THE PLUNKET SHIELD

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 938, 3 April 1930, Page 12

THE PLUNKET SHIELD

WELLINGTON OPINION ON POINTS SYSTEM AUCKLAND WAS UNLUCKY from Our Resident Reporter WELLINGTON, Wednesday. “It is undoubted that Auckland was unlucky on the day and on the teams that took tho field, but I am not convinced that we can better the points system which was adopted for this year’s Plunket Shield games,” said Mr. I"*. B. Broad, chairman of the Wellington Cricket Association, in comment or the recent widespread criticism of the circumstances which allowed Auckland, an undefeated province with the best average, to lose the Plunket Shield. “Not matter what system of points is adopted we shall always have anomalies. Wellington did not advocate this system, but one slightly different: still we were able to approve the points in use. It must be remembered that no system on earth can meet the position which is created by weather interference with a game. Auckland probably would have gained an outright win against Canterbury this year but for the weather, and that would have put them in possession of the shield. On the other hand, it must be remembered that Wellington took till? field without Dempster and that, I estimate, made a difference of about "300 runs to Wellington’s first innings total. Had Wellington been able io rely on Dempster, it would have got within 50 runs of Auckland’s total and that would have put another complexion on the match. In addition, the performance of the Wellington batsmen in tho fourth innings on one of the worst wickets I have ever seen should not be underrated. At times the ball was coming off it almost at right angles. We did not grudge Auckland its win last year, for we knew how unlucky it had been. It has been unlucky again this year in some respects, but that is in the game.”

In connection with the foregoing, it may be pointed out that the inability of Dempster to play for Wellington was counter-balanced by the absence from the Auckland side of Finlay son and Rowntree.