FIRST LOSS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 83, Issue 49, 28 February 1939, Page 8

FIRST LOSS

JULIEN CAHN’S XI. CANTERBURY ON FORM WATTS’ FINE BOWLING. I Per Prets Association. J CHRISTCHURCH, Feb. 27. The loss of three wickets in the first over of Canterbury’s second innings was the sensation of the third day’s play in the match between Sir Julien Cahn’s team and Canterbury which was concluded at Lancaster Park .today. The game was won by Canterbury on the first innings. It was the fast medium Surrey bowler. Watts, who did the damage. His first delivery accounted for Menzies. Hadlee was brilliantly caught in the slips off the third ball and the seventh clean-bow led Anderson. A fourth-wicket stand by Donnely and Shand, which added 91 runs, retrieved Canterbury’s position and, after some bright batting, the innings realised 233 runs. Sir Julian Cahn's team, which continued its innings from Saturday, carried its total to 410, giving Canterbury a lead of 54 runs. Hardstaff and Heane increased their sixth-wicket stand to 159, the total being 309 when Heane was caught behind the wickets for 57. Hardstaff finished with 180 runs. He had been in while 343 runs were added and undoubtedly saved his side, though he did take a long time to make his runs. Eleven 4’s were included in his total. Sir Julien Cahn’s team, as on Saturday, took no risks, little more than one-a-minule being the scoring rate. The most successful Canterbury bowlers were Roberts, who finished with five wickets for 10 runs, and

Davis, who took four wickets for 68 runs. For Cahn’s team. Watts took three wickets for 25 runs and Mudge four wickets for 60 runs. The day was brilliantly fine and if the scoring was not always as fast as some would have wished, there was plenty of excitement for the fair crowd that attended. The gate tak-1 ings were £7O. making £5lO for the! three days. Play Never Dull. Although the batting of the visitors to-day at no time was as fast as that of Canterbury, play was never dull. Hardstaff added 48 runs to his Saturday’s score and took nearly two hours for them. Altogether he batted nearly six hours. He gave no actual chances, although he was nearlybowled on two occasions and miss-hit one ball which Webb, running round from behird the wickets, could not reach. Placements to leg gave him most of his runs and he also produced well executed shots on the off. Credit also must go to Heane for his sound and patient batting. He came in when his side was iigh’ing for runs and played a solid innings. He was by no means overshadowed by his better-known partner and at limes he used his feet well to get to pitch of

the ball. His .shots to the off were his best. Watts did not look comfortable during his short stay but perhaps the most attractive innings was that of the wicket-keeper. Maxwell. He lived up to his reputation as a forcing batsman and who. however, was not rash. His footwork was a treat to watch, a remark that applies as much to his late cutting and his driving. Smith and Walsh both reached double figures quickly before they were caught. Smith especially was aggressive while Walsh was out in trying la forcing shot. Whn Sir Julien Cahn had come in, five bowlers were used by Canterbury. Roberts was the most successful and ■ deserved his five for 107 off .’2 overs. IHe kept a uniformly good length and | was coming off the pitch quickly. 1 Loose balls few and none of the j batsmen could take liberties with him. ! Davis did not bowl as much as some of the others an! it was somewhat surprising that he was not used more. .He proved a most valuable change I land his success was well merited.; I Mulcock had thp most work to do I !and. while he was never reall yexpen- . sive. he did not appear dangerous. Some of his bowling was rather short to be effective. Cromb bowled well without luck. He had the batsmen , guessing with his change of flight and pace. The other bowler used. Donnelly. was useful as a change without any hostility. Fine Wicket-keeping. Canterbury ’s fielding was agaiJi good. • One very hard chance was dropped, but it made no difference as the batsman was bowled next ball. Webb, behind the wickets, was at his best and only three balls went past him for byes. I After the sensational loss nf three good batsmen for no runs it became doubtful whether ‘Kerr was wise in changing’ his batting order. It made 1 little difference, however, for nothing then depended on thA gam". Donnelly made the top score but his in- | nings v.as not one of his best. In th? I latter part, only, did he reveal his I best form. He made some really fine i strokes. Although his feeling for fast 1 balls outside the off stump marred his i display somew hat, credit is due to him tic- way in which he saved Lhe side from collapse, but he could have made more it ns by better work between the wicket. Shand again showed his worth. A really bad position faced him when he went in and he batted as if he was used to it. He made good I shots to the off but it was his work ion the leg side that was his best. Kerr. ! who made 124 in the first innings. ■ started off well and it seemed as if 1 he would take charge of the bowling once more. There is no doubt that the crowd was disappointed when he played a ball on to his wicket so early. Bellamy was in his best form and was always looking for runs. With Cromb, he provided some of the brightest batting of the day. He was his best on the leg side whereas Cromb was making his runs all round i the wicket. As usual there was tre- | mendous power in his shots. Of the • others. Roberts failed to get going for the second time in the match. Webb I made his runs with good shots. 1 Davis annd Mulcock enjoyed them- ; selves for a quarter of an hour of picnic cricket. Seven of the visitors were given a - turn with the ball. The fast man, Watts, commanded the most respect but was not used a great deal. His length was good and he was making pace off the pitch. Mudge, the slow right hand, had some of the success that should have been his i<n the firsi innings. He required watching all the time and had only one expensive over f The other slow bowlers, Walsh and 1 Smith, also impressed, although the>

