CRICKET TEST HISTORY

Hokitika Guardian, 7 December 1928, Page 7

CRICKET TEST HISTORY

ENGLAXIPS GREATEST TRIUMPH. AI'STH ALIAX TOUR OF 1911-12. After tlic encouraging start made by the present English cricket team in Australia, we find many enthusiasts recalling the days of 1911 and 1912 when, alter a period of eclipse, England sent a. team to Australia which created a record by winning four of the 'lest games in that country and handsomely regaining the ‘‘Ashes” and restoring the prestige of English cricket. ft is interesting to recall that two metnibors of that side were .Mead and Hobbs, who are now in Australia again. Rhones, who played a part in winning the “Ashes” for England in 1920, was also one of the party, but, of course, the heroes of the side were Barnes and Foster. Here is tin; history of the Lour, as given by IT. S. Allham in his “History of Cricket.”

England had notv (1911) tvon but ten, and the prospects of the two Test matches out of the last team which left in September, 1911, to recover the Ashes were eagerly canvassed With the calamities of 1999 fresh in their minds, the M.C.C. selectors set about their work with the greatest care, and the result was a team, better balanced and better equipped at ali points than any which had left our shores.

This, of course, is an Englishman’s history, from an English point of view. Originally Charles Fry was to have captained the eleven, and it has always been a matter of regretful conjecture what he might not have done in Australia had he ever settled down to the business of run-getting, but in ilio end be bad to refuse, and the captaincy was very properly offered to Warner, who. alone in the last, seventeen years, had led an English, team to victory in Australia.. (Warner’s team of 199:1-1 had won throe out of the five Test, matches in Australia). The side was a happy combination of experience and youth, and in the successful issue both factors played a decisive part. The tour opened with a smashing victory over South Australia, hut the latter were not strong, and that first success was more than counter-balanc-ed by the difficulty we next experienced in heating a moderate Victorian side. By this time, too, England had suffered what might have been a knock-down blow. Warner bail not been well on tlic voyage out, but with typical pluck had got down to work as soon as lie landed, and in his very first innings, against South Australia, had scored 151. That innings was also his last, as on reaching Melbourne lie was dangerously ill, and was told at once that lie could not hope to puthis pads on again in Australia. Remembering what his leadership had meant to us in 1903-4, we can realise what dismay tho news caused, and it says wonders for the spirit of the English team that they defied even this stroke of fa’e. Warner appointed Douglas in his place. There is no harm in saying now /that; for some weeks- indeed, until alter the fii .st Test match— Douglas was not altogether successful iii his captaincy in the field : hut. helped bv many a conference in Warner’s sick room, and sustained ’all the time by liis own indominatble pertinacity, be steadily improved his tactics and placed a capiain’s part and more with the ball in the final innings of the decisive 'lest match The Australians this year were captained by Clem Hill. They were very strong in batting, for, though tbe ■da plain and Victor lruinper were now past their absolute host, the now generation had definitely arrived in the persons of Bardsley. Armstrong, Hansford and Minnctt; while the tail, as usual, could he relied up to wag. In bowline, it was another story. Cotter had lost his extra yard ot pace: Whitty, whose left hand swingers had a big •,reputation, proved perfectly innocuous, and there was no “flighty spin howler of the Laver or Noble tvpo: in fact, the Australian attack depended on one man, H. V. Hordern. Hordern had already visited England us a member of the Peiiusvl van in TJnviersitv team that had toured our public schools in 1997: he had then met with great success and had by I bis time developed into a googlie bowier of extreme, accuracy and difficult flight, the one. real danger to our batsmen. I„ fact, the destiny of the “Ashes” turned largely upon the question whether our batsmen could master Hordern. From the rest of the howling they certainly had little to fear. In the first Test match Hordern mustered us. and his 12 wickets for 170 decided tho issue in a game in which otherwise the bat was, generally speaking, on top of the ball. Australia's batting was 'consistency itself. nine of the eleven making “doubles” in both innings. Trumper per 113. though for him he played very sedately. Though comfortably beaten, England was very far from outclassed, and C'o Australians themselves were now less confident of the future than thev had beet' before the match. The old hands. Hobbs. Rhodes, Gunn and Barnes, were obviously going strong, and really encouraging features were the all-ronnd form of F. R. Foster and tie snlendid batting of A\ . TTearne, who scored 79 and 43 in this, bis first. T«»st match. He was onlv op years old. but from the first bah it was clear that be bad the temperament for the great occasions, while bis method was soundness personified.

