CRICKET.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 27 December 1924, Page 9

CRICKET.

The games last Saturday- were played on grounds affected by the heavy rains of -the preceding few days, and scoring : was-low in consequence. The table of results ah, the end of the -'first ■ round show Excelsior with a thfee point lead of Eltham. ' 'Excelsior, Eltham and Stratford seem to be the strongest 1 teams, although the last named depend, mainly on Cole and Lambert, and there ought <tQ be. some stirring games in the second round. » . ; Th© difference between the cricket-, teams for the first test in Sydney is that the Australians have 'virtually no J ■ “tail." Both Mailey and Oldfield, if or-instance, have made many a good last-wicket stand. '

MIDLANDS v. STRATFORD. ' » ' ' ' - 1 A slow wicket had the batsmen scrapjhg all the afternoon Jast , Saturday, and the. bowlers did pretty much as they' liked. Stratford, in their first innings, only got 37 runs, and no one shaped like a stayer. In their second innings a better total of 78 was obtained, but only Claridge 29 showed any batting form; This batsman has a very good defence, and can pfinch the - lopse ball. l Giblin, in the first innings,! bowled : splendidly, and ihis figures, 5 for 11, ■ were well earned. . I think he would do well to make the slower break his stock ball, as he shows more than a fleeting knowledge of how to bowl it. Neilsen got 4 for 23, but was lucky. He bowls too■ many off-breaks on the. leg stick. Inch in the second innings' got 5 for IT, and at times made a little pace off the pitch. i Graham got 3 for 34 with slow high-tossed ones. Midlands’ batting in the early part of < the-innings did not look very- much, but Davies 23 and Giblin 23 not. out made the; bowling look easier. Both players watched the ball well and made some 1 , excellent strokes. Mills also got 23 by hard hitting, and if lie>was lucky , his-innings was valuable. , The Stratford bowling, if not very deadly, was'steady and liberties could . .not; be taken with it. Knight, 5 for 28, bowls his slow left-hand ones well up and with a little spin, and is always oh the wicket. -Young only got'2 for . 35, but was very troublesome to the ■ early batsmen. Palmer got 2 ■ for 6 and Kean 1 for TV • The fielding on. 'both sides was fairly good, and, the- catches made by sTiddv. and Kean ingettingrid ofFurrie and Plank' respectively were splendid. ELTHAM v. MANAIA. Eltham proved too good for Manaia ana got home by four wickets. Phib potts was the chief agent in the win, J and 'put. in a very good afternoon’s work; 18 out-of- -and 26 not out in . the second innings, besides getting 3 wickets for 18 and 7 for 25, shows the value of his services to the side. Johnson' got 20 not out at!, a critical time: in the second innings. . . : Clark 21 and: Hughes 20 were the only double figures ’in Manaia’s WO innings of 40 and; 53. Priest 4; for 18, Donnelly -3 for 5, and ' Hay 3 ably seconded- Philpo'tts in getting rid of the; Manaia. batsmen; Bairstow, for Manaia,' bowled in great form, and his figures, 6 for. 12 and 4 for ,29, : speak for themselves. Hughes got 4 for 16 and; 2 for $6, and ‘ maintained a consistent length through- ■ out. ' ' / ; - \ \ ' ~ V V SYDNEY RESULTS. Manly, .four wickets for 74, v.. Gordon: Rand wick,- 75, v. Waverley. Marrickville, two wickets for 95, v. Paddington. v Glebe, one wicket for 46, v. Sydney. .Petersham, one wicket for 39, v. Cumberland. . ; ' Western Suburbs, one wicket for 185, v. Mosman. • North Svdney, two wickets for 115, v. Balmain. University, no wicket for no run, v. St. George. BATTING. W. Bardsle-y (Western Suburbs), not out, 80; G. Parnell _ (Western Suburbs), not out, 71; A. Vincent (North' Sydney)., . 54: H. Steele (Marrickville), not out, 52; R. Pennycuick (North Sydney) not 'out, 39. BOWLING. H. L. Collins (Waverley,- five wickets for 28; ,H. Comber (Waverley), four wickets for 40; C. Kelleway (Gordon), three wickets for 21. Games elsewhere. / AUCKLAND. The cricket competitions were continued in, fine weather. University beat Parnell by one run on the first innings, Parnell making 132 .(Sneddon 25, Horspooi 24). Player took six wickets for 33 runs. University played out time in the' second innings, making 160 for six wickets (Saunders 48). . Eden- drew with Ponsonby. ’ Eden made 387 fox six wickets, and declared (Postles 103, Weir not out 59, W. B. Smith not out 53, Whelan 57). Ponsonby scored. 329 for nine wickets wheh time was called (Sneddon 84, Taylor 66, Craig 53, Smith 42). Parnell beat North Shore. Parnell made 178 in the first innings, and beat North Shore by two runs on the first innings, North Shore making 176 (Frater 45. Daere 32, Monteith 30). Broberg took five wickets for 35 runs in the second innings. Parnell made 126 for eight wickets (Anthony not out 57). Townshend took six wickets for 56 runs. DUNEDIN. Carisbrook 362 (declared) defeated Albion 212 and 230 for three wickets. For Carisbrook Worker made '205 (retired!, Duncan 97,' Dickinson 23, and in Albion’s second innings Siedeberg made 96, Binnev 79. Grange 274, beat Dunedin 93 and 282. Tn the second innings for Dunedin Higgins made 126, Casey 65, Baker 24. and Strang 22. Bowling, Galland took four wickets for 92 runs.

A GOOD STORY.

