CRICKET.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 June 1921, Page 3

CRICKET.

THE FIRST TEST MATCH. FURTHER ENGLISH COMMENT. By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright. London, Alay 31. The Yorkshire Post, commenting on the test match, says: “Only in fielding can England be said to have held \ts own moderately well, and even there the Australians showed better jurUjment. in fleldcraft and blocking runs. There a mild outcry against Gregory, but it is nothing new for fast bowlers to pitch short on bumpy wickets. If England had bowlers equalling Gregory and AlcDonald’s pace they would do the same. “It is apparent that several of the English players have lost confidence through their defeats in Australia. Newer players might be given a further tr. L-.», and others introduced with the certain knowledge that they could not do worse than those supplanted. Obviously new bowlers should supersede Howell and Richmond.”

The Alanchester Guardian says: “Some of us had warmed ourselves with the belief that the loss of five tests in Australia was inexplicable by factors which would not function so painfully here. The real reason seems to have been that the Australians were, and still are, the better side. The selection committee might call back Fry and AlaeLaren, who have not forgotten the wonderful fact bowlers of other days, or throw in a handful of young and daring amateurs. It is not really a solemn matter. No cricket team on earth was ever worth a wrangle, but it is a pity to lose without the fun of trying a few new ways.” • Richmond was bowled by AlcDonald, whose average was five wickets for 32. Gregory’s average was two wickets for 45. Received June 1, 7.50 p.m. London, May 31. Warner, in the Morning Post, says the test was a debacle, but it is absurd to blame the selection committee, who were compelled to pick the side largely in the dark. Moreover, the programme was badly arranged. In earlier years t-here had been such imaiches as gentlemen players versus the Australians to assist the selectors. In future it is essential to have trial games, and the authorities should reduce the programme of county matches and not play the first test until the second week in June. He adds: “If I were in the place of the committee my side at Lords would be: Douglas, Knight, Evans, Chapman, Hobbs, Hearne, Woolley, Hendren, Durston, Parkin, Smith (Warwickshire). Hearne could be used as a googly bowler, and Smith is a better batsman than Strudwick. We cannot afford to have such a tail as we had at Nottingham. Chapman is a glorious fielder; his activity and energy unight galvan- , I,st the whole side.”—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn. Received June 1, 9.10 p.m.

London, Alay 31. All England looks to Hobbs and Hearne to pull the side together in the test at Lords. Hobbs’ condition Is uncertain, and he is still resting. Hearne has played four innings, and thinks he is equal to the strain of a threeday match. He made sixty-seven runs on Monday, and also bowled for a lengthy period.

The question of captaincy calls more than ever for decision. Some critics bluntly condemn Douglas’ leadership at Nottingham. There is a stro»ig under-current of feeling that England is practically leaderless. Certainly Douglas seemed uninspiring, and suffered greatly by contrast with Armstrong, jvho always dominated the game when in the field. At the same time, it must be remembered

that Armstrong leads a real team, while England’s is comparatively fragmentary.— United Service. CAMBRIDGE v, AUSTRALIA. London, May 31. The following team . will represent Cambridge University against the Australians Ashton (three), G.'.bson, Marriott, Chapman, Boggart, Bryan, Hake, Lowry, and Hillwood.