Cricket.

Free Lance, Volume I, Issue 28, 12 January 1901, Page 17

Cricket.

THE representative match between Auckland and Wellington has been the absorbing theme in cricket circles this week. It is unfortunate that a portion of the match could not have been arranged to be played on a Saturday, as it would have been bound to have attracted a considerable attendance of the general public. As it was, Monday and Tuesday being ordinary working days, only the enthusiasts or the unemployed could manage a few hours' leave to see the game, and the rain on Wednesday kept a lot away. * * * The weather during the first two days was disagreeable enough in all conscience — a stiff northerly wind hampering the bowlers greatly from the southern end. The third day, however, was still worse, for the rain, which had been threatening from the start, came down, and the Aucklanders' chance of winning was gone. In the end, they suffered defeat by an innings and 13 runs. * * » The first day's play commenced at 2 o'clock, and Upham, winning the toss, sent the Aucklanders into the field. The Wellington team kept their wickets up all the afternoon, the score standing at 272 runs for five v. ickets when stumps were drawn. Midlane (104), Clark (76), and Tucker (70) were the largest contributors. Clarks innings was an excellent display of free forceful cricket. Going in when things were none too good for his team, he met everything with the face of his bat in the most confident spirit, his cutting, driving, and leg-hitting being as good as anything yet seen on the Basin Reserve. One chance — an easy one, and that when he had made 66— was all that could be debited to him. I offer my congratulations. Midlane's innings was marked principally by steady careful play. Anything with the least bit of mischief in it could not tempt him, but the loose stuff that wanted hitting found him in an accommodating humour. His innings was a valuable one, and again emphasises the statement that I have made before — what would the colt be if he had the chances of say a Giffen to bring him out? Tucker was a long while in getting comfortable, but at the opening of his innings Lusk was bowling really well. When "Ken" settled down his cutting was in his own approved style, and the boundary was often reached. The manner of Holdsworth's dismissal was peculiar. He drove a "no ball" from Stemson to the deep field, and then Midlane and he leisurely strolled along the sward to exchange places. Meanwhile the ball was returned to the bowler, and he promptly removed Holdsworth's bails, with the result that the batsman was given "run out." This is the only way in which a player can be out off a "no-ball," and the experience* though a dear one, should prove valuable. The bowling of the Aucklandeis lacked sting — although it must be said that Clark was responsible for weakening it, and the poor assistance rendered by the field was accountable for the batsmen not being dismissed earlier. Clark was dropped by Elliott, and the wicketkeeper missed Midlane when Tucker was associated with him. Stephens, the mainstay of the Auckland attack, had the bad luck to get a nasty crack on the thumb of the bowling hand, and on eroing on the second time a knock on the knee disabled him altogether. Stemson did not appear to me to bowl as fast as of yore. Elliotts average was the best— three for 58. * * * The second day's play was remarkable first for a fine innings by Hay for Auckland (of which more anon), and, second, for the number of chances not accepted by the Auckland fieldsmen. Wellington's innings totalled 397— Crombie (63), Upham (44), and Duncan (10) being the additional scorers. Crombie's innings was a good one, considering it was his introduction to representative cricket. This batsman puts a lot of power behind his strokes, and badly punishes anything loose. Upham had a lot of luck in making his score, but as he went in to make runs and force the pace, it was only to be expected that some of his strokes would be uppish. After watching Up,ham for some time now , I have com© to the conclusion that he is a better bat than he gives himself credit for being.

