At the Crease

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 61, 15 March 1924, Page 19

At the Crease

FALLEN IDOLS

NEW ZEALAND'S FAILURE

POINTS ABOUT THE SECOND TEST.

REPRESENTATIVE FIXTURES. . Jiarch U, IB—New South Wales v. Wauganui, at Wangunui. March IS, 18—New South Wales v. Havkes Bay, at Napier. March 21, 22, 21—New- South Wales v. Auckland, at Auckland.

(By " Not Out."}

Until a recent occurrence, the opinion was held that from th& ranks of cricketers in New Zealand there could lie obtained -an eleven that would be cap-able at least of making a game with the visiting New South Wales team, strong as it is. Indeed, there- had been evidences that the standard of play was on the advance. Since Saturday last, however, opinion about the cricket in this country has changed—it received a very rude shock a week ago, when the pick of the Dominion's players, a team regarded as being the best available to meet the New South Welshmen in a second Test, provided a deplorable spec-' tacle at the Basin Reserve, and thoroughly, disappointed some thousands of people who had assembled •in anticipation of a display of good cricket. It was a bad advertisement for jSTew Zealand cricket. More- than once the writer heard the remark that a team of schoolboys could have done better. The position, however, is not as had as all that, but it is quite evident that something is lacking in New Zealand cricket. Reasons have been offered for the double collapse of the New Zealand team, and some of them appear to be quite sound. To some followers of the game the happening was unaccountable —all that the visiting captain, a great and experieEied player, was prepared to say was that it was "just cricket." Two very sound reasons are offered by the visitors' manager {Mr. 0. B. Coehrane), himself, a player. In his opinion the players made too. much of the state of the wicket, and they were also affected by the reputation of the players opposing them. Cricket is a temperamental game. The right temperament for big'cricket seemed to be lacking among the New Zealanders in the recent match. There was little reason for this, as the majority of players had had plenty of experience, and all of them had already played against the visiting team. Maybe, certain incidents affected them to some extent, but even so some of the players at least should have been capable of staying- the "roC" instead of allowing it to -continue practically right throughout two innings. The calamitous start i n the first innings certainly threw a greater responsibilty upon the batsmen who were to follow, but only two or three of them met the position in the proper manner. It was quite evident that too much was made of the wicket. It ..was made to appearvery bad by the postponement of playfor- a few hours on -the first day; then by the fact that the New Zealand cap.taiu, alter winning the toss, requested the visitors to take first strike, and again by the remarks of some of the players of both teams who did not get going wiih the bat. The example of Kortlang and M'Girr in New Zealand's first mmngs should have been followed while Hiddieston and Baker started off well enough-in the second innings to give plenty of confidence to the others. But the performance in the second innings was probably affected by another matter --the Dacre incident. Another thin* which may also be mentioned in this connection is that the New Zealand team was a new one without the combination that is gained through constant association in play. Allow, those players to be associated as a team in a few more matches and they would, no doubt, be a much different proposition for the visitors. Ihe members of the team however, were experienced enough to meet the position in a much better way than they did. It should now be the- business of the controllers of the game in New Zealand to make a thorough search for young players, who are capable of showing enterprise.

LUCK OF THE GAME. Cricket is not without luck. There was ond Test, and that which was bad was mamly with j>h e New Zealand team. At the outset, Smith, the New Zealand captain, was lucky with the toss, and in view of the state of the wicket he sent the visitors to the crease. Good fortune seemed to follow this action, when two ot the visitors—Andrews and Macartney —were quickly disposed of. But thero was a change when Warren Bardslev a-; 28 was missed by Smith, and again when the same batsman, at 78, was by D MB u eth- Bardsley ended up with 93. Punch, who made 62, should have been run out before he got coins s^S'^'a^'v&'vs would, n o doubt, have been considerably If" ■%«» 294. New Zealand, however! had another turn of luck, through the upholding of an appeal for lbw against Hendry, when that batsman had Scored only two The ball appeared to strike flendry too high for the decision to be a correct one. During that wT ?V Sarae when New Zealand were at the wickets the luck was out. Hiddieston went first ball-it was not a question of luck; he was out fairly and squarely. Shortly afterwards, however Blamires was given out "bowled," when the ball seemed to go past him and rebound from thewicket-keeper's pads to the wickets There was doubt about it m the minds of onlookers, hut inquiry from those ma position to judge settled the matter-the ball just touched one of the stumps, and the decision was correct. Dacre. for some reason', was'kept well down m the hatting order, and when he took the crease he shaped as though he would make runs, but after notching a couple of boundaries in good style he foil to a catch behind the wickets In the second innings the same batsman went in second wicket down, and it was then that, the game, temporarily improved by Hiddieston and Baker, 'became worse than ever. Dacre made a stroke, and commenced to run: Baker did not re^ spond, and Dacre ran back to his crease,' only to be given out. the ball having been smartly returned to the wicketkeeper. At this decision there was an uproar from a section of the spectators, and the first to show disagreement with the decision were some of those in a good position to judge. Others in much the same position say that Dacre was out-; but the general opinion was that the de^ cision was incorrect. It has been stated that the umpire (Mr. D. M'Kenzie) was in the best position to judge. The writer holds that a fairly long view from a position in a straight line with the crease

