CRICKET.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1366, 17 February 1912, Page 18

CRICKET.

An Interesting Letter. On the umpiring incident in the SouthCollege match, Mr. L. an . as a footnote.: tyT'his'letter is !;uofo,necessarily for publication. It is merely-'an. explanation." The writer has, however, taken the liberty of publishing the letter, chiefly because r . it is the view of the bowler ooncerned, and he is likely to be reliable. i Besides, the writer raises the interesting question whether a batsman should leave after a certain decision has been given, and "Over!" has been called. The question opens up,<i very wide field. The writer can only say that he would not quit the crease. himself, but it is intended to revive this question later, and the writer hopes to obtain the opinion of some leading players on the subject. It raises a ■very big question—first as to, ethics generally, and second, as to usage and rules, which are supposed to.be the product of. a sense of ethics and right-doing. However, Mr. Iveys's letter is as follows:—' In justice to the umpires I would' like to explain the facts in connection with the incident which occurred in the' South v. College match, and • referred to by you on Saturday last. It was oil the last ball of the over bowled by myself, and Burton took the catch very low down—low enough in fact, to give room for doubt. I appealed for the catch, the umpire Teplied that he'.was* doubtful, and in turn, appealed to the umpire at the opposite end. No. 2 umpire did not hoar, and No. 1 umpire then called "Over!" '

I immediately Trent to ; No. 2 umpire and told him that-ho had been appealed to., He asked No. 1 umpire if he had appealed to him. No. 1 replied: "Yes.' What did yoa think of that catch?" ''Out as clean as a ■whistle," replied No. 2. .. . The batsman then immediately left his crease. That is* tlio incident as it occnrred. The only question which could now crop up is: "Whether a batsman is justified in going after the umpire hag called 'Over!'"

Wednesday Representative Dale. Word has been received by Mr. J. C. Cnidack, secretory of the Wellington Wednos,day Association,.announcing finality as to [tho date of the'representative match be'tween tho. Auckland and Wellington midjweek representatives. Mr. Cusack has had a .letter from Mr. H. Y. Humphreys, secretary of tho Auckland Mid-Week Association, from which it appears that Easter :Monday and the following day are the dates which .will suit tho Northerners. •The match will be played on those days, and should be. well worth watching, as •'Wellington mid-week cricket seems to be agoing ahead each year. .iflather Happy' Proposal. An idea is taking shape that it would "be a good thing—or at least an interesting thing—if the elitp of Wednesday •cricket, and some strong Saturday club could be brought together for a mateh. The only suitable day would possibly "bo Good Friday. If the Saturday eleven took this game seriously—as no doubt they would—the match would afford an interesting spectacle to cricket-lovers who ■would sooner spend an afternoon at the Basin Reserve, looking on, than anywhere pise. Prowess of the Union C.C. Comparisons betweon tho Union (Wednesday) (tret eleven and sorno of tho Saturda elevens are now being made, and naturally enough. Of course, comparisons are rather odious, and it is not intended to pursue them here. But Union's record ■ is a very fine one, and, what is more, it is growing liner ns tho weeks go on. So far they have 21 championship points . to their credit, which gives them a clear lend of 12 points in tho grade. Their tally of "scalps" tor the season includes no fewer than six four-point wins. I,ast Saturday one noted that M'Gill 'completed a century and six not out. Tho dxive, as most Wednesday men know, is his forte.

Did Rccsc Do Right? Dan Reeso's decision to bat first in tho Canterbury-Auckland match came in for general condemnation and severe criticism, but it was mostly'a matter of being "wise after the event. It was significant (says a Cliristcliurch writer) that tho murmurs of disapproval only commenced nfler a few Canterbury wickets had fallen, but by the time tho sido was out for Bl> the Canterbury skipper's action was loudly denounced all round tho ground. The

