CRITICS’ VERDICT ON CRICKETERS

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 261, 31 July 1937, Page 12

CRITICS’ VERDICT ON CRICKETERS

New Zealand Touring Team COMMENTS BY ENGLISH WRITERS (From “The Dominion” Special Correspondent with the Team.) Bristol, July 7. Bristol is favoui'qi by having two of the best cricket critics in England, men I whose writings would be widely known if they were published in London. They are Mr. J. G. Coates, of the “Bristol Evening World,” and “H.E.R.,” of the “Bristol Post.” For soundness of judgment these men compare with any in England. As Bristol marked the halfway point of the New Zealand cricketers’ tour, and as their criticisms are so knowledgeable, it is interesting to quote their opinions of the New Zealanders, based on their play against Somerset and Gloucester, because it can perhaps truly be said that thev managed to summarise what appears to be the general public opinion of the side in England. The “Bristol Evening World” said : “Those who have seen the New Zealanders play will give them full credit for being a businesslike side —keen and steady. They give the impression of being a stronger combination than their record demonstrates, but after having witnessed their work and been impressed with certain things about it, one cannot feel they are good enough to beat our best —if our best are as good as we think they are. "For all that they are worth watching, while they have the ability to rise to the occasion. That makes them more worthy of recognition than the results of the games they have played. They can fight grimly, but with a happy style, and the Manchester Test may find them onee again the die-hards they were at Lord’s. Good Fielding. “As a fielding side the tourists can give many points to our county teams. They are keen, alert, fast and send in wonderful returns stump high. W. A. Hadlee, a runner, is an example of what an outfield should be, while there can be few better cover-points than W. M. Wallace, who scored a brilliant century against Somerset. “There is one great point in their favour. They are very friendly and homely, but they do not forget they are here to play cricket. They are as charming to meet as were their predecessors in 1927 and 1931, and enjoy their games just as much. “There is another point to remember. The tourists, who are a young side, came here with a reputation for being a useful combination. They are, make no mistake about it; they are fit opponents for any county side, but it is not their strength so much as. the way they play the game, that .will make, them welcome. New Zealand’s idea of cricket .is. that it should be bright and they endeavour to make it so. .You cannot ask more than that. “Due thing about their batting impressed me. It was that all the players knew how to ha.ndie a bat and what it was for, and as soon as they spotted any slackening of the attack, took advantage of it.” The “Bristol Evening Post” praised the consistency and determination of the bowlers and the general excellence of the fielding. That paper said: “Up to their brave display against England, New Zealand were regarded as a'side with distinct limitations. It was fortunate for the success of their week’s tour iii the West that it was preceded and not succeeded by that match. What they did at Lord’s showed they are not lacking in grit, a quality which we ail admire.” < Of the Bristol and Taunton matches the same paper said: “It was more by their fielding than their' bowling that they created a good impression. We expect to see good fielding from a side constituted as this one is mainly of youngsters, and it was forthcoming. There was nothing, showy about it, and derived its character from its general excellence. Later some of their batting corresponded. It made one think: Here is a team capable of profiting enormously from the experience to be gained from the present tour—experience which should make quite first-class those who are now on the border line. They are certainly a side worth seeing, for even when their bowlers are being punished they never become slack.” Interesting Batting. Commenting on the Gloucester match, in the first innings of which D. A. R. Moloney, J. L. Weir, M. P. Donnelly, J. R. Lamason, and A. W. Roberts all reached the half-century, he said: “New Zealand did not make so many runs as they had done earlier in the week at Taunton. Yet their batting was more interesting because the scoring was more equally divided. It stamped them as possessing men trained in a good school, men who are not afraid to hit the ball. No one did this so hard and readily as Donnelly. Lamason and Weir were not far behind them, and against Somerset Wallace showed what he can do. “These players were fortunate in their partners. The first pair had the assistance of Moloney. Without his dogged defence they would have been, unable to force the pace undertaken with such readiness. In the same way Weir found Roberts equally helpful. “It doesn’t often happen that. for the greater part of an innings we find men together whose methods afford such a sharp contrast as these did. New Zealand were fortunate in this respect, aud made good use of it.” West Country critics, as Avas perhaps to be expected, formed high opinions of the vigour and skill of W. M. Wallace, the dashing attractiveness of M. P. Donnelly and the solid forcefulness of J. R. Lamason. The visit of the New Zealanders to the west was evidently an event of moment to the people of Somerset and Gloucester. There was a-large attendance at Taunton. Somerset farmers congregating from all parts of the county, with their wives and families, and the biggest crowd of the season assembled at Bristol. The newspapers gave liberal space to the matches, one devoting a whole page to action pictures. Other English criticisms of the team and the players include the following:— “H. G. Vivian will be remembered as the ‘baby’ of the New Zealand 1931 team, when his performances more than justified the optimism of the selectors. His batting this season has suffered because he has had to do so much bowling. •‘D. A. R. Moloney is a bespectacled member of the team win is said to owe his inclusion to his optician. Less spectacular than W. N. Carson, or even W. M. Wallaee, he is a somewhat painstaking batsman, playing his strokes carefully and accurately rather than with force. He is safe in the field, but not brilliant, am l is able to bowl a fairly good slow ball. “The skipper of the New Zealand side is M. L. Page, a member of the 1927 team and vice-captain in 1931. He has also represented New Zealand overseas as a Rugby player and secured championship honours at tennis, athletics and fives.” The variety of accomplishments credited to the players is amazing. N, Galli-c-han has been described as playing fullback for Manawatu and with being a “leading canary fancier in New Zealand." Considerable prominence is usually given to the fact that J. Cowie used to play Soccer. as that game has a much greater popular appeal than Rugby in England.