is better than a close-up view. However, the umpire is judge, and his decision should be accepted without such an expression of disapproval.as was given last Saturday. At that stage of the game the -ivicket was much improved and there was just a possibility that the home team would make amends for failure in the first innings. The incident, however, was the starting post for an ending that was more disastrous than previous evonts. Baker went, and Kortlang was again shaping well when he was compelled to retire through his stumps being disturbed while he made a stroke to leg. Before being aware of the position, the batsmen (M'Girr and Kortlang) had made a run, and Kortlang was at the bowler's end when he received the signal from the umpire to retire. . Whether the umpire (Mr. C. Harvie, of Auckland) knew exactly what happened is~ not known, but he certainly watched the ball from the time it left the bat, and it was necessary for him to do so, at it was hit fairly hard in his direction. Kortlang was not aware that he had disturbed the sticks. Following this there was another incident which may have had a little effect upon subsequent proceedings. M'Girr remained at the batsman's end instead of roturning to the crease from which he had run, and Smith, the newcomer, went to the bowler's end. It was not until Saturday evening that Smith, in thinking over the match, became aware that he had proceeded to the wrong end of the wicket. M'Girr, at the wrong end, lost his wicket, being given out "stumped." His foot was over the line when the bails, were lifted, but it may not have been on the ground. M'Girr"states that he tipped the ball, and thought that he had been given out to a catch by the wicket-keeper. The stumping of M'Beth was not in order. The ball was taken in front of the wickets, and this action of the 'keeper was not queried. But nobody was sorry that the end had come. One other matter relating to the, luck of the match may be mentioned. The rain which fell on Friday night did not improve the outlook for New Zealand. Had there been no rain between Friday and Saturday the wicket would have been better for batting purposes. All things considered, however, the New Zealand side never shaped in a way to suggest that it would give the visitors a good "go." From the facts which have been mentioned it must not bo taken that an effort is being made to remove credit from the performance of the New South Welshmen. While their batting was not as good as was -expected, they played .well; and thoroughly deserved their big win. The attack set up by the visitors was splendid, and the fielding was practically faultless. In the matter of bowling they showed much more head-work than the -New Zealanders, and they did not fail to make use of any patches on the wicket. It is worthy of note that of 143 runs scored from the bat by the New Zealand team in the two visits to the crease, 114 were registered by Wellington players. The contribution ■of the two Otago reprosentatives was nil, that of the two Aucklanders 23. and that of the Canterbury man 6. There were 25 extras. The Now Zealand bowling was handled fairly well, though a good deal more use should have been made of Henderson. He was given only three overs. M'Beth, by getting, the last three wicket's, finished up with splendid figures—five for 92. M'Girr was the next best with three for 92. The bowling honours for the match were decidedly in favour of the visitors. Hendry's first innings performance being exceptional—eight for 33. Mailey (five for- 20), and Everett, (four for 33). gave fine evidence of their abilities in New Zealand's second innings. SMALLER,. SCORES. "It was just cricket; these things have happened with better teams and they are bound to happen again," remarked the visiting captain, C. G. Macartney, when asked tor an opinion of the unexpected happening. Probably there are many people who would be inclined to. look upon the play last Saturday as something more akin to "skittles-' than cricket. But there is a great deal in the brief comment of the visiting captain—it was just cricket. One often hears about the "glorious uncertainty of the game." There was nothing glorious about' New Zealand's batting efforts, but cricket has endless possibilities and curi s osities. Those two totals by New. Zealand —89 and 79—d0," indeed, represent a"-curiosity.- However, it was not the first occasion on which such small scores had been put up by representatives of this Dominion. "These things have happened before," and it is rather remarkable that in the first Test ever played between New South Wales and New Zealand the Dominion's players were disposed of in the second innings for exactly the same total as that of the second innings last Saturday—79. Back in 1894 New Zealand met New South Wales at Lancaster Park, Christchurch. the visitors winning by 160 runs. The New Zealand team made 116 in the first innings and 79 in the second innings. The New Zealand team of 1899 fared even worse against New South Wales, at Sydney. After compiling 140 in their first innings, the New Zealanders were dismissed for 64 on their second visit to the crease. The New Zealanders on that tour were: F. A. Ashbolt, E. Upham, F S. Frankish, D. Reese, L. T. Cobcroft, C Boxshall, A. Sims, G. and I. Mills, A. Downes, J. Baker, and A. H. Fisher. And who of the "old school" will say that this was not a good New Zealand team for the 1905-6 season.: H. B. Lusk, W. Brook-Smith, K. Tucker, C. Ilickson, E. Redgrave, D. Monoghan, H. Graham, A. Downes, K. M. Ollivier, T. Malone, and C. Boxshall? Yet that side could only put on 77 runs in the first innings against a Melbourne Club team (with W. W. Armstrong as captain) at Lancaster Park in March, 1906. Again Dan Reese's team which visited Australia in the 1913-14 season could only knock on 89 runs in one innings against Queensland, and a week later the side was disposed of by New South. Wales in its second innings for 105. Such performances as these go to show that the collapse of the New Zealanders in the recent match was just one of those things which are bound to happen at times in cricket. HEAVIER, DEFEATS. The margin of victory—an innings and 126 runs—was by no means the greatest on record against a Now Zealand team, though it certainly places the standard of cricket here in very poor light. Under ordinary circumstances, the NewSouth Welshmen, strong as they are in batting, should have made a much bigger score than 294, and for the reason that their batsmen could not get going | in the same manner as in other matches, the New Zealand performance was, per-1 haps, not as black as it has been painted: The present touring team is unquestionably a much stronger combination than V. S. Ranford's Australian team which visited New Zealand in 1921, although there may be an opinion that the bowling strength of the pre-! sent tourists is not quite up to that of Ransford's team. ' This A Tew South Wales side is a great one, but its win last Saturday was not as big as that gained by Kansford's team in the second Test with New Zealand, and, moreover, the batting performance was not nearly as good. The second Test- with the Australian team three seasons ago was played at" Eden Park, Auckland, and the visitors, who knocked up the huge total of 663, won by an innings and 227 runs. New Zealand, on that

