said to have taken their stand in the interests of the game, and it is sincerely to be hoped that the short-sighted view will not prevail. The Australians have so far done their part to brighten cricket by going for ihe runs, and in this first test game they have taken risks to avert the draw, thus producing one of the too few exciting finishes in the test annals. Our hope is that in future the test games will bo lifted out of the category of wars of attrition.