CRICKET.

Putaruru Press, Volume II, Issue 25, 3 April 1924, Page 3

CRICKET.

NATIVES V. PUTARURU. A cricket, match between a native team from v aotu and the Putaruru team took place at Putaruru on Sunday. The natives proved the winners by •H runs to 78, the scores being as follow:

NATIVES.—First Inning's. Bonner, c Lees, b Faulkner .. 2 W. Phillip*?, b Faulkner . . . . 2 Kite, b James . . . . . . o M. Phillips, run out . . . . 0 Nuggctt Waea, b Faulkner .. 6 Waea, sen., 1.b.w., b Faulkner . . 9 Kopa, not out . . . . . . 4 lerei, sen., c G. W. Brown, b Faulkner 0 Darcy, b James . . . . . . 2 Hans, c James, b Faulkner . . 3 Hestrie, b James . . . . . . 3 Extras . . .. .. .. 3 Total . . .. . . 34 Second Innings. Hestrie, b James . . . . . . 0 Kite, b Faulkner . . . . . . 0 Kopa, b Faulkner . . . . .. 1 Bonner, b James .. . . . . 0 Waea, sen., c H. Leslie, b James 5 N. Waea, b G. W. Brown . . 30 W. Phillips, b G. W. Brown . . 12 M. Phillips, not out . . . . 4 Darcy, c Day, b James „ . . . 2 Terei, b James . . . . . . 0 Hans, "5 James . . . . . . 0 Extras 3 Total . . . . .. 57 First Innings .. .. ..34 Grand Total . . . . . . 91 PUT ARURU.—First Innings. C. D. Brown, c and b N. Waea . . 7 H. Leslie, c M. Phillips, b N. Waea .. .. .. .. 2 Faulkner, b Bonner . . . . 0 L. Martin, b Bonner . . .. 4 A. Leslie, 1.b.w., b N. Waea .. 1 W. G. Brown, b N. Waea . . 2 Dr. East, c Waea, sen., b Bonner 0 R. James, not out .. . . 14 P. Lees, b Bonner . . .. .. 0 K. Day, run out . . . . . . 3 R. Benjuist, b Kopa . . . . 0 Extras .. .. . . . . 4 Total . . .. .. .. 37 Second Innings. C. Brown, c M. Phillips, b W. Phillips 13 H. Leslie, c and b Bonner . . 2 Faulkner, c and b Kopa . . . . 0 Martin, run out . . . . . . 1 A. Leslie, b W. Phillips .. .. 1 James, hit wicket, b Bonner . . 8 G. W. Brown, h N. Waea.. .. 9 East, b N. Waea . . .. .. 1 Lees, not out . . .. . . 2 Day, b N. Waea .. . . .. 0 Berquist, c Hans, b Bonner .. 1 Extras . . . . .. .. 3 Total . . . . .. .. 41 First Innings .. .. .. 37 Grand Total .. .. .. 78

THE NEW SOUTH WALES TOUR. The New South Wales learn has concluded its tour, and, as anticipated, it was a series of victories. Of the matches themselves there is nothing to say. Of the benefits of the tour and of the lessons taught there is space for much comment. A tour of this nature, bringing New Zealand cricket into touch with some of the most famous players of the world, is an object lesson of skill, of incalculable value to the observant players and a source of delight to the cricket enthusiast. Nor has it quite ended here, for the visitors have sought to help the young players by hints and advice on many points. The tour has the good effect of arousing popular interest in the greatest of summer games. The lessons taught are many in every department of the game. There are few, if any, that are new. Possibly the one which was driven home the most was the need of improvement in fielding. There are very few players in the Dominion who come up to or near to the visitors in this department. It was not merely a matter of gathering the ball or handling. It was the anticipation of the stroke and the returning in which the difference between the teams was so marked. Anticipation in its perfection comes through the development of a gift by experience; returning- is gained through practice. But how little attention is given to fielding by most players. Nothing more than on a day of a match. Players will go down in the evening and have a “knock” at the nets, or bowl, but how many will put in half an hour practising fielding, or getting some batsman to hit catches to them in the long field ? How often is the net dispensed with and a batsmen seen edging* the ball to players in the slips. At schools possibly sometimes; at the club nets never. The reason may be that the true and proper value is not

placed upon good fielding. A player will be given credit for the runs he scores with the bat; but very little is heard of the runs he loses through poor fielding or through catches dropped. Some of the English public schools used to have a good system. One of the masters, either a coac.h or an old cricketer, kept a “ plus ” and a “ minus ” sheet. Each player was credited with the runs he made and with a fixed number of points for the wickets he took or catches he brought off; he was debited with the runs he lost through bad fielding or poor returning, and in the case of a dropped catch, provided it was a reasonable chance, his account was charged with the number of runs the batsmen made after his “ let off.” If later a fieldsman missed the same batsman he took up the impost. The list was posted in the team’s room after the game. It had a very salutary effect in smartening up the fielding and had a remarkable value in proving the true worth of a good fieldsman. “ Catches dropped, matches lost,” is an old saying, but is a truism which no team can afford to forget. To rest content with the statement that the tour of the vistitors will cause cricket in the Dominion to attain a higher standard is to accept an assumption. A stimulating effect, yes; but scarcely more than a transitory benefit, unless the real lessons are appreciated and acted upon. Cricket in the Dominion has not regained the pre-war standard. Possibly one is prone to over-estimate the giants of the past, or fail to appreciate at their proper worth the men of to-day. It is a failing which applies to many things besides cricket. As was once said of a great statesman: “ He is too near to obtain a proper perspective.” But there are few who would question the statement that New Zealand was stronger in cricket 20 years ago than to-day. What mainly caused the advancement of cricket prior to the war was the coaches brought out by the various associations. The value of Keif’s tuition was seen for many years in Auckland cricket. Shacklock did a wonderful lot of good in Auckland by coaching the school boys, and C. Dacre owes a great deal of his success as a player to the counsel of the old Nottingham professional. Canterbury, in securing Shacklock's services, took a wise step, and there is little doubt that in a few years time the benefit of his coaching will be seen among the younger players of Christchurch. If cricket is to make the advance in the Dominion, it must be through coaching the schoolboys and young players to follow up the examples and profit by the lessons given by the strong visiting sides. The second necessity is good grounds. In this respect the decentralisation of New Zealand is a drawback. With good coaching and good grounds cricket should advance in New Zealand, and, though it will probably never reach the Australian standard, with the improvement will come a keener and greater interest by the public.