By Kersi Meher-Homji
March 16th 2010 @ 1:24am
Related coverage
Looking back at Australia’s first win against the Kiwis
Photo of Australian test cricketer, Bill Brown (left) and cricket test captain Steve Waugh. AAP Image/Paul Miller,
As Australia gets ready to meet New Zealand in the first Test in Wellington, starting on Friday, let us go down memory lane and recall the first ever Test between the neighbours 64 summers ago.
It was also played in Wellington, in March 1946.
Historians will remember it as the first Test played after World War II. Cricket statisticians will remember it as one of the shortest Tests in history. The Test was not granted Test status by the ICC until March 1948.
To the great disappointment of the Kiwis, Don Bradman, then 37 (the same age Sachin Tendulkar is today) decided not to go on this tour. Don later wrote in Farewell to Cricket: “Much as I would have enjoyed a trip to that inviting country I was quite unfit to consider it… About that time I suffered a recurrence of fibrositis in its most severe form.”
The Ausies were captained by Bill Brown, who passed away in 2008 aged 95.
New Zealand skipper Walter Hadlee, the father of Dayle and Sir Richard, won the toss and decided to bat on a rain-affected pitch. He must have regretted the decision as New Zealand was bowled out for 42.
Playing his final Test, Bill O’Reilly captured 5-14 in 12 venomous overs and Ernie Toshack took 4-12 in 19 overs. Both were unplayable.
I consider myself lucky to have these two master spinners as my mates in later years.
Australia declared at 8-199 (John Cowie 6-40). But even with the pitch improving, the Kiwis were bundled out for 54 to lose by an innings and 103 runs within two days. Toshack had marvellous match figures of 29 overs, 18 maidens, 6 for18.
Skipper Brown scored 67 runs and outscored New Zealand (42 and 54) in both innings. With Sid Barnes (54), he had added 109 for the second wicket.
Australia and New Zealand did not play another Test until 1973-74, an incredible gap of 28 years. Can any Roarer explain this prolonged interval between the next door neighbours?
It was one of the shortest Tests. There have been 19 Tests which were decided in two days and chronologically the 1946 New Zealand-Australia Test was the 15th Test to have ended in two days.
The first Test, which lasted only two days, was the historic Oval Test of August 1882. Australia won the toss and was bowled out for 63. England replied with 101. Australia totalled 122 in the second innings setting England 85 to win.
But with Fred ‘Demon’ Spofforth claiming 7-44 (and match figures of 14-90), England was dismissed for 77. And surprise, surprise, Australia won by 7 runs.
The Sporting Times carried a mock obituary notice stating that the body of English cricket would be cremated and the Ashes taken to Australia, thus starting the Ashes legend.
Perhaps Ricky Ponting will be loath to hear the word Ashes as he leads his team against the Kiwis in the Hamilton Test on Friday. He will be relieved to know that of the 22 Tests played in New Zealand, Australia won 10, lost 5 with 7 drawn.
And the last Test Australia lost to New Zealand was way back in 1992-93.
(23)
sheek said | March 16th 2010 @ 3:59pm | Report comment
Kersi,
It’s intriguing that Bradman never suffered any illness sufficient to prevent him touring England in 1930, 34, 38 & 48, the only cricketing country he toured.
Bradman pulled out of the SA tour in 1935/36, as he was changing states & jobs. From what I can gather, the Australians who toured SA under Vic Richardson didn’t miss him a single day!
ohtani's jacket said | March 16th 2010 @ 4:07pm | Report comment
“Australia and New Zealand did not play another Test until 1973-74, an incredible gap of 28 years. Can any Roarer explain this prolonged interval between the next door neighbours? ”
Australia refused to play us. They didn’t give that 1946 Test official status until 1948. We were considered a B-team. The Bangladesh of our day!
Whiteline said | March 16th 2010 @ 7:36pm | Report comment
I guess if the guy is sick Skeek, then he is sick!
Richardson suffered from the same illness as his grandson. An inability to see the good side of someone they disliked. Funny thing about Chappelli and Richardson is that they were quite happy to bag Bradman in public but it was never returned by Sir Donald. I think this says a bit about all concerned.
sheek said | March 16th 2010 @ 7:59pm | Report comment
Whiteline,
There were plenty of others who agreed with Richardson & Chappell. You don’t get to be the greatest batsman in history without developing a prickly, single-minded attitude, do you?
To provide some balance, both Richardson & (Ian) Chappell were revered as test leaders by their players. Both were men’s men – hard playing & hard partying, sticking up for their team against management, building an unshakeable bond.
Since I relate to that “us versus them” concept at times, plus their bluntness, I greatly admire both men. With Bradman, I am respectful of his achievements, but less admiring of the man.
Mind you, Bradman had plenty to say in private, but it didn’t make the papers. But hey, I love my heroes as ordinary flawed humans rather than deities placed on pedestals!
