CRICKET

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21542, 14 January 1932, Page 4

CRICKET

f The position of the senior teams at the conclusion of the fourth round.is, as fol-

;It is not often that the. Albion batsman, Shepherd, is caught in two minds when he is at the batting crease, but that isi. what happened .when he was clean bowled by D. Cameron in his second hand against Carisbrook. Shepherd made 51 before he was dismissed, but he was not permitted to hit the bowling about as he did in his first innings. .Ihe sou wicket no doubt caused the Albion crack batsman to slow up a bit. . , Cavanagh played a confident innings tor 93 against the University team, but it was not without blemish. Cavanagh ap peared to be handicapped by the slow wicket. His score included 13 fours. Eaikorai did not offer a very strong resistance to the bowling of Grange and suffered a four-point defeat. M Kay took fotir for 19 and one for 12, and Lemm five for 29. In Kaikorai’s second innings Chettleburgh finished up with an average ofi seven for 54. . , Christian Brothers inflicted a heavy and unexpected defeat on Old Boys. Chris.tian Brothers had made 285 on the previous Saturday, and Old Boys (with two men absent) had to bat on a soft wicket. Old Boys made only 59 in their first innings and, on going in again, scored 125. Badcock finished up with the fane average of five for 19 in Old Boys first strike and got two for 37 in the second innings. Mllroy took two for 26 and four for 25. Two fine one-handed catches were made at Logan Park on Saturday. R. Silver .(Albion) took J. Cameron in the ; outfield, and Brookes (Christian Brothers), fielding at point, took A. W, Alloo. While Otago, Canterbury, and Wellington have each topped 600 for an innings in this season’s Plunket Shield series'. Auckland have gone to the other extreme, in 'being idismissed for 56 runs.

r notes S, Orchard, the old Canterbury representative, holds the record of being the only bowler in Plunket Shield matches to: do the hat trick. Orchard achieved this distinction. in a match between Canterbury and Auckland. Orchard often proved himself a hard man to get rid of wuen at the batting crease in matches against Otago. I well remember how ;on one occasion at Carisbrook he turned what ; locked like a victory for Otago into a victory for Canterbury. He went in late ; in the innings and, hit the bowling all over the field. , . ~ The itinerary of matches to be playedby'the South African cricket team in New Zealand has not yet been announced, but the suggestion that one of the games should be against a South Island team instead of against Canterbury has much to commend it. A team could be selected from the South Island which would test tHoroughly the capabilities of the South (The aggregate of 1400 runs has been exceeded on a number of occasions in Plunket Shield-matches, the highest on record being 1905 v. Otago), which holds rank in Wisdens as the third best for first-class matches in the cricketing world. H. M. M'Girr, who has taken the largest number of wickets in Plunkdt Shield cricket, received a ball, s uitably > inscribed, in recognition of this feat during an interval of the Canterbury-W ellmgton match at the Basin Reserve. In the match between Otago and Auck- ' land Badcock increased his total or tickets in Shield cricket to over .100. THE, OTAGO TEAM Dear “ Slip,”—l-had the privilege_ of geeing Otago play Canterbury, and in view of the forthcoming match between Otago and Wellington I hope you will not consider me presumptuous if I give my views regarding how the' Otago team, can be strengthened.-. In'the.first place, it seems: to me. that there were too many bowlers; in the. team which came north—no fewer than seven-rand that the hatting strength of the Otago side could he improved by: selecting sound batsmen instead of trying,: to combine batting and .bowling capability ip one -player. Of course, if a man can bat and also bowl it is a great advantage: to a side—to wit, players like Badcock and Crbihb—but discrimination has to be shown when we get away from the class cricketers. I understand that Otago is trying to bring on her young players and give them experience of big cricket, butsurely experience and confidence can be obtained in club cricket, and_ it_ does not do: to place young cricketers in important matches before they have gained a certain amount of experience in club cricket. In; fact, the bringing on of. young players cab be overdone;' as can be realised, by examining the scores by the Otago_ men in;the match against Canterbury. made 589 runs in their second hand against our province, and. of that total Blunt and Badcock accounted for 443, and extras came to 41. This left ascqre of 105 for the other nine batsmen. In Otago’s first innings 161 runs were scored, and of this total two batsmen < Blunt 32 and Knight 38) scored 70, and extras accounted fop 16. On these figures it will be seen that something was really wrong with the Otago team. I understand that Dunning, the Otago captain, has been criticised for the handling of his bowling in Canterbury’s second innings, and also for the placing of his men in the field, and that raises the question whether a player who is included in a. side primarily for his bowling should be appointed a captain. I have no desire, however, to enter into that aspect of Otago’s showing against Canterbury. I do think, however, that the selectors can pick a better balanced side than that which played against Canterbury, and I want to see Otago beat Wellington.' I might add that nothing but praise can be awarded to the Otago , players for their fielding in the match at Lancaster Park.—l am, etc., Onlooker. Christchurch, January 9. OTAGO v. AUCKLAND The following comments on the first innings play by Otago against Auckland are from the Auckland Herald; — Otago’s innings occupied exactly five hours, in which more runs should have been scored after such a lively start had been made. Runs came rapidly in the early stages, but there was a decided lull as the afternoon wore on. To give an idea of the slow rate of scoring towards the end, Moloney was in 36 minutes for. 11 runs. M'Haffie 25 minutes for 6, Couplnnd 67 minutes for 23, and Hawksworth 27 minutes for 13. This was certainly flattering to the Auckland attack. Badcock gave a very fine all-round exhibition. He and Cherry started off running short singles and they had the Auckland fieldsmen bustled very early. Badcock scored 27 out of the first 50 runs in 35 minutes and 63 out of 100 in 75 minutes. This was very good scoring. His running out of Blunt, however, appeared to affect Badcock, while the advent of Vivian to the bowling crease slowed down the scoring rate very materially. This was amply demonstrated by the fact that it took the ex-English-man 35 minutes to make his next 21 runs. When his total was 46 Badcock survived an appeal for leg before by M Coy. The umpire, Mr Harvey, held his hand up, but realising immediately that the ball had turned away, he permitted the batsman to remain. This was quite in accordance with the rule which allows an umpire to change his decision immecli--8t Cherry was never particularly happy against Lyon. He was dropped in the slips by Matheson off Lyon before he had reached double figures, while the same bowler beat him on several occasions, and eventually got him leg before. Cherry was in 49 minutes for 25. Blunt was uncomfortable at the start when facing Lyon. His dismissal was the result of a shocking error of judgment on the part of such an experienced player as Badcock. Elmes greatly impressed in knocking Up 49 in 41 minutes. Like all lefthanders, he was particularly good on the leg side, where big driving was strong and his glancing very pretty. His square cutting and off driving were also good, ao lie puts plenty of power behind his shots.