In. cricket no man is infallible, and mistakes! will foe made by umpires,

fieldsmen, batsmen and bowlers while there ha a b’at and ball to piay with. At. times it is very difficult tor the umpire to tell if the bail has struck the bat or leg first. It is peculiar that a fieldsmjan at point can tell more clearly in certain positions. However, mistakes will happen. I have just been reading of a very amusing one by the old Yorkshire cricketer, Tom Emmett, many ) years ago. Emmett was a noted left-hand bowler, who performed finely out here with three different English teams. That delightful purveyor of cricket stories, Old Ebor, in a recent issue of Sports Post, while touching on Yorkshire Cricketers of Other Days, tells this one “Dr>. W. G. Grace put it on record that on this day Tom \vyas unplayable, and that, .with the exception of George Freeman, he had to watch him more, than any bowler. His best ball was one that pitched between the legs and the wicket with sufficient break and rise to hit the off bail. W.G. added that more than once Emmett bowled him with that ball when he was well set, and had scored heavily, and he left the wicket believing a similar ball would always.beat him or any other batsmian. ' Emmett also had an off ball; which he bowled a. little outside the off stump, and it was through bawling this ball that there arose a popular saying that' when Emmett was . bowling, the onlooker might expect “first a wide and then >a wicket.- ’ To be sure. Tom did bowl an unconscionable number of wides, but he used to protest that he never did so deliberately ; though there/was one , occasion, in Lord Hawke’s , early captaincy days, when his lordship said, “Tom, do you know how many . ‘wides you have bowled this year?” “No. my lord, how many?” was the reply. “Fortyfive,” replied “is lordship. “Good,” remarked Tom, in his usual/ 1 naive way. “Gitfe me the ball, my lord, and I’ll soon earn talent money.” He bowled 55 that season.

As a batsman, Emmett had a lefthander’s ‘best style. He pulled much less frequently than most left-hander®, and could drive -clean and hard. He was supposed to ,be good a,t* hitting slow bowling, and revelled in lobs when he had a chance- of hitting them. A ..story- has- many times been told about his being bowled by a ball from Mr. Frank Townsend which he never attempted to play, land making some ornate observation afterwards to the effect, “Don’t call me Tom Emmett; call me fool.” It may now be given in Tom’s. own words.

“It was the most laughable thing out. We were playing England v. Gloucester in 1878. We had made a stand, and I. thought I bad 18s 6d of the talent money in my. pocket, when Mr. Frank Townsend was put on to try, his lobs. Now I thought nobody could play lobs like me ; I was A 1 in my own idea as a lob smiter. I took my guard ’ and he bowled a ball, a good length one, which got me quite in a knot. First I would jump out to it ; then I would play forward ; no, I would play back. All that passed through my mind like a flash. Finally, I didn’t play it at all, but held my bat up for it to go by. Whether ■or no it pitched on something I have never been able to satisfy myself ;to this day, but to my astonishment .it bowled me out. • And :I- such a lob hitter, too! —'had such, a. character for hitting lob _• bowling! -“Well, I felt regularly• nonplussed; I. felt foolish land I expect, looked 1 it, and didn’t know howto start away from the wicket. Just to put a face on matters, and to regain my countenance, I put the bails on again, took : guard and said; ‘Here, Mr. Townsend, just let me have that one over- again, will yoiu, please?’ , Of course, they all burst out laughing, and T walked . away. The incident of my standing up again to Mr. : Townsend probably caused some ynoerbainty among.,the crowd, and I walked. back to the pavilion, doubtless, looking as disgusted as I felt. . One gentleman said, ‘.Tom, how was it?’ ‘Don’t Tom me/ I replied, savagely, perhaps. Well, Mr. Emmett, how was it?’ t ‘Don’t Mr. Emmett me.' I again replied. . ‘Then what shall 'I call vou?’ he asked. ‘Oall me a fool,’ I remarked, as I hurried out of sight. -I am afraid lie would think me very rude, whereas I was cro c<! ■with myself, not with him.”

UMPIRES AND PLAYERS. (Evening Post.) There wag an incident, in the match at Brisbane between the, English team and the Australian eleven that bears on a question which affects all games, the sanctity of the umpire’s decision. One of the. English natsmen was given out leg before when he had played the ball on to his pads. The first version was that the wicketkeeper appealed and that the Australian captain asked the batsman to continue his innings, which he declined to do. The second version was that neither wicketkeeper uor bowler—the only two players who should appeal for l.b.w. — appealed, and the , Australian captain asked the umpire to reconsider his decision. It is not stated that no one appealed, and an umpire chosen for a game in this class is not likely to have given a man out without an appeal. An umpire is not supposed to speak unless he is appealed to, and once his decision is given it should be final. Whatever the facts of this incident are. it may be stated that the practice of questioning in any way an umpire’s decision is wrong. The player who disputes a decision given against him is not a “good sport.” But ‘the player who, in the supposed interests of fair play, and the chivalry of sport, nullifies a decision, is also acting wrongly. If no one appealed in Sutcliffe’s case, and the umpire absentmindedly put up his hand, then possibly the Australian captain ivas justified in interfering. The ordinary decision in any game, however, should be accepted loyally by both sides. If cricketers took to continuing their innings bv consent after , they had been given out, where would the practice end? It was stated the’ other day that one of the difficulties the authorities at Wimbledon would have in disciplining players was this, that some players will deliberately throw away a point when they think' the umpire has made a mistake against their opponent. ! This has been done in New Zealand, and applauded. It is, however, opposed to the true spirit of the game, which is that von take your chances either wav with the person in control, and accept everything in an equable and chivalrous spirit. Giving away j points because the- umpire makes a [mistake is really a reflection upon him. and one of these days a bigh-snirited umpire on being treated like tins V' l ! ! step down immediately and let the 1 players find someone else who is .more acceptable.