AUSTRALIAN CRITICS ON TOURISTS ... Congdon urged to produce more flexible tactics

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33424, 4 January 1974, Page 16

AUSTRALIAN CRITICS ON TOURISTS ... Congdon urged to produce more flexible tactics

(From D. ]. CAMERON) MELBOURNE. The 1949 All Blacks had the wit to ask Dr Danie Craven to explain the mysteries of the Springbok scrum; the 1972 All Blacks might have profitably learned from the tactical wisdom of Mr Carwyn James.

Perhaps the 1973-74 New Zealand cricketers should consult Richie Benaud, the former Australian captain.

Amid all the post mortems of New Zealand’s crushing defeat in the first test on Wednesday, Benaud’s thoughts represented the sanest and most sensible analysis of the New Zealanders’ failings.

The bad fielding was the most serious problem, and Benaud could only offer the thought that the New Zealanders must practise their fielding even harder. Tactical errors

The second problem, according to Benaud, was that the New Zealanders did not appear to have any tactical appreciation of the match, or that if such tactics did exist they were not flexible enough. “Obviously, your bowlers had decided to attack on a line just outside the offstump. On a good pitch that might have been the right idea, although perhaps only Keith Stackpole would have taken the bait.

“On the first day, however,” said Benaud, “the ball was seaming about and there was some early life in the pitch. Then, the obvious plan was to bowl at the off-stump and commit the batsman to the stroke, not outside the stump.

“The batsmen were able to

let too many balls go unplayed. “When the pitch lost its life, then the best line would have been just outside the off-stump.

Benaud said he detected a similar inflexible attitude in the batting. “Your chaps were trying to save the match by defensive means, but it was difficult to understand their tactics.

."The only apparent plan seemed to be to block six or seven balls in an over and then, if the ball was tossed up, to try to hit it high into the outfield. It was not always the right ball to hit.” Change of order Benaud’s comments were more or less endorsed by Jack Fingleton, the outstanding batsmen-writer, in an article headed, “Up to you, Congdon” published in the Melbourne “Age.” Fielding was one problem, the batting order was another. “Congdon and his co-selectors, but particularly Congdon, have to give the

batting order deep thought,” Fingleton said. “He must alter his batting order considerably to make the most of what he has got.”

Fingleton, rather strangely, suggested J. M. H. Morrison and D. R. Hadlee as the openers: “Both have a good defence, so necessary for an opener, yet neither subjugates his scoring shots.” Fingleton maintains that J. M. Parker should be dropped down the order and K. J. Wadsworth promoted.

“Rigid mind”

“It was wrong that after his outstanding success in scoring 80 in the first innings, Wadsworth was hot promoted in the second.

“This suggests,” said Fingleton, “that Congdon is a man of rigid mind, so my suggestions could well be ignored.

“But Congdon has to come up with some thoughtful ideas for Sydney otherwise this New Zealand series will slide to a trough from which it will not emerge.”

Most of the other Australian test comment gave scant praise to the New Zealanders.

Best and poorest

Under the heading “An outright shambles of a test,” Barrie Bretland wrote in the Melbourne “Sun”: “Announcing that Australia beat New Zealand in the test was like announcing that the sun rose in the east over Melbourne this morning. “Australia, even without Dennis Lillee, lan Redpath, Ross Edwards and Jeff Hammond, has the best side in the world.

“New Zealand, cruelly hovelled by the absence of five top players for this series, has the poorest.’’