THE ROUT OF OTAGO.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 277, 28 December 1914, Page 2

THE ROUT OF OTAGO.

UNENTERPRISING BATTING. There have been many low-scoring games in the long history of cricket matches between Otago and Canterbury, but surely there has been none more disappointing than that which was concluded at Lancaster Park last Saturday. It was expected that the Otago team, which was led by a famous International, J. N. Crawford, the best all-round player turned out by any of the English public schools since the late A. G. Steel was at Marlborough, would put tip a stern fight against the Canterbury eleven. Indeed, some Otago people looked forward to the game through such rose-coloured spectacles that it seemed to them that the only thing necessary to win the Plunket Shield was to send up ord and 10 others to make up the team. Even those who looked at the matter in a more sober light considered that the Otago team was much better than any other that the southern province has put into the field in recent years. Yet Canterbury's .first innings' score of 218 was sufficient to defeat Otago by an innings and 26 runs! • A DISAPPOINTED COMMITTEE.

' The Christehurch cricket: enthusiasts who,-while hoping that Canterbury would retain the' shield, also hoped to see some fine batting by Crawford, were not.the /raly people who were sailly disappointed hj the collapse of the game. The man ; agement committee of the Canterbury Criekot Association,- urgently in need of funds to assist it in financing the North Island tour of its representatives, fervently prayed that a good would be produced by the Otago the only representative "match of 'tiife, season in Christehurch, When the ".weather turned' out to be fine, the hopes of the committee rose liighJ The attendance, on the first day was better than is usual oa> Christmas Day. But on the second dayHt'was below expectations—probably as a""result of Otago's poor score-in the-'/'fijjjjt innings. And then Otago's" second innings' collapse robbed the association of, a. third day's "gate." Little need to -wonder, then, why some of the cricket authorities in Christehurch could not muster up a great deal of enthusiasm over the Canterbury qleven 's decisive victory. ~ I AN iNEXPLICABLB 3DOW : ; The downfall of the Otago team was one of those iueXrrticable ••things that sometimes happen, in cricket: Lack of enterprise caused the failure jpf the b'atV ting, but there was no apparent reason for the lack ofi enterprise,..except that the team was subject to one of those peculiar moods which sometimes, settle,, upon a cricket team. • The wicket'certainly wasj not responsible for the debacle, £or it was I easy—a little on the slow side, on the first day—and true, and a lot of runs should have been made On it. Nor had the Canterbury etlthpttgh it' was good, sufficient sting to ' account for Otago's wretched showing. The Otago team certainly should.'have made many more runs than it obtained. Although a fair proportion of the team consisted of colts, the average experience was by no means-low; Seventeen years have passed since H. G.' Siedeberg first played as a,n Otago representative, and he was a New Zealand representative 10 years ago. Another veteran, of almost equally long standing, is A. Eckhoff, but he is not a batsman. H. C. Watson, A. W. Alloo, J: 53. Bruges, j. Raxnsden, and C. . S,. C&adwick .have played against Canterbury before., and so the only now men in the team were JV Shepherd, B. Bell, and A. Galland. With Crawford'to lead it, that team should have been worth more' than 108 and 84. But very 'seldom, did' members of the Otago learn.look like making runs.

CRAWFORD'S FORM. Crawford was much below his best form with the bat. He treated Canterbury to some of his powerful carpetdrives, but there was very little of his usual .verve in his batting. He was certainly not the Crawford of old, the man who. invariably played forward; there was more defence than aggression in his batting this time. However, he was the only man in the Otago team who secured double figures in each innings. Nor was he up to his old form as a bowler. On the first day the wicket did not suit his bowling—it had not enough "life" in it until late in the afternoon, when he began to get more pace off it. Not one of the three wickets which he got on Christmas Day was taken with a good ball—two of them were long-hops on the leg-side, and the third was a long-hop on the off-pin to the left-handed Butler. Woods was bowled off one. of his feet through getting his feet tangled in trying to. make a stroke to leg, and Hickmott was bowled off his pads in playing back at a ball to which he should have played forward.

With a wicket a little faster on Saturday morning, Crawford's bowling had more devil in it; lie got more pace off the pitch and a good deal of: turn on the ball. The ball that bowled Reese, a swinging yorker, was a particularly good one. By the way, Canterbury's three left-handed batsmen—Reese, Carlton, and Butler — helped Crawford's average a lot, for the ex-Surrey man got the three of them for four runs. , OTAGO MEN 'S BATTING. Although he can scarcely be termed a stylish player, Bruges was the most pleasing of the Otago batsmen in the first innings, for .he really did have a go at the bowling when it was loose. Ho tiik'de most of his 44 .runs (not- out) by good' carpet-drives. It was" a decidedly useful innings, and it "was certainly not "his fault that several of the other'Otagd batsmen did not profit by the example that he set them. Bruges, however, is not as good as he should beat running between the wickets.;,,hc lacks in judgment in this, respect, and it was his fault that Bell, was run out. It may be recalled" that in the Otago-Canterbury match in Christchurch at Christmas, 1913,. Bruges was run out in each innings. There was a remarkable similarity in his scores in the two matches. In the 1913 match he made 41 and 0; this time he made 44 not out ami 0.