OJ,
Yep, this is a part of Aussie-NZ relations that doesn’t show Aussie in a good light. It was convenient for Australia to send 2nd XIs to NZ in 1949/50, 56/57, 59/60, 66/67 & 69/70. The 49/50, 66/67 & 69/70 tours coincided with the Aussies being in SA (also in India in 69/70). The 56/57 & 59/60 tours coincided with the Aussies being in India & Pakistan.
In fact, it was very convenient, so they didn’t want to change this arrangement too quickly.
Kersi Meher-Homji said | March 16th 2010 @ 9:05pm | Report comment
I must rush to Don Bradman’s rescue. Fibrositis before the tour to New Zealand gave him excruciating pains. Relief was brought about only by the “steel-like fingers” of Ern Saunders, a Melbourne masseur who had cured many injured athletes. Bradman owed a lot to the Melbourne masseur who enabled him to resurrect his post WWII cricket career and play two Ashes series at home and overseas and against India with resounding success.
What I wanted to underline in my story was that two historic Tests played 64 years apart (Aus v. Eng at The Oval 1882 which started the Ashes legend, and Aus v. NZ at Wellington which was not only the first between the two countries but also the first after WWII) lasted only two days each.
Whiteline said | March 16th 2010 @ 11:04pm | Report comment
Sheek
I respect your opinions and based on what you write you have a decent knowledge of the history of cricket. I’m taking the liberty of assuming that you knew neither Richardson or Bradman but I’d certainly prefer my battles to be fought in private rather than in the newspapers and after someone has passed away (ala Ian Chappell) and this is why I respect the way Bradman went about his work in this instance.
Ian Chappell is not well liked or respected by a lot of players post his era (besides like beings like Warnie and Punter) for perhaps reasons not disimilar in principal as to why Chappell didn’t like Bradman – they saw the world differently! I can’t see why publicly defaming someone makes you a ‘mans man’.
vinay verma said | March 17th 2010 @ 5:45am | Report comment
Kersi,Sheek and Whiteline..Don Bradman’s legacy as a criketer is undeniable. With a toothpick bat and uncovered pitches,not to mention the lack of armour and dimpled batting gloves,he defined batsmanship. That he did not visit NZ and stayed on board the ship In Bombay does not detract from his legend.
It is a matter of public record his disagreement with Fingleton,O’Reilly and Ian Chappell. From my perspective Bradman did better financially out of cricket than his contemporaries. Ian Chappell fought for and obtained,through World Series,a better deal for cricketers of his and subsequent generations. One may well conclude that now it is out of hand with cricketers holding their Boards to ransom. For Cricket to prosper everyone concerned,players,administrators and broadcasters have to give more than they take. The era of greed is good and Gecko’s on Wall Street should be buried once and for all.
sheek said | March 17th 2010 @ 7:10am | Report comment
Whiteline,
Bradman made a lot of money out of his extraordinary fame as a cricketer, but was unwilling to help Aussie cricketers in the late 60s/early 70s when test matches & tours were mushrooming, but players still expected to play & tour while holding down a regular job.
On the one hand, I’m trying to demystify the demi-God status around Bradman. On the other hand, I’m a great admirer of Ian Chappell. Frankly, he’s the kind of leader I would follow into battle. He leads from the front, & sticks up for his troops. Two outstanding qualities IMHO.
We seem to live in a wussy society where you can’t criticise. The lunatics are in charge of the asylums of power. Slowly, ever so slowly but surely you see our values system being eroded, partly because you can’t ctiticise, or be seen to.
Chappell says the things that parents, siblings, uncles, aunts, mentors & mates ought to be saying, but don’t. Consequently, he gets panned.
A leading cricketer, or any sportsman, is surrounded by a personal manager, team manager, media manager, broker, agent, lawyer, accountant, & God knows who else, all telling him how wonderful he is because they’re all on his gravy train. Neon light example – Tiger Woods.
None of these people reproach a player for anti-social behaviour. But someone like Chappell will do it, & the player is shocked when given his reality check. Consequently, this is why Chappell is so loathed by today’s pampered generation. (I say this broadly without any particular cricket person or incident in mind).
IMHO.
Of course, Bradman is an absolute legend. But let’s not forget he was very human also.
sheek said | March 17th 2010 @ 7:18am | Report comment
Kersi,
I wasn’t trying to make light of fibrosis, but Bradman could be picky & choosy with the best of them.
As mentioned, the 28 year gap between Australia’s 1st & 2nd test against NZ speaks very poorly of Australia. On the other hand, NZ rugby kept Australian rugby afloat on many, many occasions.
Vinay,
Very true, the game, any game, is greater than any individual, which I think is the crux of your statement.
