to finish. This is not an exaggerated statement. Mr. Trumble says that in his time, (the 'eighties and 'nineties), three days sufficed to finish a match in Australia, but seven days are now often required, and on such wickets as he describes, when time is unlimited and batsmen take no risks, I can see no reason why a fortnight may not be wanted sooner or later.
I do not suggest that circumstances are alike in England and Australia. I can well imagine that a ten or twelve or more hours' railway journey may be thought a rather big price to pay for a match which lasts for only three days. Australia knows what she wants, but Test matches between England and Australia have come to stay, and every three or four years Test matches between them are played in Australia, and we on this side are interested in this matter of the preparation of the wickets. Moreover Mr. Trumble in his second letter to The Times admits that we have an interest and wishes that "The first move . . . should be made here." I have also had it impressed on me that some distinguished old Australian cricketers are like Mr. Trumble and strongly against the modern practice of preparing Australian wickets. Any suggestion from the M.C.C. would therefore be treated with the attention it deserves and there would be no feeling that we have no right to interfere. In the interests of the great game, is the modern Australian method of preparing wickets for Test matches good or bad; That is the question. In England we have a crowd of matches and no sooner is our season over than our over worked bowlers are on their way to Australia, and find themselves there by the middle of October. Our last team that