fact of Hie matter was that a careful scrutiny of tho pitch gave one the impression that there would do absolutely no advantage in winning the toss, tor the winner's judgment in deciding' whether to bat or field ivould.be the merest guesswork. Reese took this view, find tho disadvantage of having to bat last turned the scalo in favour of batting. Hill-M'Alister Affray. Mr. P. A. Iredale, one of the selectors on tho Australian Board of Control, arrived in Melbourne on February 7, with Warren Bardsloy, H. Carter, and other members of tho Australian team selected to play in tho fourth, test match against England. When asked to give hifl version of tho fight between Messrs. Hill and M'Alister in Sydney, Mr. Iredale was very diffident. Ho remarked that tho desire of the boanl was that nothing should be 6aid until a report had been presented to members for consideration at an early special meeting. "However," he continued, "in view of what has been printed, aiid of the fact that I was present, it might be just as well to say that up to the time the quarrel began no reference was made to the telegram sent by M'Alister to Hill at Adelaide prior to the selection of the team for tho third Test match. When tho meeting opened, Mr. Hill and I sat at one side of tho table; Mr. M'Alister was opposite. We were discussing bowlers' merits, and M'Alister told Hill that ho did not think he used his bowlers to tho best advantage in the previous Tests. Hill replied that, as captain, he thought ho had done his best. Then heated remarks were exchanged. M'Alister said he thought that llill was one of the worst captains h-3 had seen, nill replied by leaning across the table and striking M'Alister with the back of his hand, inflicting a wound under the eye. "After this," said Iredale, "they went at it hammer and tongs. Very few blows ' were struck; it was more like a wrestling match. Smith and I did our best to part them, but they were all over the place, and when the big table was upset 1 was pinned .in the corner. I strained my side, and still feel the effects." "Jlow long did it last?" Mr. Iredale was asked.. "Well,, about twenty minutes, I should think,", lie replied. "Hill, using his weight, bore in on M'Alister, who was bleeding. It all occurred as quick as lightning. They weie both • game and ■ determined, We are all very sorry about the whole-affair, and I don't think anyone regrets it more than the partici- . pants." - The Sensitive Plant. What Hobbs and the other sensitive plants from England'fail to realise about the barracker is that the barraeker must find some way to relieve his feelings. If there is nothing for him to cheer, he must make remarks or take no notice of the game at all. It isn't everybody who can bring to the Test snatch a volume of the Encyclopaedia Britanuiea, so as to while away tho time -between tho runs by reading an article or two. The way the "correct" cricketers play nowadays you have to turn to some such exciting diversion unless you are ready to be bored to death. On the Melbourne Cricket Ground, people are better off than in Sydney, for they can watch tho trains go past, and

make sixpjnny sweepstakes on the trains which come in first. This is interesting, and,' moreover, there is always the chance of a collision on that stretch of railway line in Victoria. A true story should bo hero told of the second Test match in Melbourne. . Hobbs and Doughs were batting. Josiah Thomas (Minister for lixternal Affairs) and Frank Tudor (Minister for Customs) were looking on, and this conversation took place:— Thomas: Bet you two cups of tea we'll see more tmins pass than we'll see runs . lVdor: ; ;.lt,'i;,a .bet: ; ■ They kept'"(iount for an hour," and the trains won by 23. What does the tender-skinned Mr. Hobbs say to thai? What are the barrackers to do when it' is more interesting to sit on the edge of a railway cutting than to bake in the suu while cricketers try desperately not to score ?—"Sydney Sun."

