CRICKET.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 16, 19 January 1901, Page 4 (Supplement)

CRICKET.

The, last act in the most tragic drama in the history of Auckland cricket was played on Saturday and Monday last at Napier, when Auckland suffered defeat by an inning's and 77 runs at the hands of Hawke's Bay. Comment on the match is unnecessary. Our correspondent pathetically remarks that length seems to be all that is necessary to get our men out ; subtlet}1" is not required. Our batting was feeble, and our fielding atrocious. It vas a fitting climax to a melancholy drama, and Aucklanders were glad to see the curtain rung down.

Hugh Lusk seema to appreciate Auckland bowling. Two or three years ago on the Domain he made 50 odd in each innings. That was the last meeting of the two provinces prior to this recent disastrous match, and the result was a draw.

The result of the tour reminds me forcibly of a line from Kipling: *Mt was just a bloomin' knock-out —and our fault."

It is quite possible that our representatives underrated the abilities of their Hawke's Bay opponents. Now that the eastern province has a firstclass bowler in Dent, they should be formidable rivals to any province in the colony. Their batting is certainly soxmd enough, and there are not many representative teams' who are capable of adding (50 for the last wicket.

It is said that the Selection Committee, in picking the Auckland team, passed over Nicholson, because, although they admitted he was a good bat, his fielding- was too bad to warrant his inclusion. Great Caesar! If his fielding* is worse than that of a team which dropped nineteen catches in the Canterbury, match, and missed one batsman seven times at Xapier, to say nothing of their exhibition in the field in the other matches —well, it must be phenomenal!

It is to be hoped that the Auckland Cricket Association will see its way to present D. Hay with some memento of his splendid score against Wellington. In this case I would suggest something1 more lasting than the usual bat. 1

T. Duggan, captain of the senior Glebe Eleven, Sydney, passed through Auckland this week on his way to Uotorua. Duggan played for *I\>»w South Wales against New Zealand at football in ISO?!.

V .Marshall, who loaves Auckland shortly to take up a position in Dunedin School of Mines, will be greatly missed by local cricketers, lie was one of the band of Canterbury cricketers;' of which L. A .Cuff and Lubatt were'the others, who, coming to Auckland a few years ago, brought the United Club to the head of "the senior competition. When Cuff left Marshall was? chosen as captain, and has filled the position since with great success. In 189G lie represented Auckland against the Australians, and this year he was a member of the Southern touring1 team. Besides being greatly missed by the United Club, his place will be hard to fill at the Grammar School, where much of the success attained of late-years in cricket and football has been due to his coaching and advice.

A presentation was made on Saturday last at the Domain of a trophy, £-iven by Mr D. B. Kinnear for the iirst member of the V.M.C.A. to put lip. a century. The trophy was secured by Master (I. Webb, who played a good innings of 107 against Surrey i'amblers. Mr C. W. Hemery presented the bat, which was suitably inscribed. Three cheers were given for the winner, and one for Ml- I). B. i\ In near.

■ The finish of the Aueklantl-Y.M.C.A. match last Saturday proved a very tame affair. With one wicket down for 23 runs Auckland were all dismissed for 71. The last six or seven men made a very sorry display, and Southall and Stephenson rattled the wickets down in quick style. Both men bowled well, but the latter had a good deal of luck. V.M.C.A. had to get 106 to win, but their display was of the feeblest description, and the last wicket fell at 33. It was one of the most wretched exhibitions of "pottering" I ever watched. Hardly a man appeared to have a knowledge of the elementary rules of hitting. One man would stay at home and "poke" at the ball. Another man would jump out valiantly, as if to send the ball over the pavilion and end by "poking" feebly; and another man would stay in his crease and swipe viciously at a good length leg break, and then won-

der why he didn't hit it. V.M.C.A. seem to be stronger than their opponents in bowling, but their batting is lamentably weak. One very pleasing feature of the day's play was the splendid fielding on both sides. The Auckland team have deservedly earned a high reputation as a fielding eleven, and their work would do credit to any senior team.