Whiteline said | March 17th 2010 @ 7:31am | Report comment
Sheek and Vinay,
Points well made and as mentioned earlier by Sheek, these add balance to the perspective i was giving – good work guys, thanks.
sheek said | March 17th 2010 @ 8:37am | Report comment
Thanks Whiteline,
I was cutting a very fine line & I appreciate that you were able to understand where I was coming from.
sheek said | March 17th 2010 @ 5:04pm | Report comment
Sorry Kersi, for getting off topic!
Atawhai Drive said | March 17th 2010 @ 8:53am | Report comment
The Australian second team that toured New Zealand in February and March, 1960, was pretty handy, as I recall. Led by Ian Craig, it included Bob Simpson, Brian Booth, Graham Thomas, Keith Slater and Frank Misson.
Sadly, there is a long and sad tradition of Australia not so much shafting as patronising NZ cricket. It continues to this day, as we saw when Cricket Australia bullied New Zealand into accepting John Howard as the two countries’ nominee to serve as ICC president from 2012. The Kiwis’ preferred choice, Sir John Anderson, was an infinitely superior choice but big brother had his way and Howard got the gig.
Kersi Meher-Homji said | March 17th 2010 @ 11:39am | Report comment
You are quite correct, Atawhai Drive, for the 1960 tour of NZ.
Apart from the names you mention, the Australian squad included Len Maddocks and JH Shaw (who scored centuries along with Bob Simpson and Brian Booth) and Johnny Martin. They played 4 Representative matches against NZ, won one and drew three. NZ included great batsmen Bert Sutcliffe (who hit a century) and John Reid.
NZ was not the only country to wait long for their second Test series against Australia. The West Indies had to wait 21 years (from 1930 to 1951, of course the WWII stopped Test cricket from 1939 to 46) and India nine years from 1947 to 56. Also India had to wait for 20 years between two tours to Australia (1947 to 1967).
Those days England, Australia and South Africa were the Big Three of cricket, till Frank Worrell changed the balance of power starting in 1960-61.
What a change now — India, South Africa and Australia are the Top 3.
Hobart Friz said | March 17th 2010 @ 11:40am | Report comment
Some people have never forgiven Bradman for walking with the Duke of Edinburgh with his hands in his pockets. That is, Bradman was the one with his hands in his pockets. His own pockets, not those of Edinburgh. But whether or not he had his hands in his own pockets or those of Queen Elizabeth’s consort, it was shocking behaviour. A great batsman with a great eye, but vulgar and inappropriate hands.
sheek said | March 17th 2010 @ 3:47pm | Report comment
Crikey Hobart,
I can be harsh on Bradman in some areas, but hell, hands in the pockets is not a sin, even in front of a king.
Anyway, when it comes to royalty, the French had the right idea….. !
JohnB said | March 17th 2010 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
The Australian 2nd XI tour of NZ in 69/70 included players as handy as Greg Chappell and Dennis Lillee (and about 8 others who either had played or would play tests). Sheek’s right to point to comparisons with NZ rugby here – they have had simultaneous All Black tours playing tests a few times – in the past, playing Australia while the “first” team (minus Maoris) was touring Sth Africa, more recently in Argentina while touring elsewhere.
Retrospective reclassification of these games as tests would also have the nice result that Sam Trimble would at last be a test cricketer!
Some handy test debutantes for Australia in 1946 – Miller and Lindwall heading the list.
JohnB said | March 17th 2010 @ 3:26pm | Report comment
And Don Tallon in 46 also. Worth mentioning that Australian rugby is very happy to count winning the Bledisloe Cup in 1949 (one of those times NZ was simultaneously touring Sth Africa).
formeropenside said | March 17th 2010 @ 3:33pm | Report comment
Why did Australian cricket ignore NZ for so long? Because it could. NZ needs Australia more than the reverse, and thats just as true now (in a wider sense) as it was back in the 50’s for NZ cricket.
To be honest, most Australians tend not to think of New Zealanders – at least those still in NZ – and simply take for granted that they are there, like the quiet old maiden aunt with lots of cats a few streets away that you visit when someone nags you to.
Still, it could have been worse: NZ could have been part of Federation, and that would have been a terrible mess for all involved.
Hammer said | March 17th 2010 @ 3:39pm | Report comment
shame the NZRFU didn’t take the same approach – mind you if they did you’d probably be aka formersecondrower
sheek said | March 17th 2010 @ 3:50pm | Report comment
Of course Hammer,
It could be argued NZ rugby were propping Aussie rugby for their own benefit, not ours.
So they could continue to flog big brother at rugby….. !
On a more serious note, whichever way you look at it, we displayed a lack of generosity to NZ in cricket, while they were overwhelmingly generous to us in rugby.
formeropenside said | March 17th 2010 @ 4:35pm | Report comment
I dont think it can be doubted that Australian cricket could have done more to help NZ cricket between 1950 and 1970, and probably a bit since that time also.
Hammer said | March 17th 2010 @ 4:37pm | Report comment
the 80’s were ok …