OUR BOYS AT HOME

Evening Star, Issue 19659, 12 September 1927, Page 14

OUR BOYS AT HOME

NEW ZEALAND GHETEHS WEEK'S PLAY REVIEWED [By Wallaby.] Our boys were sojourning in.picturesque' Wales all last week, and liavo apparently eased off a bit, so I’ar as their efforts on the field arc concerned. After their line performances against the strong first class counties it might have been expected that, they would have had no difficulty in routing the Welshmen. As it turned out, however, they found the native bowling no less difficult than the native language, and although not compelled exactly to “eat the leek,” they had nothing very much to boast about in having left the two matches drawn. Our team has, indeed, more than once played comparatively poor cricket against a weak team, while, when up against a stiff proposition, it has given of its very best. In the match against Wales our batsmen failed badly in the first innings, a paltry 130 being all wo could raise against Barnes, Thomas, and Co., James being top scorer with 23. And this in reply to the local eleven’s moderate score of 182. Barnes, by the way, is obviously not anything like the Barnes of old. Nor can it bo expected, for be is in his fifty-second year. Even so, ho bagged tour of our wickets in the first innings for 47 runs, Thomas getting three for 39. Allcott and Henderson, two lefthanders, were New Zealand’s best bowlers, Lowry also chipping in in the second'innings. Our side was left with 235 to get to win, and were going steadily towards the goal when time closed the match. Except for a bright interval _ when Dempster and Mills got to work in the .second strike the cricket was of a dull character, and in marked contrast to that displayed in the majority of the matches in which the dominion representatives have figured. Only 618 runs were scored in the three days, and altogether the fixture was a lifeless sort of thing.

Next came tlio two clays’ match against the Cygnets, an amateur club the membership of which is confined to Welsh internationals. Several of the players who had taken part in the previous match were included in this team, and the side did well im compiling 250 for six wickcfs, and still better in disposing of New Zealand for 105. • In short, the Cygnets proved they were really swans and not geese; neither were there any “ducks” among them. They dealt pretty freely with Merritt, too, the curly howler’s three wickets costing 97 runs. In New Zealand’s only innjngs the order of batting was once more altered, and “the rabbits” given a chance. H may bo added that they did not avail themselves of it to any extent. James, however, again came to _ light with a useful 4.3, while Caere hit up 6b, and Page added 25 not out. One feature of Lowry’s captaincy that is difficult to_ understand is the frequency with which ho changes his opening batsmen. One would have thought that, having found an opening pair, he would keep to them, but rarely have they been the same for more than two or three matches in succession. Out of curiosity I ran through the scores, and find the following batsmen have been coupled to open the innings:—Blunt and Mills, Blunt and Dempster, Blunt and James, Blunt and Page, Blunt and Lowry, Mills and Dempster, Mills and James, Mills and Dacrc, Dempster and Dacrc, Dempster and Page, Dempster and Oliver, Dempster and Fox, Dacre and Oliver. Dacre and Cunningham, Page and M'Girr. Bernau aivd Janies, Oliver and Bcrnau, Henderson’ and Merritt. Similarly docs the skipper believe in giving his men a chance to distinguish themselves as bowlers. In the latest match—that against the Cygnets— James was put on, thus completing the cycle. In other words, every one of New Zealand’s fourteen players has figured at the bowling crease. In introducing his report of the Warwickshire match a in the ‘Athletic Nows’ says: “The New Zealanders are a, bright and picturesque side, and one would have thought there would have been a goodly Saturday gate to see them at Ldgbaston, but the championship table fetish ha 4 caught hold of the crowd in most centres, and a match without a competith— tag to it does not seem to draw. Not more than 2,000 were present. Warwickshire, who gave an uneven displav, were without Norman Partridge, Howell, and Baker, last named being engage * in the trial game at Bristol, and Smith, Fox, and Roll came in.” „ , The team began its final match on Saturday at Scarborough against r H. D. G. Lcvcson-Gower’s cloven. 'I lie latter will probably be a very strong side and one that will lest New Zealand's strength to the utmost. Hut our boys have made a very fine start. PERFORMANCES COMPARED. It mav bo of interest to compare the results of the New Zealand team’s matches agains the first-class counties with the results of the Australians’ matches against the same sides in the previous season. Here they are;— Esses, 373 and 12-5 for five; New Zealand, 289 and 208. Esses* won. Essex, five for 2; Australia, 53S (nnio wickets, declared). Drawn Middlesex. 200 and seven for 280; New Zealand, 23i and 335. Middlesex won. Middlesex, 349; Australia, 489 and 239 for five. for two. Drawn. Sussex, 210 and 157 for five; Australia, 317 and 153 for four Drawn. Worcestershire, 222 and 209: New Zealand, 276 and five for 349 (declared). New Zealand won. Worcestershire, 120 and S 3; /Listralia, 197 and four for 182 {declared). Australia won. Northamptonshire, 237 and 260; New Zealand, 251 and 164- Norlhants won. Northamptonshh r » 125 and 125; Australia, 397. Australia won Leicestershire. 212; New Zealand, 3/ 1 and nine for 165. Drawn. Leicestershire. 90 and one fur la; Australia, 336. Drawn. Yorkshire, 377; New Zealand, seven for 133. Drawn. Yorkshire, 155 and none for 2d; Australia, 177 and three for 243 (declared). Drawn. Yorkshire (second match), did not bat; Australia, 148 for six. Drawn. Notts, six for 280; New Zealand, 2 77. Drawn. Notts, 193 and 139; Australia, 4GB. Australia won Warwickshire, 235 and seven for 188: New Zealand 492 (for six wickets, declared). Drawn. Warwickshire. 363 for nine wickets; Australia, 464 Drawn. Glamorgan, 145 and 199; New Zealand, 345 and seven for 205 (declared) New Zealand won. Glamorgan, 139 and 120; Australia, 283 and five for 2Uft (declared). Australia won. .Surrey. 377 and eight for 281; New Zealand, 313 and 371. Drawn. Surrey, 265; Australia, nine for 395 (dvclaicd) and two for 74 Of awn. Surrey (second match), six (or 82; Australia, nine for 439 (declared). Drawn. Somerset. 117 and 67. New Zealand, 150 and 128 New Zealand won. Somerset, 153 and 245; Australia, 225 and four for 229 (declared). Australia won. Lancashire, 229; New Zealand, one for 57. Drawn. „ ■ Lancashire, 149 and 148; Australia, 3<4. Australia won. Lancashire (second match), 234 and nine for 274; Australia, six for 4GB (declared). Drawn. Kent, 405 ami eight for 263; New Zealand, 203 and 317 Kent won. Kent, 321 and nine for 219 (declared); Australia, 386 and four for 72. D r awn Gloucestershire 148 and three for 130: New Zealand, nine for 415 (declared). Drawn. Gloucestershire 144 and 178; Australia. 287 and one for 39. Australia’won. Derbyshire, 129 and 172; New Zealand, nine for 541 (declared) New Zealand won. Derbyshire, 146 and two for 55: Australia, five fot 373 (declared). Drawn.

