CRICKET.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 April 1921, Page 8

CRICKET.

SECOND TEST MATCH. AUSTRALIA’S FINE BATTING. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Auckland, Last Night. The Australians commenced the second test match against New Zealand today in glorious weather. The wicket was true and fast. There was a poor attendance. The Australians gave the New Zealanders a day’s leather hunting and were still at the wickets when stumps were drawn, having by then completely collared the bowling. The play on the whole was bright and the scoring fast. At the close of the day the board showed five wickets for 495 runs. Rountree’i work behind the wickets was one of the outstanding features of the game. The New Zealand captain (Brice) used many changes of bowling, but mostjy to no avail. The visitors’ exhibition of batting was very fine and few chances were given. Scores:— AUSTRALIA. First Innings. Bogle, c Hiddlestone, b Mcßeath .... 67 Richardson, c .Smith, b Mcßeath ... 112 Liddicutt, c Rowntree, b Smith ... 25 Lampard, c Brice, b Patrick 132 Ransford, not out 103 Waddy, b Patrick 3 Forsberg, not out \. 4Q Extras 11 Total (for five wickets) 495 A match that is arousing some interest takes place on the High School ground this afternoon, when a parents’ eleven will be pitted against the school’s best. As some of the “Old Buffers” have not handled a bat for 20 years or more the game should be worth witnessing. Afternoon tea is to be pro. vided. i

.AUSTRALIANS 1921 CRICKET TEAM COMPARED WITH 1899 AND 1902. CHANGE IN TACTICS. (By Frank Iredale, the ex-Australian batsman, in Sydney News.) Several enthusiasts have asked me my opinion of the strength of the Australian, team to tour England, compared with those I accompanied. It is hard to make comparisons. A player must be prejudiced about the men of his day, for the reason that he knew all about the best and worst of them. It is just the same with a selector, more especially if he be a player in full practice. He must see virtues in his own men, because he is so constantly with them. One not situated as he is only judges the player on what he knows of him, on the occasions that' he has seen him perform. In making comparisons of teams and individuals one has to take into account many things. For instance, no one should be called a great cricketer unless he has made good on all conditions of wickets, and in England and in his homeland. Thus a player may be a success in Australia and only do’moderately well in England.

Most of the members of the present team have done well this season in Australia against the English team, because the conditions have been so typically Australian. Had we had a wet summer and a few bad wickets, some of our batsmen might not have attained the eminence they did.

I may be accused of prejudice, but I cannot help saying, knowing what I did about the capabilities of the players, that the present team would never have beaten the sides of 1889 or 1902, either on good or bad wickets.

In the 1899 team we had an exceptionally strong team in batting. Even on bad wickets, Trumper, Darling, Gregory, and jVorrall were all capable of getting runs against any of the best bowlers in England, and in the bowling we had Jones, Trumble, Howell, Noble, McLeod, and Laver, who were more capable, I think, as a whole, than the bowlers in the present team.

A GREAT SIDE. In the 1002 team Trumper was almost a team himself on any wicket, and with Darling, Gregory, and Duff to support him on the bad wickets, the team was never in real danger of losing matches on bad wickets. In the bowling Saunders, Trumble, Noble, Jones, and Armstrong were quite good enough for any English side of that year. I have purposely compared these teams and certain players, because it is on bad wickets you must study your side when in England. On hard‘ dry wickets Australians find themselves at home. The players I have mentioned are those who really counted when wickets were against our men. In the present team there are few batsmen who can compare with the English players on bad wickets. I see no batsmen like Trumper, Darling, Worrall, or Gregory, nor do I see a bowler like Saunders, Howell or Trumble.

Gregory, I think, will be more successful than Jones was on a bad wieket, because he. rises more quickly, and as a bowler he seems more certain of his foothold. If the wickets in England are dry, the Australians are in for a good time. If we judge English cricket by Douglas’s team, the opposition to them, even allowing for a 25 per cent, increase of strength in the English play on their own wicket, will not be greater than they can overcome. It is possible that there may be other good payers in England who may improve the English team, and if so will make our position harder, but not insurmountable. The greatest factor on the side, I think, is youth—barring a few—and enthusiasm, and this counts for a good deal. But notwithstanding our regard for the past cricketers and teams, the destinies of our cricket are all the same in worthy hands,, and we send forth our cordial wishes for its success, no matter what lands they may be playing in.

There were several features in the season’s play in the big matches which I think all true lovers of the game will regret. The slovenly way the fieldsmen in the last English team did their work in the field. Feilding used to be thought highly of in England in tha past, and it was a strange sight to see strong, athletic men walking about the field and leisurely running after the ball, as if they really did not care. In this respect I cannot recall an English team of the past which was quite like the last one.

Another thing one noticed was the absence iff hitting. In thU respect, our own men were just as much Va blame.

Our players do any amount of it in grade matches, but somehow or other it seems “taboo” in the big games. The third thing I notjeed was the placing' of the field—four men in the slips to medium-pace bowlers is something new! Where were the batsmen who could cut a ball? The man in the “country” is not required to learn to catch, as no catches are ever likely to btf hit to him. I saw only two hit to the Englishmen this season, and both were missed! Lastly, the only two English players who put any life into their fielding were Hendren and Hitch. /