OUR BOYS AT HOME

Evening Star, Issue 19665, 19 September 1927, Page 16

OUR BOYS AT HOME

The tour is over, and we may lilt our hats and give the boys three hearty cheers, for they thoroughly deserve all the praise that can be bestowed unou them for the wonderful showing they have made on this, the first appearance ou English grounds of a representative New Zealand team.

Not even tho most optimistic among the team’s supporters expected them to go through the arranged programme and suffer only five defeats. Tho best that was prophesied was that they would win more matches than they lost, it being conceded then that each of tho really first-class counties would beat them.

Well, they have come through with fourteen wins and five losses, while of the twenty matches left unfinished it would not bo overstating fho ease to say that they would probably have won a dozen and lost perhaps two had these fixtures been played out. Of the five losses none were overwhelming, two bcing by five wickets, one by three wicekts, one by 82 inns, and one by 58 rims. And three ol these defeats were sustained in tho first month ol the tour. Everything considered, then, this record" compares very favorably indeed ‘with the records of average Australian and South African teams in the Old Country. Certainly the New Zealanders’ programme included a bigger percentage of matches against inferior teams than is usually tho case with the Australians, but their performances against these inferior teams were usually less impressive than those against the stronger elevens. And an analysis of tho Australian results of 192 b discloses the fact that Collins’s men—owing largely to the wretched weather conditions, it must bo admitted—won only twelve matches in all, including those against Durham and two Scottish sides, and that not one of the team scored 2,000 runs. Our team performed equally well ou hard and soft wickets, one of the surprising features being tho success achieved by the slow bowleis on wickets affected by rain. The batting, however, was the strong point, six of tho fourteen players scoring over 1,000 runs (two of them passing tho 2,000 mark), and establishing their claim to be classed as first-class batsmen, while three others were all-rounders of considerable ability. Otago may well be proud of her one representative, for iloger Blunt proved himself to bo an all-rounder who would sta id comparison with most of tho great players in the cricket world. He has been consistency itself with the bat, as witness tho fact that, though ho lias but lour centuries to his credit on the tour, ho fiverages over 50 runs per innings, and lias only three not outs to assist him. _ Mis top score was 195 (which is the highest individual score made by any member of the team), got in the match against Northumberland, but his 131 in the last match was his best in a first-class game. Ho also made 103 against Kent and 119 in tho opening match of tho tour against Martmeau’s Eleven. With Dempster he had the honor of scoring over 2,000 runs in all matches, while his tally in first-class matches was the highest (1,540). In bowling ho did very little latterly, the impression convoyed by Lowry’s handling of him being that he was perhaps feeling tho strain a bit and was being nursed. In his last seven visits to the bowling crease his average was none for 21, none for “24, none lor 19, none lor 9, none for 17, none lor 8, and one for 40. It was rather a pity ho did not manage to bag the extra halt-dozen wickets that were necessary to bring the number to 100. But ho will be able to look back on his first cricket trip to the Old Land with complete satisfaction, and we in Otago will hope that his long and arduous season there will nut have created a stateness that •will manifest itself in Lis play during the coming summer, 1 sec, by the way, that England claims Uoger as one of her sous, he having been born in Durham. in view of the fact that he camo to New Zealand as an infant of a few months old, we may well maintain that lie is one of us.

Dempster is a Jiving example of the fallacy of turning down a cricketer who is known to bo a first-class player just because ho happens to bo having a vim of bad luck. On actual performances last summer Dempster did nut earn his place in the touring team, yet what a disaster it would have been to leave him at homo! To score 2,231 runs, including six centuries, in innings, with an average of 64.41, is a performance that will stand scrutiny and compare not unfavorably with tho top-notehers in the touring teams from other countries.

