JUNIOR CRICKET

Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 107, 6 April 1932, Page 10

JUNIOR CRICKET

CHAMPIONS FOR 1931-32. (By “Slip.”) The junior cricket competition was finalised on Saturday when a drawn battle —their third in four moetings—between Y.M.C.A. and Old Boys enabled the former club to emerge with the season’s lumours. While not attempting to belittlo the performance of the new champions, their title was somewhat spoiled by the fact that they had to submit to defeat on three occasions, whereas the runners-up had but one loss debited against their record. Each team played 20 matches, Y.M.C.A. winning 11. drawing six and losing three, -while Old Boys won 10, shared tho honours in nino instances and lost one game. Y.M.C.A. gained their advantage from the three fourpoint wins they wero able to force against High School (twice) and Kia Toa (once). Old Boys were unable to gain a four point win on a single occasion; indeed, in only' two instances did they enter upon the second innings by requiring their opponents to take another strike.

The two leading teams in the series met on four occasions during the course of the season, and in three instances drawn games resulted, the one victory forthcoming having been credited to Old Boys in the opening round when Y.M.C.A. were not the well balanced combination they proved to be later on. Y.M.C.A. lost twice to City Council, while they had to be content with drawn matches against Palmerston on three occasions, although they secured a straight out victory over the last-named club at their final meeting. Old Boys also found 1 aimerston a stumbling block tor it was that team which indicted upon the runners-up their one defeat, while they had to be content with a draw against High School on two occasions, despite the fact that Y.M.C.A. had been able to force four point wins over the same team in two instances. Further, Old Boys shared the points with City Council twice, with Palmerston once and with Kia Toa once. Judging the two teams on a scoring basis, one finds that Old Boys were the more fruitful combination in that they scored 3736 runs for the loss of 143 wickets during the season as compared with Y.M.C.A’s 3460 ior the loss of 164 wickets. There were several occasions when Old Boys, after running up good totals, had to declare their innings closed and then attempt to dispose of the opposition in the time remaining. In this they were not always successful. In only six innings did all the members of the side have a turn at the batting crease, whereas Y.M.C.A. had 10 full strikes and did not have to declare on one single occasion. It would thus appear that slowness in scoring robbed Old Boys of the season’s honours and it wouhl seem that as practically all the junior games wero decided on the one innings, this grade might well have engaged in two-day matches this season. Hcraever, the splendid weather and the consequent benefit to the wickets led to bigger returns than would have been forthcoming on wet wickets, so it cannot be advanced as a plea tor tne U “Slip” has also raised the question previously as to the better method o scoring where juniors are concerned. At present with one-day matches being the .order of things the points are allocated on the basis of four for a win in a two innings game, three tor a win on the first innings and one and a-half points for a draw. The granting of only a point and a-lialf for a draw appears to bo somewhat harsh and it might b© i>referable that two points be granted, which would possibly assist towards restricting players from adopting over-risky methods m their desire to force an issue. \\ hue brighter cricket is generally desired, there is a tendency in junior games for players to take unnecessary risks. Indeed, it might be advisable to delete tlio extra point for a two innings win in a one-day game. INDIVIDUAL RETURNS. Somo excellent returns were registered by junior players during the season, the following registering centuries and half-centuries: Peck (K.T.).- —151, 55. Sandman (Y r .M.). —139, 80, 80, 70, G. 5, 65. Spring (O.B.). —115. Gavey (C.C.). —111, 95. Hart (O.B.).—110, 103, 51. McGavin (O.B.). —104, 70, 58. Childs (P.).—104, 101, 77, 73, 50. Mabey (P.). —104. McGregor (O.B.). —103. G. Griggs (Y.M.).—103, 55, 50. Ellev (P.).—98, 63. Tapp (Y.M.).—97. Turner (C.C.).—94, 62. Hincks (Y.M.).—91. Players with lesser figures were : • McSkimming (H.S.) 80, Stubbs (O.B.) 79, 51, Morgan (C.C.) 79, Trow (O.B.) 78, 75, 65, 60, Ormond (P.) 74, 53, -

Roach (H.S.) 72, McLaren (Y.M.) 71, 59, 54, Madgwick (P.) 70, Loudon (ri.S.) 07, Hardie (C.C.) 66, 53, 50, Eglinton (O.B.) 66, Riddell (Y.M.) 65, Waugh (C.C.) 56, 51, Findlay (P.) 53, Carter (H.S.) 54, Evans (K.T.) 52, J. Gallichan (P.) 51, Burgess (C.C.) 50. WITH THE BALL. Some sensational returns have on occasion been returned by bowlers, but the following players have proved sufficiently consistent to lie worthy of mention, although there are isolated instances where the averages arc possibly better: Eglinton (0.8.).—.5-14, 5-27. 5-27, 5-42, 5-7 S, 7-36, 5-33, 4-69, 6-26, 4-37. Hincks (Y.M.).—5-29, 6-42, 2-10, 2- 3-29, 2-8, 0-29, 3-6. McLaren (Y.M.).—4-15, 4-15, 4-28, 3- 3-18. 3-8, 2-0.

Morgan (K.T.).—2-15, 6-20, 7-34, 5- 3-18, 0-51. - 0 „ Goodjoou (Y.M.). —3-9, 4-38, 2-3, 3-23, 2-40, 3-13. Gavev (C.C.).-6-23, 5-39, 2-26, 4-19, 6- 5-19. , Morg-in (C.C.). —6-28, 4-29, 3-27, 3-25, 3-13. 3-22. „„ o _ „ Sandman (Y.M.). —4-2/, 3-2/, 6-18, Tapp”(Y.M.).— 3-41, 1-0, 3-16, 3-61, Childs (P.). —2-9, 3-25, 2-22, 4-19, .1. Gallichan (P.). —4-24, 3-7, 7-27, 3-23. McGregor (O.B.). —3-7, 2-19, 2-0, Lano (C.C.) —4-36, 8-38, 4-31, 5-51.