The Cricket Field.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLVII, Issue 8, 21 February 1912, Page 7

The Cricket Field.

The Week’s Big Fixtures. THURSDAY —Auckland v. Wellington, at Wellington. ■'> FRIDAY—Fifth Test, at Sydney.

A Wet Saturday. THE recreative energies of Aucklanders on Saturday were restricted to water sports, and some of the youngsters who were down to assist their seniors in cricket, and, incidentally, make themselves famous, were disappointed of a game. To Prove It. The Auckland eleven, having won the Shield from the Christchurch champions, are now proceeding to prove to the smaller fry of Dunedin and Wellington that the trophy is in safe keeping. On Saturday morning it looked as if Otago were going to make the Shield-winners look small, for Auckland had gone down to Torrance, Downes and Co.- for the insignificant score of 123. But when the day was done Thompson had panned out Otago’s batting strength at 142, while Hemus and Co. had treated the Dunedin public to a little ball-punching turn to the tune of five wickets for 205 runs, just to illustrate that Auckland was not speaking carelessly when it talked of having sent down a batting side. Wellington’s chance comes at the end of the week. The Consistent Chummy.” Hemus, against Otago, added another century to his list of honours in big matches. He is one of the few New Zea? land batsmen who rarely make a total failure in any company. Not by any means a forcing bat, or a powerful hitter, neither is “Chummy'” Hemus of the one-hit-a-day type. Against a bowler of pace he gets power into his strokes from accurate timing, and such is his accuracy in this respect that the off theory holds little of the dangers for him that it possesses for the common run of cricketers. But when the bowling is slow and accurate he makes his runs before the wicket by quick footwork and clever placing for singles, and tl;e pitch-iiiate who conies at his call can always rely oh Hemus’ judgment of pace. The field draws in to save singles, and then General Hemus lifts the slow bowler for twos and threes, and the fast bowler occasionally for six. So each Beason sees his interprovincial century, added to the’ useful twenties and thirties of the innings in between. Some of the Others. One of the biggest disappointments to enthusiasts has been the batting of Sale, who left Auckland when showing better form in club games than any other batsman in Auckland. It looks as if the cold he contracted just prior to the Shield match in Christchurch had spoilt his form, though he had bad luck in the first innings at Dunedin. Brooke-Smith's batmanship in club cricket barely justified his selection on that score alone, so that his failure in Christchurch was not unexpected. He, however, did much to help Auckland out by sending down the ball that dismissed ‘Lusk eifrly in the second innings. The Eden colt, Taylor, is making good, and promises to be one of the. successes. Also Wallace looks like picking up some cricket credentials that may help him on the way to his “blue” when he reaches Oxfo.rd as a Rhodes scholar. Ellis has fulfilled all expectations as a wicket-keeper, while he has demonstrated that he is a batsman of no mean ability. He would be a regular maker of scores if he could only control his impatience. A Challenge.

The management committee of the Canterbury Cricket Association decided on Friday evening that, provided the strongest possible eleven could be got to make the trip, Auckland should be challenged io a Plunket Shield match on either March 8, il and 11, or 16, 18 and 19. It was stated at the meeting that it was practically' certain that cv. ry member of the Canterbury team is available. The acceptance of this challenge will mean that Auckland will rely on purely native talent for the retention of the shield. Thompson, who has struck bowling form right nt the close of the season, will be on his way back to Northampton *t the end of the month.

Plunket Shield Matches. The following shows the results of the matches played for the Plunket Shield: Dae.. 1907—Auckland beat Canterbury' by an innings and 135 runs. Dec., 1907 —Auckland beat Otago by 315 runs.

Dec., 1908—Auckland v. Otago, drawn; Auckland requiring 142 runs with five wickets to fall. Jan., 1909 —Auckland beat Canterbury by 32 runs. Dec,, 1909—Auckland beat Wellington by ten wickets. Jan., 1910—Auckland beat Canterbury by seven wickets. March, 1910—Auckland beat Otago by' an innings and 161 runs. Dec., 1910—Auckland beat Wellington by four wickets. Jan.. 1911—Canterbury' beat Auckland by six wickets. Dec.. 1911—Canterbury beat Otago by’ three wickets. Jan., 1912—-Canterbury' beat Wellington by’ 108 runs. Feb., 1912—Auckland beat Canterbury by’ two wickets. Auckland and Canterbury have played seventeen interprovincial matches since 1873, and of these Auckland has won nine and Canterbury eight. On “The Other Side."

