NOTES BY LONG SLIP.

Otago Witness, Issue 3019, 24 January 1912, Page 60

NOTES BY LONG SLIP.

Th-o Otago Cricket Asociation’s invitation to the Wellington Asoctastion to send the Wellington team paying Canterbury for the Plunket Shield on the 26th, 27th, and 29th inst. to Dunedin to meet an Otago side has been refused. Wellington, however, promise to visit Otago next year. In the event of Wellington defeating Canterbury for the Plunket Shield in the match commencing on Friday, Auckland expects to play Wellington for the shield on February 9, 10, and 12. It has been pointed out to the ex-holders of the shield that the dates are unsuitable for Wellington, as the Basin Reserve is engaged. Should Canterbury succeed in retaining the Shield, Aucklandi will play the holders on February 9, 10, and 12, meeting Otago, at Dunedin, on February 16, 17, and 19, and Wellington on February 23, 24, and 26. In connection with the foregoing, the members of the Canterbury Cricket Association consider that the probable altering of the dates in the event of Wellington defeating Canterbury would bo exceedingly inconvenient. It was decided to inform Auckland that arrangements having been made the Canterbury Association was desirous of the dates originally agreed upon being adhered to irrespective of the result of the Wellington-Canterbury match. To mark his appreciation of the excellent exhibition of cricket shown by the Canterbury Eleven in the match against Otago, Sir Arthur Guinness is presenting a bat for the highest individual score made by a Canterbury player against Auckland. Arthur Sims, the well-known Canterbury and New Zealand representative cricketer, has left Christchurch on a business trip to England. Si ms will be absent about two years. He will be a distinct loss to Canterbury, particularly in its efforts to retain the Plunket Shield. Particulars of the accident to the imparted Otago p'layor Charlie Macartney while practising at Adelaide show that a gust ot wind blew the net over, and the pole fell across his forehead, inflicting u severe gash. It was (only after earnest consideration that it was decided to play him in the New South Wales v. South Australia match. Clem Hill offered a substitute, but Macartney fielded until the afternoon tea adjournment, and then retired. Macartney had not only recovered from his injury, but was showing such form at practice that Clem Hill was anxious to plav the left-hander in the third test, but M‘A lister and Iredale declined. However, Macartney did take part in the third test, fielding substitute for Ransford, who had injured bis thumb while batting. Macartney was frequently applauded for hie fine fielding at mid-off. This is something wo in Dunedin can appreciate, having had the pleasure in the match against the Australians of seeing Macartneys work in the mid-off position. “Trumper had batted thrccquarters of an hour for 18,” Such was the significant comment on Australia’s idol on the first day of the third test, when Australian wickets were falling like autumn leaves. The same Trumper whore theory is that every ball should l>o hit to the boundary! By the way, Trumper was unulcky on the •second day of the third test. Ho jumped in front of a ball to save a four in the outfield, when the ball struck him, breaking one of the small arteries in the leg. He wont in at once, and remained in the pavilion with the injured limb packed in. ice until the tea adjournment, when he was removed to his hotel. Trumper rested all next day. and on the Inst day hobbled out for his turn at the batting crease a cripple.

It probably conn's as no surprise that amoiiT the «ix prominent, cricketers who signed the ultimatum to the Board of Control objecting (o the board’s appointment of a manager for the Australian tour there should be found the names of Hill, Trumper, and Armstrong. It was hinted some time ago that these players were opposed to such an appointment. Hansford. Cotter, and (A, rt«r he vn joined issue, hut Hordc.rn. Bardsley, Kel’ewav. Macartney, and Minnctt refused to sign. The selection of the team for England, which was to have been made at the conclusion of the third test, is hung ud pending a settlement of the diffieultv. Certain Australian players have always l>cen opposed to the Board of Control, but there can be no denying that the board has right on its side. Australian teams for England. Drier to the 1909 tour, were resnonisible to no one in nartieular, but with the formation of the hoard matters were nlaced on a proper basis. Much opposition faced the Board of Control, but it won out. Now there is an attempt by certain Aus-