Mills is another who lias done remarkably well, and in this case a little of tho glory is reflected upon Otago, in that this young player is a native of Dunedin, having been born at the Carisbrook Ground when his father was caretaker there. Both in first-class matches and all matches during the tour just, closed this left-hander has scored well, his average being respectively 37.9 U and 39.93 while four centuries stand opposite his name. Ho made a great start by scoring 188 in tho first match, this being the second highest score registered. Dacro may ho hilled as the picturesque batsman of the combination. Always breezy, often, brilliant, he quickly earned tho admiration of the Homo critics and spectators, and, though he had his spells of low scoring —as all such batsmen will—ho accumulated 1,499 runs for an average of 36.25 without a not out innings to help him. His centuries number four also, two of them being well over the hundred—namely, 176 against Derbyshire and 167 against Edinburgh Clubs. Both ho and Dempster were useful on occasions with the ball—indeed, Dempster headed tho actual bowling averages, but a bag of eleven wickets scarcely entitles him to figure there. Dacro took seventeen wickets.

Lowry proved an excellent skipper, handling his bowling splendidly and using good judgment in applying the closure. Obviously, too, ho won favor with the “ heads ” of the English cricket world, and presumably has kept his team in a happy frame of mind. As a player ho has been of great value, though in the last few matches his average gradually decreased, until from something like CO it fell to 35. But ho played many useful innings, including four of a century each. Strangely enough, his score in three of these shots was exactly the same—lo 6. Pago is also to bo included in the list of successes. Ho showed fine bowling powers on many occasions, ’ and mad) two centuries, averaging 32.07 for forty-eight innings. He was also very useful with the ball at times, and finished with the meritorious average of 19.9 for thirty-eight wickets. Allcott, unfortunately for ti.o. side, was never quite physically fit, foot trouble keeping him out of the game for the first five matches, and interferi-_ with his play subsequently. The Aucklander is undoubtedly a first-class all-rounder, whfiu fit and w-11, but it was a risk to take him when—as 1 understand was the case— he was known

New Zealand Cricketers Wonderful Tour Reviewed Wallaby.]

to have the weakness which proved to bo so troublesome. As it was he made a few useful scores, including a century against tho Civil Service, but his bowling could not bo utilised to anything like the, extent it should have been.

Merritt was tho big “ find.” This youngster—who celebrated his nineteenth birthday while on tour—was a tremendous success; indeed, without him the bowling would have been lamentably weak, in all matches ho took almost twice as many wickets (17-1) as any other bowler oji the side, while in first-class games ho joined the select band, wbo claim JOO wickets f .• the season, his tally being 107. And his average (19.20 for nil matches and 23.04 for first-class matches) is a very fine one indeed for a slow bonier. On the last tour of tho Australians in England Grimmett’s average was 17.12 (120 wickets) for all mulches and 17.0 S (105. wickets) for first-class j while Mailey’s was 18.71 (111 wickets) and J 9.34 (126 wickets) respectively. Merritt did a tremendous lot of work for such a young fellow, bowling 768 ovens in first-class matches alone. Twice he took ten wickets in a match, his ten against Derbyshire costing him 130 runs, while against Cumberland he took five for 30 and five for 49. Other good performances wero his sis for 34 and two for 17 against Norfolk, six for 38 against West of England, five for 18 against Bedfordshire, seven for 74 and for 3 against Scottish Counties, six for 92 and t' ree for 30 against Sussex. Summed up, Merritt may bo said to have jumped into tho first flight of bowlers, and to have compelled the notice of the best judges of the game all in one season. On his form in England, and considering his age and his prospect of a long career before him, Australia conk! very wei! do with him, especially in view of Mailey’s retirement, and tho fact that Grimmett is nearing the retiring age. Domiciled in tho Commonwealth, Merritt would bo bound to do well. From a New Zealand point of view, however, it is to bo hoped that lie may bo induced to star in flic dominion.

