Brittle Batting Handicapped Canterbury Cricket Team

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30348, 25 January 1964, Page 9

Brittle Batting Handicapped Canterbury Cricket Team

JpEARS that if the bowling of tlie Canterbury Plunket Shield team was likely to be adequate, the batting would be brittle, were very well founded and for the third succesive season Canterbury failed to score half of the possible 50 points—l 9 this summer, 22 last season, 18 the season before.

It it was a disappointing result, it could, with reasonable luck, have been far better. The Auckland match could not have had a closer finish, and it might well have brought Canterbury 10 points instead of three; only one point was taken from the match with Northern Districts, in which Canterbury was on top at the finish, and had rain not washed out Tuesday’s play at Nelson, an outright victory for Canterbury would have been a distinct possibility. For all that, Canterbury had too many weaknesses to be a genuine contender for the shield.

On paper, Canterbury had a long batting list, and there were times when the batting depth was distinctly useful. But the moderate results achieved by the principal batsmen set the team a task too difficult for its modest accomplishments. The captain, G. T. Dowling, reached 20 six times in the first eight innings but managed half-centuries only twice. There were times when he seemed to be in commanding form and lost his wicket only through a lapse in concentration. At others, his admirable desire to get in behind the ball persuaded him to go too far across his stumps with fatal results.

The Somerset professional, P. B. Wight, finished the series with excellent figures 312 runs from five completed innings. He batted most entertainingly against Northern Districts and Central Districts, and without him Canterbury would have been in sorry straits. Although his technique is not a model for young players. Wight has an extradordinary ability to hit the ball in front of tile wicket, even when it seemed to be pitched rather to short for the shot Supple wrists, a good eye and confidence were the basic ingredients in a palatable batting mixture. But a bad taste was left by his unbelievably bad cricket at the end of his second innings against Northern Districts when he calmly took singles off first balls and threw numbers ten and eleven to the wolves. B. G. Hadlee had 215 runs from eight completed innings, compared with 242 from nine last seaon, decline measureable only at the second decimal point Until his

brillant 78 not out against Otago, there were the same strengths and weaknesses—magnificent strokes, and courage to set against impatience and unnecessary dismissal. The responsibility set so squarely on his shoulders against Otago seemed to ring out the best in him. Hadlee still has many good days ahead. I. R. Hartland justified his selection in. the last two matches but for the others, it was a struggle all the way. The utter failure of B. F. Hastings was inexplicable and although P. G. Z. Harris made some useful scores, it was drudgery nearly all the time. J. T. Ward showed that the good opinions of his batting were not with-

P. B. WIGHT out justification, and although his return was modest, it was his best batting season so far. But the batting problems were accentuated by the failures of D. L. Gallop, the withdrawal after one match of G. A. Bartlett, the minor contributions of R. G. Hortin, and the fact that only twice was J. W. Kiddey able to provide the late thrust which can make him so valuable. The fact that Hadlee was the only batsman, other than Wight, to average 25 in the series is a simple exposure of the team’s chief problem, and the bowlers’ task xvas not made any lighter by some fielding lapses, particularly in the slips. But the bowlers, by and large, did very well. R. C. Motz, always a trier, took 20 wickets, as he did last

season, and reduced their cost by three runs to 20.4. Kiddey took 18 wickets, two more than in the previous summer, and at 14.2 the cost was almost five runs lower. But his return was improved immensely by one spectacular effort, his 5 for 8 against Otago, and in general he lacked the tight control and sharpness of other seasons. B. C. Irving, who never bowled badly, took only nine wickets in five games, compared with 14 in four and the wickets each cost six runs more. The

chances did not come his way. But if the absence of Bartlett weakened the batting, it introduced B. Andrews and this young bowler did remarkably well in his first season. He took 14 wickets in four games, was second to Kiddey in the averages, and showed admirable stamina, particularly when required to bowl into the wind. And he finished a fine first season with 24 runs and was out only once in his six innings.