DOMINION CRICKETERS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19778, 27 October 1927, Page 14

DOMINION CRICKETERS.

REVIEW OF THE TOUR. LEADING PLAYERS' AVERAGES HIGH QUALITY OF BATTING. |THE DEFECTS IN THE BOWLING. BY COLONEL PHILIP TREVOR* LONDON, Sept, 19. The match which brought the Scarborough Cricket Festival to a close was also the last match of the New Zealanders' tour, and the weather was yet once again unkind to the tourists. Ido cot say that but for bad weather the New Zea landers would have won if. But they certainly had an excellent chance' of winning when rain fell on the third and last day and the game was at least drawn in their favour. Towards the close of that match R.- G. Blunt made his 2000 th 'run of the tour. A very remarkable batting performance has he been responsible for, for in all comparisons in which the New Zealanders are concerned two facts must be continually borne in mind: (a) That this is their first cricketing visit to this country; (b) That this is their first experience of what by general consent counts as first-class cricket. Of Blunt's 2000 odd runs more than 1500 were made m matches which officially ranked as first-class and the remarks I am about to adventure on the subject I shall, confine to officially first-class cricket. .We want to get a general working idea of how and where these New Zealanders stand. Here are the figures of their leading batsmen:— ' In. Runs BLS. N.O. ,Av. Dempster .. 37 1430 180 5 44.58 Blunt . . .. 38 1540 131 3 44.00 Lowry .. 37 1277 106 4 38.58 Mills .. 39 1251 152 6 37.50 Page .. .. 36 1154 140* 3 34.96 Dacre ~ .. 34 *Not Out. Those six men have done remarkably •well and, as has already been remarked, they would have done infinitely better but for the handicap of almost unprecedented bad weather, True, none of them has a startling batting average. Also several batsmen from overseas visiting this country for the first time have succeeded in getting a batting average of 45 runs or more per innings. But that is not the point. Unity is strength and the fact that as many as six batsmen have been almost consistently reliable is the fact that has to be noted. English Batsmen's Averages. Of course, the New Zealanders' batting performances do not challenge comparison with those of our leading batsmen in the season that is now over, and incidentally it is ail amateur, D. R. Jardine, to wit, who heads our list. Playing only a dozen 'innings* Jardine got nearly a thousand runs and he has an average of 92. Excluding Jardine, the following have all on paper done better in batting than any of the New Zealanders.

In. Runs U.S. N.O. Av. Hallows . 44 2343 233 *33 75.28 Mead .. .. 41 2385 200 * 9 74.53 Hendren .. .. 43 2784 201* 5 73.26 Hammond .. 47 29G9 197 4 69.04 A. Chapman .. 23 1387 260 2 66.04 Sandham . . 46 2315 *230 6 57.87 Holmes (Yorks) 47 2174 ISO 9 57.21 Hearne .. .. 38 1632 245* 9 56.27 Sutcliffe . . 43 2414 227 6 56.13 Shepherd .. 45 2145 277* 6 55.00 Bowley .. .. 41 2062 220 3 54.26 Hobbs . . . . 32 1641 150 1 52.03 (Tyldesley (E.) .. 39 1756 165 4 50.17 Parsons ... .. 42 1700 225 8 50.00 Dipper . . . . 53 2246 212 S 49.91 G. T. S. Stevens 10 436 89 1 48.44 Woolley (F. E.) 41 1804 187 2 46.25 [whyßall . . . . 50 2069 IS4 5 45.97 *Xot Out. It will, of course, be noticed that Greville Stevens, like Jardine, has played very little. Some of these are tall batting aver ages, especially those of Hallows, Mead, Hendren, Hammond and Chapman. Incidentally, cricketers in New Zealand may note the fact that our experts are not set on a mere batting average as a batting" test. Of the names I have quoted Hallows and Mead would not get into the England eleven, nor am I quite sure that Hendren would either, though personally my vote would be cast in his favour. The next three on the list it will be seen are Sandham, Holmes and Hearne. Not one of them would in England's best eleven.

Six Successful Batsmen. I look upon the New Zealand batting strength as just a shade better than the equivalent of one of our very best batting counties and, tried by that test, you ■w ill not easily find any one of the counties that can claim six such consistently successful ba,tsmen as Dempster, Blunt, Lowry, Mills', Page and Daere. In regard to the bowling there is not »n equally happy story to tell. Very early * n Jkeir tour did I get increasingly anxious about the bowling of the New Zealanders, I wanted to see the fast and medium merchants doing their job and keeping busy. I was destined to be continually—indeed, continuously—disappointed, Neither Henderson nor Bernau justified Himself, and you could not rank McGirr.Cas a bowler) as higher than useful. Nor did Allcott when at last he made a start, justify expectation. I felt uncomfortably sure that (he slow righthanders, Merritt and Blunt, would have to do it practically all and that the lion's share would fall to the former. And so it ha§ been. I think Merritt did distinctly well to. take 107 wickets in English first-class cricket at the cost of 23 runs each. Still, that was not good enough as a practical proposition. Our best slow right-hander, Freeman '("Little Tich") took 183 wickets at a cost of only 18 runs each. Here are a few performances of some of our most successful English bowlers during the past season.

Overs. 3ldns. Runs. 'Wckts. Av. Garwood . . 623.2 147 1695 100 16.95 Root .. 1265.4 450 2597 145 17.91 MacaUlay . . 1110.2 288 2375 ISO 18.26 Freeman _. . 1220.1 269 3330 181 38.39 J. C. White 1212.2 475 2037 113 38.55 Mercer . . 814 198 19C1 300 19.63 Parker:-- .v 1727.4 540 3849 193 19.94 Merritt and Blunt.

Also there are nine other English bowlers each of whom has taken 100 wickets at a less cost than Merritt has. I have mentioned Blunt's ..bowling. He was only slightly more expensive than Merritt, and between them these two men took nearly 200 wickets. Henderson, Bernau, JMcGirr and Allcott took less than 150 wickets between them. In other ■words, the two slow right-handers, each of whom could perpetuate the googlv, were the only two really reliable bowlers in the side, though McOirr was capable of doing a great deal of work.

In actual practice that meant that the sides opposed to the New Zealanders could generally count on getting runs without much loss except when opposed by one or other of the slow right-handers. Perhaps it might have heen physically advisable io give Merritt more rest than was. given him But the tactical risk run by resting him had to be considered. I repeat that in these remarks T am refer ring only to matches which were officially first-class It will, therefore, be seen C|ui£e plainly that the New Zealand howling was of a standard quite different irom the New Zealand batting.