THE PLUNKET SHIELD

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 99, 21 January 1919, Page 6

THE PLUNKET SHIELD

CHAMPIONSHIP TROPHY OF NEW ZEALAND CRICKET HISTORY OF THE MATCHES (By "The Veteran.") 1 (ID A 'Rare Struggle. , Auckland and Canterbury gave ai* excellent display in a match played on tlic Eden Park, Auckland, early in Januaiy, I 1915 The Aucklanders batted first, agI gregaling 212 (F. R. Mason 81. C. Dacro I 37, E. Horspool 27). Canterbury sieplj i being 208 (It. G. Hickmott 63, A. \\. | Thomas 41). Both .teams were in a run-gelting humour u» the ?™,\™Z 1" tags, the Aucklaiiders getting 2SG(L.Hors. ! pool 59, W. Cummings 73, "'.•■» 10 ', Smith 65). There was an exciting hn•jVh to the game, the last two men on the Canterbury side being," n HI wa™3 jnjng hit was made The to al «as -M I for nine wickets (C. & Beal *L£J??JX i ton 42, It; G. Hickmott. 50, F. Woods 34). : This match was the keenest fought of the series to the time of-wrnms. ~„,,, On its northern tour In the IJHU season the Canterbury team plajed Hale's Bay at Napier ou Iwgr* and 7, 1915. Hawke's Bay were eajilj defeated; however. being 88 (B. Bowiau 30, J- F attcr °°? 20, t H. Board 17) and 99.(0. Stevens3. Canterbury scored 330 in thmr onlj strike (It. G. Hickmott 109, A. W. Thomas ■43*, H. B. Whitta 43). In January, 1915, Canterbury and Wellington met once again for the.shield, tins time on the Basin Reserve, fellinglon. The local team had done m 3 in previous matches against .Auckland and Otago that many enthusiasts 11 mo hopeful that they would defeat Canterbury on that occasion. But m-the end they had to acknowledge defeat by the substantial margin of 92 runs. The figures of the pame were •.-Canterbury. 244 (H. Bishop 62, D. Sandmann 58. A. Thomas 49) and 232 (T. Carlton 50. H. Bishop 31. F. Woods 23, R-. Hickmott 28, H. B. Whitta 21). Wo ington.269i (W. A. Baker 73, J. S. HUMlcston 62 H E, Burton 28, W. S. Brice 32) and 115 (W. A. Baker 24, W. fi.. Brice 20, W It. G.bbes 16 J. S. Hiddleston 15. F. A. Midlane 10). There were two good-bowling performances in this gam*, W. S. Bnee*nking six wickets for 31 runs for Wellington, and E. M'Lachlan six for .43. for Canterbury, both in Iho second innings of the respective teams.

Matches Suspended. At its meeting held in Christcburch on October 30, 1915, the New Zealand Cricket Council decided to suspend-the playing of matches for the Plunket Shield during the currency of tho war.

Wellington Wins the Shield. The contests were resumed with the' match between Wellington and Canterbur -r at Christmas time in Christchureh. As will be seen from tho foregoing, Wellington had tried many times to Ram possession of the trophy, but had failed to do so. This time success came their, way and for the first time in its history the shield is in the possession of the Wellington Cricket Association. Wellington made a good start, getting rid of Canterbury in tho first innings for 107 (B. B. Wood 38, J. Grny 35), 1. S Hiddleston (eight wickets for 59 runs) putting up a great bowling/ performance. Wellington replied with 288 (H. W. Lambert 51. J. W. Condliffe 46, W. Bakor 33, H. E. Burton 33, .T. S: Hiddleston 25). Canterbury made a fine recovery in their second innings, due largely to a great display of batting by J. Gray,.who got an even century. It was more than a display of batting: it was'an exhibition of restraint that is seldom seen from an aggressive batsman of , Gray's timo. Everyone knows him for a hitter, but he had jiis back to the wall in the second innings. > '' " , , Early on the final day of the match one of the umpires s declarcd u "bump" ball-Jto a stroke by Brunton, which altered the complexion of the game considerably. It was at the beginning of the Gray-Brunton partnership, and before the latter was finally dismissed 70 more runs' were added to the total. Canterburr's second Innings produced 345 runs (J. Grav 100, N. Jones 57. L. R. Brunton 39, W. Jt. Patrick 33, J. M'Ewin 27). Wellington got the 220 runs necessary to win for the loss of eight wickets, the outstanding features nf the innings being the batting of H. E. Burton and W. S. Brice. The double-figure scorers were: H. E. Burton. GO; W. S. Brice. .50*. H. M!Girr, 19; A. Dind, 17:. H. W. Lambert, 1G; J. Hutcliings, 13*; J. W. Condliffe, 12.