Matters in Australia are* chiefly in a state of suspense, so far as the trouble between the Board of Control and some of the prominent cricketers are concerned. Hill has been invited to go Home, but he states that neither he nor the other five who are with him will go unless 1 Laver be manager. Meantime Mr Crouch (Queensland' has accepted the position of the Board’s representative with the team at Home. A more conciliatory spirit seems to pervade the higher circles in Australian cricket, but it is doubtful if the Board will consent to any’ compromise with Hill and his friends. For the fifth test the selection committee is McAlister, Iredale, and Mayne (S.A.)

The Englishmen continue in winning mood. Against N.S.W. they made 315 (Rhodes 119), while the State made only 106 in the first Minings, and stands in the second with one wicket down for 93. Saturday in tke South.

Wellington.— Victoria College, with 182 (Dickson 38 not out, Griffiths 23, Jamieson 20) and 40, scored a three-point wil over South, who made 132 (Walters 41 and Fenton 10) and 78. Bowling for South, Keys took six wickets for 44 runs, Burton two for 24, and Fenton five for 15, and for Victoria College Saunders took five wickets for 39 runs and Dickson three for 29. East A beat East B by an innings and 80 runs. The former's first innings stood at 226, and the latter made 105 and 41 (Wagstaff 27, Grimmett 25). In bowling Gibbes took four wickets for 33 runs and five for 13, Midlane two for 15, and Johnson two for 28. Christchurch. — St. Albans were practically in a hopeless position against Riccarton, the scores on the first day being : St. Albans 158, Riccarton 182 for one wicket. On resuming yesterday Ricearton’s innings closed for 290. The West Christchurch team was up against a stiff proposition when it resumed against Linwood, the last-mentioned having on the first day put on 378, to which West Christchurch replied with 21 for one wicket. West Christchurch brought the total up to 96. The surprise of the day’s play' was the defeat of Sydenham, who scored 129, by East Christchurch, who in the first innings made 191 and in the second made 59 for eight wickets. In the Provinces.

The only century recorded in last week’s provincial games was that of C. Young, a Palmerston North High School lad, in the Wednesday competition. For High School against Railway he made 100 and “the rest” made 68, making a total of 168 against Railway’s 68, to which McVicar contributed 27. The previous Saturday ti e same lad knocked up 92 out of High School’s 153 against Foilding A, so that he is quite a useful batsman fc* his side. Feildir.g replied ■with one wicket for 113 (Onglcy 42 not out and Webster 46 not out). An excellent one man performance was that of Brennand on Saturday, at Pal-

merston North for Feilding B against Old Boys. The 0.8. made only 52, and Brennand captured six wickets for 12 runs. Brennand then turned batsman, and helped Feilding B to put on 148. his little contribution before he was run out being 64. Down at Pict on. the Wairau A’s finished up by making, in th? tyvo innings, just double what the airau B’s could muster and winning by 156 runs. With 135 on for the first innings, the A’s added. 177 for their second strike—Gray . 46, Twomey 37. Jackson 32 and Griffiths 23. To their previous 100, the B’s could add only--56, the innings being a case of Chisholm 36, the rest 20. Bowling for the A’s Pearpoint took six for 22 and Horton four for 32. Esson was the chief destroyer among the B’s, getting six for 21.

At Gisborne the Gisborne club filled in Saturday afternoon with a go at Motii. The local eleven accumulated 221 (A Young 62, G. Gibson 44, Olsen 25, and Scholium 21). Motu’s bowling analysis reads: Clark three for 50, MacDonald two for 30, Morrison two for 35, W. Reed one for 29 and Anderson one for 27. Motu’s inadequate reply was 111 (W. Petheridge 27 not out, McDonald 23), and a follow-on produced the more satisfactory result of 148 (Morrison 38 not out, Clark 34, W. Reed 19 not out). Scholium and Anderson were the chief performers with the ball for Gisborne, the former getting three for 25 and three for 43, and the latter three for 41 and three for 46.

