Cricket.

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 272, 24 January 1929, Page 8

Cricket.

AUCKLAND V. WELLINGTON. Pointers On the Play. Batting first on a plumb wicket against a team which possessed no speed bowler, Wellington should have shaped better than they did. Of the total of 403 at least 50 runs were due to slackness in the field by the Auckland team. Worker batted in fine style, especially in the first innings, when he made some glorious shots between cover and point. Dempster, though scoring 77 and 22, was very dull. He adopted safe arid marathon tactics. James was unlucky, being foolishly run out in the first innings and being out to a disputed l.b.w. decision in the second innings. Hiddleston backed up and ran in the first innings, though it was James’ call. The latter sacrificed his wicket with a gesture of annoyance against his club mate.

McGirr, Lamason and Lambert scratched feebly against Bowley. Foley, the colt, has no shots and was out first innings to a feeble poke to mid-off. He has a sound defence, however, and shows promise. Player is seldom dangerous unless assisted hy weather conditions or a worn pitch. In view of his weak batting and extremely poor fielding he should be 12th man on fast wickets.

Failing to move the Auckland colts (Weir and Postles) by his stock bowlers, Lowry pitted the leg trap with slow bowlers against the inexperience of youth. He secured both wickets by this means. Allcott’s fielding was poor, he allowing two boundaries through his hands in the first hour’s play, and dropping Worker in both innings. Rowntree’s stumping of Worker in the first innings was a brilliant piece of work, the bails being lifted during the fraction of a second the side of the batsman’s foot was lifted in playing forward. James’ taking of Henderson’s fast stuff wide on the leg was brilliant and earned rounds of applause. His appealing to the umpire was constant and determined, so much so that one wag asked him if “he had taken a page out of Duckwqrth’s book.” WWtelaw, who is 19, fails to make use of his immense reach. He batted in the first innings with both feet glued to the pitch. Lowry was unfortunate to have been adjudged l.b.w. in the first innings. He is very tall and was hit by a rising hall above the pad. The rule states that not only must the leg be in front, but the ball must haye, in the opinion of the umpire, hit the wicket if not dropped. Wellington’s field was much better placed than that of Auckland. Allcott, as a captain, did not live up to the boost Bowley gave him after the southern tour.

Weir and Postles, both in the early twenties, show great promise and batted like veterans.

Gillespie proved most enterprising and put great power behind his shots. There were no fewer tjjan six l.b.w. decisions during the match, five against Wellington and one against Auckland. Some of the players made it plain they did not agree with the umpires on the matter. Appeals for catches at the wicket also caused trouble, and following a remark by Henderson an umpire caused Lowry to speak to the bowler. Such an incident is extremely rare on a cricket field, and is all the more regrettable when it is recalled that on Wellington’s last appearance at Eden Park there was also trouble over the umpiring. Thirty years’ experience of the

game has convinced the writer that seven out of ten l.b.w. decisions are wrong and that the great majority of umpires could not pass an elementary examination on the l.b.w. rule-. Umpires should be examined in the laws of the game, like Rugby referees, and should have both their hearing and sight tested. In Whitelaw’s first knock James and the four slips appealed confidently for a catch at the wicket. Whitelaw walked away but returned when the umpire said “ not out.” After the above incident Henderson

changed ends and almost immediately secured an l.b.w. decision, from the other umpire, against Gillespie. Hiddleston, Worker, Dempster and Lowry were brilliant in the field the work of the first three in picking up and returning in one action being an object lesson. The Wellington win was expected by those who closely watched the first two days’ play. It was Wellington’s first victory at Eden Park. Auckland critics state that losing

the toss lost the home team the game. In the opinion of the writer, however, Auckland lost the game through their bad fielding in Wellington’s first innings. This view is borne out hy the facts as illustrated by the scoring. In Wellington’s two innings there is a disparity of 162 runs, while the difference between Auckland’s two innings is only 12 runs. When Auckland batted the first time the pitch showed no signs of wearing where length balls pitched, and with the exception of marks made by the bowlers’ feet the pitch was as good as when V/ellington had their first knock. Slackness in the field gave away about 50 runs, and had these been saved a home victory would have resulted. It was in fielding that Wellington showed the most marked superiority.