CRICKET STANDARD

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 116, 12 November 1931, Page 4

CRICKET STANDARD

FIELDING AT FAULT

'"Permit me to express another view on our cricket shortcomings," "writes a correspondent ' ("Veteran Enthusiast"), who claims, to nave played international cricket in two countries and to have been a spectator in England, South Africa, ■Aiiatraßai'V and -New Zealand. "Regarding'.rthe- 'statement by Mr. D. Reese concerningl the mediocrity of our bowling, I desire to submit that, although not of the liigHest class, it is not nearly-as inferior as our critics aver, but that it is our field-ing-which prevents New Zealand. teams from winning more matches. The ground fielding of the team which recently returned from England was. a great improvement.'on> that of the 1027 team, but the catching, was again deplorably weak. Too ofteix, in, the more important fixtures, "we read or! unaccepted catches from the leading batsmen, precluding the possibility of'a win or a draw. This-proves indisputably that bad catching _is a greater obstacle to our progress in cricket than, any -other,factor. Every catch miseed-increases the.'bowler's task twofold. The particular ball evolved for the batsman's downfall is divulged, and he is not going to be trapped in a similar manner a second time. Surely, it. is not just to "proclaim the. bowlers ineffective because of ineffectiveness of fieldsmen. Big; scores .by batsnien are eulogised, irrespective of blemishes. Fielding is generally commented upon collectively; there is no record of dropped catches debited to individuals or credited to bowlers, showing that they have bowled effectively but without support from the fieldsmen. ■'■. "What encouragement, does the bowler, who- has -bowled-ably but without support, receive from the field? The records show him as being innocuous. Is., it not time that the method of scoring was revised, and at least a record kept of chances given by batsmen, catches dropped off bowlers, and catches dropped'by fieldsmen? Thus-,' we would obtain the value of each performance in its true perspective. On Saturday I'visited the Hutt "round, and.- saw an exhibition' of moderate batting, good bowling,- and shocking fieldins. A score of- 3,14 is described as ;l brilliant and finished exhibition, let, this batsman was missed at 10, agara .beI'oro reaching 20, and at least five times in all. An opposing bowler bowled 30 overs into a strong wind, had ten catches, dropped, and finished with two wickets lor .124—a performance calling for perseverance- and courage against disheartening odds. Yet, what does the score-book show? A huge score to the batsman, no vecord £>i drppped catches against fieldsmen, and the' bowler extremely expensive and impotent. Is that a true record of the respective performanpes? It is distinctly callous from the bowler's point of view. "What would the greatest bowlers be, especially; bowlers of pace—Tate, Larwood, Gregory," and M'Donald—without such slips at Duleepsinhji, Woolloy, Gregory, and Hendry? I do not think their records would be formidable were it not lor the -wonderful slip-catching. These.bowlers compel the batsmen to play .a false stroke,-- the-' chance- is promptly- snapped up -and tire howler's reputation enhanced thereby. -Likewise, our bowlers-force similar mistakes-ifpon even the best batsmen, but '• our -fieldsmen habitually drop - the <■ntcb.es; and .this is the mam reason for the criticism of our' bowlers. They are unable to show the attractive results comparable to the 'bowlers of other countries on account ot.b.ad catching. As an example, take our New Zealand bowlers, M'GiiT, Cunningham,: Blundell, and Henderson. With slip, fieldsmen such as Duleepsinhji'and- AVoolley, would not any one oi these, bowlers have been prominent in any claW cricket?. Henderson's usefulness particularly has been disastrously restricted ■ by. slip', fielding, Oiet anyone who dotibts this contention watch this'bowler, who must now be approaching the ■ veteran stage but -retains the ability for forcing catches to the slips, and they will sec the real reason for our bowlers being classed as inferior, feuperiieially it is the bowler, but basically it is our fieldsmen. . '•We have!several batsmen—and bowlers, too--it supported lay:.first-crass catching— of" ■jnternationar --standard, but not one fieldsman!" LoWry'is regarded -as an erhrent 'close-in' field, but can he be compared with Chapman or Andrews.' Dempster is our best slip fieldsman-and I am not overlooking Page, Foley or Blunt-but , :an -he be. compared with Duleepsinnji, Woolley, Gregory, or Hendry? Definitely no!;: The bulk of the criticism is levelled ;it Our bowlers. The New. Zealand Cricket '■ Council delegates are to discuss this problem,' and the Wellington Association is taking, steps to improve the quality of bowling, but what of.'the cause of ineffective bowling-fielding!- ' A bowler bowls, indifferently and has three catches accepted; another bowls splendidly, but has live catches dropped. The records do "not show 'unaccepted chances, o, tnus showing that he has been dangerous, but let down by the field.. The score-book -hows the indifferent bowler, as. a. success and.'the 'dangerous bowler a failure. As often as not, no mention is made, of these missed.-■.chances':" thus,' there -ls'no encourascmejot'to1 this bowler, from either fieldsmen, score-book, or Press. My justification 'for soliciting space in your paper is to direct the authorities' attention to ■that' disastrous failing which is retarding our growth in the cricket world. . [flic opinion that the bowling in New Zealand is much better than is generally 3'ccngnised has been expressed repeatedly in "The Post," and attention, drawn to ■the need of considerable improvement, m fielding. In the matches which were accented' as trials in view ot the selection of the New Zealand teafn last season really cood- bowling performances were riot recognised, probably.;oh- account of undue attention to figures.—"Not Out. J