At New Plymouth on Saturday the Law- put up 170 (Greatbatch 83) against Inglewood’s 69 (Gibson 30) and two for 79 (Bell 28 not out). For Law Elliott, took 4 wickets for 30 runs and Anderson 4 for 16, while for Inglewood Thomas 4 for 36 was the most successful bowler.

The same day- United Service beat New Plymouth by' 142 to 71. Bain was the star performer for the Service, making 62 runs and getting 6 wickets for 33 runs. The best of the New Plymouth bowlers was Mason, who got 4 for 44.

At Wanganui on Saturday’ St. Paul’s put up 237 (Hawke 85 not out, Bathgate 62, Tilyard 24). to which Aramoho responded with 51 (Lowe 32) and 71 (Bait 31). The destroying agents for St. Paul’s were Bathgate, who got 6 for 30 in the first innings, and Tilyard, whose average in the second innings was 6 for 34. Fargie was the best Aramoho bowler with 3 for 72.

Against Wanganui College Wanganui B. knocked up 135 for four wickets (H. B. Cave 66 not out and A. N. Cave 34 not out).

Auckland’s Famous Victory.

Despite pessimistic local comments to the effect that Auckland’s big game hunters were not armed with artillery of a sufficiently’ big bore wherewith to bring down (or up) the biggest trophy of the N.Z. cricket field, they’ve done it, It is not, of course, suggested that Auckland were making game of Canterbury, and yet Canterbury might resent a suggestion that they were not game — perhaps it would be well to drop metaphor. The win, according to all accounts, was a very- narrow one, just two wickets standing between victory and the other thing. What two wickets are worth in the deceiving dusk of the South may, perhaps, be demonstrated by Wallace, who was bowled by a ball he did not see, though he had both eyes wide open. Still they’ were worth the Shield to Auckland, and will cost Canterbury’ a trip (or two) to the North Island.

The run of the game can be pondered by the reader from the full details given below. Doubtless each reader will give a different interpretation of the figures according to his individual lights and point of view. But, generally' speaking, they make Boxshall the scapegoat in Christchurch, and Thompson the hero in Auckland. You see, Thompson, for practically the first time in New Zealand this season, bowled up to the reputation of “the man who made a county,” and he had at the back of him Olliff. ‘ When the batsmen were puzzling over some of the Englishman’s corkers they were faced by' the Aucklander serving up from round the wicket big leg breaks seasoned with an occasional off break of size, with a rare straight yorker quietly slipped in. Thus Thompson laid the ground work for Oiliff’s exceeding success. Down South they point to the 35 byes of Auckland’s first innings, and, though stumper Boxshall performed brilliantly in the second innings, ho could not wipe out of the public mind the idea that had it not been for those byes Auckland would have been defeated, ff Auckland had had 35 more runs to make, something of the aort might hate occurred, but if those

byes haff not lieen run in the first inning* the order of facing the . bowling would have been different, and there might have been more runs made off the bat. Still, of course, many byes are a deplorable thing for the side losing them. The exciting part of the game was its conclusion, when in the falling dusk six Auckland wickets dropped for 23 runs. Hemus had agreed to play after 6 p.m. to finish the game, and as only 25 runs were wanted when the clock struck, and eight wickets were in hand, he was perhaps justified in taking what appeared a very safe chance. Then the light failed suddenly before a heavy rain cloud, and Reese took every advantage of the poor light in constantly varying his action and delivery. Wickets' fell as the light grew worse, and Hemus was the most nervous man on the ground till the final run was hit up with the last man waiting in pads. Canterbury won the toss, had the wicket in the first innings when it was at its easiest, and had the best of the light. So the dictum of a Christchurch critic that Auckland is a very ordinary team is a scathing commentary on tl:o Canterbury eleven’s display. The details of the game are: — Canterbury.—First innings: Lusk, 12112131111114312, c and b Thompson, 27; Norman, b Thompson. 0; Hayes. 2111 b Thompson, 5; Carlton. 11'1412, b Thompson. HI; Reese, 21322413,c Thompson, 'b Olliff. 18; Hiekmott, 431222, b Olliff. 14; Patrick, c Hemus, b Olliff, 0; Sandman, 1, c Horspool, b Olliff, 1 ; Thom as, 1, b Olliff. 1; Boxshall, st Ellis, h Olliff, 0; Bennett, 41. not out, 5; extras, 5; total, 86.