Elmes found the boundary on five occasions, and also gained a 5 by an overthrow. Knight gave a rather stodgy exhibition compared with those of Badcock and Elmes. He was at the wicket .nearly a quarter, of an hour before scoring, and his 42'runs took him nearly two hours to compile. To contrast Knights batting with that of Elmes, when the pair were partnered, it is only necessary to mention that he scored four while Elmes made 49. Dunning, the Otago captain, survived a confident appeal for leg-before first ball and two or three more before he eventually went in this manner to Vivian. He batted briskly for his 36 runs, which took him just over half an hour. Smith scored three more runs than Dunning, but he was at the wickets for 81 minutes. However, he gave a very sound Coupland made a ifseful contribution ot 24, but it took him 67 minutes to do so. Hawkesworth gained the distinction of hitting the only 6 of the match. (Otago won by 107 runs.)

BRADMAN IS—JUST BRADMAN Said a small boy, aged 11, when told that Bradman was not going to Accrington, “ I’m glad of that. I would rather play with him than against him.” An innocent remark this, but it opens up immense possibilities. t I wonder if Don Bradman in his younger clays ever thought that he would one day play for Australia with one of the stars of that day (writes A. G. Moyes, former South Australian representative cricketer, In the Sydney Sun). Probably, like all youngsters, he dreamed dreams, and a study of his career is intensely int Brest irisr. Don lived in the country. He can dimly remember one visit to the Sydney ground. He can recall a leg glance by Macartney and one shot by Johnnie Taylor. . Thes.e are his only memories. Think of it, you lads who sit hour after hour at the Sydney Cricket Ground, and watch the champions and worry them for their autographs. What opportunities you have to assimilate knowledge, chances which were denied to Bradman! He never saw Trumper or Hill. He cannot remember anything of Macartney, save one stroke only. The little chap who would prefer to play with him has greater opportunities than this. He has seen Macartney, Kippax, Bradman, Jackson, and other artists of the bat, and as the years go on and he develops he ■will probably play against some of them m grade’games and get a close-up of their methods. ' = , . ~ , I wonder what difference it would have made to Don' if he had lived in the city and Had watched the champions of another clay. Would he have been better than he ss? Would he have, copied ' them or would he have been the player we now know? , , . .. They say that we learn by imitation. Jackson, in some of his shots, is the living image of Trumper. Yet he never saw Victor play. How, then, could he have copied his shots? Bradman has astonished the natives and the visitors with a superb stroke which he makes off the back foot, sending the ball speeding past the bowler for four. Macartney played that shot. Certainly, of pre-war players he is the only one I have seen •do it consistently. Bradman never saw Macartney, and, obviously, therefore he did not learn it from him. Would Bradman have been a greater player if' be had a chance of watching these great players?