M'Girr is entitled to bo satisfied with bis all-round ivurk on the tour. Always a live-wire and a willing worker, ho on several occasions came to the rescue with tiptop efforts, both with the bat and with the ball. Had he played in a few more innings he, too, would probably have reached his 1,000 runs. The popular Wclliugtonian was certainly one of Ihc useful hand. Amongst his meritorious performances with the hall were his six for 77 in the first innings of Essex; his four for 2d and two for 52 v. 'Warwickshire; four for 84 v. Kent; five for 16 v. Norfolk fsecond innings); and five for 21 v. East of England. His best scores were 72 v. Middlesex, 06 v. Surrey, 08 nob out v.M.C.C., 5G v. Leicester, and 70 v. Kent. Ail these were in first-class matches, which is an indication of the right temperament.

James is anal her member o filic team who will return with an enhanced reputation. He did really splendid work behind (ho wickets, disposing of no fewer (ban cighty-scvcn opponents—-forty-two with catches and forty-five by stumping. On the few occasions upon which his work lias been commented upon in the cables, it has been made deal’ that James is a “ keeper ” of class. Marly- in (ho proceedings he made some useful scores with tho bat, and throughout tho long four he contributed 20’s, JO’s, or AO’s fairly regularly.

The two loft-ha ml howlers, Homan and Henderson, did not do anything startling. Now ail'd again one or the other would come along with a useful performance, as when Henderson took five for 76 against Leicester and five for 60 and two for 5 against Durham. Against Civil Service ho captured two for 33 and five for 27, and against Wales three for 28 and four for 29; hut, on the whole, ho was not one of the successes.

Homan, who was the fourteenth man chosen, did not rise above mediocrity, either, and his average of 26.10 for thirty-eight wickets rather flatters him. His best effort was his six for 35 and two for 38 against Glamorgan; other good figures being his four for 27 and one for 13 v. Somerset, and his four for 59 in the opening match of the tour.

There arc, of course, bound to be failures in every touring side. _ Australians in England have found it so; also Englishmen in Australia. In the caso of New Zealand, the two men who utterly failed to play up to form were Cunningham and Oliver, both ot Canterbury. The former is said to have suffered from some form of muscle contrac’tion Whatever the reason, bo showed such poor form that ho played in only fifteen matches, and took but twentyone wickets during tbo whole'tour. With the bat lie scored only 120 runs in nineteen innings. Oliver’s failure was a sad disappointment to those who considered him one of the dominion’s most promising bats—as bo undoubtedly appeared to be. And when it is noted that ho was looked upon as the side’s best fieldsman, bis Inability to make runs is all the more inexplicable. ft may have been a matter of climate, or of light, but Oliver is young enough to have surmounted this difficulty. A batting average of 14, for thirty-one innings, with a best score of 48, is a dismal record for the Christchurch man to bring back with him. The team’s bowling strength was admittedly not great, and it speaks well for Skipper Lowry, and for the hard and successful work of the two googlv bowlers, with tbo able assistance of M'Girr, that the scores put up against oiu boys were never extraordinarily high. Except perhaps in the second innings of tbo M.C.C., when the homo batsmen scored 426 for four wickets, it cannot bo said that tbo New Zealand bowling was ever completely collared and thrashed. My conviction, so often expressed, that Dickinson would have greatly strengthened the attack, remains unshaken. The list of centuries, totalling twentyfive, is highly satisfactory, too, even though nineteen were scored against our bowling. For the Australians in 1926, thirty-five centuries were bit, and only six wore made against Mailey, Grimmelt, and Co. So, taking it all in all, we may well feel proud of our boys’ achievements, and there is not the slightest doubt that tlio official welcome which is to be tendered to the returned tourists in the Wellington Town Hall on November 8 will be a particularly warm one. They deserve it. It is unfortunate that the cabled reports of their doings should have been so miserably meagre, and that the New Zealand Cricket Council’s peculiar attitude in the matter prevented an accredited Press representative accompanying the team and so furnishing the dominion public with details which could not have failed to bo interesting. In this respect, as in some others, the council lias a good deal to learn, but it is to be hoped that the experience gained by this, wonderful tour will bo beneficial to them as to the players. The players at least have

put New Zealand on the cricket map,' and with proper management the game should never look back. ‘ In the not distant future we will see our representatives competing on equal terms against the best Australia and England can produce Has not Lord Hawke said so! It is good to have the approval of such notables as Lord Hawke and Lord Harris. We have had quite a lot about them iu the cables; but practical cricketers would like now to hear what such shrewd judges as Jack Hobbs, Wilfred Rhodes, and suchlike think of our team.