Bowling analysis: G. J. Thompson, 21 overs, 7 maidens, 32 runs. 4 wickets; C. Olliff. 17.5 overs, 3 maidens. 37 runs. 6 wickets; F. R. Mason, 3 overs, 12 runs. Second innings; Lusk, 14112, b BrookeSmith, 9; Hayes, 1112111, c Taylor, b Thompson. 8;' Carlton, 11, c Ellis, b Thompson, 2; Hiekmott. 43212, lbw. b Olliff. 12; Norman, 311221211154111. b Mason. 27; Reese. 11 12111141413114244 21, c Thompson, b Olliff, 45; Patrick. 1312134113114, b Thompson, 30; Sandman, 1112211116144. b Olliff. 26; Thomas. 131. hit wicket, b Olliff. 5: Boxshall. 342, c Wallace., b Olliff, 9; Bennett, 23, nqt out, 5 ; byes 11113, 7 ; leg byes, 11, 2; no balls, 11111. 5; total, 192.

Bowling analysis: G. J. Thompson. 31 overs. 12 maidens, 57 runs. 3 wickets. 5 no balls; W. Brooke-Smith. 8 over's. 2 ■maidens. 28 runs, 1 wicket; C. Olliff, 26.4 overs, 6 maidens, 67 runs. 5 wickets; ■F. R. Mason, 9 overs,.23 runs, 1 wicket ; L. Taylor, 1 over, 3 runs. ~

Auckland.—First innings: Sale. 112. b Sandman. 4; Hemus, 12211111211232114 2221. b Carlton, 34: Brooke-Smith. 1. b Reese, 1; Sneddon. 2123211114121411311 14242132342324221, b W. Carlton. 76;

Thompson, 111221121, b Reese. 12: Horspool, 1> Reese. 0; Taylor. 11311431111, run out, 17: Wallace, b Reese. 0; Ellis. 1121, lbw, b Reese, 5; Mason, 3213121111 2414. b Carlton, 30; Olliff. 1121121. not out, 9; byes, 423322333, 25; leg byes 3121, 7; total, 220.

Bowling analysts: D. Sandman, 21. overs, 3 maidens, 52 runs, 1 wicket; D. Reese. 32 overs. 11 maidens. 61 runs, 5 wickets; J. 11. Bennett, 23 overs, 11 maidens, 28 rims; R. G. Hiekmott, 4 overs, 22 runs; W. Carlton. 8.5 overs, 2 maidens, 17 runs, 3 wickets; A. W. Thomas, 2 overs, 10 runs.

Second innings: Sale. 1211441. b Reese, 14; Hemus, 131114, c Thomas, <b Reese, 11: 'Horspool, 2124, lbw. b Reese, 9; Sneddon, 12, c Lusk, b Bennett, 3; Brooke-Smith, I, c Bo'-shall. b Bennett. 1; Taylor, b Bennett, 0; Wallace, 1142311. b Reese. 13; Mason. 11112. run out. 6: Thompson, 1, not out. I; Ellis, not out. 0; leg bve, 1; total for 8 wickets, 59.

Bowling analysis: D. Reese. 16 overs, 5 maidens, 35 runs, 4 wickets; J. IL Bennett, 16 overs. 5 maidens. 23 ’’ins, 3 wickets.

Australia’* Collapse. The fourth test match between Australia and England, played at Melbourne last week is one that must stand out in big letters in the annals of international cricket. It was just a year previously that Australia, on the same ground, so severely drubbed the South African eleven. Since then the Commonwealth champions had been looked on as invincible, and despite the lessons of the second a n 1 third test matches of this year it w.i-. ' lufidenllv expected that Australia would win the “rubber.” Then came the blow, and England Ix-at Australia one hand, so to speak—with an Inning*

and 225 runs to spare. It ranks as the greatest win yet in test matches, and Australia has to acknowledge defeat in every department of the game. The men of the hour are Barnes, Foster, Douglas, Hobbs and Rhodes. The Foster-Barnes bowling combination is the most successful that has ever yet struck Australia in test matches. Both are swerve bowlers of remarkable accuracy, Foster a slow left-hander and Barnes a fast medium right-hander, and both swing with the arm and break back. Barnes in his previous Australian appearance proved a constant source of danger to the Commonwealth crack batsmen, and in Foster be appears to have found a foil which makes both men the more effective. Their success is all the more marked when set against the comparative non success of such great bowlers as Rhodes, Hearne, Mead, Vine and Woolley.

