SECOND TEST MATCH

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 413, 23 December 1932, Page 2

SECOND TEST MATCH

SYDNEY WRITER COMMENTS UPON AUSTRALIAN TEAM SUGGESTED BATTINGING ORDER Writing in the Sydney Sun, Mi\ A. G. Moyes makes the following ; i'omment upon the team chosen to re- ! prc^ent A ustralia in the seeond test j | mateh ngainst England, commencing ; i (ai Dacember 30 at Melbourne.. i Well, the Australian side for the 1 j .-aeond Test Match has been announI eed. Will it do any hetter than the first, which we looked upon as about the best possible, and which was handsomely beaten by England — and beaten fairly and squarely?. We cannot, of course, be too optimistic, but it is too soon to be over-des-pondent, although a little more youth would have been a boon. New blood is represented by 0' Brien the Victorian left-hander. Otherwise eyery member of the thirteen has previously played in Test cricket. Four years ago we were faced with a somewhat similar problem, but then we had in the background youngsters .of undeniable skill in Bradman, Jackson, and Fairfax. No one could say that we have such recruits waiting now for their chance, although centainly we are not denuded of talent. It is also a difficult matter to; decide just when the star of years has lost that little bit of skill, or speed of eye which placed him ahead of his fellows, and thus it is a problem to decide when the men who have held the centre of the stage should be dropped. . r . i

Yast Difference Take, for example, Ponsford. Last season his figures were far from pleasing, but this year-he started off with 98 and 200, and seemed to be at the top of his form. In the first Test innings he shaped reasonably well. In the second he w.as disappointing. Has his time come?. There is a vast difference between our bowling and that of the Englishmen. A man might get a glorious 200 against our attack and yet be impotent against the speed of the visitors' and we must, if we are to win, get a good start either in runs or time from our first two or three batsmen. Thus if Bradman is well enough to play, I should be in favour of trying O'Brien instead of Ponsford, and I would send him in first with Fingleton, who was virtually an opening batsmen in the first test and who passed with high honours. Batting Order The batting order would be: Fingleton, O'Brien, Richardson, Bradman, Woodful, McCabe. If Bradman does not play I would promote Woodful to second wicket, with McCabe and Ponsford to follow. Of course, if the openers made' a long stay, send in Bradman, the idea being to place him to the best advantage of the side. Woodful is a serious problem. If he can find himself he will be a tremendous asset. If he fails again it is likely that the curfew will ring. Now, as regards our bowlers. We have Grimmett, Wall and O'Reilly, who played in Sydney, and Ironmonger and Oxenham, and we can afford to play only four of them. There is some rnerit in the suggestion that Ironmonger should be played on the Melbourne wicket, although the fact that we regard this as almost a necessity shows our appalling need, for he cannot have any great part in our future cricket. But the introduction of Oxenham cannot be deiended on those grounds. In Sydney Grimmett was most ineffective, providing another problem.

Did Nothing He did nothing in the air and nothing off the ground. In fact, he was merely a slow, straight-up-and-down bowler, of the type which can never get rid of a batsman who is content to play a straight bat. Last season he bowled magnificently in Sydney. Is his poor form due to temporary lack of match praetice, or has he lost his nip? It is not easy to say, but a repetition of his bowling in Sydney will certainly grease the toboggan. O'Reilly bowled exceedingly accurately for long time on our wicket, but it was not until he dropped pace and flighted the slower one that he looked a great bowler. Thus it is variety we want, just as much as if not more than, accuracy, and for that reason Oxenham's selection is open to criticism. Fleetwood-Smith I would have prefer'red FleetwoodSmith, who, to my mind must eventually come intol the side. He could well have been p-layed. The fact that he was trounced by Bradman, Hammond, and Richardson should not be magnified unduly. He, at least, does something with the ball, and if the batsman is tryirig to make strokes there is always a chance of getting him out. Hird is another who might have been a profitable gamble.

Change Imperative A change in the batting order is imperative, with Richardson used as a forcing batsman if the openers get a start. We cannot afford to allow the English reli'efs to go on bowling maiden overs. The sooner they are hit off, and the stars made to come back, the sooner Larwood and Co. will tire. With the bowlers it looks like Wall, O'Reilly and Oxenham, with either Ironmonger and Grimmett as last choice, depending on the weather outlook. It seems almost certain that, for the third Test, there will be more changes and I sincerely hope that if this is so youth will be brought in and not veterans, who have never been able to hold & place in our side, and who whenever they have been tried, have proved failures. The passing of Kippax is a matter for regret. He has been — and still is — a great player, although at the moment under a cloud. It would not surprise me however, if, with his interent pluck and skill, he forced the selectors to pass a kindly glance in his direction. He is a type which cricket can ill-afford. to lose. And what of Nagel? He was rushed in and rushed out, but he is young enough to learn from experience and ! perhaps be a useful man in England.