I douht .it...; - ■ . ■ , . Trumper started a new school of batsmanship. He did Things which no one else could do.;'. Brilliant, graceful—in fact, a genius—lie wrote his own text book or batting, and no one could copy him. Macartney followed, like- him and yet unlike. He, too, was touched .with the brush of genius, a glorious player, full of audacity and brilliant in execution. Now Bradman has started a fresh tradition. He is unlike Trumper and unlike Macartney. He is Bradman. He, too, has written a text book of cricket which others cannot copy. He different, in style and in method, and if he'tried to play the Trumper game he would not be Bradman. Why try to compare the three great ones, each in his way a marvel, a cricket figure who will endure through the ages? • • Trumper scored fast, and eo did Macartney. Bradman ..is just the, same. Trumper and Macartney had an uncanny knack of finding the gaps in the field and of hitting the ball to unguarded territory. Then, when the field was changed, they peppered the spot recently vacated. Watch Bradman. He does "the same, driving bowler and captain to sy* ; His great compatriots, were - quick on their feet. They made the. bowling the length they wanted. Does not Don do the same? Ask M'Millan. He will tell you. . These three great ones, therefore, qissimilar in .method,, were alike in the basic ideas of batsmanship. If defence was essential, who better than Trumper and Macartney? , But they did not defend unless it was essential. Bradman is the same. , , , Again, Trumper and Macartney had cricket brains.. Has any player ever been better equipped than Bradman? I think not. ... ' , , And so we see that, while he never saw his great compatriots, and though his style is different, his ideas are the same. He has the same high ideals of what batting is. He uses his brains as well as his bat to confound the enemy, and he believes, like them, that offence is the best defence. He never saw them, yet he works on similar lines, reaching the same magnificent heights by different methods. Would he have improved on this if he had studied them? Surely not. Bradman, like Trumper, was born great. He simply cannot help being the player that he is. All that he needed was the opportunity. •. He does not take the risks that Trumper took, and, therefore, he does not fail so often. He also is blessed with greater stamina, and, therefore, can stand the strain of a long innings. Trumper was a freak in his own way. Bradman is a freak in another way. . It is useless to try to compare them. How each would have fared had he been at his top in another generation is purely a matter, of opinion. We all have our own ideas. I think that Don would have been just as great if he had played 20 years ago. In the same way, if Vic. were alive to-clay he would flog the bowling in ' the same artistic manner as he did in the days before the war. Bradman is a throw-back to those days in his aggression, and in defence he is a product of modern batsmanship for, whereas on the average the first-class player of 1930 is not so good in attack as the star of pre-war days, he is probably better in defence, as he deals more in that line than did his comrades of other ye Thc off-break that once hit the wicket when it beat the bat would now hit the pads. Then they, were a protection for the legs. Now they are a second line of defence, quite legitimately, certainly, but to an extent never dreamt of 25 years ag Thus does the game of cricket develop. The bosey bowler and the swerve bowler come along and the batsmen think out new methods of foiling them. How can we compare the player of one age with the player of another when circumstances are so different? Let us leave it at that with Trumper and Bradman, two players who will live as long as cricket is played. We are more fortunate than Don. lie did not see Trumper, and he cannot see hiniself.

P. 4-pt. wins. 2-pt. wins. Cham. L. pts. Grange .. •. 4 , : 2 1 ' - 1 10 Old Boys .. .. 4, >— 3 1 6 Christian Bros. 4 1 1 2 6 Albion .. .. 4 1 1 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 Carisfcrook 4 : 1 1 Dunedin .. .*'• 4 11 University .. 4 V 1 1 Kaikorai .. .. .4 — — 4 —