Al>o tuwlrtl: Blundell, none lor US. MATCHES PLAYED IN, Pago 30, Dempster .'!2, Merritt 152, Lowry 31, Mills 31, Blunt 30, Dacre 30, James 30, M‘Girr 29, Allcott 26, Bcrnau 24, Oliver 20, Henderson 19, Cunningham 15. Blundell, Hay, Eos, and Caldcr played one each. “ DUCKS.” Bcrnau 7, Cunningham .4, Mills 4, Oliver 4, Dacre 4, M‘Girr 4, Pago 4, Henderson 3, Merritt 3, AlLott 2, Blunt 2, Jamejs 2, Dempster 1, Lowry 1. Total of New Zealand scores: ■Wickets, 443; runs, 14,360; average, 32.46. Total opponents’ scores :—Wickets, 585; runs, 13,730; average, 23.47. Result of matches:—Played, 37; won, 14; lost, 5; drawn, 18. Centuries:—For, 24; against, ID.

A\ci n i lo and Deluding Wales malch BATTING. Inn Rons, N.O. ll.S. A». Dempster ... 415 2,151 7 ISO 55.15 Blunt ... ... 42 1,872 2 105 40.80 Mills ... ... 47 1,510 8 188 38.71 Lowry ... ... 44 1,480 4 100 37.15 Dacro ... ... ... 42 1,500 ... 170 25.71 Page ... ... 4(i 1,221 4 U0‘ 31.Oil Allcolt .... ... 31 r-ts s 121 28.70 Merritt ... ... 41 007 17 5(1 ‘ 27.70 M'fiirr ... ... ... 27 707 1 72 22.12 lames ... ... mi 571) 7 51 18.00 Oliver ... ... 20 277 5 48 15.08 Herman ... ... 21 21 iS 3 41 14.15 Henderson ... ... 20 M2 7 20 H.no Cunningham ... ... IS 102 4 22 7.25 Also batted; Blundell 2. Hay 2 not OUl, I-'ox 4, Caldcr 11. Dempster “Not out. DOWLING. Wirkets. ... 13 Run-i, Aver. 15.28 Merrill ... ... 105 2,121 18.97 Hag: ... ... •js 7(2 10.52 Dacro ... ... 10 ■ 2IS 10.87 Henderson .. ... ... • 40 1.050 22.05 M'C.irr _ .. ... 72 1,721 21.04 Lowry ' ... ... 21 5,Si 21.20 Blnnl ... ... 01 2,252 21.53 Bernau ... ... 28 Ohl 25.80 Allcolt ... ... :r. 007 27.02 Cunningham ... ... 20 002 30.10 Mills ... ... 4 125 22.75 Oliver ... ... i 210 210.00