CRICKET

Hokitika Guardian, 9 January 1926, Page 3

CRICKET

N.Z. V. NEWCASTLE, nv telegraph—per press association. SYDNEY, January 8. At Newcastle, the local cricket team met New Zealand. Newcastle in the irst innings scored 214. NEW(‘A ST I. E— First I n nings. Harbour, e Lowry, l> Cunningham -79 Wells. I) Blunt 88 Cameron, b Cunningham 0 Hell, e Alloo, l> Cunningham ... 12 lohiison. I) Blunt 0 Morrissey, e Alloo. b Blunt ... 32 Bramble, h Blunt 3 O'Brien, s Lowry, b Blunt 9 Vllsop. e Alleott. b Cunningham 9 Mov (not out) 1 Starratt. e Lowry, li Cunningham I Extras f)

Total 214 Howling analysis: Cunningham five 'or 12 : Blunt five for 43; Oliver 0 for : Patrick 0 for 2; Mclleath 0 for 3D; Wloo (I lor 32: Alleott 0 for 2(5. New Zealand in the first innings were three wickets for 95: Blunt, c Hell, b Move 13 '). Worker (not out) 31 Alloo. h Morrissey 5 Da ere. 1.1i.w.. fi Mnrriscy 22 Lowry (not out) Id Stumps were then drawn. AUCKLAND V. CANTERBURY. AUCKLAND. January S. The Pluuket Shield match between ~nd and Canterbury was eomneneed at Eden Park this morning in fine weather. The wicket was tricky during the morning, hut improved greatly as the day proceeded. AUCKLAND-r-First Innings. .Mills, e Cassoii. I> MeEwin 13 ! lorspool. 1 1 Read 18 'nedden. b Talbot 31 111 i11 1 , <• Bead. !> Talbot II Anthony, o Gasson. b Bead ... I I Cooper, l> Bead 70 Fra ter, c Bruuton, h Read 13 Gerrard (not out) 71 Player, b Findlay 58 Simpson, b Bead 29 Extras 21 Total for nine wickets ... 40(5 married cricketers. ENGLISH PRESS COMMENT. LONDON. Jan. 8. “Sporting (.fife” says; The edict has gone forth, not only that the Australians shall not bring their wives, hut that the ladies, poor things, must not stir off the doorstep while the •non folk are away. If Australians have so wholesome a fear of petticoat government they can hardlv do ot-lier-

'Flic “Daily Telegraph" says: “Wc •exist the temptation to speculate ;• to what would happen if some revolting wife defied tin* control of her husband by the hoard and sallied forth from the Uistralian shore. Perhaps the Australian wife is hotter disciplined than he English wife. It is not for us to •ritcise the Australian rules of trailing. Wondrous tales are told of their irowess in eating and drinking by (omo of the past masters of cricket. Your modern first class player is more ikelv to keep Ids eye on a little oatmeal; but there will ho no enthusiasm lore to follow the Australian example, rt is excellent to insist on the rigor of the game, hut Englishmen will lie inrfined to add that cricket, even test -rieket, is only a game, and that there ■ire dangers in taking the game too seriously. LONDON, January ,9. The “Daily Express” in a leader, says: “Australia’s secret is at least revealed. Why has she been able to keep those ashes? Beeauo she sternly separated her cricketers from their wives, not only in test matches here but in inter-State matches within the Commonwealth. These cricket widows are now forbidden to visit England. It is possible to hope that our own cricketers will emulate the Spartan example and make temporary widows of their wives in order to meet the wifeless Diggers on equal terms? How can they expect to hat, howl and' field with wives figuratively around their necks, hut perhaps a wife is only a handicap in Australia, and our men can blend cricket with connuhility.” CRICKET CONTROVERSY. [“Sydney Sun” Cables.] LONDON". January 8. Parkin in the “Daily Mail ” says: “ I have a painful recollection of having had to darn my own socks in Australia and I will never travel again without a wife.”