Otago Takes Wooden Spoon Of Cricket Competition.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18075, 8 February 1927, Page 12

Otago Takes Wooden Spoon Of Cricket Competition.

ALL CANTERBURY MEN FULLY JUSTIFIED THEIR INCLUSION ON SOUTHERN TOUR. (Special to the “ Star.”) DUNEDIN, February 7. By defeating Otago by 260 runs the Canterbury Eleven showed clearly that they are not entitled to the wooden spoon this season, and for this year that mythical trophy finds its home in Dunedin. The Canterbury victory was fully deserved, for right throughout the match they showed themselves to be much the better side.

Of course the Otago team was not at •till strength. Galland, one of the best all-round players in Dunedin, has not yet fully recovered from an injury he received in a club game earlier in the season, and Green, wicketkeeper, is also on the injured list. Symonds, who kept wickets for Otago, was not a great success, there being 25 extras in Canterbury's first innings and 35 in the second. Besides Galland arid Green, two or three other players were not available, and several changes had to be made in the team originally selected. Still the Canterbury victory was a meritorious one and the team are to be congratulated on their win. The match throughout was favoured with fine weather. On the first day a little rain fell. -This was to the advantage of Canterbury, as it made the ball greasy and no doubt helped Read and Cunningham in their last wicket partnership for 50. Undoubtedly the outstanding feature of the match was the bowling of the Canterbury colt, Merritt. The selectors no doubt hoped that he would do well, but his performance must far surpass even their most sanguine expectations. In the first innings Merritt took five wickets for 48 and in the second three for 20, a total of eight for 68 for the match, a truly remarkable performance. It is one of which any bowler might well be proud and for a colt in his first Shield game it is a most flattering per- . formance. Merritt has greatly im- 1 pressed Dunedin critics, who arc ask- : ing why he has not played for Canter- . bury before. That, of course, is hardly the fault of the Canterbury selectors, as it is only recently that Merritt started playing in senior A grade and in any case his performances in club cricket in Christchurch wpuld hardly have led one to expect that he would meet with such success as he has done here. While one match does not make a great bowler. Merritt certainly looks to have a great future before him. Against Otago he kept a remarkably good length and this fact combined with the speed at which he made the ball come off the pitch, had most of the Otago batsmen badly tied up. Even Blunt had to treat his deliveries with a great deal of respect and once or twice he beat that fine batsman. In the first innings Shepherd tried the policy of hitting out at Merritt, but he quickly paid the penalty by being caught on the boundary. Perhaps in this respect Shepherd was unfortunate and if he had. got going he may have pasted Merritt. This, however, is not at all certain, for in the second innings Merritt beat Shepherd with a beautiful ball, and skittled him. In one over in Otago’s second innings M’Mullan scored four and six off Merritt, but this was the only time he was really hit about. In the first innings Merritt bowled nineteen overs and only two fours were scored off him, a truly wonderful performance for a slow bowler. In the Canterbury teams which were beaten by Auckland and Wellington this season there were several players who failed to justily their inclusion. In the present team every man has proved his worth, and when it. is remembered that with the exception of Read all the players are young, with years of cricket ahead of them in the normal course of things, it is a most hopeful sign for the future of Canterbury cricket. It also shows that if a professional coach is engaged for Canterbury he will have plenty of useful material to work on. The Leader. Although he failed in the second innings Page played an excellent knock for Canterbury in the first innings, when he came in at a critical time and by sound batting helped largely to save the position for his side. A word of praise is also due to Page’s work as captain. It was his first experience as captain in a Shield game, but he handled his bowling and placed his field in a way which showed that amongst his other qualifications as a Cncketer he has that of generalship. Ifew Zealand Honours. The match should not have lessened Oliver’s chances for a place in the New Zealand team. In the first innings, when he made 19, he was a bit patchy, but in the second he plaj-ed a fine knock for 66, batting as well, if not better, than he has done in any Shield game this season. As far as Crawford is concerned the match probably improved his chances for the trip Home, though perhaps not sufficiently to gain him a place. lie failed in the first innings against Otago, but in the second, after an early let-off, he played well for a total of 45, and showed much of his true form. It is n pity that Crawford did not strike form in earlier Shield games, for there is little doubt that at his best he is in the first flight of Dominion batsmen. Talbot was playing for New Zealand honours. He made a good 26 in the first innings and in the second had the misfortune to be run out after scoring 9. He also proved useful as a change bowler, taking a couple of wickets (pr 19 runs in the first innings of Otago. Talbot did well, but it is doubtful whether he has done well enough to induce the selectors to include him in the side for the English tour. It is a great pity he was not given a chance of showing what he could do against Auckland and Wellington. Cunningham, the other Canterbury player who has been nominated for the New Zealand team, did not meet with his usual success with the ball. In the first innings he had 50 runs scored off him and did not take any wickets. He bowled much better in the second innings, taking a couple of wickets for 41 runs. With the bat Cunningham did much better than usual, and in each innings he was associated in a good last-wicket stand, one adding 50 runs and the other 62. Provided he restrains a tendency to hit out at anything and everything, that comes along Cunningham is a very fair Ibatsman. Although not at his best as a bowler against Otago, it is not likely that Cunningham has prejudiced his chances for the New Zealand team. It is difficult to see how Dickinson can gain a place. lie was given a good deal of bowling against Canterbury but he was very erratic, especially in the first innings. One or two of his overs were really good, but there were some in which he was all over the pitch. According to critics here Dickinson at times in Canterbury’s second innings bowled better than he has done for a long time, but taking his bowling as a whole it was not up to New Zealand standard.