tivalian players to burst up the board’s authority. The fact that the opponents to the board’s appointment of a manager have signified their withdrawal of objection if the board pays the manager’s expenses point to the question being one of finance. The following is the resolution, passed at a recent meeting of the Board of Control, which lias caused the dissatisfaction and brought about the present deadlock; —“That a representative of the board be appointed by the board to accompany the Australian Eleven to England in 1912. That the duties of such representative shall be —To keep the books of account relating to the tour, and generally to supervise all matters relating or incidental to the tour. That such repre sentativc be. allowed a salary of £4OO, to be paid by the board, together with all travelling expenses, as enjoyed by the members of the eleven, which (expenses) shall ho charged against the expenses of the tour.” The selectors of the Australian team for England are AI css r a Hill, Iredale, and ATAlister. It is generally agreed that the certainties would include Hill, Truniper, Armstrong, Bardsley, Hansford. Cotter, Carter, Kolleway, .Macartney, and Hordern —should the latter consent to moke the trip. Others who might be mentioned as having a chance are Min nett, Whitty, Harbour, Matthews, Oarkeek, Dolling, and Jennings. If the board hold fast to its resolution- —which one sincerely trusts it will do—Messrs Hill, Truniper, Armstrong, Hansford, Carter, and Cotter may be expected to drop out. Without these players it, will bo a weak team for England, but better so than that the board should give wav to the objecting players on what is purely a question of finance. In speaking of Australia’s eol'apse in the third test, it should be explained at once that the wicket had nothing to do with it, writes “ Observer.” A 3 in Melbourne, it was not the fact of good men actually getting out that caused a fooling of dismay. It was their inability to do anything effective while >n. Foster was swinging a good deal, varying his pace with judgment, and getting a ball in occasionally which seemed to straighten up from the curve at the last moment. Barnes had the worse bowling end. There was no life in it. Ho was fairly accurate, but many a time against Australians ho has low led bettor, and been hit all over the field.

Giving the bowlers all tho credit that is their due, it must be admitted that they had some luck. Armstrong, when he looked like nulling tho side out of a fix, was bowled oft’ his pad, arid so was Kelloway. Minnctt played tho ball into his wicket. Trumpet - , when shaping to push a ball to the off, got his bat caught against his pad, and with the stroke thus interrupted was .much too late. Hansford, when playing nicely, had his thumb badly smashed. Crockett lifted the thumb-nail ■with his penknife on both sides to promote a flow of blood and ease the pain, but it practically disposed of Hansford for the innings. In the ca*se of the men bowled off their pads and playing on, it must be said that tho ball had, at any rate, beaten tho bat before it was deflected to tho wicket.

A clever trap was set for Hill, and he fell into it at onoo. Smith had been standing back. Just as Foster 'was about to bowl be beckoned the wicket-keeper up. Hill has a knack of going forward as lie swings at a leg-ball. He did it this time, and Smith, having stumped him cleverly, went back to short-stop. The Australians had some luck, however, in having falsa hits full in safe places, and no one benefited from it more than Hordern, - who went in first wicket down for the special purpose of stonewalling, and did it for over an hour and a-half.

