Days at Lancaster Park (viii)

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31975, 30 April 1969, Page 11

Days at Lancaster Park (viii)

I By

J.H.E.S.]

’T’HE game between Canterbury and Wellington, which began on New Year’s Eve, 1932, was another of those that my changing my profession allowed me to see, when before I would have been idling on the West Coast; and I was fortunate. This was a threeman match: Kerr. Merritt, and Cromb. No, I am unfair to Wellington’s K. C. James, who was run out for 30 in the first innings—l don’t remember how but persuade myself easily that this very clever judge of a run was let down by his partner—and scored 48 in the second, next to Dempster's 65.

Wellington did badly: 151. The wreckage was chiefly due to Merritt, who bowled 26 overs (10 maidens—which illustrates his paralysing effect) for 54 runs and six wickets. Cromb had two and Burrows one. Talbot and Kerr opened for Canterbury. Talbot soon went to Blundell, a bowler whom I remember as very like Wellington’s and Canterbury's Huxford in figure, pace and action. He bowled above 28 overs, six maidens, for 101 runs and six wickets; and I ought to have

included him among the figures of the match for this stout performance. Besides Talbot, he had Kerr (at last) clean bowled, Roberts,! Cromb, Merritt, and Burns:! a full bag. But Kerr went on; and I think it is worth mentioning that—so I heard at the time —his club performances had been so poor that he pro-! posed to the selection com-! mittee that he should be 1 dropped. The selectors were wiser than he and picked him; and he justified them and himself In scoring 196. I was sitting in the long east stand, perhaps no longer there. It had an iron roof and Kerr, as he gathered confidence and as the ball gathered size, drove ball after ball from the northern end clattering on to the roof or over it Minutes were lost while the ball was retrieved from back gardens beyond. Stand aside such innings as I have described, of Trumper, of Macartney, of Schneider, of Hammond, this was the most powerful I have ever seen, and unlike theirs only in showing a more exuberant power: something of ferocity! I don't care that I did not see Alletson hit 34 from Killick in the Notts-Sussex match of 1911; I don’t care that I didn't see Fender take his 100 from Northants in 1920 in 35 minutes, though I wish, in Masefield's words, I wish as 1 was there; for I did see Kerr take his second 94 in; 48 minutes. All out, 366. Wellington's second innings was distinguished by Dempster’s opening 65 and by James's 48 but by little else. Both were out to j Cromb, Dempster bowled I and James caught off him, by Page. Cromb bowled 26 overs, 6 maidens, for 70runs! and 5 wickets; which is why ’ I count him among the men. of the match, which Canter- : bury won by 10 wickets.! James had enough credit at | the crease to allow for his I having taken only two wickets behind the stumps.

Years later I had the opportunity to ask Kerr how the ball looked to him as he went on. He grinned and said, “Like a Christmas pudding." And I suddenly remember that, when Kerr came in, Page was on his way to a tidy score, and their partnership totalledj 176, which took 65 minutes.: Page finished on 45. Let us praise famous men.