FIRST TEST MATCH.

Taranaki Daily News, 8 January 1921, Page 12

FIRST TEST MATCH.

AUSTRALIA’S BIG WIN. INTERESTING COMMENTS ON THE CONTEST. ENGLAND CLEARLY 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. Poid'evin in the Sydney Morning Herald. It might be 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 to-morrow 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! In 1909 the Australian team in England suffered a big reverse in the first test, at Birmingham, which incited the critics to exclaim, “The first of five”— but England did not win another test in that series. During the last English 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 essential' facts of this match before forming too sanguine judgments as to the remainder. . ’ ,

MISSED CHANCES. Winning the toss gave Australia an initial advantage Which may be reasonably reckoned at about 190 runs. England cut away that advantage on the first day, but the Australian bowling on the second day got it all back again I with interest. England lost the match on Saturday when their batting got into difficulties with Mailey. Thence to the end of the game victory for Australia 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 batting of* Australia in the second innings exceed- • ed anticipations, though it must be ad- I mit ted that avoidable errors in the field contributed largely to that success.' The scores of Collins, Macartney, and Kelleway, for instance, might have been reduced by over 50 per cent, had 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 1 given, even in such cfrcumstances, had • its points of interest. It gave us an- * other glimpse of the superlative excel- i lencp of the batsmanship of ’’Jack” Hobbs. I

HEARNE IN DEFENCE. 1 Hearne played a, very impressive innngs oh the last day of the match. His defence was solid, ho pulled freely whenever the chance offered, and his offdriving nearly square with the wicket was very choice and full of pace. This drive of his is exceptional in that it is made with hardly any carry through, yet it gathers surprising speed along the tu'rf, and it takes an unusual track to the boundary. It is interesting to note that in driving this ball—slightly overtossed, or macle so by the footwork of the batsman—Hobbs places it be? tween extra cover and mid-off, whereas Hearne plays it between cover and point, practically square with the wicket—a very sweet stroke. There is neatness in every batting movement of Hearne, and his partnership with Hobbs, which yielded exactly 100 runs, was, from the viewpoint of st,%le, perhaps the most attractive of the match.

RHODES AND HENDREN. The partnership of “Patsy” Hendren and Wilfrid Rhodes, a little later in the innings, which 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, as if reserving himself at the bididng of experience. Hendren is all springs and alacrity, an- impulsive, anxious to “get at ’em” type of batsman with a pair of “twinkling” feet. Rhodes takes his time and makes his “slipts” with studious care and measured accuracy. Hendren, on the. other hand, never spares himself at all; he is just a bundle of energetic endeavor, 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 batting style and methods.

THE OUT CRICKET, As on previous occasions, concludes Mr. Poidevin, the second half of the English batting created anything but a favorable impression, not 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 head and shoulders of the team. The evenness with which the wickets were divided was as noticeable as in the first innings. Gregory and Mailey got six wickets each in the 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 pos(terity in the same category as such renowned pairs as Turner and 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 bowlers have repeatedly hunted in pairs in the past, and it will be interesting _ to watch the development of the ’Gregory-Mailey combine. Kelleway and Ryder picked up a few trifles in the way of wickets; or the two the Sydney bowler seemed to give most pause to the batsmen. Kelleway in each innings had the honor or privilege of first use of the new ball, which shows his captain’s estimate of his ability to “flight” or “swerve” it. Armstrong got the most valuable wicket yesterday, when he got a. straight one to cut through quickly, ranking pace from the pitch, and catching Hobbs on the pads. Armstrong kept a good length, as usual,i but seemd to develop much less spin and “turn” than one has seen him do on the wicket inclined be dusty.

Our fielding , was not specially impressive, as one has seen it, for instance in the past. Truth to - tell, there was not a great deal to try the mettle of the fieldsmen during the Hobbs-Hearne partnership, except for the outfields; , 1 they placed their shots to well. Taylor ' shone in the outfield, showing good : speed, quick anticipation, and certainty Jin picking up, with a strong return to the wicket. Taylor added to his reputation. In some instances the fleld- • mg was only moderate, but, of course, the match was won, and extra exertion I unnecessary. Oldfield behind the “sticks” added to his growing reputation. Tie did particularly well throughout withi out ostentation or unnecessary flourish. I His work was very clean, free from mannerism, and full of concentrated effort all the time . . . .There is hut one other observation to be made now, and that is that collectively and individually Australia has clearly out-played England this-time. AFTER THE GAME. THE RIVAL CAPTAINS. “WON ALL THE WAY.” After the first test, in which Australia won by 377 runs, Warwick .Armstrong, the captain of the Australian team, was in the dressing room making lurried preparations for the journey home, when, in reply to a question by the Herald representative as to what he thought of the game, he said: “Oh, a tip-top one. I enjoyed every bit of it. We won all the way, and each side had a chance on the good wicket. The better side on the day’s play won.” THE ENGLISH CAPTAIN, “I WAS DISAPPOINTED.” Mr. Douglas said: “When we got Aus- | inlia out for the small score in the fir-J innings on a ‘slow-fast’ easy wicket which gave the bowlers no assistance whatever, 1 thought we would certainly to;, Australia’s score, and perhaps have a few runs to spare. But I was disappointed. As regards Australia’s secund innings, I thought that we should have got them out cheaper; but we did ♦ Jiot take some of the chances, not easy , ones certainly, but in test matches they I are expected to be accepted. But the I runs w'ere got by good sound defensive batting, the feature of which was Armstrong’s polished display. I have seldom seen better; he was not in difficulties more than once or twice. “England’s second innings, again, fell short of expectations. We had a huge ’ score to face, but I had hopes that two or three of our fellows would get going; [again I was disappointed. Australians [never let anything go; they drive home [ i every opportunity. Their fielding was {good, and the bowling was good. Our , | fielding, too, was good, and our bowling j 'goodish.’ Without trying to take anything away from Australia's fine win, I consider the English form was below what the side is capable of. “I do not think that the English or Australian cricket of to-day is up to the j 1911-12 standard. That is explained by I the absence of serious cricket flaring the war; and' the younger generation has had no opportunity to make up the lee-

When asked if he thought that he was not out the previous day. Mr. Douglas said: ‘T did not think so, but the umpire said I was but, and I went. I have been playing big cricket since 14)01, and I have never argued with an umpire: and I don’t intend to start now. Nobody is infallible, batsman or umpire.” ' MESSAGE FROM M.C.C. “LOVE TO ALL OUR AUSSIE BOYS.” CONGRATULATIONS FOR ARMSTRONG. Warwick Armstrong, captain of the Australian team, and who scored TSS, received a sheaf of congratulatory messages, and amohgst them is one, of which he is very proud, from Mr. F. E. Lacey, secretary of the Marylebone Club, a-s follows:—“Congratulations. Merry Christmas, and love to all our Aussie boys.”