CRICKET NOTES.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1224, 5 February 1878, Page 3

CRICKET NOTES.

By Not Out. [phom thb peess.] Since my last your readers will have seen that the great match between the Australian Eleven and the Canterbury Fifteen, about which there has been so much said, has been played, and resulted in a victory for the local team by six wickets. The game from the commencement was very exciting, and the crowds of peoplo who visited the ground each day testified to the great interest taken in the play. From the first I think the Australians held our representatives too cheaply, not that this made much difference in their play ; but it was evidently their opinion, and that of a great many residents here, that it was a piece of presumption on the part of our Match Committee to play only Fifteen against the redoubtable Australian Champions, who had beaten a Fifteen of Sydney, and then a combined Fifteen of New South Wales and Victoria. The result has shown, however, that they were fully justified in their opinion, and they deserve some praise for the great success which ha 9 attended their decision in this matter. Had an Eighteen been played, I think the result would, have been far less favorable to the Australians, aud therefore the interest in the game after the first day would have decreased. The opinion which I expressed before the match that our representatives would make a good match of it, if they did not win, has been fully carried out ; and after seeing the play on both sides, I still think that our Fifteen are quite as strong as the Eleven that have just played iu the late match, but from what I have heard and read I believe that, with the assistance of Allen and Evans, the Australians would be much stronger, and therefore much more able to contend against odds. It must not be forgotten that fifteen in the field are long odds to play against without the greater number to bat, especially when they are all good fields—and this our men undoubtly are. Although some catches were missed in the first innings, the second proved that these were accidents that sometimes hapren to the best of fieldsmen, as shown in A. Bannerman, an acknowledged good field, missing two catches in the match against Wellington. Judging from what I saw of the play of our visitors, I cannot see that they have displayed any better cricket than I have sometimes witnessed by our own men. Their defence was certainly very line on the second day, but, with one or two exceptions, they lacked batting power. Their style was not good, certainly not up to that displayed frequently by E. Fowler, Lee, Godby, Ashby, Neilson, aud Corfe. C. Bannennan has a line free style of playing when once set, and would always be a dangerous man. Moran has a most stubborn defence, and would tire the patience of any bowler. Murdoch played a pretty jrmi»K« the second tijne. «W 1 tJUqis

showed the best style of any of the Australians, combining good defence with free hitting. Gregory in the first innings played in good form, but showed very bad judgment in allowing himself to be run out. A. Bannerman hits freely, especially to leg, but has a very bad habit, after asking the umpire if his feet are clear of the wicket, of putting them both in front. This may be awkward for some bowlers, but it is very dangerous to bowling over the wicket, and cannot always be certain of playing the ball. In Wellington, I see, he was given out twice as leg before, at which I am not at all surprised. His brother, C. Bannerman, has the same fault, but not to so great an extent. Spofforth showed he could defend his wickets in the second innings, but does not make use of his height as he should; he also has the prevailing fault of want of hitting power. Of the others I did not see sufficient to form an idea of their capabilities, defensive or otherwise. Of couse these remarks are made simply upon the form displayed in the late contest, which may not have been a fair criterion. Their fielding was good, especially that of A. Bannerman, but there were some mistakes duriDg the first innings, and the second, as far as it went, was of very short duration. Their bowling was at times good, but nothing so wonderful as reports had led me to suppose, and I must confess to have been rather disappointed. Spofforth has the the best analysis, but his wickets cost him eight runs each, and that against a Fifteen, and therefore presumably against inferior batsmen, while Fuller has an average of a wicket for four and a half runs. Kendall has a wonderful work on the ball, and can also, I understand, make the ball break, but he is not always to be relied upon. Garrett has a grand delivery, with good pace, and at times a great break, but he did not come off here. I was rather surprised at seeing Gregory put himself on at his own umpire's end, as I understand he is constantly "noballed" in Sydney, and if such be the case he should have given the Canterbury umpire an opportunity of judging. It certainly looked very mnch like a throw, and at times I think there could be but little question of the fact. However, as he was not successful, it did not matter.

Of the Canterbury play there were some faults, but upon the whole they are to be congratulated upon their display, and great credit is due to Mr Neilson for the excellent way in which he acted in his capacity as captain. Although many of onr best players disappointed me, there was some very good batting shown by Neilson and Baker on the lirst day ; in fact, I think this was the most perfect during the match. Their defence was good, and their hitting very free and well timed. At one time they made twenty runs in nine minutes, which proves 'the hitting must have been pretty hard. Moore also played a good innings, but a hit on the head from the ball when it was being returned to the wicket spoilt his chance of a long score to a great extent. Ollivier has the double honor of being the highest scorer, winning the cup presensed by Messrs. Peterson and Co., and having played the luckiest innings. Mr Conway, the agent for the Australian Eleven, ever saw during his long cricketing experience. Truly he must be a fortunate cricketer, or Mr Conway must have played the game with his eyes shut. I should not mind venturing an opinion that Mr Conway has played as lucky an innings himself, but then perhaps he never saw it. Leach was nicely set in the second innings when Moore unhappily ran him out, which was a great loss to Canterbury, as he was playing in fine style. Corfe gave the visitors a specimen of his hitting and running powers. Three 4's, a2, and a single were soon made before a good ball from Spofforth passed his bat. Lee played in splendid style for his not out innings of 12, quite surprising several of those who professed to know all about it, and included him in the much despised tail as they put it. The bowling was very good throughout the match, as evidenced by the slow scoring, but a loose ball frequently escaped just punishment. On the lively wicket on Saturday the Australians were all abroad, and as an excuss called the wicket bumpy; but I maintain that there is a great difference between the two, and that it was not bumpy, as the ball came true from the pith at first, and if there were any cause to complain of the wicket afterwards, it was owing to the way in which the visitors ran on the pitch when running between the wickets. I am very much mistaken if they do not find the grounds in England quite as lively, if not bumpy ; and if they cannot play better on that description of wicket than they did here, their chances of winn : ng many matches at home are not very rosy. During the second innings, after two days' rain, the wicket fell dead, and consequently all the life was out of the bowling; but on the third day it had improved very much, and the poor stand made by the last four wickets of the Australians is a proof of this. Fuller was in good form in the second innings, and was very successful. His analysis shows best of any in the match, having obtained his wickets at a less cost and in less balls bowled than any other on either side. C. Frith, although unfortunate, was very hard to score off, as eighteen consecutive overs for 4 runs and a wicket prove. W. Frith was in great form in the first innings, obtaining three wickets for 2 runs, but was not so well on in the seeond. Ashby bowled wibh bad luck, as several catches were given off him which should have been taken. The fielding of our cricketers was very good, especially in the second innings. In the first some lazy catches were missed, which spoilt the appearance of the whole ; but I was immensely pleased with Leach at cover-point, W. Frith at short-leg (forward), J. Fowler, cover point (back) and deep square-leg, Corfe at mid-off, Moore at point, and E. Fowler at the wickets. Ollivier was also good at longst'ip, the two byes being caused by the wicket-keeper's pads. Lee in the second innings made amends for his misfortune in the first. Baker was very good, and if he could start a little quicker he would be perfection. The return to the wickets was without exception good. Taking the match all together, I can safely assert that finer all-round play has never been shown in New Zealand than by the two teams in this match, and, as the result shows that our visitors were nearly as good as our Fifteen, the palm must be awarded to them, as they played the smaller number.