THE CRICKET FIELD

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 122, 5 March 1936, Page 3

THE CRICKET FIELD

THE DREADED FIGURE, DON BRADMAN'S "DUCKS." (By "Mid-Ori"). Even a Bradman cannot hope to dodge the dreaded "0" every time, and Don's duck against New South Wales recently is the eighth that now stands opposite his name, states an Australian paper. In one respect, however, he has so far failed. There is a saying that you are not a cricketer until you have got "a p%ir" in a match. Don has not reached that "dignity" yet, and I should say that he is quite prepared to end his career without such a distinction, despite the fact that even such batsmen as Victor Irumper, M. A. Noble, Syd. Gregory and Joe Darling figure in the records in this 16specc—and in test matches against England, too. So far Bradman stands on the same mark in this respect as the great AV. G. Grace. Dr. Grace never made "a pair.'' He had a lucky escape from it at least once, however, for after making a "duck" in the first innings of a test match against Australia at the Oval in 1890 he was missed in the second innings before he had scored. It is rather absurd, however, to compare Bradman with Grace in this respect yet for whereas Grace piayed first-class cricket for 44 years, and went to the wickets .1493 times, Braoman has bQ£ii playing only eight or nine years, and has batted only 133 times. It is interesting to note, however, that whereas Grace made b 3 ' "dawks" an average of practivally one in every 18 innings, Bradman has made eight in 183 hands—almost one in every 22 hands.

Brilliant Fielders. One thing Don Bradman has done with the young South Australian Sheffield Shield team is to make of them a brilliant set of- fielders ; moreover, fielders who enjoy every moment of the piny, says an Australian writer. They picked up and returned iil.c so many Bradmans in the Sydney match. If he can develop similar excellence and desire to achieve it, in the next Australian test teams, Australian crowds are going to see fielding like that of the Harry Trott days. Every man was. a champion in his position, from Trott himself at point, round the field past S. Gregoiy, J. Worrall, and back to J. Blackham behind the wickets. No Inquests Required.

Umpiring in the New South Wales v. Victoria cricket match in Melbourne has given rise to a little talk. When efficient umpires give their decisions there should be no public "inquests" even if one might give an incorrect decision or two says an Australian writer. The reports of captains on this and other cricket matters ought to be private and not discussed at open meetings or elsewhere in public. If it be otherwise, very few captains will make true reports. They will gloss oyer anything that otherwise might be well for officials concerned to know. As far as can be gathered, umpiring in Brisbane has not been quite so good as some of the visitors expected it. It is to be hoped when the Englishmen come to Australia next season the efficiency of the umpires in every State will be such as to impress them.

An Unusual Ending. Many persons were a little fogged at the unusual ending of the cricket match between the M.C.C. team and Taranaki at Pukekura Park, but the rules leave no room for doubt on the matter, and the umpires (Messrs J. M. Thomson and A. Ramshaw) acted in accordance with the laws of the game, says a Taranaki writer. The position was that the time for drawing stumps was six o'clock. Langridge (Sussex) commenced to bowl the last oyer of the day before the time for drawing -had been reached and the clock struck six as he sent down his first ball. The second ball clean bowled T. Pritehard and there seemed to be a little hesitation. In the meantime W. Groombride, the last man on the Taranaki side, had come out to play and had reached the wicket before the umpires called time, or at least before it was realised that they had done so, and the match was concluded, Tara : naki gaining the benefit of a draw. The point that seemed to be in issue was whether or not the visiting team should have been allowed to complete the over that had been commenced and probably win the match. There was nothing arbitrary in what the umpires did, as the rule distinctly says, under "Notice to Umpires" in the M.C.C. Book of Law, that: "It a wicket falls after 'time' has been reached the umpires should call 'time!' In Wisden's Almanac the matter appears more emphatic and makes it mandatory upon umpires, in such circumstances, to call "time." Had no wicket fallen the over would have been completed, but in such circumstances there could have been no difference in the conclusion of the match. Members of the visiting team from England agreed afterwards that the umpires decision was the correct one. Another Way to Get Out. The London "Daily Telegraph" tells this one: There are many ways of getting out in cricket, but here is a new one. C. J. Lyttelton, who is touring Australian and New Zealand with the M.C.C. team, lost his wicket because of his great-uncle! It happened this way. C. J. Lyttelton is a great-nephew of R. H. 'Lyttelton, whose campaign for brighter cricket led to the introduction of the larger stumps, and who was always an advocate of a change in the lbw rule. And here he tells the story himself when asked, "What relation are you to R. H. Lyttelton?" "That's my

great-uncle," he replied. "Uncle has spent a lifetime on altering the lbw rule. And when T was given out under the new rule in Melbourne I felt like sending him a cable about it—and it would not have been complimentary "