One thing our boys have done, and that is to wake up the cricketing public of England to the almost forgotten fact that the bat was devised for the purpose of hitting the ball, and not merely of hitting it. It would be interesting to have amongst all the other statistics a table showing the average rate of scoring for and against our boys.

Though it was not to ho expected, except by a few uncalculating optimists, that the tour would be made to pay, it is surprising, in a sense, that the attractive type of cricket played by our hoys should not have drawn larger crowds. The practice of putting a weakened side against the tourists which was adopted by the Horne clubs in the early part of the tour would tend to form the opinion in the public mind that the New Zealanders were just second-raters. In. the circumstances the public could not be blamed for preferring to attend the county championship match nearest to hand.

There must bo something wrong iu the message which stated that the deficit on the tour would ho about £IO,OOO. That figure is approximately what the whole tour would cost, and my estimate, made several weeks ago, of a £5,000 loss will, I fancy, ho found to no pretty near the mark. This may, of course, be reduced by receipts from the extra matches played iu Sydney and New Zealand on tho team’s return. It is to bo hoped so. And now the tour is ended and the experiment—in spite of its costliness—justified, it remains for the powers that be to make the most of the opportunity and push along New Zealand cricket until it attains to international standard. If men with tact and insight are allowed to handle the situation this can he done. The material is here in the dominion; so much has been proven. Notes on tho final match against Lcvcsoii-Gowcr’s team are perhaps unnecessary now. 11 was hard luck that time—and tho rain and her Royal Highness Princess Mary—prevented the fixture beinij played out, for our boys would certainty have ended the tour with a splendid win in a few more hours. Roger Blunt was the hero of the match, his 131 and 65 not out being a fitting finish to a wonderful season. A few more runs in that second innings and he would have headed the batting averages for first class matches. Mills also capped a fine season with a thumping century and a-half, while Dempster’s half-century enabled him to hold his own. Good luck to them all and to Merritt, who took four wickets. It was a pretty strorjf team that they virtually defeated, and this final exhibition of'their prowess showed that, despite the long and arduous tour, these hoys of ours, who wore unaccustomed previously to continuous cricket such as this, possessed the stamina, as well as the skill, necessary for first-raters. Again I say: “Hats off, and three hearty cheers.”

RESULTS. Hollowing arc the results of all matches played : Martincan's AT. Drawn.—New Zealand, nine for 586 (declared); Martincan's XL, 256 and six for 163. Jl.C.fl. Drawn.—New Zealand, 460 and four for 224; M.C.C., 392 and four for 426 (declared). Essex. Lost by five wickeds. —New Zealand, 289 and 208; Ihsex, 373 and five for 125. Cambridge University. Lost by five wickets.-'New Zealand, 315 and 205; Cambridge, 255 and five for 267. Middlesex. Lost by three wickets.--New Zealand, 234 and 335; Middlesex; 290 and seven for 280. Royal Navy. Drawn. New Zealand, 194 and two for 161; Royal Navy, 144 and 275. Sussex. Won by eight, wickets.—New Zealand, 466 and two for 43; Sussex, 316 and 191. . , t Chib Conference. Drawn.—Now Zealand, 21.3 and live for 183; Club Conference, 204 and seven for 252 (declared). Oxford University. Drawn.—New Zealand, 263 and six for 214; Oxford, 337 and 229. Worecslersbire, Won by 194 rims.—New Zealand, 276 and live for 349 (declared); Worcester, 222 and 209. Northamptonshire. Lost by 82 rims. — Now Zealand, 251 and 161; Norllianls, 237 and 260.

