SOUTH TARANAKI CRICKET

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 20 February 1935, Page 13

SOUTH TARANAKI CRICKET

HARD-EARNED VICTORY RANGITIKEX’S TEN-RUN WIN COMMENT BY “MID-OX.” I doubt if anyone failed to enjoy the last half-hour of the South Taranaki and Rangitikei match, and no one begrudged the visitors their hard-earned victory .The result showed the fascination that the game has for those who, Micawber-like, waited expectantly for something to turn up, but, in their case, there was no disappointment. The match was won and lost in the last over of the day. The visitors had first use of the matting, which played reasonably well; at any rate, there were none of those high-stepping balls that have been the bane of decent strokes. The ball A>-as inclined at times to keep low, which resulted in the two Edens being left standing. Cameron, the skipper,- is a fine batsman, but our ground is not his lucky one and he usually goes just when the spectators are settling down to enjoy his play. Barker certainly scattered his stumps with a good delivery.. .T. H. Marshall had helped his captain to give the side a fair, start before Dormer clean-bowled him. Wysockie met a similar fate, and then Hodder, who is the essence of patience and a model of soundness

rather than brilliance, gave an exhibition which saved his team from putting up a poor score. At one stage he was clever enough to place his shots between second slip and point or to short leg. The gaps were there, and Hodder made full use of them. South Taranaki appeared to have a liking for an undue number of men on the on-side. Hodder was unfortunate enough to hit wicket when playing back to one of Sturrock’s deliveries. His back-play was a feature of his innings. None of the others played verjv confidently to the bowling of Dormer, who. on the whole, bowled with good length and judgment. Bowlers Not Impressive. The South Taranaki bowlers, except Dormer, w;ere not impressive, and it was fortunate that Dormer had the courage to keep himself on. The general failing was poor length and direction. Betts did not bowl with his usual spark and he appeared to lie off-colour. Walker had four overs and bowled about four good balls. Reg. Eden bowled only three overs, but he helped to take a bit of the shine off the ball so that the like of Sturrock and Dormer could spin the ball. H. Barker did not bowl very well, but his capture of Cameron’s wicket was a relief to the home team. Sturrock bowled all Tight- when he settled down, but I still think that he makes too much effort to get spin and break. The result is that he loses length, and he does not get the direction that suits the extent of the turn. Ross Eden is an old hand and he disposed of a potential run-maker in A. B. Marshall by trapping him into an l.b.w. It is a great pity that there is not a bowler of the type of Pritchard available for Saturday play. He is consistent in length and makes pace off the pitch. South Taranaki’s fielding was reasonably good. there being some smart work but also some of the other kind. Some of the fieldsmen had a lot of running that might possibly have been saved with better disposition of the field. Duke was placed at second slip at the north end and when one or two got past him he had a long chase. It is fair to say that Duke is probably better further out. Barker should have been kept in slips with Barlow ajl the time. A third man would have been exceedingly useful to counter Hodder’s square cuts backward of point and have saved some of the long chases. Home Team’s Opening. Reg Eden and W. Barker opened for South Taranaki; Dut Eden was skittled by Parkes with his first ball. The batsman shaped as if he expected the ball to rise normally and he hardlj played at the nail. However, it kept low and dumtounded the player. Duke filled the breach and settled down to play steady cricket, showing a very solid defence and watching the ball closely. Barker was slow, but I think he could have gathered in a few more runs from some of his cover drives. For a time it was a case of tips, but no runs. The bowlers found the wind troublesome, especially Marshall, whom Duke got away to leg frequently. By tea, our men had put on 44 runs in just under an hor. The fielding was smart and Cameron placed his men well, but a bit of enterprise lie tween the wickets would have

brought a few more runs. The tea must have been good for everyone except our batsmen. Duke started to open out but was easily run out. W. Barker was bowled by H. P. Duncan, and H. Barker was going well with well-placed shots until he had a lash at one of Hodder’s good length off-breaks and paid the penalty. Stan. Betts added his quota before Williams who was now howling with better direction and vim, sent him back. Boss Eden was called up as the likely one to got runs quickly and heat the clock, but lie met the same fate as Beg. Eden, except that his end came quicker. With only a few runs to get and about an equivalent number of minutes to get them in, it became a question of whether the runs would lie got in time or whether the tailenders wold hold out. Barlow went after the runs and Edwards followed suit, but Williams bowled brilliantly and’ when Sturrock went in South Taranaki were still behind and' Bangitikoi wanted that last wicket. Dormer was playing carefully and running short ones, hut lost the howling. The last over and Sturrock was howled neck and crop. Ten runs were still wanted and the visitors won a hardearned victory which the spectatois were not slow in acknoledging with a" hearty round of applause as the team came off the field. On the day, the result was as it. should have been. Bangitikei owed a Jk lot to Hodder, who hatted so well and howled with rare consistency. His length was such that he was hard to score from and a large proportion of overs cost nothing. Williams was the destroyer and once the wind dropped

