Canterbury’s cricketing woes caused by bad batting

Press, 23 February 1983, Page 32

Canterbury’s cricketing woes caused by bad batting

By

JOHN COFFEY

As a young man who was so recently captaining a Canterbury team that only just managed to avoid finishing a distant last in the Shell Trophy cricket series. I Richard Leggat might have been excused for seeking shelter by hurling verbal bouncers, and blame, at others. Leggat did make some mild criticisms, of team composition and pitches, but in reviewing what must have i been a traumatic season he was refreshingly honest. The batting, he said, was never consistent enough for Canterbury to be competitive in the inter-district competition. The general plan formulated by Leggat and the Canterbury coach. Dayle Hadlee, was, to muster a first innings total of about .250 runs, a platform from which Leggat could bring his spin bowlers into play. That blueprint was followed only once — when Canterbury finished off the title-holder and eventual winner. Wellington, in two days at Lancaster Park. But even when recalling that stunning success Leggat did not let himself get carried away. “They (Wellington) batted as badly as we did a few times, and Vaughan (Brown) bowled particularly well," he said. “We tried to play all of our games that way — to score 250-odd, pick up a couple of wickets from the pace bowlers, and then send our spinners after them. If we

could have got 250 regularly, we would have done very well,” said Leggat. ’

Indeed, Leggat was quite satisfied with the bowling and fielding efforts of Canterbury. He pointed out that only one side (Central Districts. at Nelson) had accumulated more than 300 runs against Canterbury in an innings, and that developed into a match which Canterbury should have won. Leggat admits that he was "a bit apprehensive" when he took over the leadership from Richard Hadlee after two games. Canterbury by then had lost to Central after seemingly having matters well under control on the third morning, and to Auckland in just two days. Although he had been dropped from the team the previous summer, Leggat regarded his sudden elevation as a challenge and one that he looked forward to. There was a loss on the first innings to Northern Districts, but at its next appearance Canterbury thrashed Wellington. But consecutive innings defeats by Otago at Christchurch and Invercargill, both within two days, were described by Leggat as “debacles” and the product of bad batting. Then, at Nelson, "we were let back into the game, batted well in quest for a big target, and then just crashed to lose five wickets for two runs.

“Winning the last match (against Northern Districts) was a nice bonus, but not too

much should be made of it. At least it showed we can beat competent sides, and it was a pity we had not played that well at other times,” said Leggat. “It was just that the batting did not come off ... “The top six or seven in the order were strokemakers, and there was not enough application or experience. Too many loose shots were tried too early, and many dismissals resulted from catches behind the wickets.

“We had a very young side, and the lack of experience showed through. After several failures, it be’eame a matter of lost confidence. I must say. though, that the spirit never went out of the team, no-one threw in the towel, and that attitude assisted me." said Leggat.

“Some of the batsmen were tried in unfamiliar positions and it took a while to work out the best order.

“The gamble to have an extra spinner, Andrew Nuttall, also did not pay off because of bad batting and pitches that encouraged quick bowlers. Nutts was bowling as effectively as anyone before the team was named, but with Vaughan (Brown) and Dave (Stead) bowling so well I became redundant as a spinner and there was no place for Nutts," he said. The ball tended to seam around on most of the pitches encountered by Can-

terbury, Leggat said, providing the dual problems of batsmen making early errors outside the off stump and limiting the effectiveness of Canterbury's spinners. “I don't like making excuses. but there is an element of luck in cricket — in every game and in every innings. If one is having a bad run, the luck seems to be all bad," Leggat said. Leggat was conscious that Canterbury received only meagre support from the public, but he does not condemn the sport's followers for staying away from Lancaster Park. “There was so much on television with the one-day stuff from Australia that they were probably saturated. I also think that spectators like to watch their own side batting and scoring runs

and that was not happening," he said. On the plus side of the ledger, Leggat welcomed the appointment of Dayle Hadlee as coach — "he did his job very well and was a great help to me. It was unfortunate that he could not play throughout the series as well," Leggat said. Looking ahead. Leggat feels that Canterbury has no cause to panic — "Auckland finished equal last with us, and there should be plenty of depth up there" — and he does not advocate major changes before the 1983-84 series. “I would like to see pretty much the same side, with the individuals performing better. I don't think you could bring in many other club or country players,” said Leggat.