PLUNKET SHIELD

Hokitika Guardian, 15 March 1930, Page 3

PLUNKET SHIELD

DISSATISFITD CBITICS.

In the course of a lengthy editorial under the caption of “The Plunket Shield Loss,” the Auckland “Her. aid” makes the following observations:—“(l) The fact remains that this season’s winners have been lucky, just as Auckland was lucky last year, whatever credit may bo due to Wellington for their stubborn efforts to evade defeat. It may be objected that the method of scoring the points allowed for this anomalous possibility. This is certainly so, but it is to be questioned whether those responsible for this method of reaching a result intended that a side saved by the time limit for impending defeat should thereby be accounted champions.

‘There arc occasions when the ‘digging in’ style of play is hilly warranted, as when there is no time to make the required runs, or the

j pitch is unfitted for any other tactics, hut in this instance there was time and the pitch gave the howlers no very appreciable advantage. When Auckland’s second innings was declared the rate of scoring of just . above a run a minute would have i given Wellington victory, and that is fairly bright, but not brilliant, cricket. The game was then open and the Auckland captain must be given credit for trying to get an outright win, while at the same time allowing Wellington a chance of turning the tables. That decision was good cricket. The response made by Wellington was not so good.

“The Plunket Shield was meant to foster the good of the game rather than to promote dull cricket, even when played in eagerness to get ibis trophy. When the opportunity is afforded for dashing play is should be eagerly seized. It was not seized. | When a capable batsman is content to take fifty minutes to score two tuns there can be little doubt what his instructions were, yet, when this criticism is levelled, as it must be, against

■Wellington’s choice of ways to win the shield, a sense of justice dictates that an exception should be made. Whatever his general instructions were the Wellington captain himself batted with scoring vigour, as well as dogged defence—an interesting instance of example being better than precept. And at least one other of the side was not satisfied to be purely defensive. In appraising the factors contributory to the result their share must be ungrudgingly applauded. “Auckland’s poor fielding quite as much as Wellington’s defensive tactics brought about the result. There is no cure but organised fielding practice.

“When the story of this season’s Plunket Shield matches is recounted emphasis should finally be laid not on Wellington’s timid tactics, or good fortune, but on Auckland’s bad showing in the field. If the loss of the provincial premiership should bring about some heart-searching and amendment here in this respect then ultimately it will be Auckland, rather than Wellington, that will have to be congratulated on the result of Ibis series ui tests ”