and his direction improved he left tlie batsmen standing. Rangitikei’s fielding was better than ours, Law at point being outstanding. True, there were one or two lapses, but generally, the bowlers bowled to the field, which as very well placed. The visitors bowlers had that virtue of length thaL was lacking in ours .except for Dormer.

B Team’s Loss. The B representatives’ display nt New Plymouth was disappointing, It was reaily a one-man match for North, for Autridge howled too well and batted just as well at a critical stage of the game. As was expected in some quarters, the pace of the pitch upset our men and in the second innings it started to break up. Christie w.-Ts the best bowler, though he did not get a wicket. Kibblewhite got double figures each innings, hut was not very" happy. There was some lapses in the field, hut on the whole the work was good. Gilbert’s Bowling.

During the recent Victoria v. Queensland match ,the fairness of Eddie Gilbert’s deliveries was questioned. Apparently the Victorians did not lodge any. protest, but they openly expressed the opinion that Gilbert’s bowling was not fair. O’Brien got a crack on the bead from one of the express merchant’s deliveries, but was not seriously hurt. Australian exchanges state that J. Scott, the umpire, informed the Press that he had watched Gilbert very carefully and was satisfied with the fairness of his delivery. It was pointed out that in 1931 all first-class umpires except A. Barlow were satisfied, Barlow calling the bowler 13 times holding that a jerk of the wrist was a throw. Test umpire G. Hell watched Gilbert in a special try out and found nothing objectionable. Gilbert took five for 77 in the match referred to. Sheffield Shield. Before the commencement of the last of the matches last week for tho Sheffield Shield, Victoria were in an invincible position, having 2-3 points. New South Wales came next with 11 points to Queensland’s eight and South Australia’s five. Victoria is said to be in the happy position of possessing some promising young players and this season the State’s representatives have infused much dash into their play. Woodfull and Ponsford have retired and it fell upon Ebeling to head the side. The newspapers credit him with handling his job very well indeed. Many critics thought more use should have been made of him in the last Tests. Fleetwood-Smith bowled wonderfully in the Victoria-N.S.W. match. Off 17 overs he took eight wickets for 113 —a truly splendid performance for a slow bowler. It is likely that he has control of length now, and he should be on Australia’s side for a long time to come.

Among the young players in Victoria’s Sheffield team arf> Lee and Robinson. Lee is only 20, but has had already a long experience of senior cricket in Melbourne, for he was only 13 when he first joined senior ranks. Like Lee, Robinson is a batsman of promise. In the N.S.W. match he went out in an unfortunate manner. He played a perfect shot to the boundary off a ball short of a good length hut stepped hack as he completed the shot, touched the wicket and removed the bail. His score was •57. Freakish Records. r~f Remarkable bowling figures are not confined to South Taranaki, and even the great Australia has its freakish records. At Cootamundra, Bradman’s birthplace, a short while ago, a bowler named Hawes took eight for one off three overs! It was not a classical match, but the newspapers though the item worth the cost of a telegram “No Ball!” There-has been some mention lately as to the right or duty of umpires to “no ball” the bowler, particularly the umpire at the striker’s end.. There is nothing in the laws of cricket to prevent that umpire doing so, but I think that the generally accepted practice is that he should only do so for jerking or throwing the ball. 'The other points, lifting and dragging che foot, should be left to the umpire at the bowler’s end. Personally, I should think it exceeding!? difficult for the other umpire to see whether the howler is dragging, though not difficult to see if he is lifting. The umpire at th.e striker’s epd 'siloifkl keel* his eye on the striker and the wicketkeeper, for the latter gentleman may commit many breaches of Law 42 before the bowler has let the hall out of his hand. Then you do not know just how your brother! umpire will take it. Rome would consider a “call” from his confrere as a reflection upon his ability.