PAINFULLY DULL.

Taranaki Central Press, Volume IV, Issue 314, 21 December 1936, Page 6

PAINFULLY DULL.

Critics Review Play in Test. Press Association —Copyright. Sydney, December 20. “It would be difficult to ascribe any theory for the painfully slow batting of the Englishmen on Saturday,” comments C. G. Macartney. “The easy nature of the wicket, the big score on the board, and the tiredness of the bowlers all contributed to a position that demanded offensive methods, ■which were conspicuous by their absence. Cricket commentators all declare that the second test is the dullest affair. The Sunday Sun says: “Two days have gone with England’s first innings not completed. Next Friday is Christmas Day and the third test will start on January’ 1. Players please note.” Neville Cardus in the Sun contends that more runs should have been made by England. He adds that. England has probably amassed an adequate total. “We have come to a pretty pitch in the game's history when more than 400 runs for six is not an impenetrable fortress against defeat,” Caradus adds. “In Australia’s seemingly endless sunshine the governing idea of a test match is to stay at the crease for days and wear out the wicket until it cracks and so subsides. That seismographic instrument at Peking will register a severe disturbance of the earth’s crust at Sydney.” Carson in the London Evening

News considers England’s rate of scoring in the face of the amazing weakness of the Australian bowling showed unprecedented restraint, says a London cable. “It is impossible sufficiently to praise Hammond, but otherwise England’s plait has been desperately dull,” he adds. The Sunday Times expects Bradman to reply in his own fashion to the injuries inflicted on his bowlers who, however, manfully stuck to their job and tied down Leyland, Ames, Allen and Hardstaff to defence. E. M Sewell in the' Sunday Graphic says the paucity of Australia's attack on a good wicket suggests the future, inclusion of Fleetwood-Smith and Ebeling. Also,” he adds, “1 should not be surprised to see a change in captaincy. If O’Reilly of his own volition is overdoing the policy of keeping down runs and letting the batsmen get themselves out well and good, but if it is at Bradman’s orders it is perilously near bad captaincy.”