OUR BOYS AT HOME

Evening Star, Issue 19617, 25 July 1927, Page 14

OUR BOYS AT HOME

NEW ZEALAND CRICKETERS THE WEEK'S PLAY REVIEWED 3s [By Wallaby.] Another light week for our bovs, who have taken thingis lightly Since my' last notes the onlv match brought vo a conclusion was that against the Civil Service, win v/ere beaten by an innings. There were no players ot note in the Home side, and we, had,.ittle-difficulty in coming out -m top. The feature of Now Zealand’s batting was die big stand made by Allcott and Mills : neither of whom had been doing par--1 icularly well lately but who mi -this occasion collared the mediocre bowling completely, and put on 190 runs for the seventh wicket, and were still unbeaten when the innings was declared closed, each passing the century mark Blunt just missed a century also, being caught when within 10 of the coveted number. Bogcr appears to have hatted very steadily, taking'two and three-quarter hours to get his runs. On ,the other baud, Allcott got his 102 in 100 minutes. The Auckland man has several centuries to his name, though ho has always been looked upon as a bowler rather than a batsman In this match against Civil Service Henderson came with a rattle in the second innings, and took h\e tor 27, while Blunt seems to have puzzled thb batsmen mightily with his “ goog!iea ”

Our hatting has not been so consistent of late Maybe it is the broken weather that is affecting some of the rungetters. Anyway, the averages are coming down a bit And, speaking of averages, the figures that really count are those connected with first-class matches. Tho>e are the onlv averages that will be taken notice ot in English official circles when comparisons are being made. This being so, I 1 have run out the results in this "connection to date, taking as first class the matches, against M.C.C., Essex, Cambridge, Middlesex, Su.-sox, Oxford, Worcester, Nortbants, Leicestershire. Yorkshire, and Notts. They are as follow: —

The in a tc-li against the Army was abandoned, rain having interfered again with the proceedings. In view of the fact that the Navy had just beaten the Army by an innings, and that the New Zealanders had earlier in the season virtually beaten the Navy fairly easily —needing only 63 runs with eight wickets in hand—the failure of out hoys is peculiar. It makes one feel uneasy to sec the side out for less than 300 against such bowling. Apart from a, moderate start by Blunt and Dempster, Merritt was the only one to.show anything like form, the youngster’s 50 not out being well made apparently. Cunningham also had a merry time before being run out. Criticisms by eompeient writers on our team continue to come to baud by mail, and they appear to agree that, while 'our 'batting is joyously refreshing, and in most cases undoubtedly first class, our bowling is weak. This, of course, wo knew, and, personally, I think our bowlers, considering their calibre, have done very well in dismissing sides as they have clone. The “stay-at-home” methods adopted by most batsmen nowadays tends to make slow bowling dangerous^ Another outsider (Fox, “a young New Zealander resident in England ”) was given a game against the Civil Service team. Not much harm in that, except that it makes one wonder what lias gone wrong with Cunningham. He cannot be on the sick list, for he was played in the next match (against the Army team); so, surely, if it is just a matter of his being out of form, it would have been the better course to play him as much as possible hi these minor, holiday matches rather than leave him in the pavilion to watch someone who lias no connection with the team playing in bis stead? There may be some explanation, of course, but it looks like one of those queer little unpractical things that endanger harmony. Cunningham, by the way, has taken part in only two first class matches of the eleven played to date, and these were at the beginning of the tour. He has stood out of thirteen matches of the twenty-two completed so far.

Another glimpse of the ploy of our cricketers in the .Essex match which might have been vouchsafed us in the catTles only comes to light now by mail. It appears that in the first innings of the home team M'Girr took .the wickets of Russell, Douglas, and Morris in four balls, and 'a little later those of Ashton and Meston with consecutive balls. Our friend Heibert must have been right on the job that day. It has been recorded that the late Harry Trott when presented to Royalty on tho occasion of one of his visits to England horrified the seasoned ones who had gathered round by actually smoking tho cigar , which His Majesty had presented to him, instead of preserving it as a souvenir to bo handed down" 3 to his children’s children, if any. 1 thought of the story when 1 read in the latest number of the 1 Cricketer ’: “ Our good friends tho New Zealanders appreciated to the full the surprise visit paid to Lord’s by the King on Saturday, tho first day of their match with Middlesex. His Majesty arrived just after 3 o’clock, and was received by Lord Hampden, Sir James Parr (the High Commissioner of Now Zealand), and Mr W. Findlay. Unfortunately tho weather prevented the King from seeing much cricket, but the enforced interval caused by the tain enabled the members of both teams to be presented to him. Before leaving the ground His Majesty had tea in the pavilion.” FOR ALL MATCHES. The averages of the team for all matches to the end of the Cjvil Service match are as follow. BAITING.