Just beside this match was played the Gordon-Y.M.C.A. (B) fixture. This was a great contrast in one particular to the match of the day. Both V.M.C. A.(A) and Gordon had to face a deficit on the first innings, and had to play an uphill game, but while the V.M.'s failed altogether to rise to the occasion, Gordon won their match by a splendid effort. Over .10 behind on the first innings, they had also to play against time. Kissling and Blake, however, got to work and forced the pace, and ,179 was on the board when the inningp was declared closed with four wickets down. Both men took risks and gave chances, but the bowling was bang-ed about the field in an entertaining manner. Kissling claimed 80 and Blake 64. With only seven men V.M.C.A. made a bold bid for victory, and 10C was signalled before the last wicket fell, with the total 13 short of the number required to win. Had the full team batted it is hard to say what would have happened. It was an exciting finish to a well fought match. Gordon have been somewhat overlooked in the struggle between V.M.C.A. and Auckland for the second

grade honours. The black and golds have won all their matches so far and should make things lively for Auckland, with whom at present they tie for the first place. REVIEW OF THE TOUJB.

The, Auckland representatives have just concluded the most disastrous tour in the history of local representative cricket. Though we did not predict that their journey would be a triumphal progress, we did not 'expect that they would come back with such a record: four matches played and four defeats; and all of them decisive ones. To be defeated on three occasions by an innings and something has, I can safely say, never before fallen to the lot of a representative touring 'eleven in New Zealand. The batting of the team has been bad, the bowling, if anything, worse, and the fielding worse still. Even allowing for a little bad luck in the matter of weather, the team have absolutely failed to show that they can play an up-hill game, and there has been, throughout the tour, an entire absence of that power of recovery which is one of the most essential qualifications of a successful team. If they had even made a good fight in their matches, we would have been satisfied, but the -whole play of the eleven has lacked "backbone." Even on the best wickets their batting was weak.

The batting has been of the feeblest nature. Only three men have any claim to consistency, D. Hay aud the Mills Bros. The former's scores read, 11, 2, 37, (SO. 114, 20 (not out), 10 and 8, while W. Mills' figures are 1, 42 (not out), 4, 3 (not out), 21, 48, 14 (not out), 55. Ike Mills' figures are 13, 0, 22, 10, 21, 4.2. He did not play in the Canterbury match owing to an injured hand. Of the rest, the less said the better. Newall and Harold Lusk each had a flash in the pan, but it was nothing more. Sterason, who for years has clone well in representative cricket, seems to have gone quite "off," while Ohlso-n could get no higher than 13. Marshall could never get really going, while Elliott could only make 54 in S innings. MacCormick has also been a. failure. The batting was lamentable throughout. Next lime a team goes away I hope the selection committee Avill see that it includes a good proportion of vigorous bats, as I advocated when criticising the selection of the present team some weeks ago. W. Mills' performance should show the committee what a fearless hitter can do, even on bad wickets.

Turning to the bowling, here again we have mediocrity. With the exception of Stephens none of our bowlers seem to have been up to interprovineial form, as the scores against us testify, 224, 290, 85 (for 4 wickets), 397, and 32G. Doubtless we would have done far better had jMeill been with the team, but his absence only shows how lamentably weak our bowling is. As I have said before, if we are to do anything at all against the other provinces, we must find new bowlers. To depend on one man is absurd. As for the fielding, well, the "Star's" correspondent with the team has said enough on that point. In two matches, against Canterbury and against Hawke's Bay, it was simply atrocious, and on the other occasions it was none too good. I have always thought that fielding is the best test of a team's weakness, and certainly it has been so with this tour. As I expected, Newall Lusk, who has had no practice, did not show his best form with the gloves, and his inability to hold catches proved very costly.

Summing up the whole tour, one is forced to the conclusion which was suggested by the Victorians last year that Auckland cricket has deteriorated within the last few years. Whether the worst has yet to come I do not know, I only hope not.

The team's record is us follows:— Against Otago: Lost by t.n innings and f>3 runs.

Against Canterbury: Lost by six wickets. J Against Wellington: Lost by an innings and 13 runs. Against Hawke's Bay: Lost by an innings and 77 runs.

