N.Z. cricket team ‘under – prepared’

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33453, 7 February 1974, Page 24

N.Z. cricket team ‘under - prepared ’

/From D. /. CAM FROM Al CKI.AM). If there was one major lesson to be learned from the \cw Zealand cricket team’s recent tour of Australia it was that too much of the team's impact on Australian cricket both in terms of playing ability and public relations ■ — was lost because the side was seriously under-prepared.

As the team's manager (.Mr R. A. Vance) said earlier this week, the New Zealanders had to spend the first third of the tour playing themselves into form, and at the same time adapting their techniques to Australian conditions.

During this section of the tour, including four consecutive losses up to the second test, the tour was almost on ! the rocks. Only the New Zealanders’ spirited attempt to win the second test saved I the tour from becoming a (total wreck. ■ This is not being offered as hindsight criticism either iof the New Zealand Cricket Council for accepting the hour at such a time, or of the ! selectors who had precious i little time and evidence from iwhich to build a side. The council became caught between the need to accept jthe traditional tour of England in April-June, and the (prospect of making the first itest tour of Australia less ■than six months later.

Big gaps Many of the players were ; forced to choose between ! I cricket and family and busijness ties. The selectors were ■thus left with some big gaps? |to fill, and with only a few; weeks in which to find re-1 ; placements. If there is implied criticism \ '■ in this, then it is made, mainly in the hope that fut-; ure teams to tour Australia — or other major countries ■ — do not have to suffer from, ■ the same problems, not a few) of them self-inflicted, which' (affected the New Zealanders ■in Australia. If there were two major■ weaknesses in this side they; : were the need for too many players to take time to ■ fashion their game to Austra- ■ lian conditions, and the i(alarming inadequacy of the “fielding. Discussing the preparation >,of a team for such a difficult i; assignment, one goes back i [five years to the year before ! ;the 1970 British Lions toured j New Zealand. Thorough study In that time, the Lions manager (Dr Douglas Smith), | the coach (Mr Carwynl ■James), and other persons in! high places made a thorough study of All Black Rugby, i from first-hand accounts, ■ books, or films. AH the preparation was done, the plans .'laid, and then the team sei-1 ; ected.

I The Lions knew precisely) I how they wanted to play, and I how the New Zealanders) !would play. They succeeded.) Not through their own* ■fault, the New Zealand! .Cricket Council and the sel-j lectors had less time to prepare their cricketers for Aus- 1 tralia, but I suspect that the; time was not used as profitably as it might have been. It took a long time, too long for comfort, for the New Zealand bowlers to work out : their best bowling pattern and field settings. For too (long, the New Zealand batsmen had to struggle against bowling and field setting that was varied, assertive, and often inventive . I fee! sure that either by) word of mouth or film they could have learned much of; this preliminary but invalu-! able information before the; tour started. They might also have settled down more quickly had they had forewarning of the exhaustive, and sometimes abrasive, re(action of Australian crowds! land newspapers. One of the saddest re- i marks of the tour came at ' Hobart when K. J. Wadsworth, the wicket-keeper, was ; having a day off darting ! about in the covers. Wads- ‘

worth, said one of the senior members of the team, was the best, fastest, and suresti handed outfield the team I possessed. It was a biting, but accurate, commentary on the team’s fielding, which occasionally reached average : level. but too often was be;low par. Fielding The Australian test side is wonderful in the field and it was too much to expect New Zealand to reach such standard. But it was galling to see modest sides such as Newcastle, Australian Capital Territory', and Tasmania, being so superior to the New Zealanders in the keenness and accuracy of their field-; ing. New Zealand went away with only one fieldsman. M. J. F. Shrimpton, who had iany claims to expert ability I in the critical cover and midwicket fielding area. There were several good to useful slip and gully fields, and adequate men for the third-man .and fine-leg sector. Within a day or two. it beIcame obvious that Shrimpton I was not the speedster he used to be. He had not been included in the selectionsquad, he had been thinking iseriously of not playing Plunjket Shield cricket, and he was jnot fit. i On top of this, he had longstanding Achilles tendon (trouble. And he took a long (time to gain momentum. He

tried mightily. and must ha' ■ I run for miles in the searing heat on the first day of the Melbourne test. While the New Zealanders marvelled at the superb field ing of A. P. Sheahan and K D. Walters of the test sides, of R. Edwards and B. Yardlet lithe finest of them all) for Western Australia. the' could only regret that tiny >did not have similarly bril liant men who would set the rest of the field alight. • Only twice—on the second day of the Sydney test and in the knock-out Semi-final against South Australia—did the New Zea ■landers field up to international standard. At other times, they were average to poor. Richie Benaud spoke more in sorrow than in anger after the first day of the first test when he described New (Zealand as the poorest intet national side he had seen. ! Skilled fielding and catch ing are only two of the arts lof cricket. But on the vast (fields of Australia, winch demand both speed of toot land length of throw, and against hard-headed lopponents who relish the sight of being dropped, ex pert fielding is of vital imI portance. Bitter lesson The New Zealand fielding was seldom expert, and the (whole performance of the (team suffered. It was a hard 'and bitter lesson which must Inot be forgotten.