The Recalcitrant Six. t The six Australian cricketers who tent an ultimatum to the board of control regarding the managership of the forthcoming English tour now find themselves in the position of having an ultimatum delivered to thorn. On February 7 (says the "Argus") the secretary of the board of 1 control (Mr. Sydney Smith, jun.) issued the invitations to the men selected to go to England. The invitation stipulates for a reply notifying acceptance or otherwise within ten dajs. The ten days stipulated by the board as the time" within which those to whom the invitations have been sent .will be'strictly adhered to. "The board," says Mr. Smith, "is not going to back down. If the six do not accept, the selectors will be instructed to fill the vacancies." There is a loop-holo through which the six may escape from the awkward position that has cropped up. In their ultimatum to the board tnev wanted fourteen players selected for the tour, the players to appoint their own manager. The board has appointed a representative to accompany the team, and its selectors have decided to invite fifteen to make the tour. 'When tho fifteen players havo been definitely decided upon they will be called together and given an of appointing ■ a manager. Under Rule 9 of the constitution tho appointment will'bo subject to tho confirmation of the board. If such manager should not bo a member of the team, or the board's representative, he will receive a salary of JMflO, together with all travelling expenses, as enjoyed by the members of the team. This amount will bo chargeable td the expenses of the tour. The board's representative will- receive a salary of .£IOO out of the board's share, of the profits, but his expenses, which will be similar to those of members of the team, will be chargeable to the general expense's of the visit. The board does not object to the players appointing a manager on these terms. In the event of this second appointment being made, the board will define tho duties of both men. Frank Layer's Position. Tho whole of the ten players chosen to go to England being now in Melbourne, the views of a number of them have been sought with regard to the chances of an early settlement of the dispute between the Board of Control and themselves. Do they object to Mr. Crouch going to England with them as the' board's representative? They are unanimously agreed that they do not. There is no trouble on that score. All the men chosen are anxious to go, with the exception of Horde-rn, who has declared that business affairs will keep liim in Sydney. The whole fight centres round the desire of the six certainties—the six who signed the letter to the board published in "The Age" some time ) ago—to have Mr. Frank Laver as their manager on the trip.

Tho players spoken to inado no sccrct of the fact that tliey wanted Lover and n.o one else. He was with them in 19011 and was populai. Now they •■vaiit him again. They do not mind Mr. Crouch or, anyone else going as the board's representative, but Frank Laver, who has been over the ground, who combines cricketing ability with managerial experience, is wanted—so the six "certainties' declnro —to act for them, and to play with'them, should he bo required. It is really a Laver crisis. Tho question whether Mr. Crouch's expenses are paid by tho Board of Control or out of the players' receipts from their tour is said to be a minor mattor. The selected men think tho board should pay them out of its own hinds; but they are not likely to force a. deadlock over that issue, 'the problem of Mr. Laver's inclusion, however, is a more serious matter.

To complete the team for England fifteen men will be wanted. How many of theso will say, as tho six havo practically said, "Either Frank Laver or no trip"?

Could Not Get What He Wanted.Hill, tho Australian captain, was spoken to on February 7 on iho Albert cricket ground. Melbourne, where lie was assisting the M.C.C. committee in their match against on Annj eleven. Ho waa

putting on his pads to go in against the Army representatives, and seemed to be enjoying tho prospect—as (hough holiday cricket were a pleasant relief after strenuous events.

"No." ho said, in answer to a. question, "there is no new development as far as I am concerned. 1 have nothing to do with choosing the team for tlie fourth Test. Iredale and M'A lister will do that."

And what if they disagree? "There was an arrangement in Sydney that Mr. Blinman, of Adelaide, should then have the deciding voice. But he is not liore, so I doa't know what thej will do. Look at the weather now! ' Ho glanced np at the sky. which was heavily clouded. "We haven't a left-hand bowler, and if the weather's going to be wet we shall want one for a certainty. That was what I wanted in it might have been wet there." Is it too late to do anything? "It isn't ton late to telegraph to Sydney. But I don't suppose for a minute they'll do anything like that." Hill was going out into the field, but he added another word. "When I was on tho committee it was very little use. I couldn't get what I wanted then. It was generally two to one."

