OUR CRICKETERS IN THE SOUTH.

Auckland Star, Volume XVI, Issue 3854, 21 December 1882, Page 2

OUR CRICKETERS IN THE SOUTH.

How tJie Christchurch'Match tvas Lost.

Bad Management and Not Bad i. Play.

(Uy Onk of TeiEM,)

Match at Christchurch.

This was the match of the tour, and there is no doubt that it was lost by bad management iv various directions. When we arrived there, betting was 2 to 1 on the leal nicu, aud next day the odds had decreased to 3to 2. There were many who 'saw at this time that mistake No 1 had been made in consenting to play a match at Ashbnrton which included any of the Cauteibury team. We began to understand how nicely Reeves and Witemg bad managed to tako the measure of our men nn the previous day, and it subsequently proved that they were both to be tall scorers for Canterbury. Mistake No. 2 was perpetrated beforo the match commenced. A meeting of the Auckland team was held to decide who should be left out, and Robinson, who presided, pointed out that owing to tho injuries Gill haa sus-Bu-tainod, and the probability of plenty of change bowling being required, "was absolutely necessary that Buckland, who at that time had the best analysis.should play. This opinion was concurred in by all the others, and a sub-committee, consisting of Messrs Robinson, Teatro, and Ha.ton was appointed to decide wbo should stand out, To the astonishment of everyone, tbey decided upon Buckland, two of the committee saying, subsequently that tho decision was unanimous, and Robinson giving it to be understood that he objected to this selection. Ihe d> cision was one of the fatal errors mado. Gill, who was known previously to havo had his bowliug hind injured, and who was therefore unable to do all the hard work thus imposed upon him, got two wickets at a cost of 04 runs in the first innings, while Lan.ham was also overworked to such an extent that his four wickets in tho sect nd innings wore for 00 runs. The change bowling was little eood, aud had Buckland boon thero to rolicvo Gill and Lankbam, things would have worn a different complexion, c n opinion appears to prevail that the loss of the match was largely due to Lankbam in missing the chance ■to stump Watson iv the firat innings. A greater mistake could hardly be made. The score at lunch adjournment was one wicket for 82, and, assuming that Watson bad gone out, it waa more than probable that some other man would havo made a stand against the poor bowling as it was then. But during the adjournment Lankbam caught it r.tber hot from tho other men in the team, aud when the game recommenced bis. temper was up, and the batsmem were the victims. Wickets went down likes ninepins, and the collapse tbat followed showed tint, whm bowling with anything like spirit, Lsnkham can hold his own against any bowler ia New Zealand. Was tJte lour a Pleasure Trip ? To those Auckland... who were presc.it at Chiiitchurca during the matco, this query is sufficient to indicate the real reason why the match was lost, and to re-open a sore which is not likely to heal until » uckland has one more chance of meeting Canterbury in a fair and honest tussle for the lost cricketing laurels. At the close of the second day's piny, the position of tho game was :—- Canterbury (Ist Innings) .. .. 13*J auokUnd (ißilnnlngri .. .. 16"'. Cttttcrbney i2nd Inniage) 5 wickets tliiuu for US That evening the excitement in Christchurch was intense, cud icoing the struggle for tbe honour of tbo f- o th that was impend,ntr, the majority ot our mon decided not lo leave their room*, that nigh', and by kicpiug "sttaight" and obtaining a 1 the rest possible, to Cjlit against what then ccemod a very probable defeat. Foremost in this intention were the veterans Yates and Buckland. to whom tho cricketing' honour of Auckland is known .to be more than dear. The latter was oot playing, but Ms expressed in. tention was to Keep the others together, and it was the same desire that made Mr A. E. Whitaker one of the company that night, It might be considered undesirable to go into the private actions of the members of the team on the night in. question ; but in tho ihterosts of cricket, and also in justice to those of th* eleven to whom the match was a consi leration of importune-, we feci compelled to state what was then aod is now considered to be the reason why tbe match was lost. On previous nigh's Robinson had gone out with other members of the team, despite tbe protests of the others. But on this particular., night, no one imagined that, as captain, he woidd think of leaving his men to do as they liked, and had he followed the excellent^ example shown by tho "skippers" of visiting teams, he would not have done so. An invitation was received from wealthy and influeutial Canterbury residents to bring some of his men to dinner, and despite protests and open grumbling from the majority of his. men, he iefused to listen, and accepted. But it was not until it was known that Barton was to bo one o:t the party that any serious objections weire raised, and one after another commented iv stiong terms on tho absurdity of a captain going out with tho best bat in his team to a dinner, where there was a certainty that champagne would flow freely. Some more blunt than others characterised the affair as an attempt to "work" tho match, but .of course thero was no justilica'ion whatever for such an assert on. However, it was propheried tbat champagne and diniug out would lose the match, and yet Robinson persisted in his determination to go, the party consisting of himself, Barton, Blair and Gardner. The others protesting that they bad been sout down to pay cricket, and'not on a pleasure trip, remained at home, while tio quartette .-pent the evening at the palatini re-idencej of their host. Our readers are wellac-^ quainted with the exhibition next nay. i-ankham aod Gill, btlnefiting by a quiet night, came to the rescue and disposed of the remaining five wickets for 35 runs, aud Auckland, after all he.d only 145 runs to get to win. More Mismanagement. Prior to tbe commencement of the Auckland second innings, Ilobinson committod another fatal error, which docs not speak well for his ability to captain a team Yates, who is admittedly one of the best judges of a wicket we have, examined the pitch on which they were about to play, and found it to be baked hard by the suu. Knowing that it would play too fast, and that a fresh wicket could bo got by running the mower and roller over the adjoining space, he drew Robinson's attention to if, and waß quietly snubbed wiWi the tcmark that he was selfish, and wantod a wicket to suit him- j self. The Canterbury captain, who was standing by, taw Yates and Rub'nson leave i tho pitch toecther, and remarked to the ! umpitc: "Thank God;; I was r-fraid thoy j were going to change tbat wicket," The ' inuing< commenced—and our readers know the rest. Five wickets went down for 25 runs, and of these on'y eiiiht were made by the threo best men who formed the visiting party on the previous night. With a losing game before them, O'Brien and Testro, to whom the cricketing honour of Auckland was dearer than ilowing bumpers of champagne, and the bright eyes of lovely women, went iv to • defend the wickeip. It. required more than an ordinary bowler of th« Wilding stamp io ' dispose of them, and the bes', bowling talent of Canterbury tried nil the arts and resources in their power to break the determined stand, To their evorlnstiup credit be it said, that two bouts exhibition of excellent batting saved a disgraceful beating for Auckland, a,nd made victory •possible, getting tbe score close to 100. Gardner added 15 runs, but of course, did not keep up bis wicket -for any length of time, and Duliaur played grandly for half-an-hour in tho hope of haviug the match drawn. But too much bad been lost at the commencement, and a match which might havo beeu wo:a very easily was thrown away. Cur cricketers were playing at Christchurch in a public capacity, and therefore tho pcplo u£ Auckland have a right to go further and ask who was to blame. Certainly not the eight men who were so conscientious as to preserve their nerve and strength for the' coming struggle. Blair can hardly bo blamed because he is not art Aucklander, and could scarcely be expected ti have the interests of tjie place very deeply at heart. Barton was not so much at fault, because be shewed a disposition to remain at home, but was overruled by his capt lin. Rjliinson, on the other hand, as the captain of a team, iv specially responslb'e. It was his duty to have kept them together, to have worked with every man in order to eocure a healrhy esprit de corps. He had no right whatever to acafpt any invitation which did not include the wnole of tho team, and he should have discerned that true hos-.