During the short time "in which he was at the wickets in the first innings, Siedeberg ..batted very poorly, and so little surprise was caused' by his being dismissed, caught and bowled by Sandman, without scoring. He showed rather bettor form in, the second innings, but nothing like that of the Siedeberg of

old. Shepherd (8 and 19) aud Bell (5 and 11) batted steadily. The rest of the Otago batting, merits no comment.

A REFRESHING CHANGE,

Canterbury's batting was a refreshing change from that of the Otago men. Beal's innings for 58 not out was particularly good. From the moment that he went to the wickets Beal played Crawford confidently and correctly, meeting the good stuff with the full face of his bat, and scoring off the loose balls. He scored two fours—-an offdrive and an on-drive —and a two to square-leg off one over from Crawford. It was almost entirely due to Beal's fine batting that Crawford's figures dropped from six for 35 to six for 67. lie played nice strokes •on both sides of the wickets, and was not given an actual "life," although one drive, when he was in the forties, went very near to being a chance to long-on. Beal, however, had a very narrow escape from being run out early in his innings; a player of his experience should' show better judgment in running between the wickets.

Patrick played attractive cricket for his 27. He was dismissed by a delivery, from Crawford, that came in well from the off, and struck his pads, causing a lbw decision. There was so much turn on the ball that a good deal of discussion arose as to whether it would have hit the stumps if Patrick's pads had not been in the way. To the onlookers behind the bowler the decision was a doubtful one. : But the um- ; pire was the only man who was in a good position to judge. ' Bishop played some, very fine strokes, especially his crisp cover-shot,"in his 34,; but towards the end of his innings he became ratlier streaky, and he was clean-bowled, "by a slow yorker from Siedeberg, the change of pace apparently beating hini..

HICKMOTT IMPROVED. Although he was rather too much inclined to get in front of his ! wicket, Hickmott showed pleasing; best : this season.. .Evidently, the', representative net. practices , have done him good. After he settled down he played good, steady cricket, with some very., nice strokes, and. he . should hav& made more than 38, for he was dis-, ihissed" through making a bad stroke at a time when he looked good foa* many more run's. Woods (10) made some beautiful strokes on the off; and he, too, should have made a much bigger score. The manner of his dismissal has been described already. Sandman,(22) made some good strokes- and some>. wild swipes; he. was tlw;. third-Canterbury man who got himself out by playing the ball on to his wicket. . Butler, the ex-Victorian colt, made only four runs, , but these four were made;"in one, hit,.,off Crawford,, and v ßut-. ler Jias, the eon.solation of knpwin,g .tjtiafc ; he .is the only one. of the three, left-; handers in the team who. made runs,off Crawford's bowlingj even, though that hit was something 'nature of a< desperate stroke. Butler had only five deliveries sent down to him, and all' from Crawford. He was palpably/not at home —possibly this was due to overeagerness to justify Ms inclusion, in the team than to nervousness. However, four runs do not by any means represent Butler's batting ability;,; and his, score in this one innings certainly, does not- signify that his inclusion an the team was not justified; Given the'opportunity, Butler will yet do well in New Zealand cricket. \

REMARKABLE BOWLING FIGURES,

One of the surprises of the match was the remarkable bowling analysis of Hickniott,- who took two wickets for. seven' runs in Otago's-first innings, in, •3.1 overs, and four for five, in five overs, in the second innings; a total-of six wickets at exactly two run's apiece: He bowled a good-length leg-break with an occasional ct wrong 7 un," and varied iiis bowling well. It should not be assumed that Hickmott succeeded only amongst the "tail" of the Otago team, for three of his victims are batsmen. Hickmott has been bowling better in club cricket this season than a good many people have given him credit for. In competition matches he has taken 20 wickets at a cost of 16.05 runs apiece. However, the best of the Canterbury bowlers was really Dan Reese, although his figures do not read as well as Hickmott's. Reese got four for 22 and one for 14 —a total of five at 7.2 runs apiece. Reese bowled with nice precision and steadiness, varying length, pace, and direction with excellent judgment. Bennett, with none for 22 and four for 28, was not suited by the wicket on the first day,.but found it more to his luting on !Saturday. As /s, usual with, him,, he bowled very steadily; the 50 runs which J his four wickets cost were hit off:r 39 (,overs. Sandman, two for 30 and none !f6r 12, was rather erratic; he sent down | a. fairly large amount of loose stuff that did not receive punishment. Carlton, one for 21 and one for nine, had the pleasure of. dismissing Crawford in both —once caught and once bowled. ; The Canterbury fielding was high cjasii, superior to the Otago out-cricket. Boxshall's work behind the wickets was better than the number of byes —five in Otago's first innings and 11 in the second —indicates, for throe of the missed balls' went right to the boundary, acetruiiimg for 12 of t\>.ii 1(5 in byes, and most of the byes were from good balls that beat the batsman and just missed the wickets. Boxshall caught two men cut. It is a pity, however, that he loannot be persuaded to abandon his 'habit of making unjustifiable appeals for ibw. A.L.C.