SECOND TEST MATCH.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 18, 4 January 1912, Page 5

SECOND TEST MATCH.

WON BY ENGLAND BY EIGHT

WICKETS

FINE SCORE BY HOBBS

By Electric Telegraph.—Copyrigi t.) tUnited Press Association.) Melbourne, January 3.

The second test match was continued to-day. The attendance was 18,335, and the takings £GGi. The gross attendance was 9G,2G3, and tne gross takings £1315, which constitutes a record. England’s share of the gate is £IG22, the largest amount paid to England in one match. It was regarded that the Australians had a lighting cnance, and m anticipation ot seeing big hitting by Gutter, the public arrived early. Perfect weather prevailed, and tne wicket was in good order. Barnes howled. The fieldsmen closed for Carter, and deepened for Cotter. The latter lunged at Foster’s first and missed, but cracked his next to the fence. Cotter executed some neat cuts and drives He thrice drove Barnes tor 4, and attempted to lift Foster, but mishit to high cover, where he was caught. He had batted for 42 minutes in an entertaining manner, and hit five tourers and one sixer. Whitty had one stroke before Carter played tho ball on. The innings lasted for 29G minutes. The tail batted bravely. Rhodes and Hobbs started, Cotter and Whitty attacking. Hobbs gave a difficult chance to Carter off tne last ball of Cotter’s first over. Both batsmen were confident- and free in action. Whitty trundled Rhodes, who escaped being outrun through Bardsley misfielding. Hordern relieved Cotter at 25. Fifty was reached in 43 minutes, a rate of scoring faster than England usual rate. Hordern was unable to find bis length. At the luncheon adjournment the, score was 52 Rhodes 27, Hobbs 20. I: On resumption of play Cotter and Whitty bowled. Rhodes felt for a rising ball, and was caught at the wicket. Gunn was almost howled by the last ball in the same over. The scoring was slow, Hobbs being an hour in reaching 50. At G 8 Armstrong relieved Cotter, who had bowled 9 overs for 22 runs, Kelleway relieving Witty, who had bowled thirteen overs for 23 runs. Hobbs obtained 50 for 96 minutes’ play, Gunn being 58 minutes in getting 10. At 92 Hordern relieved Kelleway, who relieved Armstrong. The century came up as tho result of 118 minutes. by a pretty shot, passed the point with a four off Miimott, who relieved Kclleway. Ho was cheered when he next ran four for an overthrow off tho same bowler.. Ten was scored from the first over. Tho scoring livened up, both playing Hordern confidently. Cotter displaced Minnett. When 2G, Gunn played Hordern uppishly near to Armstrong in tho slips. At the adjournment for tea, one wicket was down for 139.

On resuming, Hordern and Cotter howled . The batting was brisker, and there was some smart running between tho wickets. One hundred I “and fifty occupied 154 minutes. The fielding' was moderate, and lacking in dash. Twenty-eight was added for 15 minutes’ play, Hobbs beautifully placing and cutting Gunn’s off-driving. Whitty was supplanted by Cotter.' Gunn was then smartly caught afthe wickets. His was an attractive innings. He was in for 112 miniates, and hit two fourers. Hcarne gamed two, -and then Hobbs reached the century as the result of 184. minutes' play. He was forcing runs by sound and stylish cricket. At 220 the scoring was at the rate of a rim a minute,. The end soon, came, Hobbs getting in the winning stroke with a two. He played magnificently, and was at. the wickets for 207 minutes. He hit all round the wicket, and his score included eight fourers. He received an ovation when he retired. AUSTRALIA. First innings ... ... 184 Second Innings. Kelleway, c Gunn, hi Foster 13 Bardsley, run out ' 16 Hill, c Gainn, b Barnes Ti., ... 0 Armstrong, h Foster 90 Trumper, b Barnes hi ? 2 Ransford, c Smith, b Foster ... 32 Hordern, c Mead, b Foster ... .31 Minnett, b Foster ... ... 34 Cotter, c Hobbs, b Foster .f 41 Carter, 1) Barnes ... ... ... 16 Whitty, not out ... ... ... 0 Extras ... 21 Total ... ... 299 Bowling Analysis.—Foster, six wickets for 91 runs; Barnes three for 96, Douglas, none for 38; Hearne, none for 3; Woolley, none for 21 ? Hitch, none for 21; Rhodes, none for 3. The wickets fell: One for 28, two for 34, three for 34, four for 38, five for 135, six for 168, seven for 232, eight for 235, and nine for 298. ENGLAND. First innings ... ... ... 265 Second Innings. Rhodes, c Carter, h Cotter ... 28 Hobbs, not out ... ... ... 126 Gunn, c Carter, b Whitty ... 43 Hearne, not out ... 12 . Extras 10, Total for two wickets ...,221 The wickets fell: One for 57, two for IG9. Bowling Analysis.—Cotter, one for 45; Whitty, one for 37 ; Hordern, none for GG; Armstrong, none for 22; Kellowav, none for 15; Minnett, none for 13; Ransford, none for 11. Warner has decided to remain until the end of the tour. CONFIDENCE ESTABLISHED AT HOME BY ENGLISHMEN. “ENGLAND’S BEST.” (Received 4, 10.10 a.m.) ■ London, January 3. The “Westminster Gazette” says the result of the test match confirms tho opinion that Warner took a team that was nearly representative of England’s best. They have established confidence at Home, which is the licst guarantee that they will not lack confidence in themselves. STRONG CRITICISM BY SYDNEY PAPERS. CAUSE FOR HARD THINKING.

(Received 4J 8.55 a.m.) Sydney, January 4. 'l’lie “Herald,” commenting on the test, says: “An eight-wicket defeat is sufficiently thorough to give tho supnortors of Australian cricket occasion for hard thinking. Until now there has been no particular reason to believe that the visitors bad more than a bare chance of extending our representative eleven. As it turns out, they defeated them conclusively.” After referring to the failure of the loading batsmen the journal says; “A far more disconcerting portend is the disclosure that the bowling attack was dependent on one or two men. When they fail Australia is likely to fail. 'Pile “Telegraph” says; “Tho match was won by fine bowling performances by Barnes in the first and Foster in

the second innings. Against them the Australians failed miserably. The weak men did their best to pull Australia out of a hole, but the failure of tlie cracks made all the difference in the world between a winning and a losing chance. A comparison of the fielding throughout the match is odious to the Australians. On the shocking of both sides the better team won.”