RESULTS TO DATE. The following are, the results of the matches played to date Martineau’s Eleven. Drawn.—New Zealand, nine for 556; Martineau’s Eleven, 256 and sis for 163. M.C.C. Drawn.—New Zealand, 460 and four for 224; M.C.C.. 392 and four for 426 (declared). Essex. Lost by , five wickets'.—New Zealand, 289 and 208; Essex,. 373 and five for 125. v .. Cambridge University. Lost By five wickets.—New Zealand, 315 and 20o; Cambridge, 255 and five for 267. Middlesex.. Lost by three wickets. —New Zealand, 234 and 335; Middlesex, 290 and seven for 280. Royal Navy. Drawn.—New Zealand, 194 and two for 164; Royal Navy, 144 and 275. Sussex. ’ Won by eight wickets.— New Zealand, 466 and two for 43; Sussex, 316 and 191. Club Conference. Drawn. —New Zealand, 213 aucl five for 183; Club Conference, 204 and seven for 252. Oxford University. Drawn.—New Zealand, 263 and six for 214; Oxford, 337 and 229. : Worcestershire. Won by 194 runs.—. Now Zealand, 276 and five for .349 (declared) : Worcester, 222 .and 209. Northamptonshire. Lost by 82 runs. —New Zealand, 251 and 164; Northautsi 237 and 260. Leicestershire. Drawn.—New Zealand. 371 and nine for 165; Leicester, 242. . Durham. Won by ton wickets.— New Zealand, 373 and five for no wickets; Durham, 254 and 123. Northumberland. Won by an innings and 3, runs.—New Zealand, 476; Northumberland, 272 and 201. . Scotland. Drawn.—Scotland, 233; New Zealand, two wickets for 90. ■ Scottish Counties, Drawn.—New Zealand, 304 and 103 for eight wickets (declared); Scottish Counties, _'S7 and 72 for four wmkets. Edinburgh Clubs. Won.—New Zealand, 406 and 42 for no wickets; Edinburgh. 199 and 246. South of Scotland. Won on first innings.—New Zealand, 127; South of Scotland. 71 and 70 for seven wickets. • Yorkshire. Drawn.—New Zealand, 133 for seven wickets; Yorkshire, 377. Nottinghamshire. Drawn. - New Zealand, 277; Notts, 280 for six wickets. . East of England. Won by eight wickets. —New Zealand, 243 and 76 for two wickets; East of England, 170 and 145. Civil' Service. Won by an innings and 15 runs.—New Zealand t 421 for seven wickets (declared); Civil Service, 250 and 150. Played 23, won 9, Tost 4, drawn 10.

BATTING, Inn. Runs. N.O. H.S. Av. f.owry ... 1!) 880 1 10(1 40.38 Png* 1G 700 1 140* 48.60 MernU 15 312 S 40* 44.57 Rlunt 17 548 1 72 a 1.25 Oncre 17 512 0 ■ 107 31.88 M‘Oirr ... 17 ■123 1 72 26,43 Allcntt ... 12 2.87 3 35 20.33 Dempster Mills IK 313 03.1 1 57 0 04 21.50 18.61 Rernau ... . . ... 10 M2 2 34* 17.75 Oliver in 130 2 3(1 17.00 Henderson 8 70 3 30 15.80 James 10 210 1 41 1 i.2a Cunningham 4 42 1 23 14.00 BOWLING. Wickets. Runs. Aver. Dacrc ... 5 64 12.80 Page Rlimt 11 105 14.00 40 1,0,13 20.32 Merritt 43 1.224 28.46 M'Glrr 20 313 SI.27 Henderson 17 535 31.46 Allrott ... . 8 35(1 44.50 Pernau 7 381 54.42 Oliver 1 58 5s:oo 85.50 171 142 Cunningham 1 142.00

In nr. Runs. N.O. H.S. Av. R. C. Dlunt ... ... 24 1,138 1 105 49.48 C. S. Dempster ... 28 1,125 5 178 ■48.91 T. C. Lowry ... ... 27 1,113 1 106 42.80 C. C. Dacre ... ... 26 991 — 167 38.11 M. L. Page ... ... 2'J‘ 958 2 140‘ :io.48 J. E. Mills ... ... 3) 891 5 188 - 34.27 W. E. Merritt ... 25 442 11 49* 31.57 C. Allcott ... 21 448 6 102* 27.87 H. M. M'Girr 23 4C0 1 72 20.90 K. C. James ... ... 29 451. 5 fc4 18.91 C. Oliver ... 23 310 4 48 16.33 C. N. Bernau ... 22 271 4 ,41 15.05 M. Henderson ... 14 124 5 30 13,77 W. Cunningham ... 12 80 I 23 7 27

BOWLING. Wickets. Runs. Averages. M. L. Tage ... ... ... - 29 514 V 17.72 C. C. Dacre ... ... ... 13 . - sea 20.13 C- S. Dempster ... , 4 ■ ■ ■ ,88 22.00 \V. E. Merritt ... S3 1,947 22.12 R, C. Ulunt .- ... ... 63 1,497 23,03 H. .. ... ... 48 1,106 24.04 M, Henderson ... ... 35 , 894 . 25.54 T. C.Miowry. ... ... 10 292 29.20 W. Cunningham ... ... ',18 . 525 39.16 A. Allcoti ... ... ... 18 630 35.60 C. N. Bernau ■ ... ... 17 ■ 709 41.70 J. E. Mills ... ... 8 135 44.66 Oliver ... ... ... ... 1; 164 164.00