Cricketers flattered to deceive

Press, 12 February 1986, Page 44

Cricketers flattered to deceive

Only a few weeks ago Canterbury cricket was buoyant. The province’s representatives were gathering national titles in such an imposing manner that victory in the Shell Trophy would have simply been seen as an extension of a natural occurrence.

The under-18 and under-20 lads had topped their tournament tables, the second XI was an easy winner of its competition, and, inevitably, the Canterbury women’s and girls’ squads had proved superior to their rivals. Canterbury even had the Shell Cup in its possession. It seemed just a matter of transferring its techniques and tactics from limited-over to three-day requirements to improve upon its second equal trophy placing of last summer.

But just when Canterbury was making such smooth progress along a highway of unabated success the wheels fell off. Or, rather, the New Zealand selectors removed the axles when they sent John Wright and Richard Hadlee off to join the Greg Matthews Floodlit Variety Show in Australia. Without Wright, Canter-

bury was reduced to experimenting with the top of the batting order and it never had the luxury of stable starts. Wright’s captaincy qualities were also sorely missed. Hadlee, of course, could never be adequately replaced by any of the various teams that he serves. Because he was otherwise committed, Canterbury lacked penetration with the new ball, could not rid itself of pesky partnerships, and had an embarrassingly long tail to its batting. It was, however, thoroughly disappointing that Canterbury lacked players who were capable of giving the hard labour needed to patch up the deficiencies exposed by the absence of Wright and Hadlee.

There were few batting partnerships of substance. On most occasions a promising beginning would be wasted by a rash stroke. Only Rod Latham, in the first two games, and Peter Kennedy, after he had been transferred from an opening role, managed halfcenturies in consecutive matches.

Many and varied have been the theories why Canterbury could not

BATTING

BOWLING

G. K. MacDonald 61 13 187 1 187.00 Also bowled: R. T. Latham 0/53; A. W. Hart 0/1. FIELDING Wicket-keeping: A. W. Hart, caught 16, stumped 2, total 18. Catches in field: D. J. Hartshorn 6, A. Nathu 6, P. G. Kennedy 5, R. T. Latham 5, D. W. Stead 4, V. R. Brown 3, G. K. MacDonald 3, C. H. Thiele 3, P. E. McEwan 2, D. J. Boyle 1, S. R. McNally 1, substitutes 3.

by

JOHN COFFEY

muster consistently high totals with such proven and often prolific players as Anup Nathu, Paul McEwan, Vaughan Brown, Latham and David Stead, and the promising David Hartshorn.

One, which could very well be valid, contended that Canterbury’s batsmen are these days spoilt by the quality of club and representative pitches — with the result they tend to inject too much freedom and adventure into their styles. Administrative consideration might also be given to the declining standard of club cricket in Christchurch, an inevitable product of increasing the number of first grade sides. Access to senior level is too easy, and the step up to the Shell series is becoming steeper. Opposing bowlers soon spied the deficiencies on or outside the off stump. Those few spectators who called into Lancaster Park between telecasts from Australia certainly appreciated the handsome batting of such as Dipak Patel, Trevor Franklin, Derek Scott (Auckland), Lindsay Crocker, Barry Cooper (Northern Districts), Kevin Burns, Derek Walker (Otago), and Evan Gray (Wellington), and the big hitting of the Wellington pair, Paul Allott and Steve Maguiness, and Mark Carrington, of Northern. In comparison, there was precious little to enthuse over when Canterbury was at the crease.

Brown and McEwan established a new provincial third-wicket record at the expense of Northern, Latham had a satisfactory home season, Hartshorn continued his development until required to lead the New Zealand under-20 team to Australia, and Kennedy and David Boyle carried on from their excellent stand against Wellington when the trophy series was completed against Otago at Oamaru.

Boyle’s monumental innings at Oamaru should enable him to establish a place in the starting lineup next summer, though his claims are complicated by the pending re-

turn to Canterbury of his brother and Wellington representative, Justin Boyle. Of the regular batsmen, Latham, McEwan and Nathu — who had the top individual score with his match-saving 153 against Central Districts when first-class cricket was introduced to Levin — had aggregates of within six runs of each other. McEwan had a depressing sequence of low returns after being run out twice in the first meeting with Otago until he prospered against that rival in his last appearance.

Apart from his century, Brown was never in tune. In 13 other innings he mustered just 135 runs, and the leadership responsibilities must have become increasingly burdensome as Canterbury failed to score a competition point in its last five fixtures.

Only Latham was among the best 25 batsmen, on averages, in the trophy series. But Latham also enjoyed more good fortune from opposing fielding lapses than did his fellows, and McEwan, in particular, was the victim of several acrobatic catches in addition to his run outs, and two hand injuries. Brown gained some compensation for his lack of batting form by being the most successful bowler in terms of wickets and averages. He alone of the four spinners originally chosen by Canterbury enjoyed the rewards expected. Both Craig Thiele and Steve McNally willingly chipped away at the batting barricades erected by the other provinces, though not threatening to cause spectacular collapses. McNally’s early efforts were quite impressive, with 14 wickets at moderate cost from his first three games, but had only three wickets (and three matches with no return at all) over the second half of the competition.