Tho second Test at Melbourne was !i great struggle. Tts opening " ns sensational in tlio extreme, six Australian wickets falling for 3S runs on

a perfect pitch. At this point Barnes’s analysis read 11 overs, i maidens, 6 runs, 5 wickets: and everyone who saw his effort was convimvd that finer bowling on a plumb wicket bad never been seen. Length, a very late swing, accentuated by a, definite leg break which nipped from tho pitch, made up a very awkward pioposition. The Australian tail fought hard and brought the total to 184. At tea time on tho second day our position seemed very strong. Rhodes and Hear no (114) had batted grandly, and wo had 211 for three on the hoard. And then the last seven wickets fell for 50 odd runs, four of them to Hordern, but largely by had batting, and what should have been a lead of 290 had shrunk to a paltry 80. When, in face of some more splendid fielding, Australia had lust four wi.kots for 38, we seemed on tho high road to victory: hut Armstrong played a splendid innings of 90. Hansford, Minnctt, Hordern and Carter all got runs, and in tho end we had to get 219. Hobbs and Rhoden made 50 of them before luncheon, and then Hobbs and Gunn went steadily along to 195, with Hcarnc io follow, and see Hobbs complete his hundred and win the match. Hobbs was at hi svorv best, especially in bis square and. Jato euttiing, and /his mastery over Hordern was a. great example and encouragement to bis comrades. The features of the mu tell) however, were the deadly bowling of Barnes and Foster, and the double failure of those three great batsmen—Hilt, Trumper and Bardsley.

At Melbourne Barnes had taken charge; at Adelaide it was Foster. Once again Hill won the toss; once again the wicket was perfect, and yet soon after half-past 'four Australia was all nut for 133. Foster, with only three men on the off-side, kept a perfect length at the middle and leg stumps, and came off the pitch at such a. tremendous pace that tho Australians were all at sea. to him. They simply could not move their feet quick enough to get into the right position, and were constantly being hit very hard and painfully on the legs, whilst every now and again Foster made one straighten back to hit the stumps. On the second day we drove our advantage well home by scoring 327 for four wickets, of which Hobbs was responsible for 187. Up till well past the century he made no mistake of any kind and showed as complete a mastery over the (bowling as at Melbourne a fortnight before. Eater Foster drove in the most exhilarating way for 71, and with almost every man on the side getting runs, the total reached 501. Our position was almost impregnable: but Australia by no means went down without a fight. Hill played one of his finest innings, and it was a disappointment to everyone when ho was caught at mid-on when two short of the hundred. Tt is remarkable that, apart from his four centuries in Test cricket, Hill has four times scored between 95 and 99 in these games. A total of 476 in such circumstances spoke volumes for Australian pluck; but it was not enough, and w'o knocked off the 100 odd runs quite comfortably for throe wickets.

Interest in the fourth Test was positively intense throughout Australia, for it was realised that for only the second time in seventeen years their cricket homos were fairly “up against it” on their own wickets. At last England won the toss, which gave Douglas tho chance of sending Australia in to bat on in. pitch with some wot on it. For the third time' running our great pair of bowlers rose to the occasion, and Australia was outed for 191. By tho time we went in, the sun and the- roller had done their work and Hobbs and Rhodes scored 54 together by perfect cricket.

Next morning, before an enormous crowd, by perfect cricket and wonderful running between the wickets, they raised the score to 323 before Hobbs was caught at the wicket on the leg side. T.t was only fittitm that another record should go bv the board, our total i»ns«ing bv three tbe 589 put on by Australia against SU'dndrt’s team. Tbe wicket on the fourth dav was as good as ever, but the generally expected rearguard action by Australia never developed. Our heavy artillery, Douglas, Barnes and I‘oster. found the range at once: the retreat became a rout, and England left the vinnens by an innings and 225 runs. Fittingly enough it was the captain Douglas, who led the assault in tho last Hinges of the abtion. Bowling with tremendous determination and life, he came out with the line figures of five for 49.

'Hie rubber was ours; but just to leave no lingering shadow of doubt about our superiority, we went on t<> win the last Test match as well, and thus established another record for an English side in Australia by winning font such games off the reel. This time our hatting was not quite so impressive; hut Wool lev played a glorious knock of 1.33 not out. and once again our •bowlers dismissed Australia for a. first innings total of under 200. Tn tiic end we left them with 303 to win. and with 200 up ltofore the fourth wicket fell, Australia might perhaps lia.ve got home; but then a thunderstorm and hot sun produced a “jumping’’. wicket '.and Foster made no mistake about using his opportunity, the last seven wickets falling for 83 runs. Tho tour was a very great triumph for English cricket at a time when its reputation in Australia was on the downward grade. The mainspring of our success was unquestionably the howling of Barnes. Foster and Douglas. and it is doubtful whether finer bowling has ever been seen. All kept a superb length, hut it was their pace off the pitch that reallv won the Test matches. Foster’ bowling was a now phenomenon to the Australians: whilst Barnes with his record of 34 wickets in Test matches for 22 apiece, was no-

claimed the greatest bowler we had ever sent against them. The fielding was very good. Smith kept wickets superbly, especially to Foster, his own county captain; Hobbs ran out fifteen men during tbe tour, and Woolley caught two men two of them most brilliantly, in the last Test. Our fine attack was splendidly supported by our batsmen. The performances of Hobbs and Rhodes as an opening pair were phenomenal, and in making 126 not out, 18.7, and 178 in successive Tests, Hobbs then first joined the ranks of the unquestionable immortals. But even our fine work in the field might not have availed without the comradeship that made the eleven into a team, the devotion to the game that made all minor distractions of no account, and the determination that sent them on to the field determined on victory and confident of their ability to achieve it.