Cricket 1912

J u l y 13, 1912. CEICKET : A WEEKLY EECOED OP THE GAME. 321 The Triangular Tests. F ourth M atch : E ngland v . S outh A frica at L eeds . D aily I mpressions . B y H a m ish S t u a r t . The tense, test atmosphere did not hang over Headingley on Monday. One felt none of that overmastering anxiety which past tests have excited and but little of that eager anticipation which a test should arouse. The placid frame of mind was not personal to the w riter; it was not due to satiety. Every one seemed to share in the new test attitude, and to all the play rather than the result was the thing. These last words explain the puzzle. Every one seemed agreed—and there was nothing arrogant in the agreement— that England were the better side and were in little danger of defeat, yet every one hoped that South Africa would do well, and perhaps surprise England by revealing a playing power but little in evidence in the two previous tests against Australia at Manchester and England at Lord’s. The hope was not quite realised. England established a decided advantage in the course of the day, for after scoring 242 on a wicket that always helped the bowlers after the first few overs and the effect of the rolling had worn off, England got 8 South African wickets for 14 1. The position at the close was thus in En glan d ’s favour for the South Africans with two wickets to fall were 10 1 behind. In one way the hope that the South Africans would do their powers more justice than at Manchester and at Lord’s was realised. They bowled and fielded better than in either of the previous tests, but their batting was again very dis­ appointing. At one time they had 7 wickets down for 80 and seemed in danger of failing to save the follow-on. At this critical point Pegler and Snooke made a most timely stand and added 50 in 30 minutes for the eighth wicket. But this stand merely redeemed the innings; it did not redeem the batting, for the 50 runs were made by plucky and lucky batting. Both men hit out like “ bowler-bats- m en.” Pegler in particular had the ball in the air most of the time, and m ishits and fortuitous strokes were numerous. But fortune favoured the brave, and the stand counted just the same as if the batting had been of the highest and most orthodox standard. For the rest, the batting of both sides was decidedly disappointing. Even when allowance is made for the state of the pitch—it was a “ sporting ” wicket of the kind that compels a man to earn his runs, in so far as he must watch the ball, and nothing could be taken for granted as to rise and pace off the pitch—and for the excellence of the South African bowling, particularly that of Pegler, who was unlucky and was also given too much to do, the English total of 2 12 was hardly worthy of the side. Only one man played a really good innings. That one man was Woolley. H cirne. it is true, made 45 and made them well too in the main, but he was missed at the wicket when 5, and not nearly all his strokes were safe. Woolley, on the other hand, never made any mistake until bowled by a well-up “ sw inger” —it m ay have been a yorker—at which he played “ inside ” and much too late. Too much praise cannot be given Woolley and Hearne for their coolness at the crisis of tbe English innings, for when they came together the total was G8 for 4 and England were in a parlous position. They added 1 1 1 in 90 m inutes or thereby, and Hearne once more demonstrated that he has the “ big game ” temperment. Indeed it is probable that he owes his preference to certain other players to the fact that the selectors recognise that he has this essential quality—the tempera­ ment that makes a man realise his powers in representative cricket. If Hearne would only modify his tendency to play back—he plays back well owing to his straight bat and his quickness of foot and eye— and could eradicate his liability to lift the ball in on-driving and to give mid-on a sort of chance or a real one—I am sure that a bowler like Lohmann would often have got Hearne out through this weak­ ness —he would be an even finer batsman than he is. A ll the same Hearne promises to be one of the best and most dependable test bats­ men we have had for some time. Woolley’s driving was excellent. Certain of the others were only their own great selves in a fitful sort of way, and the batting as a whole was decidedly disappointing in point of quality as distinct from its run-yielding character. Hobbs and Spooner both got out when well-set. Hobbs was unlucky in his mode of dism issal, but Spooner fell to a leg-high hit to square-leg. F ry was the victim of a very cunning leg-before by Pegler, and was literally drawn in front through the character of the previous ball and the deceptive resemblance of the same to the fatal ball. Pegler was over-bowled. He was on for I f hours before lunch and 80 minutes after lunch It m ay have been a stern necessity, but if he had been nursed—his bad luck apart—I believe Pegler would have accomplished a big performance. Barnes bowled finely, but ought to have been put on in place of Woolley when the seventh South African wicket fell at 80. Foster was ineffective, and Dean was apt to overpitch. The pitch