CANTERBURY WINS

Evening Star, Issue 20988, 30 December 1931, Page 3

CANTERBURY WINS

THREE WICKETS VICTORY MEMORABLE SHIELD MATCH OTAGO'S FIGHTING FINISH [Peb United Peess Association.l CHRISTCHURCH, December 29. Canterbury won the Pluukct Shield match against Otago to-day alter a hitter struggle to get the 2i9 runs required tor victory. The homo team got the runs with tliree wickets in hand, but they had to light hard all day. The weather was again perfect, and the conditions were ideal. The wicket wore well and the outlield was last. Blunt and Hawksworth increased Otago’s total to 589, adding another 54 runs to the overnight score betoro Hawksworth’s defence at last failed. The total of 279 runs which was required by Canterbury to win was so high for a fourth innings that it looked an even chance whether Canterbury could reach it. The issue could hardly ever bo said to have been in doubt, however, and Canterbury never looked like failing to get the runs. As in the first innings Kerr was top scorer, this time with 86 runs. It was an invaluable knock for his side. His batting was at times painfully slow, but such tactics were probably justified by the condition of the game. His defence was very sound, and ho waited patiently for the loose ones. He gave one chance, at 68. . Cromb’s 46 came at ,a crucial time in the innings. His partnership with Lester, which added 82 runs, really made the game safe for his side. He showed the soundest defence and would not be tempted to take risks. Page’s 26 was the bright spot in a drab display of batting. He seemed not at all overwhelmed by the importance of the occasion, and soon showed that the bowling could be hit. There was general disappointment when ho was run out through trying a risky extra run.' Hamilton played more enterprising cricket than in the iirst innings. Otago’s out cricket was worthy of all praise, and the southerners fought a losing battle with fine tenacity. The bowling was exceedingly accurate, and never became loose at any time. This made a'un-getting very difficult. It is true, however* that Canterbury s rock batting made the bowling look better than it was. , , . ~ Badeock kept an immaculate length for the whole forty-fivo overs he bowled, but it onlv kept the runs down. The batsmen had little difficulty in playing him. Dunning was very steady, but took only one wicket. Towards the end Coupland bowled in a manner that suggested he might with advantage have been tried earlier. Of the others Blunt looked the most likely to get wickets. . Otago’s ground fielding was admirable as proof of which Canterbury took lour hours and a-half to get 279 runs. Scores: — OTAGO. First innings 191 —Second Innings.— R. Cherry c Page b Cromb ... ... 13 F. T. Badeock c Powell b Cromb 105 R. C. Blunt not out 338 A. Knight c Hamilton b Burrows 9 W. A. Priest c Hamilton b Burrows 9 C. J. Elmes Ibw b Talbot 24 D. Sinith b Burrows 15 J. A. Dunning Ibw b Burrows ... o D. A. R. Moloney c Pago b Merritt 5 W. D. Coupland b Burrows ... ... 13 W. Hawksworth Ibw b Merritt ... 21 Extras 11 Total 689 Bowling Analysis.—Cromb, three for 144; Burrows, four for 68; Merritt, two for 143; Taibot, one for 87; Lester, none for 47 ; Roberts, none for 54; Page, none for 14. CANTERBURY. FirsJ; innings 472 —Second Innings.— J, M. Hamilton Ibw b Badeock ... 30 J. C. Kerr c Smith b Blunt ... 86 A. \V. Roberts b Dunning 9 R. 0. Talbot Ibw b Blunt .6 M. L. Page run out 26 I. B. Cromb c and b Coupland ... 46 S. G. Lester b Coupland ... ... 26 J. L. Powell not out 14 W. E. Merritt not out 14 Extras 22 Total for seven wickets ... 279 Bowling Analysis,—Badeock, one for 82; Smith, none for 32; Blunt, two for 55j Moloney, none for none; Dunning, one for 42; Elmos, none for 2-1; CoupInnd, two for 14.

"THE BRADMAN TOUGH"

[Special to the ‘ Stak.’]

CHRISTCHURCH, December 29. Under the heading ‘ The Bradman Touch,’ the ‘Sun’ says editorially;— “ Badcock and Blunt between them broke the back of the bowling, and although Blunt was in fine scoring mood his difficulty was to find batsmen who could stay with him while he added to his remarkable tally. After the fall of the ninth wicket the odds were heavily against Blunt reaching a double century, but in Hawksworth he found the ideal partner at the time he needed one most. The dogged defensive batting of the eleventh man gave Blunt the chance to establish his record. Hawksworth, who could not have been blamed had ho been weighed down by the sense of his responsibility, resisted all temptations, gave no chances, and only on one or two occasions was really in trouble. The bowling was tired, but even allowing for that his performance was a notable one. Both Blunt and Hawksworth therefore can claim jointly that in the last ninety, minutes of play yesterday they rescued Otago from a hopeless position. It does not matter which side wins, for the result will be

forgotten before the memory of Blunt’s glorious batting fades from the minds of those who had the thrilling pleasure of watching him belt the ball about Lancaster Park.” The ‘ Star ’ heads its sub-leader ' The Sporting _ Hero, 1 and says: “When cricket history was made at Lancaster Park yesterday it was made not by the Otago team, but by Roger Blunt, and once again attention is drawn to the fact that all sports depend for public support upon the brilliant individual. The last tour of the Australian cricketers in England would have been a sad page of Australian cricket history but for the phenomenal performances of Bradman and Grimmett. The most enthusiastic cricket supporter, when in fancy ho scales the heights of cricketing tradition, thinks of great ‘ knocks,’ such as Trmnper accomplished at Lancaster Park many years ago, and measures present-day performances against the giants of the past.”

WERE OTAGO'S TACTICS SOUND?

The Christchurch ‘ Times’s ’ editorial says; “ That Otago’s tame first innings should have been followed by the extraordinary second innings belonged wholly to the realm of the improbable, but then everyone had overlooked the fact that Blunt had returned from tho English tour so wonderfully improved in form as to make anything possible. When Badcock allowed the elation following his century to overcome his discretion Otago had before them tho moral certainty of an innings defeat. Clearly that was in the minds of tho Canterbury players, and before they got rid of the obsession Blunt was hitting their toneless bowling all over the country in the most delightful stylish fashion. Then, when Otago had run into the lead and had converted a lost game into a potential win their bowlers even acquired the superiority complex. It is just arguable that in the end they lost the match through their own tactics, because, when it was wickets they needed —a draw being out of the question—they indulged in a long and wearisome series of leg-theory overs that kept the scoring slow', but made victory impossible. It is true that o.thcr tactics against the strong batting side might have failed, but then they might have succeeded. However, the visitors had the satisfaction of getting to a point where the spectators were counting the runs, and although they failed it Was in a great and thrilling battle.”