Our Reckoning With Auckland. In now of the approaching Auckland match, the following record, compiled by Mr. A. Wiren, is interesting:— March 16, ISGO, at Wellington: Auckland won. by four wickets. December, 186'2, at Auckland: Anckland won by 108 runs. November 30, 1873, at Wellington: Auckland won by three wickets. December 8 and 9, 1882, at Wellington: Auckland won by nine wickets. January 8 and 9, 1885, at Wellington: Drawn. April 11 and 12, 1887, at Auckland: Auckland won by an inninjs and 101 runs. January 6 and 7, 1890, at Wellington: Wellington won by ten wickets. December 2 and 3, 1893, at Auckland: Drawn. January 10 and 11, 1894, at Wellington: Auckland wou by one wicket. December 22 and 24, 189G, at Auckland: Auckland won by four wickets. December 2 and.3, 1896, at Wellington: Auckland won by 02 runs. April. 11, 1900, at Auckland: Auckland won .by 52 runs. January 7, 1901, at Wellington: Wellington won by an innings and 13 runs. December 25, 1903, at Wellington: Wellington won by 90 runs. January 10, 1906, at Wellington: Wellington won by 211 runs. December, 1909, at Auckland: Auckland won by ten wickets. December, 1910, at Auckland: Auckland won by four wickets. Summary: Auckland has won 11 matches; Wellington, ■!; Drawn, 2.

Warm Defender of Hill and His Coterie. Mr. 11. J. Mitchell recently wrote to tho Sydney "Daily Telegraph": "Have not the deeds, not of one season but of many, shown us that Hill, Armstrong, Carter, Itansford, : Train per, and Cotter have been, and are to-day, the mainstay of the eleven who fight our battles for us? Would an opponent equally say that if six of the best billiard players —say, Stephenson, Lindrum, Gray, lumaii, Eeece, and Hoberts—were put aside and a grand championship played, six others could do their work as well?

"His selection is Gregory first— too old and too stiff to oppose England's best bowlers (great as he lias been). Of the rest, Macartney on his strict merits could be included alter the rebellious six; Emery equally so. Kelleway's off theory having a.ssumed such an absurdity _ of playing distance, could well be replaced by Folkard. M'Laren's inclusion seems proper in the team, unless the fourth Test speaks to the contrary. AYaddy's energy outside his batting abilities might also be found worthy if a trip. But I fear there' are fifteen better entitled.

"That a big change is needed on our old eleven no one who has closely watched the last and present seasons'"play can doubt that. .

"Take even Trumper. If his 113 in the first Test is passed, he has.had five-visits since and 5G runs—an average of 11 only —shows lie is not the Trumper of old. Bajdslcy,_ also, has done nothing. Leave his 63 highest score out, 03 left for five visits—l 2 only average. This shows a long way from his hitherto great deeds. Minnett, again, of whom I am afraid far too much fuss is made of. Take his !)0 first Test (missed badly at 10 and 18), 91 left, average 18—not enough to rave over. Keller,'av is even lower—7o highest score, 73 left, five visits average 11. Now, those are the batsmen whom big things ■ are looked for. Can we wonder when analysed why Australia did so badly in the second and third Test games? The selectors —I mean two of them, Hill declining to acthave by their choice shown unbounded faith in those who have figured so badly in the second and third Test Ramos, and beyond my apprehension, as well as many others I have spoken to on the matter, how Laver, above all, is ignored. Are his great deeds in England forgotten? Had he not taken part a sorrv result would have arisen. Take the 'analysis results at the end of the trip, and we find on top—who? Why, I,aver, and a glance at the results show as follow:— Tiaver .... 080 balls, 68 wickets, average 14 Macartney 1100 balls, G1 wickets, average 17 Armstrong 178G balls, 100 wickets, average 10 AY hitty..... 1276 balls, 05 wickets, average 20 Hopkins 955 balls, 52 wickets, average 20 Cotter ... 1673 balls, G3 wickets, average 29