When Thiele announced his retirement after the penultimate match he indicated the young Sean Tracy and Stu Roberts, who were sitting close by,

as representing the future of Canterbury seam bowling.

That may be so. But Tracy needs more performances like that which reaped him career-best figures at Levin, and Roberts has to build upon the firm foundations of a very effective debut. Thiele’s stepping down also led to the introduction of Andrew Hintz at Oamaru, and he, too, showed potential. Stead was given a light work-load during the first four fixtures, and Garry MacDonald and Hartshorn were handicapped by the ideal batting strip at Lancaster Park. Of the 20 most successful Shell Trophy bowlers, Canterbury provided only Brown and Thiele.

Canterbury’s fielding was also without consistency. Only a few days after outstanding catches dismissed a number of Wellington batsmen, half a dozen chances were muffed against Otago at Oamaru.

Auckland in 1982-83, only to win the Shell Trophy the next summer. And there were some indications that Canterbury’s graph could rise again in the near future.

Boyle and Kennedy appeared to have found their rightful roles. Hartshorn can only prosper from his present experiences in Australia. McEwan and Latham have many more runs to contribute to Canterbury's cause, and Brown is likely to be restored as one of this country’s best allrounders if relieved of the leadership. Roberts and Hintz offer more options among the faster bowling candidates.

Perhaps even more im J portant is Hadlee’s return. With him back in the ranks the young Canterbury players will have the confidence of going into battle with a well-stocked armoury behind them. Too often this season Canterbury players, in line astern, were about as lonesome as Gary Cooper going out to buck the odds in “High Noon.” And Lancaster Park was about as deserted as that dusty main street in the movie.

A grain of comfort might be taken from Canterbury’s lack of consistency in recent seasons. It shared last place with

44 THE PRESS, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1986. Sports feature Cricketers Only a few weeks ago bury was reduced to exCanterbury cricket was perimenting with the top buoyant. The province’s of the batting order and it representatives were gath- never had the luxury of ering national titles in stable starts. Wright’s capsuch an imposing manner taincy qualities were also that victory in the Shell sorely missed. Trophy would have Hadlee, of course, could simply been seen as an never be adequately reextension of a natural oc- placed by any of the vancurrence. ous teams that he serves. The under-18 and Because he was otherwise under-20 lads had topped committed, Canterbury their tournament tables, lacked penetration with the second XI was an easy the new ball, could not rid winner of its competition, itself of pesky partnerand, inevitably, the Can- ships, and had an embarterbury women’s and rassingly long tail to its girls’ squads had proved batting. It was, however, superior to their rivals. thoroughly disappointing Canterbury even had that Canterbury lacked the Shell Cup in its posses- players who were capable sion. It seemed just a of giving the hard labour matter of transferring its needed to patch up the techniques and tactics deficiencies exposed by from limited-over to the absence of Wright and three-day requirements to Hadlee. improve upon its second There were few batting equal trophy placing of partnerships of substance, last summer. On most occasions a But just when Canter- promising beginning bury was making such would be wasted by a smooth progress along a rash stroke. Only Rod Lathighway of unabated sue- ham, in the first two cess the wheels fell off. games, and Peter KenOr, rather, the New Zea- nedy, after he had been land selectors removed transferred from an openthe axles when they sent ing role, managed halfJohn Wright and Richard centuries in consecutive Hadlee off to join the matches. Greg Matthews Floodlit Many and varied have Variety Show in Australia. been the theories why Without Wright, Canter- Canterbury could not BATTING Inn N.O. H.S. Agg. Ave D. J. Boyle 6 1 149 265 53.00 R. J. Latham 14 1 81 423 32.53 P. E. McEwan 14 0 118 418 29.85 A. Nathu 15 1 153 417 29.78 D. W. Stead 14 2 52 313 26.08 D. J. Hartshorn 9 1 *47 204 25.50 P. G. Kennedy 12 0 81 260 21.67 V. R. Brown 14 0 134 269 19.21 C. H. Thiele 11 5 17 69 11.50 A. W. Hart 14 3 44 121 11.09 S. R. McNally 12 0 29 123 10.25 G. K. MacDonald 6 1 14 25 5.00 S. R. Tracy 10 1 7 27 3.00 S. J. Roberts 2 1 *1 1 1.00 A. J. Hintz 1 1 *1 1 —

0 M R W Ave V. R. Brown 211.1 70 487 20 24.35 S. J. Roberts 56.3 9 204 ' 8 25.50 C. H. Thiele 185 38 562 19 29.57 S. R. McNally 195 54 592 17 34.82 S. R. Tracy 120.5 17 466 13 35.84 A. Nathu 15 3 37 1 37.00 A. J. Hintz 21 3 75 2 37.50 D. W. Stead 117 33 348 6 58.00 D. J. Hartshorn 58 15 175 3 58.33 P. E. McEwan 57 17 179 3 59.66