Another match between the sam» teams will be played in Wellington on January 22, which will also be a game for the Plunket Shield. •

Results x of Shield Matches.. 1907—Auckland 'v. Canterbury. , at Christchureh. Auckland won by an innings and 135 runs. 1908—Auckland v. Otano, at Aticklan'd. Auckland won by 315 runs. 1908—Auckland v. Otago, at Auckland. Drawn. . '•■■'«■ 1909—Auckland v. Canterbury, at Auckland. Auckland won by 32 runs. 1909—Auckland v. Wellington, at Auckland. Auckland, won by ten wickets. 1910—Auckland v. Canterbury, at Auckland. Auckland won by seven wickets. 1910—Auckland v. Otago, at Auckland. Auckland won by an inninga and 101 runs. , . - .' 1911—Auckland v. Wellington, at Auckland. Auckland-won by four-wickets. 1911—Auckland v. Canterbury, at Auckland. Canterbury,won by six wickets. 1911—Canterbury v. Otago, at Christchurch. Canterbury won by three wickets. 1912-Canterbiiry v. Auckland, at Christchurch. Auckland '. won by two wickels. . . i . .

1912—Canterbury v. Wellington, at Christchurch. Canterbury won by 108 runs, 1913—Auckland v. Wellington,*- at Auckland. Auckland won,by nine wickets, 1913—Canterbury v; Auckland, at Auckland. Canterbury won by eight wickets. '. : .

1913—Canterbury t. Otago, . at Christchurch. Canterbury won :by sis wickets. ■ ' ■ ' , . ?■ • 1913—Canterbury v.. Otngo! at Christ-' church. Canterbury won by an innings and 51 runs. 1914—Canterbury v. Wellington, at Chrlstclmrcli. Canterbury won by 243 rims. 1914—Auckland v. Canterbury,' at Christ«n^/!'V, , C; > n ferbiiry won'hy 318 mn«. 1914-Cnnterbnry. v. ntasro, at Dnnedin. Canterbury won by an innings and 26 runs. 1914-Oanterbury v. Otngo, at Dunedin. (nnterbury won by an innings and 132 runs. ' 1915-Wellington v. Canterbnrv, nt>Wellineton. Canterbnrv won by ,92 runs 1915-Cnnte.rbury v. Auckland, at Anck ,„«,. ~ , c ? nt <u"l>ury won by one wicket. 1915—Canterbnrv v. Hnwke's Bay, nt Napier. Canterbury, won by an inmnsrs and 149 runs. 1918-Wellington v. Canterbnrv, nt Christchnreh. Wellington won by two wicl.-ffs.

The following tahfo show? \ n detail how the various renresentative tennis tmvc fared in matches nlaVed for the Plunkot Shield, the full 'number of games totalling 24 •— . > Matches ■ . plnynd. Won. Lo«st. Dwn. Canterbury 18 IS 5 0 Auckland 14 !) 4 1 OHifm SO 7 1 WelHwrton 7 16 0 Hawke.'s Day ....1.0 1 o Centuries in Shield Matches. imr-A. F. Keif (Auckland) 157 1907-T,. G. Hernns (Auckland) 148 1008-W. Brnnk-Smitli fAuckland) ... 110 WflS-n. G. Wilson (O(aiio) 144 1910-1,. G. Hemns (Auckland) 100 1910-A. K. Rrlf (Auckland) 118 1010-E. V. Sale (Auckland) 121 1011—L. G. Hemus (Auckland) 142 1011— H. D. Lnsk (Canterbury) Msl 1911-C. G. Hopkins (Otngo) 132 1012— W. Hayes (Canterbury) 125 1914—C. E. Deal (Canterbury) 105 1914-H. B. Whitta (Canterbury) 147 1014— W. R. Patrick (Canterbury) .... 118 1915-R. G. Hickmott (Canterbury)... 109 IMS—T. 'Canterbury) „ too

o The Players' and Averages. Tn these series of Plunket Shield sanies IG6 players have taken part. ,In the list of averases printed lielow only the names of those are given who have hattpd six times, or have taken six wickets •with their bowling. BATTING AVERAGES.

