THEY FAILED

NZ Truth, Issue 1144, 3 November 1927, Page 12

THEY FAILED

Our Cricketers Are Well Beaten

XBy Cable.— From Charlie Kelleway.) SYDNEY, Tuesday. The game between the New Zealanders and New South Wales ended on Monday. New South Wales won by ten wickets. THOUGH defeated, the New Zea- ■*• landers should not be downhearted. The home team were all out on Friday for 571, leaving the New Zealanders a task that eventually proved too formidable. ' New Zealand's first innings was completed on Saturday, with the team all out for 286, leaving them 285 to get m their second innings to avoid an innings defeat. They made 292 on Monday afternoon. The top-scorers were Dacre (54), Blunt (53) and Page (51). Kippax and Phillips went m .for New Bouth Wales, but neither scored, sundries giving the home team eight, comprising one bye and seven leg byes. Cabled reports of the New Zealand cricketers received during their tour of England led us to believe that they had made great strides forward as exponents of the game. Now that two days' play has been seen, some idea 'can be formed as to their advancement. When reviewing the team fielded against New South Wales, one must take into consideration the few days' Sractice they had before playing m so lg a game. Even allowing for this, I do not think they have, so far, gained a great deal from the tour. On Friday, as fieldsmen, they wero weak— both as regards team work and also as individuals. At the reception given the team by the New South Wales Cricket Association, it was said that the average age of. the team was 24 years. Having youth on their side, the players should be able to bend to pick tip the ball instead of using their feet. The men more often tried to stop the ball with their feet. In some circumstances, such a thing is excusable, but usually it is far safer to pick the ball tip m order to save getting bad ankles from bad knocks, which occur when Btopping the ball with the feet. Then the fieldsmen would wait for the ball to come to them, instead of coming m to save runs by smart picking up and returning. Often I noticed men were m wrong positions, not because of bad placing, but because they did not appear to know where they were expected to go. Lowry did not place his men as we do, but that was because he does not Eroperly know the conditions ruling ere. There was rarely a ball bowled - on Friday that could not have been scored off. Compare this with the way New South Wales players seemed to fit into place and to know instinctively what was expected of them. When placing the field, more depends on the bowler than on the captain. Frequently I have placed a .strong * off-side field, expecting a bowler to bowl for that part of the ground. For some unaccountable reason he Will boWl on the leg-side, which means that flrstvone and then another fieldsman has to be transferred over to save the quickly mounting score. Then the bowler bowls as he originally intended doing. I mention this to show that although the New Zealand fieldsmen often seemed out of place, it is hard to say exactly where a man was wanted with the bowlers apparently without method. That is how is summed up the bowling of the various men I saw. Blunt was the most difficult to I play, whilst Merritt was too slow through the air to really trouble quick-footed batsmen. The catching was raw, too, the fieldsmen appearing to know little of how to hold a cricket ball and rarely looked safe when the ball was m the air.

PLAYING MAILEY

As batsmen, the men were not impressive. I thought Lowry knew more about this phase of the game than the other batsmen. He played Mailey correctly, and until making a wild swish at a new ball was^ never troubled. The other batsmen all nibbled at anything off the wicket and it was more by good luck than good management that they did not leave earlier. Several batsmen scored double figures and they all batted attractively to a certain point. When a knowledge of the game was required they failed and got themselves out. The running between wickets was bad; too often when an easy second run was possible both batsmen would prop and be undecided until too late to do any good. Merritt and Oliver, were bright; their example could be followed by other members of the team. What is really wanted now is a team composed of, say, five or six men who know the game and the team completed with New Zealanders who would learn more m one match that way than m a whole season as they are now. In addition, lectures by leading cricketers would give them an insight into a thousand and one little points that are all worth knowing when playfiig against a first-class side. The brightest feature of the match £as the partnership between Page and acre, which added 95 runs m 42 minutes. It was not the time taken that caught the eye, however. It was the ipanner m which they set about the fowling. * In the first innings the only batsmen ■who picked up runs by clever running between wickets were Oliver and Merritt. In the second innings Page and Dacre made runs when they were on and showed a better knowledge of this spectacular side of batsmanship than any of the. other batsmen. Mills was not sure at any time, and his dismissal was expected. Allcott was not as certain m his first knock, while McGirr, who made Borne nice strokes, tried to back-cut a straight one from Everett, which ■bowled him. Oliver was foolishly run out before flooring. Then Merritt and Henderson hit lustily and added 42 runs for the last-wicket partnership, which, incidentally, saved the follow-on. On the showing of this match the New Zealanders have a long way to go before they can meet Australian teams on anything Hke even terms. I