CANTERBURY ELEVEN TO PLAY WELLINGTON.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18042, 30 December 1926, Page 9

CANTERBURY ELEVEN TO PLAY WELLINGTON.

MATCH AT LANCASTER PARK ON SATURDAY.

The Canterbury eleven will begin their second Plunket Shield game of the season on Saturday, when they will meet Wellington at Lancaster Park. Having been beaten by Auckland, Canterbury are now in this position that they will have to beat both Wellington and Otago to be in the running for the Plunket Shield. The poor start made by Canterbury against Auckland prejudiced their chances of success from the outset. They certainly made a fine recovery on the second day, and, with a bit more luck as regards weather, they might have pulled the game off yesterday, but a disquieting feature of the match was the failure of the province’s leading batsmen in either innings. Gregory, who has been one of the most consistent, if not the most consistent. bats in the senior competition this season, was dismissed for 0 in the first innings and 6 in the second. His second dismissal was due to a run out. Cox made 0 and 10, and Crawford 6 and 15. Oliver played a very useful .knock for 29 in the. first innings, but in the second he failed to score. Patrick made 24 and 8. Of the leading batsmen of the team. Page was the only one who did well in both innings. In the first he ‘was associated with Oliver in a partnership which saved the innings from being an absolute debacle, and in the second he played a fine innings for 78, which was most valuable to Canterbury. If Page continues the form that he displayed in the Auckland game he should be in the running for a place in the New Zealand team. Boon, who made a couple in the first innings, retrieved himself in the second by a fine effort, which yielded 72 runs. Read played two useful innings for 15 and 44 respectively. The following are the teams for the Canterbury-Wellington game:—

CANTERBURY. W. R. Patrick (captain). G. R. Gregory. O. G. Crawford. R. Read. D. Sandman. W. Cunningham. M. Boon. M. L. Page. C. Oliver. D. J. M’Beath. F. Woods. R. O. Talbot (twelfth man). WELLINGTON. * W. S. Brice (captain). T. S. Iliddlcston. * 11. M. M’Girr. F. T. Badcock. A. M. Ilollings B. J. Kortlang. K. C. James. C. S. Dempster. T. Lowry. R. de R. Worker. 11. Lambert. M. Henderson. CHANGES IN CANTERBUY TEAM. For the game against Wellington two changes have been made in the Canterbury team. Cox and Burrows have been dropped and Woods and M’Beath have been selected to replace them. It was generally expected that Cox would be omitted from the next team. He has not struck form this season, and after his showing against Auckland the selectors could hardly be expected to retain him. A large number of followers of the game are of opinion that Woods should have been in the team from the very start. Last season he headed the Canterbury batting averages for Plunket Shield games, his scores being 28 against Otago, 1 and 17 against- Wellington, and 124 not out and 76 against Auckland. Woods has also been batting well this season. His inclusion should strengthen the batting of the Canterbury eleven.

Inclusion of M’Beath. The dropping of Burrows in favour of M’Beath may occasion some surprise. It generally recognised, however, that either Read or BurrowJ would have to go. Their bowling is very similar, and the inclusion of both of them, in the side robbed the Canterbury attack of variety. Against Auckland Burrows bowled steadily and helped in keeping the runs down, but ■he did not impress one as being much more than a good length bowler. There is no “devil” in his attack, and he did not look like getting wickets. In the first innings of Auckland Read sent down a good deal of loose stuff, and it was punished accordingly, but in the second innings he bowled well under conditions that by no means favoured the bowlers. Further, Read’s batting in the Auckland match gave him strong claims to inclusion in the team before Burrows.

M’Beath, who was not available for the Auckland match, is now residing in Timaru. One point in favour of M'Beath is that he is a left hand bowler and this was what Canterbury lacked in the Auckland game. If M’Beath is in form he should strengthen up the Canterbury attack. A couple of seaM’Beath did not play for Canterbury taking in Plunket Shield games 14 wickets for 224 runs, an average of 16. M’Beath did not play for Cantrebury last season as he was away with the New Zealand team in Australia. He did not do too well on the tour taking only nine wickets at a cost of 391 runs, an average of 43.44. In the test matches he tock three wickets for 17S runs, an average of 59.33. As far as international cricket is concerned M’Beath appears to be past his best as a bowler, but he still may be good enough to get wickets in interprovincial games. Claims of Gibbs.

A good many followers of the game consider that if the selectors wanted a left-hand bowler for the team they should have picked the Riccarton colt, Gibbs, who has been bowling exceptionally well in club cricket this season. For Riccarton this season Gibbs has taken 2S wickets for 254 runs, and thus has the excellent average of 9.07, Of course, as far as big cricket is concerned, Gibbs is an unknown quantity, and perhaps the selectors did not care to put. him into the Canterbury team until he has proved himself further as a club bowler. However, he is the sort of young player who should be encouraged and, if he retains the form that he has already shown, he will no doubt gain a place in the Canterbury eleven next season. Talbot Unlucky.