W. R. L. Gibb'es 236 7 33.71

Some Good Bowling Performance. Runs. WkU 1907—A. E. Relf (Auckland) ... Gi 6 1908—A. E. Eelf (Auckland) ... 32 G 1908—A. E. licit (Auckland) ... 25 li' 1908—It. Torrance (Otngo) U2 5 1908—A. E. Hpwden (Auckland) Gl 5 1908—A. H. Fisher (Otago) 50 a 1909—C. C. Humphreys (Canter- . bury) 23 6 1909—A. E.' Eelf (Auckland) ... 42 7 E. Relf (Auckland) ... 53 5 1909—W. S. Brice (Wellington) 38 5 1909—A. E. Keif (Auckland) ... 41 5 1909—A. E. Howden (Auckland) 43 5 1910—J. V. Saunders (Wellington) : 61 6 1910—F. Pearson (Auckland) ... 54 8 1911—D. Samlmiiun (Canter- ■' bury) 55 .5 1911—D. Reese (Canterbury) 43 5 1911—D. Rees? (Canterbury) 19 5 1912—J. V. Saunders (Wellington) 76 5 1912—D. Reese (Canterbury) ... 61 5 1912—C. Oliff (Auckland) 37 6 1912—C. Oliff (Auckland) 67 5 1913—T.. R. Southall (Wellington) Gl 5 1913—C. Oliff (Auckland) ........ 62 6 1913—C. Oliff (Auckland) 42 7 1913—J. IL. Bennett (Canterbury) 46 S 1913—C. Oliff (Auckland) 102 5 1913—D. Reese (Canterbury)' 39 5 1913—H. Watson ((Canterbury)... 48 8 1914—J. V. Saunders (Wellington) - 99 . 55 1914—J. V. Saunders (Wellington) 85 5 1914—C. G. L. Wilson (Canter- . bury) 76 7. 1914—C. G. L. Wilson (Canterbury) 73 5 1914—C. G. L. Wilson (Canterbury) , 117 6 1914-C. G. Clark (Auckland) ICS 5 1914—J. It. Bennett (Canterbury) 87 7 11914—C. G. Tj. Wilson (Canter- ' ' bury) 95 5 1914. —J. N. Crawford (Otago) ... G7 : 5 1915—A, W. Thomas (Canter- j bury) 99 . 8 1 1915—R. M*Lachlan (Canterbury) 17 5 1915—R. ST'Laclilan (CVnterburj-) 57 7 1915 —W. R- Brice (Wellington) 31 (i 1915—R. IFLachlan (Oanterbury) .'. 4S G 1915—T. Carlton (Canterbury)... G5 5 1918—W. M'BpHi (Cr.ntprbnrv)... 8G 5 , 1918—J. S. Hiddleston (WellinErton) 59 '8

