Cricket.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 3500, 23 March 1905, Page 2

Cricket.

AUSTRALIA v NEW ZEALAND. (By “Long Field.”) I war present on the second day rftnc match Australia v. New Zealand. The Australians, who had been batting overnight, continued their innings, Gehrs and Cotter opening. Both batnmen played aggressive cricket, and the Score mounted quickly, the bowlers appearing to give the batsmen little trouble. Beyond an occasional good stroke, however, the play from a spectator’s point of,view was uneventful. Duff, whb replaced Gehrs. gave ah excellent exhibition of hard hitting, his score of fifty-one being mostly made up of hits to the boundary. Duff, by the way, is in keeping with his name. He is of short stature, but well-built and powerful looking, of the type _ known as “ knobby.” Ori Duff’s retirement the famous Victor Trumper came out, and interest in the. play livened. Trumper at first scored mostly by singles, and some smart running was done between the wickets by him and Gehrs. _ The , latter, however, soon lost his wicket, and Hill filled the crease. Then commenced a grand partnership lasting over a large part of the afternoon, and during which 270 runs were added. Trumper hit with equal impartiality all over the field, and his masterly strokes were a treat to witness. Trumper’s favourite hit is a kind of driving-cut, and a large number of his runs were scored in this way. During Ins long innings of 173 he gave only one chance —a difficult catch in the outfield —and on returning to the pavilion he received a well deserved ovation from the crowd. Trumpets score included three hits for 6’s, His companion, Hill, also gave a sterling exhibition of batting. At the start he did not score so rapidly at Trumper, but Wheri he got going he.,.punished the bowling with great severity. _ He was specially hard on Ollivier, knocking 22 off ode of the latter’s overs, including three mighty bangs over the ropes for 6’s. Hill's innings of 139 was marred by two chances, one a rather difficult catch, but otherwise his display was all that could be desired. The South Australian is inclined to be corpulent, but it does not seem to affect his running powers. Neither Hill nor Trumper at any time’ assumed the defensive. It was, as the Australian captain afterwards said, merely “ scientific slogging” on their part. This was no doubt on account of the weak bowling. Still, the bowlers were very plucky, and in justice to them it must be said that they received little assistance from the field. On Hill retiring, bowled, Armstrong took his place, but Trumper did not long survive the change, and Noble went to the wickets. After the brilliant Hill-Trumper combination, the play was by contrast tame, and nothing eventful occurred up to the time ol drawing stumps, about 5.30 p.m. Of New Zealanders, Callaway was far and away the best bowler. Although he was worked a great deal, he bowled well throughout, and received more consideration from the batsmen than did any ot the other trundlers. In the field New Zealand was not seen to advantage. Blacklock (Wellington) was perhaps the best, and Boxhall behind the wickets was very safe. Taken on the whole the Australian batting fulfilled expectations, but one would have liked to have seen them batting on the defensive occasionally. The bowling vej-y apparently did not necessitate this, but a variation from the constant hitting would have been welcome.

In conclusion I may say that I came away firmly convinced that New Zealanders do not find their forte in cricket.