suffered somewhat when the batsmen were hitting out near the end. Jackson was used little and was not dangerous. H. Heane asd Sir Julien Cahn himself each had two over to finish off an interesting day's play. The fielding of visitors was first class. They gave nothing away and returned to the wicket accurately. Maxwell .behind the wickets, gave a brilliant display. His catching of four players was a feature of the innings. The scores were: Canterbury. First innings 464. Second Innings. R. E. J. Menzies, b Walls 0 M. P. Donnelly, c Maxwell, b Walsh 56 W. A. Hadlee, c Heane, b Watts 0 W. McD. Anderson, h Watts 0 R. C. Shand, c Maxwell, b Mudge 44 J. L. Kerr, b Smith 10 F. W. Bellamy, c Maxwell, b Mudge 28 I. B. Cromb, c Dempster, b Mudge 33 A. W. Roberts, c Maxwell, b Walsh 3 R. C. Webb, c Watts, b Mudge .. 10 H. Davis, not out 24 E. Mulcock. run nut 15 Extras .... 10 Total 233 Bowling.

for nil. four for 91, five for 102, six for 131. seven for 167. eight for 170, nine for 188, ten for 192, eleven for 233. Sir Julien Cahn’s Team. First Innings. C. S Dempster, b Roberts 14 A. H. Dyson, c Mulcock, h Cromb 38 H. Mudge, b Roberts 0 .1. Hardstaff, c Bellamy, b Roberts 180 N. Oldfield, c Roberts, b Davis 14 V. E. Jackson, c Kerr, b Davis 14 S. F. H. Heane, c Webb, b Davis 67 E. A. Watts, b Davis 5 C. R. Maxwell, b Roberts 41 T. P. B. Smith, c Donnelly b Mulcock 11 J. E. Walsh, c Cromb. b Roberts 12 Cahn, not out 4 Extras 10 Total 410

Fall of the wickets.—One for" 22 two for 26, three for 108, four for 135. five for 159, six for 309, seven for 323 eight for 369, nine for 394, ten for 399 eleven for 410.

0. M. R. W. Watts 7 0 25 3 Jackson 3 0 17 0 Walsh 11 0 45 2 Smith 10 •> 47 1 Mudge 11 1 60 4 Heane 2 0 18 0 Fall of the wicets.— One for nil, two

Bowling. O. M. R W Roberts 32.b 3 107 Mulcock 36 4 117 Cromb 25 3 66 Donnelly 15 1 42 C Davis ’ 20 1 68 Davis bowled one no ball.