On an Adelaide ground tho success of Hill, was, of course, the event of Australia’s second innings, and though quite a lot o«f people were mourning for those other two runs, the 98 without a chance served more than one pui-posa, There is no need to reopen old sores, further than to say that the eve of an inq>ortant /te.st match was quite the wrong time, for many icasons, to question Ulom Hill’s right to a place in a Commonwealth cloven. It was wrong, lioth as a question of taste, and on judgment, Ijooauee in the case of a selector of a team people are bound to ask whether his judgment as to other men —-Macartney, for example—is equally sound. Apart from all small personal issues, Hill’s innings was a fine one. Ho made up his mind from the first that he would take no risks with Foster’s leg theories, partial as lie lias always been for a swing at a bail that is outside ids pad. but he played all the other lenders quite in his old form. For two and throo-quartcr hours his driving on both sides of the wicket was clean and hal'd. Well, wc stall probably hear nothing more this season of the theory that Clem Hill has “ lost his punch ” —“ forgotten how to bat.” While the circumstances all combined to make Hill’s innings distinctive, the finest effort of the day was, to “ Observer's ” mind, Carter’s 72, the highest score he has ever got in a test match. Ho was sent in late on Monday evening to hold an end to bo sacrificed, if necessary, for the interests of his side. One of the beat {judges of the game of cricket said to him in the morning, “No one in Australia can hold an end better than you can if you jus*}; make up your mind to it.” “Yes,” said the little grizzled .veteran, “ but I find it haid to resist having a go at them.” Today he put himself under severe restraint, and for nearly three hours held one end for his side, and scored 72 runs. Barnet* might have caught him one-handed when he was 48, but, there was no other defect in an innings marked by some really fine cutting, many good leg strokes, and hardly a weak one of any sort. Hill’s downfall, it should bo explained, was duo to a change of mind. Had he wanted four for the 100 ho would probably have got them, for he was about to pull a short one from Barnes hand to the on, when caution said, “ Go easy, make sure of it,” and in going easy Hill got the ball on the point of hi# bat, and made a bad stroke that would not have happened once in 50 shots at the same ball. Bardslev was another who looked like getting a big score until ho was bowled off his pad. The ball was quite a foot away to leg, but ho played to force it forward to mid-on, and, after hitting his pad it just touched the offl stump. Armstrong was bowled later on in trying very much the same stroke. Ho might have played it safely, but in trying to turn it slightly to the-on he missed it altogether. Roger Ilartigan, who went to England with the last Australian Eleven, has been giving Brisbane _ people some of his views through the medium of the Daily Mail, and this it? one of them; —“ There was one very

important point which impressed itself on niy mind and I think that most people in Australia will think the same before Jong. I refer to the captaincy of the team, and with all due respect and deference to Hill, Australia badly needs Noble. I said once before in my notes that 1 considered that Hill was not the man to lead Australia, for he has not the proper disposition. And now I repeat that the Australian team would be a 25 per cent, better combination if Noble was in charge. Had lie been captain in Sydney, do you think that these fieldsmen of ours would have slacked it, and that they would have been fielding in so many different places - ' Not for a moment. There is something about Noble as a captain which makes every man playing with him put forth every ounce .that is in him. It is simply his personality, and the confidence ho inspires in those whom ho is leading is one of the greatest factors in the success which attends him on practically every occasion. A tost team ils like lobs of other bodies-composcd of different units with different dispositions—• it requires a long-headed and tactful man to get the best results. Some of the men, I know, take a bit of handling, but Noble could always manage them. If lie were only back in the arena wo could view the rcniairiiging tests with a much easier mind than at, present. Unless something out of the ordinary happens, he- is not likely to take part in any more big cricket, for he told mo that he intends to stick closely to business. It is significant' that he spent only part of one afternoon watching tho test match.” Tho sensation on the North Ground on January 13 was tho remarkable feat of M‘Farlane, tho Albion bowler, in securing the last fivo wickets of Oarisbrook B with successive balls. In a search of the records at my disposal I can find nothing to equal this performance, which is likely to stand for a long time ao a record in grade or any other cricket. Some notable performances of the past in first-class cricket are; —T. Downes v. New Zealand (1898), 10 for 20; W. Parker v. Southland (1893), eight for 15 ; A. H. Fisher v. Canterbury (1896), seven for 11; A. Downes v, Canterbury (1896), seven for 12. Going further back, there is on record:—W. F. Downes v. Canterbury (1866), six for 8; C. Frith v. Australia (1880), five for 4; T. S Parker v. Canterbury (1866), five for 6; C. Frith v. Tasmania (1883), five for 8; J. Rod fern v. All England (1863), four for 7; (> H. Haskell v. Australia (1880), three for 6.

While there is no parallel to M'Farlane’s feat in local First Grade cricket, and possibly none in the Dominion, in Wisden wc find records of six wickets in six balls, in 1859; five wickets in five balls, in 1853; and 12 instances of four wickets with four balls. The greatest number of wickets obtained by a bowler in succession is eight. The feat hae been accomplished twice in England, in 1882 and 1902.