was too dead for Foster. The attendance was disappointing. T he S econd and T hird D ays . The second day was eventful and the match was practically over at the close of play, for South Africa with only 3 wickets to fall still required 229 to win. The story of the day’s play may be told very briefly. The South African first innings, in which 8 wickets had fallen for 14 1 runs, was finished off in a few overs for the addition of 6 runs. England had then a lead of 95 runs—a very big and indeed a winning lead on such a pitch. England made 238 in their second innings and for this good total they were entirely indebted to Hobbs, Spooner and Hearne. This left the South Africans 334 to get to win —a task obviously beyond their powers and a great test task for any side on any wicket. The South Africans never looked likely to make even the semblance of a fight. They lost 4 wickets for 49 runs, 6 for 69, and at the close of play had 7 down for 105. On Wednesday morning some brisk hitting by Pegler and Carter added 49 runs for the ninth wicket in 30 minutes, but after 40 minutes’ p’ ay the las'; of the three outstanding wickets fell, and England won at twenty minutes to twelve by 174 runs. The cause of the decisive defeat of South Africa was obvious ; it was directly due to bad batting, aud the match amply impressed the view that the South Africans are a weak test side by reason of their poor batting. There are, of course, several good batsmen and at least one great batsman (Faulkner) in the side, but no one is quite in his best form or, at least no one — the hitters excepted—seems able to do his powers justice in a test match. Taylor certainly played well in the fir »t innings, so long as he remained on the defensive, but his scoring strokes did not as a rule impress one as at all safe. He had the ball too much in the air. The fact that the hitters came off—and they owed some of their success to luck—only accentuated the weakness of the rest of the batting. “ Bowlers’ batting ” may be useful even in a test, but if it follows two failures by the accredited batsmen, it will not win or even avert defeat, in tests. One likes to take the generous and the broad view and one took that view of the previous defeats of S. Africa at Manchester and at Lord’s, hoping against hope that they had been seen at their worst in both matches and would rise to the occasion at Leeds. They did so rise, so far as their bowling was concerned, but their batting was even weaker, and one must, by reason of the fact, regard them as a poor test side who are not likely to win any test of the series, unless singularly favoured in the matter of the luck of the weather and of the wicket. The bowling was good. Indeed Faulkner quite reached hi3 1907 form, while Pegler, though over-bowled, gave further proof that he is the best bowler in either Colonial side, and Nourse confounded his detractors. Nourse bowled with great accuracy and often made the ball swing late in its flight. The English team failed to justify those who have called them a great side. Hobbs alone showed any real m astery over the bowling and made all save Faulkner look easy. Spooner, though stuck up by Faulkner at the start of his innings and lucky to escape being bowled, played a great innings but never made the bowling look easy. He had to exercise the utmost restraint and proved his vers­ atility by doing so. There were no fewer than 38 singles and only 6 fours in his 82, and he was nearly an hour in gett ng his first 23 runs. In all, Hobbs was batting for just over an hour aud Spooner was in for 2£ hours. Hearne played very soundly. Still the game mi}|ht have run a very different course if Hearne had been caught at the tick et when 5 in the first innings, and Spooner had fallen to any of the balls frqm Faulkner that beat him , or so nearly beat him before he had played himself in. These “ ifs ” are big assumptions in a way, beeause one must assume the same sequence of events in each case. The general impression left by England at Leeds was not, however, favourable to their chances of success under sim ilar conditions against Colonial sides, up to the standard of the best, or even the majority of Australian sides of the past. The incidental luck pursued England at the crisis of each innings and England then got sufficient runs to win. Ih e English bowling was quite effective against some bad batting, but it was twice freely hit by the “ hitters,’ and in a closer match the fact that the eighth wicket put on 50 in 30 minutes in the first innings and that tbe ninth wicket put on 49 in the same time in the second innings, might have meant the difference between victory and defeat for England. It certainly showed that our bowling could be hit, if, that is, proof were needed. Our side can be strengthened and certainly should be altered, unless we are to take the Leeds form as misleading. The Australians are a far stronger batting side for test purposes than the South Africans, whose defeat at Leeds was, as I have said, entirely due to weak batting. F O R S A L E — C ricket F ield , 1892 to 1895, complete, unbound, in good condition. What offers?— J. W. W«, c/o C ricket , 33 and 35, Moor Lane, E .C .