occasion wa£ represented by the following :—N. C. Sneclclen, S. G. Smith, C. Caere, R. W. Rountvee, J. S. Hiddleston, W. S. Brice, R. C. Blunt, W. R. Patrick, D. Sandman, D. M'Beth, and J. Shepherd. That side was probably quite as good as the New Zealand team lor the recent match, but on the result o- the match its performance against a weaker side than the New South Wales team now on tour was worse than that of the Dominion's representatives last week Here are a few other results winch may serve to remove some of the poor opinions formed frctn last Saturday s events:—lß99, New South Wales deteated New Zealand by an innings and 384 runs;'l9os, Australia defeated New Zealand (at the Basin Reserve) by an innings and 358 runs; 1913, New bouth Wales defeated New Zealand (at (ii i yan imiin Ss an<l 247 runs. All these details may be held up as an example of the poor standard of New Zealand cricket as compared with the standard of play in Australia, but against them there are numerous cases of good performances by New Zealand teams. The poorer efforts are quoted to give weight to the remarks made by C. G-. Macartney that unaccountable failures do take place, and they are quoted a so to show that there is'little need to look upon cricket in New Zealand as being on the down <™de HOW PLAYERS ARE MADE Material upon which the future of New Zealand cricket may be worked out is supphed by the ingenuity of a couple of Wau-arapa boys who came under the notice of an older' enthusiast recently Frqin what was seen of these boys, there as still hope for New Zealand*in spite of the fact that this year's honoured players failed badly. And there are no doubt many other young enthusiasts wno hope to some d^ prove to the world that New Zealand can produce a C G Macartney, a Warren Bardsley, or a Mailey, for who has not seen the use to winch a kerosene tin has been put by the small fry on any old patch of ground? But here is the .Wairarapa. story as published in the Auckland btar :—