Record Breaking. The most' brilliant incident of the game was, of course, the record-breaking first wicket partnership of 323 by Hobbs and Rhodes. The latter was of Warner's 1.103-4 team that took the “ashes” -back, but Hobbs did not make his debut in county cricket till 1905, since when he has made a name for his participation in big first -wicket partnerships. Though always sure of a place in a county team for his batting, Rhodes, it might be mentioned, was chosen for this trip for his bowling, because he has always achieved great averages on Australian wickets. Douglas retrieved his batting failure in this match by his bowling in the second innings, and set his seal on his reputation as an all-rounder by getting five wickets for 46 runs.

Carter’s Wicket-keeping. One brilliant performance that has been somewhat overlooked in the English vio tory is that of Carter, the Australian wicket-keeper. During the course of an innings of 589 runs, the highest in the history- of test matches, he stood watchfully at his post and tool: every chance that came along, thus disposing of Hobbs and Rhodes who defied every bowler in the team. Not only that, but through the weariness of it all, he allowed to past him only two byes! Then after having played a not-out innings in Australia’s first knock, he went out as first batsman and top-scored for his side. The Details.

As the match is the most notable of the year, a record of it is set down for reference. It is :—

Australia. —First innings: Hordern, b Barnes, 19; Helle way, e Hearne, b Woolley, 29; Bardsley, b Foster, 0; Trumper, b Foster, 17; Armstrong, b Barnes, 7; Hill, e. Hearne, b Barnes, 22; Minnett, c Rhodes, b Foster, 56; Ransford, c Rhodes, ■b Foster, 4; Matthews, c Gunn, b Barnes, 3; Cotter, b Barnes, 15; Carter, not out, 6; extras, 13; total, 191. Bowling analysis: Ban : five for 74, Foster four for 77; Wool: -y one for 22, Rhodes none for 1, Hearn'- none for 4.

'England.—'First innings: Hobbs, c Carter, b Hordern, 178; Rhodes, e Carter, b Minnett, 179; Hearne, c Armstrong, b Minnett, 0; Gunn, e Hill, b Armstrong, 75; Foster, c Hordern, b Armstrong, 50; Douglas, c Bardsley-, b Armstrong, 0; Woolley, e Kelleway, b Minnett, 56; Mead, b Hordern, 21; Vine, not out, 4; Smith, e Matthews, b Kelleway, 7; (Barnes, e Hill, b Hordern, 0; extras, 19; total, 589. ' * Bowling analysis: Cotter none for 125, Kelleway one for 70, Armstrong three for 93, Matthews none for 88, Hordern three for 137, Minnett, three for 59, Ransford none for 8.

Australia.--Second innings: Kelleway, « Smith, b Barnes, 5; Bardsley, b Foster, 3; Carter, e Hearne, b Douglas, 38; Trumper, b Barnes, 28; Hill, b Douglas, 11: Armstrong, b Douglas. 11; Minnett, •b Douglas, 7; ■Cotter, c Mead, b Foster, 8; Matthews, b Foster. 10; Ransford, not out, 29; Hordern, c Foster, b Douglas, 5; extras, 18; total. 173. Bowling analysis: Foster three for 38, Barnes two for 47. Douglas five for 46, Heafne none for 17. Woolley none for 7. The “ Ashes.” There is a savour of 1 ae classics about the term “the ashes ’ which is used just r.ow so freely in connection with the into:national cricket championship—just a rinack of ancient mythology that recalls Maeauley's heroic reference "for the aches of his fathers," etc), and predisposes one uneonaciously to think of the cricket use of the words i- a metaphor. Actually, it is not bo. It was in 1882. after !' famous seven runs victory of the Aust: .. ua, that the

"Sporting Times” first used 1 the term which has now become familiar to everyone. In that paper appeared the following epitaph:— In Affectionate Remembrance of ENGLISH CRICKET Which Died at the Oval on 29th August, 1832. Deeply Lamented by a Large Circle of Sorrowing Friends and Acquaintances. R.I.P. N.B. The Body will be Cremated and the Ashes taken to Australia.