With such a big score to start to wipe off, it was only natural the Aucklanders should consider they had an almost impossible task before them' to save defeat. Still, so well did they bat that at the end of the day's play there appeared a good prospect of making a draw of the mateh — if they could not win. Their innings realised 262 runs— Hay (144), Elliott (24), I. Mills (22), W. Mills (21), and Stemson (19) doing their share towards the total. Hay proved positively that the selector of the last New Zealand team made a mistake in leaving him out of it. Going in first he was the last man out, and the only things that could be brought against him were an easy chance of stumping early in his innings, and what looked like a positive case of "out" from the same cause when he had scored 60. He scored his first 30 runs in about two hours, but he rattled up the other 94 runs in an hour and a half. A fine display of good cricket — •his > driving being especially strong. It is not often I have noticed TTpham and Hales hit past themselves to the boundary, yet this was the way Hay treated them. tie recehed a great ovation from the spectators, and right well he deserved it. W. Mills had six scoring strokes — five 4's and a single. Up in the press stand he was dubbed "the smiter, but although he hits hard he is not exactly that kind of batsman, as he plays the good bowling. He had 13 (not out) to his credit at the end of the day's play in the second innings. Elliotts was a good innings, and Stephens kept his end up well— the main features of their stay being that Hay was piling the score up from the other end. I. Mills and Stemson only got fairly going when they were sent back, but they showed that there is plenty or good cricket left in them yet. "Ike" was always a sound bat, but, in my opinion, Stemson has improved wonderfully. In the days when I had the opportunity of watching his play he used to hit everything — good, bad, and indifferent-^-but now he displays all the art of a finished batsman. Tucker's bowling average was the best— six wickets for 91. His bowling was full of tricks, and heady. Upham (three for 78) bowled well against the wind. Mr. Cross, the umpire, calmly seated at square-leg, found minself in the way of a smack by Hay, which had force enough to knock him off his perch, and spread-eagle him on the grass. * » > The follow-on rule caused a lot of contention— in fact, nobody seemed to know how many runs the Aucklanders had to make to save the "follow." All the rule there was to guide one was the 120 runs of a deficiency, although it was well known that that rule had been altered by the Marylebone Club. This should be a good argument in favour of an Umpires' and Scorers' Association, or of infusing a little more life into the New Zealand Cricket Association, with the object of having the latest rulings by the parent body brought into force in the colony as early as possible after they become law. *■ * * The third day's play was noticeable for the, fine score made by W. Mills (48), and the palpable tail of the Auckland team. When the two Mills's were batting there seemed a prospect of a decent score being put on, but, after them, Stemson (10) and Hay (20, not out) were the only batsmen to show any resistance to the opposing attack. W. Mills batted in good style, and laid the wood on to advantage, his runs coming mainly from drives and pulls to the on boundary. Stemson started well, but he was not allowed to stay long enough to display much of his quality. Hay could not get any one to stay with him, and had to be content with a not out innings of 20. I. Mills showed a lot of his old form in compiling his few runs — -although he seemed content to keep his wicket up while his youneer brother piled on the runs. Tucker bowled exceedingly well, coming out of the innings with the average of seven for 66. His figures for the match read thirteen wickets for 157. Clark was successful with the ball in the second innings— three for 39. He was not tried in the first innings, owing to stiffness caused by an accident tke morning of the match. «.•(■«. Messrs. Lundon, Cross, and McKenzie acted as umpires, and their decisions gave satisfaction. The small boys were in strong evidence, and were unstinted in their applause. A yell of delight rose from them when Clark was dropped, and they gave Midlane a great reception when he came out. In the case of Hay they went farther still, for they managed to raise a hearty cheer for him. # • ♦ Commenting on a cricket match in its district, the Taranaki "Weekly Record"

says: — "As showing the ruses adopted by the New Plymouth bowlers* to get nd of their opponent!*, on© of them resorted to the somewhat primitive style of underhand bowling. He secured* wicket by what in oricket parlance used to be termed 'a Sydney grabber.' " I cannot for the life of me see the unfairness of underhand bowling, and why a bowler indulging in the? same should be the subject of an adverse paragraph. I have never heard of a "Sydney grabber," either; perhaps the scribe in this instance meant a "grubber." This brings an instance to my mind which happened in Napier some years ago now. One of the batsmen was defying all efforts to shift him by means of a crouching forward stroke — very effective _ in keeping up the wickets, but neither graceful nor producing any runs. Bruce, who was bowling from one end, started throwing them up with both hands — one with the right hand, and the succeeding one with the left. This, however, did not avail, as the batsman was old enough to know that he ought no have a fresh centre with each change of delivery. Talking of underhand bowling, not so long ago a player named Thomas used to bowl that style in senior cricket in Auckland, and very effective it was, too, in keeping down runs. * * * Auckland plays Hawke's Bay on Saturday and Monday. My notes on last Saturday's play are unavoidably crowded out, but will appear with those on the second day's play of the matches in progress next week.