Cricket 1912

J un e l ,r1912. CEICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME.. 191 Two Accounts of the First Test. (S om e I m pressio n s D a y b y D a y .) B y H am ish S t u a r t . B a r d s l e y a n d K e l l e w a y . The general impression left by the first day’s play at Manchester was that the estimates formed by unpre­ judiced judges of the two Colonial sides were for the most part right. The Australians, in spite of weak batting by some of them, amply confirmed the view that they have steadily improved, and are always capable of a big total, even though the total be mainly the work of two or three men. Macartney did not come off on this occasion— though he batted in a way that promised a long score— but Bardsley did, while Kelleway also revealed his powers. The two men are, of course, different in all respects, apart altogether from the fact that Bardsley is a left-hander. Kelleway is perhaps the most ungraceful bat who ever called Australia “ home.” He defies all the orthodox rules ; but he watches the ball, and his defence is sound. Then he hits—when he does hit—with resolution, and though his strokes are limited, his strength really lying on the leg side, he has plenty of wrist if he cares to use it, as witness the late made hook which gives him so many twos. Bardsley is agressive ; but his agres­ sion is conjoined with perfect timing both in his off shots and on the leg side. The pair provided the batting of the day, not merely because each made a century, but in point of method and also attractiveness, at least in the case of Bardsley. It must be confessed, however, that the bowling, Pegler excepted, was very inaccurate, that the fielding, that of Taylor and Beaumont excepted, fell as a whole below the test standard, and that Ward’s wicket-keeping was the reverse of impressive. Pegler united stamina with skill to an extraordinary degree, and his performance in bowling 45 "3 overs for 6 wickets at a cost of 105 runs may be ranked, all the circumstances being considered, as one of the best in the history of test cricket. He rarely bowled a bad ball, and varied his pace, flight and break with skill. The other bowlers looked all the poorer by comparison, and their collective failure, even on a slow and easy wicket, was the surprise of the day. A S eco n d D a y op S e n sa tio n s . After Tuesday’s display in their second innings a Manchester, the South Africans need not wonder if folk suggest that “ Ichabod ! ” be written above South African cricket. A more inglorious display was never given by a test eleven, yet all the time one thought it false cricket—a mere assertion of the eccentricity of the game, not new in kind, but merely extraordinary in its degree. We were all prepared to write glowing eulogiums of the South Africans for their up-hill fight, all of us praised Faulkner’s great effort for his side, but the note of praise which was to have been sounded of the side as a whole was turned into a chorus of critical condemnation—which was not, perhaps, wholly deserved. The side lost their morale to a man after Faulkner had been bowled at the start of the second innings and they never recovered it. Most of the men seemed out before they were in. It was indeed a most pitiful tragedy of fallen greatness—or at least goodness, or something better than decent mediocrity. The double hat trick of Matthews, though a record for tests, had little merit for those who saw the match. It was in fact a fine fluke. There is always an element of luck in any hat trick, but this double hat trick seemed thrown straight off the wheel of fortune. The last “ c and b ” in the second hat trick was a fine one, and that con­ stituted neady the sole merit in the performance. One might wax very philosophical over the matter, but in the end the only truth reached would be the old truth that the possible is the probable in cricket. The best bowling done for the Australians was by Whitty. He, Bardsley, and Kelleway really won the match. Matthews merely completed their work with the aid of fortune. It was singular that his only wickets should have been those in his two hat tricks. Reflections on the Test Match. B y G. A . B r o o k in g . I came away from Old Trafford this evening with a feeling of sincere sympathy for the South Africans, for by a combination of bad luck and bad play they had been beaten hip and thigh by their keen rivals in the first of the International games. On Monday they lost the toss ; that was their mis­ fortune ; but they let Australia make 148 runs, which was far too many ; that was their fault. When four of their wickets had gone in the first innings for 54, nothing could have been more great-hearted, than the manner in which Faulkner and White tried to stem the tide of disaster. The latter’s injured hand bothered him badly— I heard that two stitches had been put in—and far from being the brilliant “ Gordon ” we know him to be, he was Scottonly sedate. Together they added 89 runs, and White’s display was most plucky and valuable ; had his hand not been damaged it would have made a considerable difference to South Africa. When the eighth African wicket fell the score was 265, and 300 ought to have been reached ; but they allowed Matthews to do the hat trick, and from this point they fell away, and could do nothing right. Faulkner’s century was grand : no praise can be too great for him. W ith most of the good batsmen in the pavilion and the bowling well on the mark, his policy was the right one—to wait until the imperfect balls came along. Apart from a hard chance to Whitty, his innings was a masterpiece. When he was wending his way to the crease to com ­ mence the African second innings, thus going in again after but a short respite after over 4 hours ’ batting, I men­ tioned to a friend that it was a mistaken policy, and I think I was right, for Kelleway bowled him before he had scored. It proved the beginning of the end, only Taylor and Beaumont showing much resource afterwards. White struggled gamely ; but it was almost pitiful to see him batting under such conditions. He was plucky to go in at all. The Australians bowled superbly, Matthews using his brains with great judgment to secure the hat trick— his second in the match. Gregory must have been a happy man and he set his side a good example in the field, which was well copied. The Australian bowling is good and resourceful, but I should like to see their batting against Brearley, Barnes, Foster and Blythe : I cannot think they would hit 448. The Africans struck a bad patch with the bat in their second innings, but they must really bowl better ; on present form they are not so good as the Australians in this department. Both m y contributors have dealt with the match graphically. Both have omitted to give the figures that our overseas readers— if only they—will certainly expect. 1 have no intention of writing a third accoun t; but I must put it on record that : Jennings and Kelleway put up 62 for the first Australian wicket— Kelleway and Bardsley added 202 for the third—Matthews and Whitty 63 for the tenth—Faulkner and White 89 for the fifth in S.A.’s first— Faulkner and Beaumont 65 for the eighth— that Kelleway batted 3J hours and hit five 4’s—Bardsley 2 hours 25 minutes with two 6’s, eleven 4’s— and Faulkner 4,1 hours with thirteen 4’s.— E d ito r , Cricket in the Scottish Highlands. B y C e l t . On the 25th there was glorious summer weal her Northern Counties (MacLean 52, Duncan 32*) easily beat 93rd Highlanders (Sergeant Martley 37), the margin being b4 runs. MacLean (6 for 54) bowled finely; but his innings wa3 rather a lucky one. In Victoria Park, Citadel routed St. Andrew’s. Citadel could only make 83 (Peggie 45), but their opponents collapsed for 27, MacDonald taking 6 for 14, MacKenzie 4 for 10. Elgins City’s captain timed the closure to a nicety. His side made 153 for 8, ceclared, A. MacDonald 64*, J. Grant 60. Forres St. Lawrence played stubbornly and well, J. B. Bauchope (58) and M. Grant-Peterkin (20) nearly saving them ; but their last wicket fell in the last over of the day.