CRICKET TEST

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 134, 2 March 1936, Page 10

CRICKET TEST

New Zealand All Out For 368

M.C.C. SCORE SLOWLY Six Wickets Down For 289 By Telegraph—Press Association. Auckland, February 29. The third cricket test between AI.C.C. and New Zealand was continued at Edeu Park to-day under ideal conditions, the home side being dismissed for 368 and AI.C.C. replying with 289 for six wiekets. At the conclusion of the first day’s play New Zealand had lost nine wickets for 362 runs. Only six runs were added to the overnight score this morning, Baxter cleanbcwling Cowie. The innings occupied 323 minutes. Starting its innings at’ 11.50 a.m., M.C.C. gave a disappointing display. The batsmen were subdued by an attack which at no time was more than steady. The majority of the large attendance did not appreciate the slow rate of scoring and at times the runs were ironically cheered. The opening partnership between Parks and Smith realised 71 runs, but both batsmen were fortunate to escape early chances. After the dismissal of Smith, Parks and Barber were associated in a partnership which yielded 107 runs before Parks, after a Tong innings, was run out. Barber and Hardstaff added 70 runs for the third wicket and then three more wickets fell rather cheaply. Parks scored 65, Smith 48, Barber 93 and Hardstaff 57 not out. Few Risks Taken. Although the sound batting exhibition of AI.C.C. was a great disappointment to the large crowd, which had expected a bright day’s cricket, the early batsmen played typical English cricket, taking few risks. Under the ideal batting conditions it was expected that the visitors would have scored at a much faster pace in spite of the fact that the New Zealand attack was always steady. The more or less safety tactics adopted by the batsmen allowed the home bowlers to tie the visitors down to a slow scoring rate. Full credit must be given to both Cowie and Alatheson, who opened the attack for New Zealand, for consistent bowling. Both were unlucky that Smith and Parks did not fall early victims to them. The most disappointing feature from the home viewpoint was the slip fielding of Whitelaw, who showed a lack of anticipation in dropping both Parks and Smith. These chances proved particularly expensive to New Zealand. Blandford, the wicketkeeper, had a disappointing day. He missed a catch behind the wickets off Elmes when Parks was 30. With the batsman’s score at 35 he missed an easy stumping chance at cue expense of Griffiths. It was the first occasion on which Blandford had kept wickets at Eden Park and like many other wicketkeepers he seemed to be puzzled by the varying heights at which the bail came through. Laboured Display. Parks, who opened the innings with Smith, gave a laboured display. He was unable to force shots past the well-placed field and for the most part was a purely defensive batsman. During his long innings, which lasted 193 minutes, he scored 65 runs and hit three fours. It took him 175 minutes to reach 50, and he by no means showed the same form as that against Auckland a week previously. He was missed three times during the innings. His partner Smith impressed by his free style and was always looking for runs, getting right out to the ball. He played several powerful off shots which were nullified by the well-placed field. In spite of the fact that he gave two chances, he was always very interesting to watch. His partnership with Parks for 71 runs was a very valuable one. Smith batted for 79 minutes and hit nine fours. Barber, after a slow . start, settled down to give a very sound batting display. As in the Auckland match he was very forceful with his on shots. He reached 50 in 105 minutes and his 93 in 172 minutes. With Parks, Barber added 107 runs for the second wicket. A Straight Six. Hardstaff showed form more in keeping with his reputation. Timing his shots well, he placed them on either side of the wicket with fine judgment. At one stage he brightened a dull period and hit Vivian for a splendid straight six. He scored his 50 in 70 minutes, but then became very subdued, adding only seven runs in another 25 minutes. Mitchell-Innes, who was in for 31 minutes for seven, never shaped confidently. Both Human and Holmes sacrificed their wiekets by hitting out. Matheson and Cowie gave consistent bowling displays. At times Cowie came off the wicket fast, particularly in the morning, when he made the ball lift in a disconcerting manner. Matheson maintained a much better length than that in the Auckland match. Cromb persisted with these two bowlers to advantage. In 28 overs, nine maidens. Alatheson took one wicket for 53 runs. Cowie, who was unfortunate in not taking a wicket, sent down 24 overs, six maidens, for 59 runs. Vivian’s Bowling. The most successful bowler was Vivian, who in 22 overs, four maidens, took two wickets for 48. He flighted the ball well and occasionally puzzled the batsmen with a sharp turn from leg. Cromb, who took one wicket for 34 runs, depended solely on flight, evidently waiting for the batsmen to make mistakes. Griffiths was unlucky not to secure an early wicket, but he failed to appeal as a New Zealand slow bowler. His length was inconsistent. Elmes was used a good deal, but he adopfed the wrong policy in not attacking the batsmen, many of his deliveries passing well wide of the off stump. Scores are as follow: — NEW ZEALAND—First Innings. D. A. It. Moloney, b. Baxter J .1. 1.. Kerr, hit wicket, b. Langridge .. 39 I’. K. Whitelaw. li. Baxter 11. G. Vivian, c. Griffiths, b. Suns .... 17 W. M. Wallace. 1.b.w.. b. Shns 2‘ 1 B. I'ronili. Griffith. I'. Baxter .... <1 C. .1. Elmes. Barber, b. Sims ,1 A. R. Blnmlforil. c. Human, b. Sims <*> A. M. Matheson. not out B. Griffiths, c- Mitchell-Innes, b. Human .’1 J. Cowie, b. Baxter Extras 10 Total 3ft?

M.C.C.—First Innings. .1. Parks, run out •••••• ’.'J P. Smith, c. and b. Matheson W. Barber, b. Vivian •».... • ,1. Hardstaff. not out ,-,:TV.”k if N, S. Mitchell-Innes, c. Wall-ice. n. _ .1. It. Human c. Wallace b. " ].. |. p Holmes. C. blautUold ». GrilUlbs 4 Extras Total for six wickets 289

Bowline Analysis. w 0. M. K. Baxter ••«•»•••••• 24.1 6 S6 4 Parks ■ 7 61 93 4 12 70 1 1 30 1 Holmes 4 — 16 —