Hamilton, the colt batsman of the Canterbury team, fully justified his inclusion. In the first innings he succumbed to the Otago veteran Torrance before he had reached doubles, but in the second he played well for 48. Some of his shots were weak, and in the second innings he got himself out with a very weak stroke, playing a ball from Blamires on to his wicket. It was a poor ball, the sort that should never have got a wicket. However, Hamilton shows heaps of promise, and with good coaching he should go far. Read’s Assistance. Read, the veteran of the Canterburv team, showed that he is still well •worth his place. In the first innings of Canterbur} r he carried his bat for V°» being associated with Cunningham m the last wicket stand which raised Canterbury’s score to a respectable total. Read showed how valuable an experienced player can be to a side when things are going badly. In Otago s second innings Read, with the assistance of the wind, proved deadly with the ball, taking five wickets for 63 runs, all clean bowled. Good Batting. Nixon and Evans both failed in the first innings, but came to light in the second when Nixon made 39 and Evans 62. Nixon gave a fine display of forceful batting towards the end of the day’s play on Saturday. Ilis off drives were particularly powerful. Evans’s innings for 62 was a very creditable performance. He made funs when the Otago bowling was probably as good as at any time during the game, and when the wicket was in favour of the bowlers. Boon played two useful knocks foils and 26. His wicket-keeping was good in both innings and quite impressed Dunedin critics.

The Otago Men. As far as the Otago pla\-ers are concerned the outstanding performance was that of Blunt, who went right through the first innings for a total of 10l not out. It was a magnificent innings and it will go down in history as one of the best ever witnessed in Plunket Shield cricket. Blunt’s failure to score in the second innings was naturally quite unexpected, and it clashed completely any hopes Otago had of getting the big total necessary to win. However, even the greatest batsmen fail at times. Blunt is undoubtedly at the top of his form this year, and he fully deserves the success he has attained, for he practices assiduously, which according to all accounts is more than can be said for some of the leading cricketers here. Shepherd, who was one of the Dominion’s leading batsmen a few seasons ago, appears to be a good deal below form this season. In the second innings he certainly batted fairly well but after scoring 18 he succumbed to Merritt. He does not seem to be the batsman he was when making big scores for Otago a few vears ago. M’Mullan, after making a duck in the first innings, compiled top score in the second when he made 45. He is a fine natural batsman and the opinion here is that with more practice he would go a lot further than he has done. Alloo was useful to Otago both as a batsman and a bowler, and Dick Torcan send down deliveries that keep batsmen thinking . THE SCORES. Following are the scores:— CANTERBURY. First Innings. Nixon, lbw b Dickinson 4 Talbot, b Blunt 26 Crawford, c Blair b Torrance’’.’.!’. ~6 Page, b Alloo 73 Oliver, c Blunt b Dickinson .... 19 Hamilton, b Torrance $ Boon, b Alloo [ jg Evans, b Shepherd • 9 Merritt, b Alloo !!!!!! 5 Read, not out !!..!.! 35 Cunningham, b Torrance ...!.... 14 Extras 25 Total 242 Bowling analysis:— Dickinson, two wickets for 75 runs; Torrance, three for 48; Blunt, one for 47; A. W. Alloo three for 37. Second Innings. Page, c Duncan b Dickinson 8 Crawford, c Blunt b Dickinson .. 45 Talbot, run out 9 Hamilton, b Blamires ! 4s Oliver, c Dickinson b Alloo 66 Boon, b Alloo ! 26 Nixon, c Symonds b Alloo 39 Read, b Dickinson 1 Evans, b Alloo 62 Merritt, c Blunt b Torrance is Cunningham, not out 22 Extras 35 Total 379 Bowling analysis:—Dickinson, three wickets for 96 runs; Alloo, four for 91; Torrance, one for 72; Blunt, none for 21; Blamires, one for 37; Shepherd, none for 27. OTAGO.. First Innings. Blunt, not out 131 Knight, c Nixon b Read 18 M’Mullan, c Page b Read 0 Duncan, c and b Merritt 8 A. W. Alloo, lbw b Nixon 4 Blamires, lbw b Merritt 21 Shepherd, c Evans b Merritt 0 Dickinson, c Page b Merritt 7 Blair, c and b Merritt 0 Torrance, c Cunningham b Talbot 2 Symonds, b Talbot' 5 Extras s Total 204 Bowling analysis:—Read, two wickets for 51 runs; Cunningham, none for 50; Talbot, two for 19; Merritt, five for 48; Nixon, one for 2S. Second Innings. Knight, lbw b Cunningham 11 Blamires, b Read 2 A. W. Alloo, b Read 27 Blunt, b Cunningham () M’Millan, b Read 45 Blair, st Boon b Merritt 10 Duncan, c Page b Merritt 1 Dickinson, b Read 22 Shepherd, b Merritt 18 Torrance, b Read 5 Si’monds, not out 0 Extras 16 Total 157 Bowling analysis:—Read, five wick : ets for 63 runs; Cunningham, two for 141; Merritt, three for 20; Nixon, none for 17.