, ' si It £1 b! "i: . A. E. Eelf ... 10 0 580 157 58.00 • G. C. L. "Wilson 6.3 149 (if 49.66 K. G. Hicknuitt 11 0 497 101) 45,18 h. G. Homus ... 21 2 895 148 40.65 AV. E, Gibbes ... 8 2 240 75* 40.00 H. B. Lusk ... 17 1 602 151 37.50 H. B. Whitta... 14 0 453 147, 132.35 II. Ai Bishop ... 13 0 410 90 31.53 W. E. Patrick... 22 1 636 118 30.27 C. A. Wilson ... 8 0 240 144 '30.75;. W. Brook-Smith 22 2 G02 110 30.10 " H. W. Monaglian ,9 3 176 46 29.33 D. Reese 17 1 459 80 28.68 W. A. Baker ... 0 0 170 73 28.33 A. W. Thomas 11 1 208 77 26.80" E. V. Snle 21 1 506 ' 121 25.30 L. G. Taylor ... 12 3 227 92 25.22 . I). Sandmann ... 15 3 302 93 25.16 H.' Watson 6 0 151 45 25.16 G, Cuinniings ... 12 1 273 73 24.81 N. C. Sneddon 14 1 322 76 24.78 J. S. Hiddloston 8 0 196 62 24.50 • P. E. Beal 13 1 294 105 24.50 A. Haddon 14 1' 315 61 24.23 C. G. Hopkins 8 0 192 132 24.00 E. Horspool .... 13 1 2S0 59 23.33 ,\V. Carlton 10 1 204 ?S* 22.66 •P Woods 12 0 270 52 22.50 E. R. Caygill... 13. 0 280 47 21.53 " W. S. Br'ice ... 12 VI 233 50* 21.18 S. A. Orchard... 7 0 147 51 21.00 A. Anthony ... 13 1 249 63 20.75 J. J. Mahony... 6 0 122 45 20.38 P. E. Mason 10 1 197 81 19.70 A. Nqrman 8.. 0 155 . 17 19.37 T. MTarlane ... 10 0 193 • 61 19.30 W. Haves ...... 16 1 288 123 19.20 A. Eckhold ' ... 8 1 133 49 19.00 . J. L. Patterson 8 1 119 71 17.00 C. Oliff 13 4 HI « 15.66 P. A. Midlanf... 8 0 125 35 15.62 R. L. Brunton 7 1 91 39 15.16 T. Carlton 14 2 173 50 11.41 H. G: Siedeberg 10' 0 144 38 14.40 '.T. P. Blackloclc 8 0 113 51 .14.12 H. C. Watson... 10 0 138 30 13.80 •T. H. Bennett... -18 ' 4 168 58 13.42 ,1. W. Condliffe 8 0 107 46 13.37 G. G. Austin ... 8 0 105 64 13.12 E. M'Cormick (11. <U 16" 12,SO \. W. Alloo ... 6 0 70 - 37 11.66 R. Jf. Rutherf'd 6 0 67 . JW 11.33 W. Robinson ... 10 4 67 , 23 ,11.10 C. A. Boxshall 20 .5 161 , 19' 10.73 A. Dovnes 10 2 82 25* 10.25 R. Torrance ... G, 1 48 21 9.60 .IVY. Saunders 8 2 * 54 21* 9.M A Kerr 8 2 24 9 4.00 ,T. Rnntsdnn ... 10 1 30 12 3.33 ( A. EckhofT ' 6 1 15 12 3.00 'Not out. . BOWLING AVERAGES. Runs. Wkls.'. Avge. R. M'Lauchlan 202 23 8.78 A. E. Eelf 565 51 11.07 J. N. Crawford 67 6 11.16 C. G. Humphreys 120 10 12.00 G. J. Thompson 89 7 12.71 R, G. Hickmott 123 8 15.37 4 D. Roeso '•..••• 691 45 15.42 C. Oliff SOI 51. 15.70 A. II. Howden ....'. 571 35 '16.31 A. Haddon 384 22 17.45 P. Pearson 228 13 ' 17.53 J". V. Saunders 525 29 18.10 G. C. L. Wilson 582 32 18.13 T. Carlton ;.. 459 25 1 18.36 W. Carlton 223 12 18.53 W. S. Brice 395 21 18.85 T. R, Southall 175 9 19.44, J. L. Patterson 214 11 19.45 W. M'Beth 157* - 8 19.62 ? •T. H. Bennett 1022 52 19.65 . I. Gr Taylor 328 * 16 20.50 II. Watson 165 8 20.62 •J. C. Mackersey 148 7 20.85•T. S. Hiddleston 300 14 21.42 , D. Sandmanii 690 32 21.50 H. TV. Mifaghan 354 16 22.12 A. Kerr- ............... v .... 374 16 23.37 T. M'Pnrlnnb 293 12 24.41 A. H; Fisher 14S- 6 24.66 G; C. 'Clark 1 ' ••••■•• 146 6 24.33 A, W. Thomas 378 15 25.20 N. C.-Sneddon T 367 14 26.21 0. W; Robihson 160 6 26.66 R. Torrance j...... 275 ,10 27.50 A. Dowiies 4T0 17 -27.64 ,1. Rnmsden .' 334 12 27.83 W. Brook-Smith ......... 17,1 6 28.83 C. V. Grimmett 193 » 32.1(1 ttt 't> T OOiJ T <50 ft