The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, DECEMBER 19, 1901. THE TEST MATCH.

Gisborne Times, Volume VI, Issue 294, 19 December 1901, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, DECEMBER 19, 1901. THE TEST MATCH.

It is amusing to hear tho criticisms passed upon tho play of the Australians in the test match concluded this week. It has resolved itself into a condition of being wise after the event, and “I told you so” is now the order. Tho Australians, indeed, seem more concerned about tho test match than they do about the sending of fresh troops to South Africa. Every newspaper has considered it to be its duty to say something nasty or nice, but mainly nasty, about the result of the match. To an unprejudiced sportsman the explanation of the result is plain. The match was won by the superior play of tho Englishmen. Their captain used great judgment: he know exactly what bowler to put on to find the weak point of each Australian batsman, and the bonder had the satisfaction of knowing that lie had a splendid set of lieldsmen to depend on. With a poor held a howler dare not play much for the field, for ‘‘slippery lingers,” instead of effectively assisting the bowler to send the batsman back to the pavilion, only serve to distress the bowler and aid tho batsman in putting up a big score. The result in such a caso is that the bowler must try to scatter tho wickets himself. An analysis of the play shows that nearly every man on the Australian side was caught out, or stumped. In the two innings only five men were bowled out direct, and in their cases the bowling was largely successful owing to the fear of playing “ soft ” balls into tho hands of the field. Gregory was caught each time ; so were Trumper, Darling, and Jones. Noble and Laver were each caught in one innings, and stumped in tho next. Kelly was caught once, and clean bowled once. Trumble and Howell, the not-out batsmen, were oacli caught in one A coincidence was that Jones was caught in each innings by his rival namesake. It is probable that no matter what team Australia put in tho field the result would have been the same. TIIO Australians were altogether outclassed in captainship and in the fielding, but the defeat 011 this occasion should be of groat service to the Australians. It is puerile of the Australian papers to join in the chorus of denunciation of Australians. Maclaren, before leaving England, had to submit to the same class of attacks upon his team, and lie has shown up his critics in a way that should make them feel very uncomfortable. The outcome of tho recont match should cause tho second test match, at Melbourne on January Ist, to be anticipated with a greater amount of interest. Mr C. F. Leggett, a local cricket enthusiast, takes the Australians severely to task, but even he must admit that with fielding that was not so good some of the chances snapped up might have been rnissod, and that those batsmen whose lives were thus “spared” would probably have remained at the wickets and compiled big scores.