The averages for he tour are as fol low:—

SOUTHERN OPINIONS. The Dunedin correspondent of the "Weekly Press" has the following candid remarks on the team's Dunedin form: —The visitors were weak in every branch of the game, their bowling being much below interprovincial standard. When the Otago team were batting the game was reduced to one •of tip and run, and nearly everyone scored well. No marvel then that Otago won by an innings and 53 runs. In their second attempt the visitors put on more runs, many of which, I think, resulted from a certain "it does not matter much now" sort oi: style in their play. The team may do better on Canterbury wickets, but they have not a hope of winning the match, nor of that with Wellington. Stemson showed the best form with the ball, but none returned it from the field in a taking manner. I was particularly struck with their poor throwing in, and am satisfied at least two of our clubs could put a much better team in the field. It may be thought my criticism is too sweeping and in making it I imply praise to the Otago men. Not at all. I saw superior virtue in the play of the Canterbury team when playing ours, and noted my approval. To visitors I deem it my duty to evtend every consideration, at the same time am not prepared to wink at shortcomings even when hospitality drives.

The Christchurch papers let us down a liflle more lightly, but agree fTiat our fielding* was about as bad as it could be. Says "Wide-awake" in the "Press": —The less said about the Auckland fielding the better. On the first day their ground work and returning' to the wickets were good, although they dropped catches ad lib, but on Saturday it was all alike—in-

expressibly bad —and this very materi ally contributed to their defeat.

Of our bowling the same writer says : j — Stephens stood out head and shoulders above his brother trundlers, capturing six of the nine wickets that fell on Saturday. He had nearly all the batsmen iv difficulties, at times, and the way he. varied his length and pace, with a cleverly concealed break, stamps him as a first-class bowler, and what the Auckland attack would h,ave been like without him it is difficult to imagine. Stemson trundled steadilyj and kept the runs down, but the batsmen found but little difficulty in i)laying him.

The" same writer speaks very highly of Hay's 60 in the second innings of the Canterbury match. We in Auckland have always held that Hay was among the best bats in the colony, an opinion which has naturally not found favour down South, as Hay has up till now failed almost entirely in interprovincial cricket. "Wide-awake," however, gives him high praise. He says: —Of the Auckland batsmen Hay took pride of place with an innings that stamps him as one of the best bats, if not the best, in New Zealand. During his three hours' stay at the wickets none of the bowlers troubled him. His defence was soundness itself and though he did not get his runs quickly they were made by real cricket-like strokes all round the wicket. His contribution to his side's total was considerably discounted by the reckless way he ran two of his comrades out. Fast between the wickets himself, he appeared to forget that others were not so speedy and in the state of the game there was no excuse for his risking the loss of valuable wickets for the sake of a few singles.

The Wellington "Post" has not much to say on the subject of the Wellington match, but it is enthusiastic on the subject of Hay's innings. His 144 is described as "a great performance." The writer says:—The visitors may well be proud of such a dashing batsman as Hay. His play was the redeeming feature of the Auckland innings." Of the Auckland bowling the writer says:—There was no 'sting' in it, and some very loose stuff was sent down. Thus the Christchurch "Press": "It is doubtful if worse fielding has ever been seen in an interprovincial match at Lancaster Park than that shown by the Aucklanders on the second day. Indeed, the number of chances missed in both innings probably constitutes a record."

Referring to Hay's performance against Canterbury, the "Press" says: "Undoubtedly the most finished batting fjerformance of the side was Hay's. He went in when the bowling was fresh and at its best, and his innings was a combination of sound and correct defence with first-class scoring strokes all round the wicket. There was a general precision and style about his batting right through that stamped him as a first-class batsman."

BATTING. I. N.O. U.S. T.U. Avj,'. D. Hay 8 1 .144 29a 41.7 w. anils 8 '■> i>~> iss 37.0 I. Mills 0 0 'I- 108 18.00 Newell Lusk « . 0 8."> 133 1(5.8 W. Stemson s <» -'« «> 11.12 l>. Marshall <i <> 17 50 8.:i.'{ H. I'.. Lusk 8 0 42 Oil 7.87 E. MacCormlck .... « 1 > 17 ;«i 7.2 T. Elliott 8 0 '21 54 0.7") P. J. Ohlson S 0 1H 40 5.75 StepheiiH 8 1 14 2!) 4.14 Besteaux <j - U 15 3.75 BOWLING. O. M. R. W.Av.per. Wkt. T. Elliott 14-58 3 19.3 D. Hay 3t 7 78 4 19.5 Stephens 117.5 16 3C7 .10 22.9 W. Mills 51 10 150 5 30 Resteaux 70 17 15S 5 31.G Stemson 112.8 33 204 8 33 H. B. Lusk 41 6 03 1 93 MacCormick ... 3 1 12 0 — I. Mills 17 3 51 0 -