CRICKET.

Evening Star, Issue 14003, 9 March 1909, Page 3

CRICKET.

THE REPRESENTATIVE STATISTICS. [Specially Compiled foe the ‘ Stae.’] The representative season, as far as Otago is concerned, is now over, and it must be classed as a disappointing one. The season started magnificently, when at Auckland the Otago players were unfortunate iu not wresting the coveted Plunket Shield from the holders there, and, on coming further down, inflicted severe defeats upon Wanganui and Hawke’s Bay. There was heavy scoring in these matches, a century being registered in each of them, and critics were tumbling over t-hemselves to announce that Otago’s revival had taken place and that Otago had again become the leading cricket province of the Dominion. Such was the position before the Canterbury and Southland matches concluded the representative season. In the Canterbury Match Otago could compile only 77 anil 143 to Canterbury’s 203 and 259 on the Carisbrook wicket, and with a team that was supposed to bo the best available. Otago thus fell from her high pedestal, and the critics became silent. The Southland match was looked upon in the light of a gift, as usual, particularly as the team contained four of this season’s Plunket shield team anr one (Mackersy) from Lost season’s team, besides ex-rephesentatives and men worthy of representation. Otago wore ignominiously defeated by their southern neighbors, and could compile only 57 and 44, the lowest aggregate they had ever put together in a representative match. The defeat- by Southland was an awful coni trast to the excellent performance put up against Auckland, anti the fact of the wretched wicket cannot he accepted in extenuation, because Southland had to bat on the sa®ie wicket against superior bowling. The results comprise, therefore, two wins, two losses, and a draw—a season, consequently, that pans out “even.” The matches played were ns follow;

v. Auckland. at Auckland.—Drawn. v. Wanganni, at Wangarrui.—Won bv 260 runs. v. Hawke's Bay, at Napier.—Won by 191 runs. v. Canterbury, at Dunedin.—Lost bv 245 run?. v. Southland, at Invercargill.—Lost by 97 runs. Although the aggregate in the Southland match was the lowest ever scored bv Otago, the total of 44 in the second innings was not so, as the following figures show: — 35 v. Auckland. 1884-85. 35 v. New South Wales. 1889-90. 37 v. New Zealand, 1898-99. 40 v. Canterbury, 1869-70. 41 v. Auckland. 1875-74. 45 v, Canterbury, 1871-72. 45 v. Canterbury, 1872-73. 44 v. Canterbury, 1904-05. 44 v. Southland, 1908-09. 47 v. Canterbury. 1888-89. 48 v. Auckland." 1882-83. 49 v. Canterbury, 1870-71. On the other hand, opposing sides have done far worse in the matter of small totals, the Otago bowling being responsible for the following processions : *25 bv Canterbury, 1866-67. 127 by Canterbury, 1896-97. *32 bv Canterbury, 1866-67. "34 by Canterbury, 1863-64. 1 tt34 by Southland, 1863-64. 1 35 by Southland, 1893-94. 55 by Southland, 1897-98. 36 by Southland, 1900-01. 38 bv Canterbury, 1873-74. "*4O by Tasmania, 1883-84. "42 by Canterbury, 1863-64. 44 by Canterbury, "1884-85. tt4s by Southland, 1863-64. , 46 by Canterbury, 1866-67. 46 bv Canterbury, 1894-95. 46 by Southland,' 1902-03. "*47 by Tasmania, 1883-84. 48 bv Auckland. 1889-90. t49 by Canterbury, 1896-97. * or t denotes that innings were in same match. Fisher and Downes have occupied such a similar position in the average table that it has been a matter for comment in all quarters, each having taken over 200 wickets at practically the same average. Before the Canterbury match Downes had taken 257 wickets and Fisher 243, and both had an average of 12.9. Downes, however, did not take part in the match, and as Fisher was somewhat severely dealt with, Downes has run into foremost position, but only by .16, the actual figures being :

S2 -r O 21 '3 - •- - 0 5 S « ■£ Jrj A. Downes 1,618 553 3.350 257 12.93 A. H.Fisher 1.626 503 3,237 246 13.15 The averages which looked so well on paper at the conclusion of the Northern trip have since fallen very considerably. Wilson still easily heads the list, but his Southland figures'took a little of the color from them. The following are the averages of each player from the time when he represented the province for the first time:

—- Batting.— - :i. w ■J « 'o Zl) 6 qj CD M tp « '3 'o to 8 £ V <", HH y /\ to w Ch > C. G. Wibon 15 28 l 183 912 35.7 A. Eckhold ... 7 12 l 95 299 27.1 C. C. Hopkins 4 8' — 57 200 25.0 H. Siedeberg 56 65 3 109 1.419 22.8 R. Rutherford 5 10 1 *42 186 20.6 G. G. Austin 56 65 3 ' '182 1145 18.4 T. Maefarlane 2 3 46 54 18.0 C. E. Howden 16 51 62 453 14.6 A. H. Fisher 48 83 7 79 1,101 14.4 F. Ayles ... 5 8 1 47 100 14.2 J. R. Burt... 7 9 1 27 97 12.1 R. Torrance 11 21 4 42 203 11.9 C. Beal ... 4 7 1 *29 71 11.8 C. Wordsworth 5 10 1 *51 105 10.6 C. Chadwick 2 3 1 9 23 11.5 W. Mackersy 7 13 3 40 110 11.0 H. C. Watson 5 9 .— 41 S9 11.0 F. Williams 40 69 16 39 423 7.9 E. 0. Blamires 1 2 — 10 10 5.0 W. Henderson 1 2 10 10 5.0 G. »\. Martyn 2 2 — 5 5 2.5 E. Cummings 1 2 — 2 2 1.0 J. Brydone... 1 2 — 1 1 0.5 'Signifies not out. — Bowling.- - p 6 <"i bo > P. Ayles ... 4 2 2 l 2.0 E. Cununing3 11 5 20 5 4.0 A. H. Fisher 1,626 503 3,237 246 13.1 R. Torrance... 405 120 902 65 13.8 C. Wordsworth ] L65 50 376 25 15.0 W. Mackersy 102 14 374 19 19.6 G. G. Austin 438 116 1,160 57 20.3 R. Rutherford 87 25 231 11 21.0 C. Beal 11 4 44 2 22.0 C. E. Howden ' 10 5 24 1 24.0 H. Siedeberg 92 17 524 7 46.2 C. C. Hopkins 17 1 56 1 56.0 E. 0. Blamires 5 1 10 T. Macfarlane 6 1 13 _ —^