Leicestershire. Drawn. —New Zealand, 371 and nine for 165; Leicester, 242. Durham. Won by ten wickets,—New Zealand, 373 and five for no wickets; Durham, 254 and 123. Northumberland. Won by an innings and 3 runs—New Zealand, 476; Northumberland, 272 and 201. _ Scotland. Drawn. —Scotland, 233; New Zealand, two wickets for 90. Scottish Counties. Drawn.—New Zealand, 304 and 103 for 8 wickets (declared); Scottish Comities, 287 and 72 for four wickets. Edinburgh Clubs. Won by ten wickets. —New Zealand, 406 for seven wickets (declared) and 42 for no wickets; Edinburgh, 199 and 246,

South of Scotland. Won on first innings. -New Zealand, 127; Smith of Scotland, 71 and 70 for seven wickets. Yorkshire, Drawn—New Zealand, 135 [or seven wickets; Yorkshire, 577. Nottinghamshire. Drawn.—New Zealand, 277; Notts, 280 for six wickets. East of England. Won by eight wickets. —New Zealand,- 243 and 76 for two wickets: East of England, 170 and 145. Civil Service. Won by an innings and 15 runs.—New Zealand, 421 for seven wickets (declared); Civil Service, 256 and 150. The Army. Drawn.—New Zealand, 184; The Army, 179 for five wickets. Warwickshire. Drawn.—New Zealand, 492 for six wickets (declared); Warwickshire, 235 and 188 for seven wickets. West of England Drawn.—New Zealand, 230 for eix wickets (declared); West of England, 93 for nine wieket*. Glamorgan. Won by 206 runs.—Now Zealand, 345 and 205 for seven wickets (declared) ; Glamorgan 145 and 199. ■ Surrey. Drawn.—Ne.w Zealand, 313 and 371; Surrey, 377 and 234 for eight wickets. Somerset. Won by 94 runs.-—New Zealand, 150 and 128; Somerset, 117 and 67. Gloucestershire. Drawn. Now Zealand, 415 for nine wickets (declared); Gloucestershire, 148 and three for 1.30. Derbyshire. Won by an innings and 240 ri i, ls ._New Zealand, 541 for nine, wickets (declared); Derbyshire, 129 and 172. Lancashire. Drawn.— New Zealand, one for 57; Lancashire. 220. Cumberland. Won by an innings and 18 runs.—New Zealand, 302; Cumberland, 154 and 130. Bedfordshire. Drawn.—Bedford, five for 55. Norfolk. Won by an innings and 97runa. —New Zealand, 312; Norfolk, 104 and 111. Richmond Chib. Won on first innings.— New Zealand, 221 for eight wickets; Richmond, 100. Kent. Lost by 58 runs. New Zealand. —293 and 317. Kent, 405 and 263 for eight wickets (declared). Wales. Drawn.—New Zealand, 130 and two for 124; Wales, 182 and 183 for nine wickets (declared). The Cygnets. Drawn.—New Zealand, 195; The Cygnets, 250 for six wickets (declared). Mr H. D. G. Loveaon-Gowcr's Eleven. Drawn.—New Zealand, 447 and 103 for three wickets; L cveson-Gower’s team, 516. Summary.—Played 39, won 14, lost 5, drawn 20. The following inloresting statistics ha ve been supplied to me by Dir W. Itowland, the official scorer to _ the, 0.C.A., whoso accuracy and enthusiasm is well known : AVERAGES. ALL MATCHES.

Ccnr.ingluim !'•> 12U \ 23 8.00 * Not out. Also balled: Plumldl 3.U0, Hay 2 not out, Fox 100, Caltlcr 1100.