Talbot must be considered unlucky in still being twelfth man. He is an all rounder, and Canterbury have not many players of his type. His inclusion would have added variety to the Canterbury attack and in the past he has made several good scores for his province. If Talbot had been included it would probably have meant the dropping of Gregory. Gregory lias been batting very well for his club this season, but he hardl}’- justified his inclusion in the eleven for the Auckland match, though it has to be remembered that in the second innings he was run out. His case is not quite the same as that of Cox, who has obviously been below his best right from the start of the season. Nixon is another played that many followers of cricket would have liked

to have seen in the Canterbury eleven. Like Talbot he is an all rounder. Nixon has been performing well with both bat and ball in the country this season. but of course, as far as big cricket is concerned, he is an unknown quantity. Talbot has probably stronger claims to inclusion than Nixon, and to have included them both would have meant dropping players without much justification. Some consider that Sandman should be dropped in favour of a younger player, but it is impossible to deny the fact that Sandman is still a very useful change bowler, and that he often makes runs for Canterbury when they are requireVl. In the first innings of the Auckland game this week he took three wickets for 48 runs and finished up with the best average of any of the Canterbury trundlers for this innings. In Canterbury’s second innings Sandman made 15. and, though the score was not large, his innings was a very useful one to his side.

Roon, the Canterbury wicketkeeper, kept the extras down in the Auckland game, but he missed chances behind the wickets. A suggestion has been made that Boon should be put into the team for his batting and that another wicketkeeper, say Brunton, should be included. This might strengthen the team but then again it might not, as Brunton cannot be depended upon to make run.s The inclusion of Brunton would probably mean the dropping of one of the players in the team for batting. Tho Wellington Team. The Wellington team to meet Canterbury is the same as (hat which played Otago this week, except that the twelfth man may be different. Henderson was twelfth man for Wellington in the Otago team. The Wellington team is a very strong batting combination. It does not seem to possess a “tail.” In the second innings for Wellington against Otago, James and Brice put on no fewer than 138 runs for the last wicket, a record last-wickct stand for Plunket Shield matches. Hiddleston, Lowry, Worker, Kortlang, and Lambert are all firstclass bats of proved ability. Dempster did not do much with the bat against Otago, but he is a first-class run-getter who is quite liable to make a big score. Ilollings is the young University player who has been performing so well in club cricket in Wellington this season. In the first innings against Otago he was bowled by Blunt for a “duck,” but in the second he did better, compiling 23. James is the wicketkeeper of the eleven, but he can also make runs. In the Otago game he made *l6 not out and 107 not out. M’Girr, Badcock and Brice are in the team mainly for their bowling but they are also capable of making runs. The Wellington team is admittedly a formidable batting combination. As far as bowling is concerned it is perhaps not quite so strong, though apparently Otago found the Wellington attack deadly enough. Badcock is a first-

class bowler, and M'Girr is also a very useful man with the ball. These two did the damage for Wellington last season when Canterbury were dismissed for the small total of 37 runs. On that occasion M’Girr took five wickets for 17 runs and Badcock five for 18. Though getting on in years Brice is still a good bowler. In Canterbury’s second innings against Wellington last season Brice took four wickets for 13 runs. Hollings and Lambert are useful change bowlers. If Henderson is included in the eleven to meet Canterbury it will be for his bowling.

“ CANTERBURY GREAT FIGHTING SIDE.”

ENGLISH COACH GIVES IMPRESSIONS OF GAME.

“Canterbury are a great fighting side,” said Mr E. H. Bowley, the English professional coach who played with the Auckland team in the match against Canterbury. “They are a good fielding side, and all very keen. “Cunningham is a great bowler, while Read I should judge as a bowler of moods. He bowls well on his day and

takes a lot of watching. Sandrftan is the same as all slow bowlers. He can be expensive, but can get any batsman's wicket. "From what I saw of him Crawford struck me as being the most solid bat of the lot. Page and Boon played fine innings and are the makings of really good cricketers. What they require is to get into good company and to get plenty of cricket. “It was a good sporting game, and I thought the Canterbury team were captained verv well,” concluded Mr Bowley. “THE RAIN BEAT THEM.” “ The rain beat Canterbury—that and losing the toss.” was the comment of C. Dacre. the Auckland captain, at the conclusion of the game yesterday

AUCKLAND TEAM PLAYS HAWKES BAY COLTS.

Per Press Association. NAPIER, December 29. Beale's Auckland team commenced a match to-day against Hawke's Bay colts. Batting first, the home side scored 159 (O’Brien 33, Deaney 32, Davis 18, Evans 221. Bowling for Auckland. Butler took four wickets for 28 runs, Johnson three for 30, Saunders three for 45. The visitors replied with 175 (Monteith 48, M’Carthv 50. Coates 17). Bowling for the Bay, Rouse, took two for 42 and Elliott six for 73. Hawke’s Bay went in again and had lost three wickets for 36 when stumps were drawn.