Let us now assume that on modern wickets a definite result is improbable between two even sides in matches limited to three days. What sort of cricket shall we see when matches are played to a finish and last for anything from four days up to seven and more? To answer this question we must examine the details of matches played in Australia and one in England, and it will be enough if the five Test matches between Mr. Gilligan's eleven and Australia and the last match between England and Australia at the Oval, the only match ever played in England lasting more than three days, are considered.
In Australia the run-getting is enormous, but considering the easy concrete-like wickets and pace of the grounds, the rate of run-getting is on the slow side, and taking all the five Test matches played by Mr. Gilligan's team, is a little under fifty an hour. This is not to be wondered at as time is no object, and the general feeling permeating both sides is that of caution. Hobbs and Sutcliffe on one occasion stayed in for a whole day for 285 runs, and though a day's play in Australia is about five hours this is slow play. The general impression left on the English mind is that the matches take too long and that all bowlers are comparatively easy to play. Tate was a bowler quite worthy of comparison with any in the last twenty years; thirty-eight wickets for 23 runs per wicket is as good as Barnes's thirty-four for 22, and F. R. Foster's thirty-two for 21, but if this is the best that can be done, which under present conditions it probably is, the scoring must always be gigantic. To those who think that four or at the most five days ought to be sufficient to enable matches to be finished in Australia it is
