TROTT & HIS MEN.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1652, 20 January 1913, Page 5

TROTT & HIS MEN.

AT, CHRISTCHURCH. POSITION MUCH AGAINST THEM. ' • REESE SCORES 130. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) .' Christchurch, January 19.. The match Canterbury v. South Melbourne Was resumed .to-day in beautiful weather. Orchard replaced Hickmott in the Canterbury team. Canterbury continued their innings, which lasted 4 hours and 10 minutes, tho score being 384, of which D. Rceso contributed 130.- South Melbourno, in their second, havo lost four' wickets for 174 runs, T. Purvis contributing 81, Scores:— South Melbourne. First innings . 80 Second Innings. W. M'Cormack, b. Patterson 41 T. Purvis, c. Wood, b, Reeso 81 Giller, not out 25 A. Kenny, 1.b.w., b. Carlton 9 W. Scott, b. Sandman \ t A. Gray, not out 1 Extras 10 Total for four wiokets 171 Bowling.—Bcnnott, no wickots for 36 runs; Sandman, one for 36—0n0 for 40; Reese, ono for 30; Carlton, one for 19; Orchard, norio for 13; .Patterson, one for 26. I . ■ Canterbury.—First Innings. E. H, Caygill, b. Giller . 33F. Woods, c. Scott, b. Kenny 8 W. Hayes, 1.b.w., b. Kyle 10 H.' A. Bishop, b. Kylo 4 J. L..Patterson, b. Purvis 52 D. Reese, st. Pentland, b. M'Cormack 130 ]). Sandman, b. Kyle 30 S. A. Orchard, st. Pentland, b. Giller 12 T. Carlton, c. Kyle, b. Giller 51 ,T. H. Bennett, b. Kyle 23 H. M. Taylor, not out 0 Extras 23 Total 381 Bowling.—A. Kenny, 10 own, 2 nioldl«m. 81 runs, 1 wickfltj J. Gillor, 24 ovjsrg,

5 maidens, 81 runs, 3 wickets; W. Scott, 12 overs, 2 maidens, 51 runs, 1 .wido; T. Purvis, 3 overs, 22 runs, 1 wicket; J. Kylo, 28 overs, 4 maidens, 111 runs, 8 wickets; W. 11. M'C'ormick, 8 overs, 1 maiden, 43 runs, 1 wicket.

"ROCK" GAME;A MISTAKE. A member' of tho South Melbourne , cricket team, now touring the Dominion, has been making known his views on New Zealand cricket to "Longslip," of , tho "Otago Witness." Ho was anticipating the possibility of a New Zealand team visiting Australia next season or in the near future, and, referring to this, significantly pointed out that tho methods of N4w Zealand cricketers would have to bo altered if a representative_tcain hoped to bo n success on the other sTde. "There is too much defcncc introduced into New Zealand cricket, and not enough attack to suit tho Australian public," said my informant, who 1 was of opinion that if a Now Zealand team played cricket on tho lines adopted by Canterbury tho Australian public would not. go to see them. Ho could not speak of Auckland, as tho South Melbourne team had' not played 'there, but in tho other centres, and particularly Canterbury, ho was struck with the defensive methods adopted by tho majority of tho batsmen, who wore by such •slavish adoption losing their scoring 'strokes. For the genera] good cf the i game this was a wrong attitude, ond was not nlways safe .where the winning of matches was tho sole object. "Longslip" offered the explanation that the Plunket Shield was mainly responsible for the defensive stylo of batting being adopted. It started in Auckland under the coaching of Relf, and was spreading throughout New Zealand. The ,centres which had placed Plunket Shield matches on a plane of unnecessary importance were those on which Plunket Shield methods were most marked. Auckland, as tho holders, and Tcason of seasons of coaching in. that direction, adopted, methods by which they could best retain the trophy♦ and it was now shown in every line of their batsmen. Canterbury had always been oovetous 01 the Plunket Shield, and had spared neither time nor expense in an attempt to wrest the bauble from tho Aucklauders. They had gone further, •• and adopted Auckland tactics, so inspired bf Keif, and were gradually, becoming, imbued with. that stylo of 'cricket. In Otago and -Wellington the < influenoe had not been so marked, possibly for the reason that tho batsmen in those centres wre hard of cultivating on tho "rock" game; I This explanation brought'forth from', • tho South Melbourne ipan tliat for tho | general good of cricket the "rock game was a mistake, and no doubt accounted for the comparatively poor attendances at [cricket in New Zoaland. _ This was not to be wondered at, ; ho said, ■ and- until more life is imparted to the game it will never thrive as it should. Thero are good men in) Now Zealand—several really first-class men-but if the greatest benefits to cricket at large are>to accrue, and t not the mero winning of matches, moro dashing methods must bo introduced than at present exist. ' • [How far "Longslip" (and possibly his informant) are wrong, may be gathered from tho Canterbury and Auckland scores which appear in. to-day s issue..]