FIRST TEST MATCH

Hokitika Guardian, 31 December 1920, Page 3

FIRST TEST MATCH

AUSTRALIA’S BIG WIN. COMMENTS ON THE CONTEST. ENGLAND FAIRLY OUT-PLAYED. The margin of victory in the Test -Match was tremendous, measured by the number of runs, but we must not lose our sense of proportion over the result, writes Mr Los. Poidevin in the “Sydney -Morning Herald:” It might lie taken hastily as prophetic of the issue of the remainder of the series. But cricket is not like that. One team is in the ascendant to-day, and toil-, arrow the position may be exactly reversed. South Australia once beat New South Wales-by an innings and many runs; a few weeks later, when the same teams met in the return, under apparently the same conditions, New South Wales won-by an innings and 605 runs! Tn 1909 tlie Australian'team in England suffered a big reverse in tho first Test, at Birmingham, which incited the critics to exclaim, “The first of five”— but England did riot win another test in that series. During tlie last English 1 tour in Australia the visitors were beaten by 146 runs, in the corresponding match to this one, but they won the next four almost as decisively, and took away the ashes. It would'be well, therefore, to carefully analyse the essentia! facts of this match before forming too sanguine judgments as to the remainder. MISSED CHANCES. 1 Winning the toss gave Australia afl initial advantage which may be reason- j ably reckoned at about 100 runs. England cut away that advantage on the first day, but tlie Australian bowling on the second day got* it all back again with interest. England lost the match on Saturday when their batting got into difficulties with Mniley. Thence j to tho end of the game victory for Allstrnlia seemed assured ; the match was remarkable in.this connection for the

entire absence of those fluctuations of fortune usually observed in test cricket. To some extent the successful liatting of Australia in tlie second innings exceeded anticipations, though it must be admitted that avoidable errors in tlie field contributed largely to that success. The scores of Collins, Macartney, and Kellewriy, for instance, might have been reduced by over 50 per cent, bad the chances offered been accepted, and that, must have made a deal of

difference. As it was, England was left to battle through the fourth innings of the match as an entirely forlorn hope. The display given, even in such circumstances, had its points of interest. It gave us another glimpse of the superlative excellence of the hntsmnnship of “Jack” Hobbs. HEARNE IN DEFENCE. ; Hearne played a very impressive innings on the last .day of the match. His , defence was solid, he pulled freely whenever the chance offered, and his. off-driving nearly square with the —ieket was very choice and full of pace. This drive of his is exceptional in that if is made with ’ hardly any carry through, yet it gathers surprising speed along the turf, and it takes an unusual track to the boundary. It is interesting to note that in driving this ball—slightly overtossed, or made so by the footwork of the batsman Hobbs places it between extra cover and mid-off, whereas Hearne plays is between cover and point, practically square with the wicket—a very sw?«t stroke. There is neatness in every but-, ting movement of Hearne, and Iris partnership with Hobbs, -whicli yielded exactly 100 runs, was, from the viewpoint of style, perhaps the most atu active of the match. RHODES AND HEND HEN. _ The paitnership of “Patsy” Hendren and Wilfrid Rhodes, a little later in i be innings, whicli yielded 50 runs, afforded some very interesting contrasts. Hendren is short, thick-set, and inclined a bit towards rotundity, a man junior to his partner by no-fewer than twelve summers'. There is no better-known figure in English flannels than Rhodes. He is slow and rather deliberate in his movements, ns if reserving himself at the bidding of experience. Hendren is tf 11 springs and alacrity, an impulsive, anxious to “get at ’em” type of batsman with a pair of “twinkling” feet. Rhodes takes Ins time and makes his ‘.‘shots” with studious care and measured accuracy. Hendren, on the other hand, never spares himself at all; lie is just a bundle of energetic endeavour, always ready to go out of his way to find something to do in the field, and always playing the game with the bat as if he thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it. Rhodes is of the ■ quiet, gentle, retiring disposition, whilst Hendren is the personification of geniality and good nature, as bright and .happy in disposition as in countenance. The contrast is well sustained in hatting style and methods. THE OUT CRICKET. As on previous occasions, concludes Air Poidevin, the second half of the English batting created anything but a favourable impression, hot so much by its failure to get-runs, as by-the absence of any suggestion of latent talent; the length of this “tail” throws a heavy burden on the bead and shoulders of the team. Tlie evenness with which the wickets were divided was as noticeable as in the first innings. Gregory and Mniley got six wickets each in tlie match, and were, of course, the "principals in our scheme of attack. They offer a fine bowling contrast in pace and methods, and so far the subjugation of the English batting is largely the result of their work. If they can maintain their success they will threaten to go down to cricket posterity in the same category as such renowned pairs as Turner ami Ferris, Spofforth and Boyle, amongst Australians, and Barnes and Foster amongst English players. They are, of course, only on the threshold of their career. Australian howlers .have repeatedly hunted in pairs in the past, and it will be interesting to watch the 1 development of the Gregor,v-Mailey ' combine. Ivelleway and Ryder picked 1 up a few trifles in the way of wickets ; of the .two tlie Sydney bowler seemed 1 to give most pause to the batsmen. Kelleway in each innings had the honour or privilege of first use of tlie new ball, which shows bis captain’s estimate of bis ability to “flight” or “swerve’ Armstrong got the. most valuable wicket yesterday, when he got a straight one to cut through . quickly, making pace from the pitch, and catch-

ing Hobbs on the pads. Armstrong . kept a good length, ns usual, but seemed to develop much less spin and “turn” than ope has seen him do on the .wicket inclined to-be dusty. Our fielding was not specially impres- • i as one has seen it, for instance not a great deal to try the mettle of the fieldsmen during tlie Hobbs-Hearne partnership, except for outfields; they placed their shots too well. Taylor shone in the outfield, 1 showing good speed, quick anticipation, and certainty in picking up, with a strong return to : the wicket. Taylor added to his reputation. In some instances the field- - ing was only moderate, hut, ol course, I the match was won, and extra exertion i unnecessary. Oldfield behind > the “sticks” added to his growing reputation. He did particularly well throughout without ostentation or unnecessary flourish. His work was very clean, free from mannerism, and full of eoneen- j trated effort all the time. There is but one other observation to be made now, and that is that collectively and individually Australia has clearly outplayed England this time.