Canterbury Batting Has Failed Frequently

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28784, 3 January 1959, Page 5

Canterbury Batting Has Failed Frequently

TT was natural that there should A be bitter disappointment among Canterbury cricket supporters when the' Canterbury Plunket Shield team lost its match to Wellington _in such extraordinary circumstances on Wednesday afternoon. Since that debacle, a correspondent has suggested that a full • list of similar collapses in recent years should be published. There has certainly been a considerable number of them. Three times last season, and twice already this season, Canterbury has led oh the first innings in matches it has lost outright.

In the 1949-50 season, Canterbury led Wellington by 74 but was then dismissed for 56; J. R. Reid was the bowler then too, with five for 20. In the following summer, Canterbury led Otago, and lost. Against Central Districts, Canterbury, needing 243, was out for 98. Dramatic Canterbury again made 98. against Otago, in 1952-53 but there was the dramatic match at Auckland that season. Canterbury’s first innings lead was 212, and the side needed only 91 to win. When the score was 32 without loss the game seemed as good as over. But Canterbury's last wicket went at 84—G. O. Rabone six for 37. In the same season, Canterbury made 90 against Wellington. Last season Canterbury led Auckland by 71 and lost by 44; led Central Districts by 139 and lost by four wickets; led Wellington narrowly, and needing 176 to win outright, was dismissed for 80—R. W. Blair six for 29. Then this season has come the failure at Otago and the chaos of the second innings against Wellington.

It makes sorry reading, and it is the basis of some bitter com-

I ment about the capabilities of Canterbury’s present team. But it I overlooks some important facts. One of them is that collapses are not unknown among other provincial teams, particularly when they are batting last on a worn pitch. That is not to suggest that all Canterbury’s dismal showings can be attributed to worn wickets, but some .of them are. Four Times It also overlooks the fact that since the war Canterbury and Otago have each won the Plunket Shield four times to Wellington’s three times, Auckland’s once and Central Districts* once. Moreover, in seasons when it has not won the shield, Canterbury has had some fine performances, and against overseas teams in this period it has offered much more opposition than other provincial teams.

There is one other factor which should be considered. Canterbury has players who could, with help and encouragement, make the province the strongest in batting in the country within a year or two. The startling improvement in B. A. Bolton’s batting is bound to mean much to Canterbury. Already G. T. Dowling looks an accomplished Plunket Shield batsman. M. E. Chapple, J. W. D’Arcy, S. C. Guillen, and J. W. Guy all have years of cricket before them, they are all internationals, and it will be surprising if they are unable to silence their critics before long. There is no denying that Canterbury’s collapses have become too frequent. It is attributable almost entirely to a lack of confidence. Psychiatrists The cricket crowds feel there will be a failure, and the players, inevitably share it. It is unlikely that the Canterbury Cricket Association will spend its money on psychiatrists and a change in attitude is all that is required. The Canterbury players have the skill to win more matches than they lose. On Wednesday a little cool thinking would have carried the day. But before the tide turns. Canterbury’s cricketers will have to appreciate their own abilities, to see the task before them in its simplest terms. There should be no need for nerves. The players are good enough to do without such luxuries.