SPORT AND PASTIME. Cricket. THE NEW ZEALAND TEAM.

Evening Post, Volume LVI, Issue 157, 31 December 1898, Page 3 (Supplement)

SPORT AND PASTIME. Cricket. THE NEW ZEALAND TEAM.

[By Pavilion.]

Now that the team that is to do battle in Australia is finally picked, a criticism of its composition and the qualifications of the players comprising it will not be without interest, writes "Cover Point" to the Post. The members of the team, as selected, are: — Fisher, Downes, Clarke, Baker (Otago), Cobcroft, Recce, Pearce (Canterbury), Richardson, Holdship, Williams, Ashbolt (Wellington), Lusk (Hawkee Bay), G. Mills (Auckland). Generally speaking, the selection is a fair one, but the exclusion of two players and the inclusion of another will cause endless discussion, and it will be a hard matter to convince students of form that a grave error has not been committed. The players alluded to are Neill (Auckland) and Upham (Wellington) on the one hand, and Ashbolt on the other. In order to show the soundness of this contention the records of the players mentioned are given later on for the purposes of comparison. Assuming that the team has been chosen on the lines laid down by the best authorities, it will probably be found that the players have been selected in the following capacities : — Bowlers — Fisher, Ashbolt, Downes, and Pearce. Wicketkeeper — Williams. Batsmen — Richardson, Mills, Lusk, Cobcroft, Baker, and Clarke. Allround men — Reese and Holdship. Of the four bowlers selected, no excaption can be taken to Fisher, Downes, and Pearce, but it is hard to understand how Ashbolt has earned his place. It is now a recognised fact in Australia that slow bowlers are of absolutely no use in first-class cricket there, and at the present time there is absolutely not one slow bowler taking part in the better class of cricket. Trott, of course, was a slow bowler, but, being primarily picked as a batsman, and ho only bowling when things were at their worst with his team, the fact of his presence in a team does not upset this contention. Stoddart also recognised the uselessness of slow bowlers on the perfect wickets of Australia, and brought none out with his last team. If, however, the New Zealand selector has decided to demonstrate to the Australian players that their ideas on this point are wrong, he might have given force to his arguments by selecting the best slow bowler in New Zealand. That he has not done so is undeniable. Both on past performances and the present season's form Neill, of Auckland, is a long way ahead of Ashbolt. Taking the figures of the two bowlers named for the past four seasons in interprovincial matches, they stand as follows : — Bowling — Neill : 64 wickets for 840 runs ; average, 13.12. Ashbolt : 71 wickets for 1232 runs ; average, 17.36. Batting — Neill : 18.23 runs per innings. Ashbolt: 10.50 runs per innings. Home authorities, of two bowlers, prefer the one who obtains his wickets off the least number of balls. Of these two bowlers Neill captures a wicket for every 26 balls bowled, and Ashbolt sends down 33 before securing a wicket. To show the superiority of Neill's work in the past, his averages, including two New Zealand matches in which he has played, read — Bowling, 13.52 ; batting, 15.88. Ashbolt has, of course, not yet represented the colony, but even then Neill's figures are much superior to his. Neill's bowling figures for this season are unfoi'tunately not available, but it is known that his first essay produced nine wickets for 67 runs, while up to the present he has made 183 for five innings, giving an average of 36{60, against which Ashbolt's batting average so far is 9.75. In the face of these, figures, past and present, it is absurd to contend that the better bowler of the two has been selected. It has been contended that Neill would not retain his form while on tour ; but if the performances of the two men are studied it will be seen that on tour Neill has done far better work than Ashbolt. If, however, it was found advisable to try slow bowling during the tour, Downes wouW be found to be superior to Ashbolt. Admitted, then, that a slow bowler is not a necessity, another fast bowler should be taken, and, this being so, no bowler in the colony has stronger claims than Upham. This bowler has done more bowling on the hard, fast wickets of the North | Island than any fast bowler in the colony. Probably no bowler has sent down in interprovincial matches the number of balls that Upham has done in the last few years, and probably no fast bowler in the colony possesses the ability of Upham to "keep an end up." A glance at his figures will show that this is no idle claim, but is tally borne out by a list of his performances. Taking his figures from the time he became a senior player in 1889, his figures for cup and representative matches read as follows : — Balls, 13,348 ; maidens, 586 ; runs, 4751 ; wickets, 475 ; average, 10. When it is considered that he has had to bear the brunt of the bowling, both for his province and club, and that^ in addi- ! tion to the number of wickets he has taken, over a fourth of his overs were maidens, it will be seen what an immense amount of good work he has done, 'and that he has an average which any bowler might be proud of. Excluding cup matches and including the two New Zealand matches in which he has played, his figures in first-class cricket read : — Balls, 4846 ; maidens, 234 ; runs, 1738 ; wickets, 121 ; average, 14.36. He has bowled in 39 representative^ innings, and has only failed o take wickets on one occasion. In the Queensland-New Zealand match "he bowled 40 out of 86 overs sent down by the New Zealand bowlers, and in the match against the Australians he bowled more balls than any other bowler engaged on our side. One of the finest judges of the game we have ever had; L. A, Cuff, was captain on those occasions, and it is evident that he had a higher opinion of Upham than the present selector, has. His averages against the various provinces are : _ Otago, 8.05 ; Hawkes Bay, 12.30 ; Auckland, 13.86; Canterbury, 19; New South Wales, 19.88; Australians, 16.83. If a bowler with figures such as Upham has, who has obtained them on first-class wickets, under conditions unfavourable to himself, is not fit for a New Zealand 13, we must indeed be strong in fast bowlers. It is not much use comparing the figures of a fast and slow bowler, but if we do make a comparison between those of Upham and Ashbolt, the latter's sink into actual insignificance alongside Upham's. •-Vilh an added amount of work thrown on to him, and unsuitable wickets to contend with, his figures in cup matches so far are: — Bowling, 11.56; batting, 16; while his performance against the Wellingtpn Club on a perfect wicket has shown that he can bowl as well as ever. ._ ' The inclusion of Williams also came as a surprise to those who have seen his form this season. In both departments of the game he is far from his Toest, and it is a dangerous experiment to include a player who is so palpably out of form. It is hardly to be expected that the inconveniences of travelling and the strange grounds and climate will assist to bring him back to form. The selection of Richardson, Lusk, Mills, Cobcroft, and Baker will be generally approved, and they would probably be chosen in the best eleven of the colony. Although Clarke is performing well this season, it is not by any means certain that he is fit for f the team. For the past three seasons his performances in first-class cricket have been very indifferent, and it is not unlikely that he has seen his best day, Reese has, of course, fairly earned his spurs, and will very likely take a high place in the averages of the team, both with bat and ball Headship's inclusion has caused a good deal of debate, but it will probably be found when fche tour is over that; lie feuis.

justified his selection. To sum up, the weak spots of the team are Ashbott and Clarke, and undoubtedly it would be strengthened in all departments of the game by the inclusion of Upham and Sims. The latter is a sterling bat, and would, with Reese, come back a much impioved player. It can hardly be expected that the team will be successful against Victoria and New South Wales, but the tour should be productive Of much good to the members of the team, and will, in all probability, lead to a visit of a Victorian team in the near future. In all departments of the game something can be learned by our players, and, though it has been seriously suggested that the fielding of our men will be a revelation to the Australians, such a suggestion can hardly be taken seriously. The cricket audiences of Sydney and -^.elbourne, which have watched the methods of some of the finest fieldsmen in the world, will hardly see much to wonder at in the efforts of the visitors, and in this department of the game our men should return much improved players.