One of the keenest sportsmen in New Zealand, a man who takes the liveliest interest in boys generally and has had a. great clal of success in his hobby of coaching boys in tho underlying principles of cricket and football " and their proper practice, wa s greatly struck uy the creative enthusiasm of two lads he came across in the course of his recent holiday rambles. His eye was taken by the strangely intent engrossment- of the youngsters in what appeared to be apart from the intensity of their interest, a casual practice of the rudiments of cricket, with benzine tins as wickets. Inquiry elicited that he was really looking upon the enactment, far from the acclaim and advertisement of the madding crowd, of a real test match between Now Zealand and Australia. Difficulties that might baffle an Edison only fired the enthusiasm of the boys and spurred their inventive faculties to fruitfulness that overcome all obstacles. And their zeal also fired the imagination of the onlooking sportsman, who has written an account of their invention, as an inspiration to the lads of the city. He says:— x "Enthusiasm in cricket is not limited to tho boys of the big cities. In Mastertou two lads of 11 years of age show keenness and originality rarely seen in cricketing circles in New Zealand. During the recent holidays they chose out a wicket on Hat's horse paddock, erectedthe petrol tins for wickets, and played "big cricket" in a most ingenious way. They first decided what the match was to be—say a Test, New Zealand v. New South Wales. They tossed for innings, and started the game, each boy personating a whole eleven. New Zealand went in first. Collins opened the batting; Mailey bowled. All the runs made by the batsmen were put to Collins on the scoring book. When he got out he again resumed batting as Baker, then fiddleston, then Dacre, and' so on, till he had , been out ten times. The bowler was Mailey first over, then Macartney. Later a change was made, when ho became Hendry or some other. The scores and bowling averages were most, accurately kept and made out. The names of the great players of New Zealand and Australia thus became qujte familiar to those two enthusiasts, and they can score and take tho bowling average quite well. They spent practically every day of their ltolidays playing big- matches in this way, and under difficulties, too, for they never knew the moment the owner of the 'oval' would appear to chase them off. New Zealand will some day have two great cricketers 'from the Wairarapa if these | boys keep at it." NOTES. If the performances of the New Zealanders in the second Test did not eni tertain spectators some enjoyment at least was obtained from opinions which were voiced by persons in the crowd. One onlooker, who may have claim to classification among those people about whom A. C. MacLaren made a reference to the "blade and the handle of the bat," entertained those about him with the policy he would adopt' if he had a part in the game. The visitors were batting, and they were leaving the "off stuff" alone. Had that pnlooker been umpiring the New South Wales score would have been improved without the need of effort on the part of the batsmen, for when Hendry was given out lbw the enthusiast remarked : "There you are, the referee is no good. They have been bowling wides, and he (indicating the umpire) would not give them." One spectator with a sense of - humour had a joke at the expense of another. Worker was at the crease, and an onlooker expressed his disgust in plain terms at the way the New Zealanders were shaping. "They are scratching round like a lot of old hens," he remarked, and' just then Worker was dismissed for the second time without scoring. The opportunity was not lost by another spectator :"I don't know about hens, but there will be a good collection of ducks before the day is over, and Dunedin will get four of them." All told there were ten "ducks" last Saturday, nine of them to New Zealand. The world is a small place after all. Forty-one years ago three cricket enthusiasts were, among the crowd at Bramhall Lane Green. Yorkshire, which witnessed R. Peel and R. Emmett qualMfy from the colts to the county. Those three enthusiasts were unknown to one another. They were at the Basin Reserve last Saturday, still unknown to one another, but through a conversation in which one of them was engaged, the three, seated almost next to one another, were made aware that they had been present at the match referred to in Yorkshire forty-one years ago. One man was talking to a friend about that match as it had been impressed on his ■mind, for the reason that, by attending it, he had lost his job. No-' sooner had he finished the conversation than he was 'addressed, by a spectator next to him as, follows : "Excuse me. You were speaking cf Bramhall Lane Green and a match played there. I was at that match." Before another chat about old times proceeded very far another spectator from the seat behind made it known that he was there, too. "And I am 84 years oT age," ho added. It is to be hoped that there will be no repetition of .the unsportsmanlike demonstration made against the umpire at the second Test. The matter ] i:l s already been dealt with in "Thu Post." "Least su.id, soQiiest mended.'!-

SENlOtt CHAMPIONSHIP. Outright 1st In. win. win. i>. ' Uidland 2 2 2 MU Boys * 0 5 2 Hutt 3 13 Petone 2 2 S l.-M.U.A 12 2 Institute' 0 i S Wellington 115 -.u2;adon 0 0 a B. 1 o 0 o 0 0 1 Ch. Pt3. 15-1 14 13 7 li