CRICKET Baird Might Have Won Match For West Coast

Greymouth Evening Star, 12 March 1948, Page 4 (Supplement)

CRICKET Baird Might Have Won Match For West Coast

The West Coast Cricket Association macle no special arrangements last week for the transport to their homes after the match of the two Hokitika, players chosen to play for the West Coast senior representatives in the Forrest (hip match with Buller at Greymouth, with the result that the two players concerned had to leave the ground about two hours before the scheduled time for the end of the game. One of thes'e players was M. Baird, the outstanding batsman for the West Coast team, and he was forced to retire with 35 runs to his credit in order to join the Hokitika train. West Coast lost the game by 19 runs on the first innings, but barring something unforeseen Baird could have won the game for his side if he had been able to complete his innings. At the time of his retirement he was batting soundly and did not look like being dismissed.

There was a similar occurrence on the occasion of the West Coast B team's match with Buller B at Greymouth some weeks ago and in that case also the loss of the Hokitika players at a vital stage of the match was serious for West Coast. It is a pity that some more adequate arrangements could not have been made by the association. The loss of the cup is of little account, but it is important that a game should be won or lost because players have to leave before the game—and, in the case of Baird, his innings—is completed.

Baird is no newcomer to West Coast representative cricket and he has always been known as a reliable batsman with sound defence and the ability to score quickly when occasion demands. He is one of perhaps a number of players handicapped as far as provincial representation is concerned by living and playing away from the main administrative centre. Error of Judgment?

Another factor in the defeat of West Coast -last Saturday was perhaps what appeared to be an error of judgment on the part of the West Coast captain, L. C. Lindley, in electing to field after' winning the toss, thus giving Buller the opportunity of batting on a wicket which was. of no assistance to the bowlers. Lindley probably had in mind his experience ,at Westport earlier in the season when the rain-dampened wicket did not play according to expectations, but in Saturday’s case the wicket was well soaked by the previous day’s rain. West Coast might not have done

as well as Buller if they had had first use of the wicket, but the wicket did improve very considerably from the bowlers’ point of view in the afternoon alter it had dried out to some extent and alter Buller had scored

100 for two wickets the remaining' eight wickets fell for only 40 runs. Good Bowling The outstanding bowlers in the West Coast-Buller match at Greymouth last week were R. Humphries, of Buller, who took six wickets for •34, including the hat trick, and A. Ab.elson, who took five lor 27 off 23 overs. Abelson bowled splendidly, especially in the afternoon when he .extracted some life from the wicket, and he was always accurate. Humphries made a strong impression on the West Coast batsmen with his accuracy .and his ability to vary his pace deceptively and bring the ball back slightly from the off.

! URGENT NEED FOR APPOINTMENT OF UMPIRES How much the result of the local Wingham Cup final between Blackball and Runanga last Sunday was effected by the number of lbw decisions is difficult to estimate, but the fact remains that 11 .such. decisions in one match in which only 33 wickets fell was an unusual occurrence. If any of the decisions wore unwarranted at least some of the blame must be placed on - rhe' players who were bold enough or unsporting enough to appeal, but, in any case, the umpire is the only person in a position to give a decision and at least some of the complaints, appear to have come from spectators. A lot of the umpiring on the West Coast this season has given rise tounfavourable comment—some of it. at least unjustified—-but the situation which arose last Sunday in the Blackball-Runanga match should give the Cricket Association some incentive to endeavour again next season to form an umpires’ association.

In fairness to the Cricket Association it must be recorded that previous efforts in tins direction have not been successful in recent years, but it is unfair to the men concerned tohave umpires with club affiliationsofficiating in an important match in which their clubs are playing. Any decision they may give, however correct, is liable to be misunderstood. Umpires are as important to the gam? as the players, and it is unfair that they should be placed in a position where their actions can come under any shadow of suspicion.