pitality makes no invidious distinctions and searched for a hidden motive tbat might have dictated the inviting of several members of the team (in. eluding the principal batsman) to . late pleasure party on the eve of the conclusioa of,an important and ctitical match upon which so much depended and where nerve, tact, aud coolaess were ihe principal requisites. His want of jade munt was further shown by the fact that he accped invitations for a drive to tbe Stiid Company's farm early on tbat memorable Tuesday morning, knowing (hat champajmo would How freely on that occasion also Fortunately, however, Messrs Buckland and Whitaker wefc successful in their opposition to the scheme, and it was abandoned out of defcicnce to their wishes. It is sad that history repeats itself and going back to tho period of the last southern tour, it lingers in our recollection that Robiuson then nearly lost the match by taking one of his team to a dance. The members of that team still speak in-strong terms of the bad play shewn when it was least desired, and the closeness of tho match, all because the cap. tain's pa«sion for dancing was stronger than his love for cricket. We have gone more fully into ihis matter than wo intended simply in order tbat the lessons of this tour may not be lost, and we ttust for the future tbat when a repre entative team is choosing a captain it will select a man who will never be ashamed of the company of his comradeß when aristocratic hospitality is making much of him. Auckland has been taught a severs lesson, and it should profit by it. The match in 1873 was nearly lost through injudioious and ill-timed devotion to the pleasures of the ball-room. When the Canterbury, team came to Auckland several years ago, the "flowing bowl" was fatal to our chances of victory, and now in 1882 we are compelled to udmit that an un. wise participation in social pleasures on the part of seveial men, placed Auckland second in a match everyone here fondly, and not unreasonably, expected would be won by our representative?. [The review will bo concluded to-mor. row.]