Page 1 31 3 J Run out 14, hit wicket J, retired hurt 1. box and Hay caught I each. NEW ZEALAND'S HIGHEST SCORES', v. Marlineaux XI. Nine lor 586. Second class match. Won, v. M.C.C, Ten (or hlill Fir-l class match. Drawn, v. Sussex. Ten (or 4(1(1. First match. Won. v. Nut thumherland. len (or 470. Second class match. Won. v. Warwickshire, Six for 492. Second class match. Drawn, v. Derbyshire. Niue (or 511. hirst class match. Worn NEW ZEALAND'S LOWEST SCORES, v. South of Scotland. Ten fur 127. Second class mat e h. Won. v. Armv. Ten for 181. First class match. Drawn. V. Somerset. ’Jen lor 128. hirst class match. Won. v. Wales. Ten (or 3110. First class match. Drawn. OPPONENTS’ HIGHEST SCORES. MCC Four (or 42(1. I’icit class match. Drawn. MA7C. Ten (or 31)2. hirst class match. Drawn. Essex. Ten (or 373. hirst class match. Won. Yorkshire. Ten lor 1177. First class match. Drawn. Surrey. Ten (or 1177 First class match. Drawn. Kent." Ten for 405. hirst class match. Won. OPPONENTS' LOWEST SCORES. Royal Nam. Ten (or J4l. hirst c!a,s match. ’ Drawn. , , Dmham. Ten (or 12:5. Second class match. Lost. South ot Scollind. Tm (or 71. Second class match. Lo-t. Eas, nl England. 'Jen for 145. hirst class match. 1.0'.}. Soinr , r>f't. ’J >’ti for JB, trn f*- 1 ' f* l ■ I'n >t U* mrih'h. 1,0-M. I).-, by-hue. 'Dm (or 125. Fir-1 rla-s match. Lost. Cumberland. Ton (or 150. .Second class match. Lot. Norfolk, 'hen for 104, ten (or HI. Second class nuitrh. I .O'!. Kicl'inond Club. Ten for 100. Second clnss match. Lost. CENTURIES FOR NEW ZEALAND (27). Dempster <li) -10(1 not out, y. Club Com; 178, v. Durham; 15t,, v. ScuUish Counties; 180, v. Warwirkshire;' 1(17 not uul, v. Glamorgan; Ull, v. Surrey. Mills (51-188, v. Martineau; 105 not out, v. Civil Service; mi, v. Surrey; Hit) not out, V. Derbyshire; 152, v, L-vei son-Gower's XL Blunt (41-119, V. Martineau; ,105, v. North unberland; 103, v. Kent; Jill, v. I.ecrsou-Gowcr's Dacre (41-lUI, v. Martineau; 197, v. M.C.C.; .1117 v. Edinburgh; 17(1, v. Derbyshire. Dowry (41-lllfi. v. E-x: W, v. Sussex; 106, v. Worcestershire; 101 not out, v. GluuccsterAlkolt (21-102 not nut, v. Cnil Service; 131, v. Warwirkshire. Page (2)-134, v. Cambiidge; 140 not out, r. Worcestershire. CENTURIES BY OPPONENTS (20). Wilkinson 101 (Martineau). Titchmarsh 171. (M.C.C.). Lvon HO (M.C.C.). Allen 104 not out (M.C.C,), Seabtouk 100 (Cambridge). Dawson 107 (Cambridge). Tuck 125 (Koval Navy). Hunt 100 (Club Con.). Newman 133 (Club Con,), K. Holmes 165 (Oxford). Cook 10G not out (Durham). Pritchard 103 not out (Northumberland). Hay 115 (Scottish Counties). P. Holmes 175 not out (Yorkshire). Lcyland 118 (Yorkshire). Clay 113 not out (Glamorgan). Hobbs 14G (Surrey). Ducat 100 (Surrey). E. Tvldeslev 124 (Lanta«hiie). Wcolicy 125 (Kent). FAILED TO SCORE. Beruau 7. Mills 4, Dacre 4, M'Girr 4, Page 4, Oliver 3, Henderson 3, Cunningham 3, Blunt James 2, Merritt 3, Allcolt 1, Dempster 1, Lowery 1. MATCHES PLAYED IN (38, Bedfordshire Excluded.) Merritt 3G, Page 3(1, Dempster Lowery 34, Darre 33, Mills 33, James 32, Blunt 31, M'Girr 30, Allcolt 27, .Bnuaii 25, Henderson 24, Oliver 21, Cunningham 18. FIVE WICKETS OK MORE IN ONE INNINGS. Allcolt, live for 3, live for 40. Born.iu, six for 3a. Blunt, seven for 10!.*, *oix (or 88. Dacre, five for five for 2”, five for fi\e for 00. Lowiv, six for Merritt, six for 92, live (or (id, right for 140, eight (or 77, five (or 22, six for 38, live (or 105, six (or G 3. five for 30, five lor 49, five for IS, six (or 34, six for 185. M'Girr, five for 21, six (or 77, five (or 71, five (or Id. Page, six for 7G TOTAL NEW ZEALAND SCORES. Wickets, 466. Runs, 15,125. Average, 32.45. TOTAL OPPONEN 1 S’ SCORES. Wickets, GDI. Runs, 14,236. Average, 23.78. RESULT OF MATCHES. Played 39; won, 14; lost, 5; drawn, 20. MANY MATTERS. Highe-t individual score for New ZealandBlunt (195). , „ . Most centuries for New Zealand —Dempster ((>)■ Most runs (or New Zealand—Dempster (2,231). Most wickets (or New Zealand—Merritt (173) Most “ ducks ” for New Zealand—Bernau (7). Most “ riot outs ’’ for New Zealand—Merritt (171 Most matches played in-Page and Merritt (36). Most times howled—Mills (22). Most limes caught—Blunt, Dempster, Lowry (.6). Most limes Ihw—Page (8). Mo-t times stumped—M'Girr and Page (3' Most times run out—M'Girr and James (3). Most limes opponents bowled—Merritt (.>3•Most limes opponents caught—James (45). Most times opponents Ihw—Merritt (14). Mo-t limes opponents si limped—James (4a). Highest score by team—sß6 (lor nine wickets). Lowest score bv team—l 27. Highest score by opponents—426 (tor four wickets}. Lowest score hv opponents —G 7. Highest individual score against—P. Holmes (175 not out). New Zealand's biggest win—One innings and 249 runs. New Zealand's most severe defeat —5 wickets. 2,000 RUNS AND OVER. The list of overseas batsmen who have succeeded in scoring 2,060 runs nr over during a lour of England is as follows:

Dempster BATTING. Inn. Runs. ... Ill 2,231. N.O. S ITS. ISO Av. .14.41 Tilmil ... 44 2,000 ;{ 00.33 Mills ... ... so 1,077 8 ms 33.113 D.'ion! ... ... 41 .1,51)0 — 17« 30.27 Dowry ... -«i i,430 i ion 3S.no rn«" ... ... 48 1,3711 5 MO* 32.07 Merritt ... -n 78(1 17 SO* 28.88 Allciilt ... Ho 7,1:! 8 131 27.88 MT.irr ... :w 801) 73 21.80 James . ... 42 OIS 8 SI I0.0S Oliver . ... 31 381 Ji • 48 14.OS Herman ... :i2 3(1!) 41 13.17 Henderson ... 22 Kill 30 10.00

BOWLING. , Wickets, Runs. Aver. l)emp>lcr Merrill Page ... Dacro MT.Irr ... ::: ... u ... 173 ... M ... >7 73 203 3,341 700 343 1,712 18.47 10.31 10,04 20.17 23.47 Henderson . ... 47 1,120 «d.d.» Lowry Blunt ... ... ... 2.7 ... 'H til 17 2.2H2 21.38 ... 3ft nod 20.10 Allcott Cunningham Mill? - ::: ... 37 ... 21 ... 4 ooo Oil 140 . 20.70 30.70 Oliver , ... 1 211 211.00 lames ... ... ... G — AU> bowled ; Blundell. 0.38. AVKRACI-S IN' FIRST-CLASS MATCH F.S. 'J'he following averages lor first-class matches ‘ HATTING. Jnn. Runs. N.O. H.S . Av. r>'iii|islcr 37 1,130 7 180 44.08 Blunt ... 38 1,740 3 131 44.00 Lowry ... 37 1,277 4 100 38.00 Mills ... M. . 30 1,271 0 172 37.00 ... . ... 30 U7t — 140 34.00 Dacro ... ... 34 1,070 — 170 31.47 ... 20 'OH 4 131 20.27 Merritt .t, ... ... 33 738 13 70 2ti.no M'tlirr ... 30 737 I 7.3 27.41 . . . 30 411. r. 44 10.44 Oliver 17 213 3 :«» 17.21 Cunningham ft (12 3 23 12.10 Henderson U Oft 3 ;m 1I1.8S Beruau ... 20 ' 203 i 34 10.08 BOWLING. Over-. Aldus. Units. Wkls, Aver 70 13 Idd ft 10.02 Demister ... dl \ 101 (i 17.33 ... 182.1 72 m 23 21.07 ... 70.S.2 114 2,730 107 23.01 Henderson ... 27:1.3 (it 7dd :'d21.21 ... 270.7 77 777 32 24,21 ... 301,1 lift 840 34 24.70 Blunt ... UK).:. 100 1,018 7k 24,07 M't.irr ... ... m 117 1.370 •tn 27.07 ... 173,2 :;o 43(1 17 30.00 Cunningham 75 13 207 ’ 7 73.00 ALo bmvPd: Mi IN, t overs no maidens .12 runs, I wicket; Oliver, 33 overs, ft maidens, Si runs, J [ wicket. HOW .OUT. Bowled. Caught. LBW . Slmpd. K.U. A Moot t ... ... 8 17 i — I Bornau ... ... r, 13 (J 1 Binnl ... ... ... ,ii — ~~ Cunningham ... <i 4 Dacro ... ... PI 2(1 — DompMer ... .... H ... 3 21 (i -I 3 i fames ... ... pi 14 0 i l.owrv ... ... 123 — M'tlirr ... ... Id 11 3 3 Merritt ... ... 51 Id Mills ... ... ... 2d 17 — Oliver ... ... PI n a - Pad.: ... ... !» 23 s d •— l-ox and 1 Blundell caught 1 cmh. bald n - burs led. l.owr v absent ill, 1. HOW OPPONliNTS OCT. Allcolt Bowled. 13 Canfht. LBW. Stumped. J — Bornau ... 27 ' i; — Blum ... ... 111! 2d a — Cunningham (i 13 4 i Dacrc ... ... 3 Id Dempster Henderson ... 1 12 pi 1 - James Lowrv !) 43 ;io 2 S M'Girr ... 30 17 8 — Merritt ... SI! Id J1 Mills ... ... 2 Ifi — Oliver ... ... 14 “1

Year. Batsmen. In. N.O. 11.S. Total. Aver. 1002—Trumper .. 52 n 12S 2.570 48.40 1(1(15—Noble ■to 2 2(17 2,081 44,34 1005—Armstrong AS i an;)* 2,002 48,82 1 MW—Bard-ley ..... 51 4 210 2,180 40.30 1012—Macartney" .50 1 208 2,207 45.04 19)2—Bardslcy ... 55 r, 184* 2.441 51.03 1921—Macartney 42 2 045 2,345 58.37 1021—Bard-ley ... 44 4 200 2,218 55.45 1927—Dempster ... 49 8 180 2,231 54.41 1927— Blunt 44 3 105 2,003 50,30