CRICKET.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 52, 2 March 1901, Page 4 (Supplement)

CRICKET.

Cricketers have been favoured with good weather for most of the season, and it was an unpleasant change playing on Saturday. It was just like a winter's afternoon. The slow wicket was naturally in favour of the bowlers, and the ball was never very greasy, so that low scoring was the order of the day.

United's performance against Parnell was one of the best, if not the best, that they have ever done. With 159 to make to win in less than two hours, on a very heavy wicket, their task seemed almost impossible. They had the option of going for a draw (which could safely have been done), or risking defeat by going for a win. The risk was a big one too, for everything had to be hit, and the team might quite easily have been dismissed for a third of the score, on such a wicket. Most teams would, I think, have played for the draw, and United deserve great credit for their pluck. As one cricketer said to me: "Cricket would be all right in Auckland if we only had a few more finishes like this."

No one thought United had any chance of winning, and when Stemson left almost immediately things looked "all up." Stemson had somewhat hard luck. He got a full toss to leg, and hit it on the side of his bat, the wicketkeeper making a good catch. Xewell Lusk joined Hay, and then things became lively, 80 being signalled before he left. With the ground unsuitable for ground strokes, Lusk adopted the only way out of the difficulty, and bit the bowling out, of the ground. On such a slow wicket his clean hitting was quite exceptional. D. Hay backed him up well. His -10 was the first decent score he has made in Cup cricket this year. While these two were together the scoring was at the rate of about 130 an hour. The finish proved a most exciting one. the required number of runs being obtained just twelve minutes before "time.''

Parnell's fielding at the beginning was good, and several fine catches were brought oil". Towards the end. however, when the excitement, rose, their catching went all to pieces, and several easy chances were dropped. United admit that they had some luck towards the end.

Parnell's defeat drops them out of the lead, and leaves Auckland and United at the head of the competition. These two clubs do not meet until the last round.

The Gordon-North Shore match calls for little comment. The only noticeable thing about the day's play was the bowling of Kallender and Mcßae. Kallender, who is usually erratic, bowled very steadily, and was helped a good deal by a cross wind. Mcßae bowled well, but had little luck. WORRALL ON UMPIRING.

In the last issue of the Sydney "Referee" Jack Worrall says some "straight out" things on the subject of throwing and umpiring: —"In the different criticisms from various English writers, published from time to time in the 'Referee,' the one grain of comfort they apparently possess is the gloating over what will be done to Australians when they get them down under. Their opportunities so far have been very limited, and they wdll have very little cause to complain o_ in future. ,No doubtful man, I feel certain, will in future be picked in an Australian eleven. Our most successful bowlers against Englishmen have been men without a fault, and although a few critics have seen fit to* mention Jones' name it might not be out of place here for me to state emphatically that there was no fairer bowder in the world than was Jones in 1899. I might say that his chief critic in England is a man who is notorious for his shortness of vision. The whole team tested his sight at different times, and he could not recognise one of us at a distance of three yards. However, as the Englishmen are putting their house in order, for the purity of the game let us do likewise. At present if an umpire of any State calls a man he is almost, certain to be hostilely treated by the crowd. It means that our best, class of umpires wdll be driven from the game and made to order umpires substituted. Every State should possess undeniable experts in its Selection Committee. It would prevent all kinds of unpleasantness in respect to this particular evil. It, might not be amiss at the present juncture, seeing that an English team is about to visit us at the tail end of the year, to point out one or two little differences in the mode of treatment to visiting representative combinations in the appointment, of umpires. During the last visit of the Englishmen they brought out Phillips, in my opinion the premier umpire in the world, not alone in his knowledge of the intricacies of the game, but also in his independence. The visitors were asked to name the other umpire they preferred to officiate in the test games. They had sampled the best whilst playing against the different States. They chose Bannerman. It will thus be seen that they practically picked both men. Yet they were apparently not satisfied. Contrast this with the manner in which Australians are treated in the Old Country. We not only have no say in the appointment of umpires, but the names of the men to adjudicate in the test games were not even vouchsafed to us. We asked for young men, as at least they would possess good c} r esight, and in all probability would be unbiassed. We were politely informed that they managed those things themselves, and that the names of the umpires would be published in

the papers on the morning of the commencement, of the game. Why that dark mystery is best known to the English' authorities; but from what-" ever j>oint of view it is approached it is far from complimentary to the men concerned. In the five test games the authorities at Lord's appointed altogether ten men —two different officials for each match. The reason, I presume, was to prevent jealousy. Is it not about time that Australians plucked up a bit of self-respect and backbone and insisted on the courtesy extended to Englishmen out here being extended to Australians in England?'*