[Bt tub Bueatceh.] WEDNESDAY BATTING. ma® « O L° ' -a •§ „ g -w U1 £ n P £ a A I -5 Bowles (P. and T.) 79 79 1 0 79.0 M'Gill (Union) ... 312 10G» 8 a 62.1 Warno (Union) ... 4GG 112 9 1 58.2 ji'Eldowney (Orien.) 93 ' 41*. 3 1 4G.5 Smith (Artillery) 309 116 9 2 41.1 Harris (Union) ... 238 SG' 8 2 39.3 "Wilkinson (Orien.) 153 95 4 0 38.2 Sullivan (Vivian) 81 71 3 0 27.0 Dempsey (Vivian) 159 92 7 1 2G.5 Grieg (P. and T.) 169 90 7 1 28.1 Taylor (Union) ... 151 37 G 0 25.1 Gourlay (Orien.)... 220 5S 10 1 21.-1 Bailey (ArtiUery) 1G2 55* 8 1 23.1 Cherry (Rivals) ... 89 ,36 .4 0 22,2 Carson (Vivian) ... 15G 81 8 1' 22.2 Knapp-.<P. and T.) . Ill 55 5 ,0 22.2 Jones (P. and T.) 22 13» 3 2 22.0 Blamires (Artillery) 44 28 2 0 o 22.0 Driver (Union) ... 152 49® 8 1 21.7 Bramley (Vivian) 170 75 8 0 21.2 Davis: (Rivals) 149 .45 10 2 18.6 George (Rivals) ... 159 42 9 0 17.fi Thompson (Orien.) ; 87 57 5 0 17.G Capt. Robinson (A.) 101 GG 6 0 , 1G.8 M'Kenzie (Rivals) 134 34 9 1 16.7 ' O'Sulli van (Union) " 107 21 It ! : 15.2 Plimraer (1\ k T.) 100 35 7 0 15.1 M'Evedy (Rivals) 138 10 1 15.1 Pickering (Rivals) 105 52' 8.1 15.0 "Wyatt (P. and T.) 90 44 (i 0 15.0 W. Little (Oriental) 89 45 8 *2 14.8 Sauverin (Union) 73 3G 5 >0 14.6 Hills (Vivian) ... 132 43 9 0 14.G Anderson (Rivals) 146 40* 11 1 14.6 Ellison (Oriental) 14 14* 1 1 14.0 Paton (Artillery) 98 35 8 1 14.0 Cooper (Artillery) 14 12* 2 2 14.0 Ryan (Oriental) ... 56 34 4 0 14.0, Ward (Oriental) ... 27 16 2 0 13.5 ■Taylor (Artillery) 80 26 7 1 13.3 Stainton (Rivals) 10 23 4 1 13.3 Caterer (Vivian) ... >131 31*11 1 13.1 Bale (P. and T.) 92 50,8 1 13.1 Toms (P. and T.) 63 26 5 ft 12.G Carrad (P. and 1'.) G2 25 6 1 12.4 Major Hughes (Artillery).. .... '98 28 8. 0 12.2 Trnscott (Oriental) • 98. 38 9 1 12.2 Hatfield (P.. and T.) 12 !)» 2 1 12.0 Sclater (P.'and T.) 95 46 8 0 11.8 Tvrell (P; and T.) 95 M 8 0 11.8 . 'Alpe (Oriental) ... - 92 25 ,8 ft .11.5 Haydon (Vivian) ...'124 30 11 0. 11.2 Thomson (P. and; T.), 45 17 5 1, 11.2 Mollinson (Rivals) .11 11 1 ft 11.0 Cording (Vivian) ... 81 41' 10 2 lft.l' Castle (Vivian) .... ' 111 '45" 11 ft 10.0 ■ Hull (Rivals) ... 60 24 G O 10.0 WEDNESDAY BOWLING. . Wkts. Runs. Avg. (Harris (Union) 34 278 8.4 Cooper (Artillery) 10 87 8.7 Thompson (Oriental) ... 18 179 9.8 Douglas (Artillery) 13 140 10.7 Bailey (Artillery) 32 356 11.1 Varo (Rivals) 14 156 11.2 M'lntyre (Artillery) 13 149 11.6 Knapp (P. and T.) 13 159 .12.2 Hull (Rivals) , 12 164 13.S Capt. Robinson (Artillery) 11 157 14.3 Gourlay (Oriental) 25 362 '14.4 O'Snllivan, (Union) 18 282 15.6 M'Kenzie (Rivals) 17 276 16.2 JI'Gill (Union) 11 189 17.1 Mills (Vivian) 17 315 18.5 Bonner (Union) 11 223 20.3 Hill (Vivian) .11 . 262 23.S Bale (P. and T.). ; , 10 .■ 282 - 28.2