Cricket 1911

A pril 15, 1911. CEICKET : A W EEKLY EECORD OF THE GAME. 55 Cricket in New Zea land . CANTERBURY v. WELLINGTON. Played at Christchurch on December 31, January 2 and 3. Canterbury won by 322 runs. Saunders, who took only one wicket for 39 in the first innings, caused the Canterbury men the most trouble and it was unfortunate for Wellington that he should be a passenger later owing to a strained back. Findlay, a fast bowler, kept a good length and obtained six wickets at very reasonable cost. In Canterbury’s second innings Norman made 68 by sound but slow cricket, Reese scored 50 in 45 minutes and Patrick gave a spirited display in making 42. Wellington again collapsed badly, only Midlane, who carried his bat through the innings, and Hickey, who scored 19 in five minutes, doing anything noteworthy. Bennett certainly bowled excellently on each occasion— in the first innings an hour for four runs—but the Wellington batting was hardly so poor as the score-sheet would suggest. The wicket which had been provided for the match was not worthy of so important a fixture, though the outfield was fast and fairly good. Score and analysis :— C anterbury . First innings. Second innings. E. E. Caygill, b Saunders ................... ... 14 c and b H ick e y ................. 12 Alfred Norman, c Gibbes, b Monaghan .. 6 b Hickey 68 W. Carlton, b Brice .................................. ... 13 lbw, b Findlay ................. 15 D. Reese, c and b Findlay.......................... .. 28 lbw, b Brice ................. 50 A. Sims, st Mahoney, b Hickey ........... .. 47 b Monaghan ................. 16 S. A. Orchard, b Gibbes .......................... ... 23 run out ......................... I W. R. Patrick, c Midlane, b Gibbes ... .. 0 lbw, b Findlay ................. 42 T. Carlton, c Blacklock, b Hickey .. 23 lbw, b Findlay ................. 1 C. Boxshall, run o u t .................................. 2 c Findlay, b Bricc ......... 0 J. H. Bennett, not out .......................... ... 2 c and b Findlay ......... 0 D. Sandman, c Gibbes, b Findlay ... 2 n o to u t................................. 0 Byes 25, n-b 1 ................... .. 2(5 Byes 41, n-b 2 ......... 43 Total .......................... ... 180 Total ................. 248 W kllinc First innings. A. Birch, b Bennett .................................. D. Naughton, b Sandman ................... TON. ... 5 Second innings, c Orchard, b Bennett 3 ... 14 b Sandm an......................... 3 J. J. Mahoney, st Boxshall, b Sandman ... 1 b Bennett ......................... 5 F. A. Midlane, lbw, b Bennett ........... ... 5 not o u t ................................. 14 J. 1*. Blacklock, c Orchard, b Sandman ... 0 b Bennett ......................... 10 J. V. Saunders, b Bennett ................... ... 1 a b sen t................................. — C. E. Hickey, c Reese, b B en nett........... ... 0 c Boxshall, b Bennett .. 19 W. H. Gibbes, not out .......................... ... 11 b Bennett ... .................. 1 W. S. Brice, c Sims, b Bennett ........... H. W. Monaghan, b Sandm an.................. ... 0 c Sims, b T. Carlton......... 4 ... 1 b Bennett ......................... 0 W. Findlay, b Sandman ........................... ... 4 st Boxshall, b Bennett .. 0 Byes .................................. ... 10 Bye ......................... 1 Total .......................... ... 52 Total ................ .. 60 C an terbu ry . First innings. O. M. R. W. Second innings. O. M. R. W. Saunders ........... 11 1 39 1 ........... 2 1 3 0 Monaghan ........... 10 2 41 1 .......... 12 0 38 1 Brice ................... 5 0 17 1 ........... 11*1 0 36 2 F in dlay................... 12-2 0 3(3 2 .......... 20 4 42 4 Gibbes ................... (> 3 22 2 .......... 9 3 25 0 Hickey ................... 3 1 5 2 ........... 14 1 61 2 Findlay bowled three no-balls. W ellington . First innings. O. M. R. W. Second innings. O. M. R. W. Bennett................... 9 5 9 5 ........... 9-4 2 35 7 Sandman ........... 9 0 33 5 ........... 4 0 12 1 T. Carlton ........... 5 2 12 1 The following are the results of the matches between Wellington and Canterbury:— 1878 —At Wellington : Canterbury won by 120 runs. 1884—At Wellington : Canterbury won by 15 runs. 1881—At Christchurch : Drawn. 1886—At Wellington : Canterbury won by 111 runs. 1889—At Christchurch : Canterbury won by 39 runs. 1891—At Wellington : Wellington won by eight wickets. 1892—At Christchurch : Drawn. 1894—At Wellington : Drawn. 1894—At Christchurch : Canterbury won by nine wickets. 1895—At Wellington : Wellington won by six wickets. 1897 -A t Christchurch : Drawn. 1898—At Wellington : Wellington won by an innings and 20 runs. 1899—At Christchurch : Canterbury won by an innings and 127 runs. 1899—At Wellington : Canterbury won by one wicket. 1901—At Christchurch : Wellington won by three wickets' 1901—At Wellington : Canterbury won by three wickets. < / 1903—At Christchurch : Canterbury won by 62 runs. 1904—At Wellington: Canterbury won by 244 runs. 1904—At Christchurch : Canterbury won by 201 runs. 1906—At Wellington : Canterbury won by 35 runs. 1907—At Christchurch : Canterbury won by five wickets. 1908 —At Wellington : Wellington won by 91 runs. 1908—At Christchurch: Canterbury won by 212 runs. 1910—At Wellington : Wellington won by nine wickets. 1911—At Christchurch: Canterbury won by 322 runs. Of the twenty-five matches played Canterbury have won 15, Wellington 6, and 4 have been drawn. AUCKLAND v. CANTERBURY. Played at Auckland on January 28, 30, 31, and February 1. CANTEBBUBY WIN THE PLUNKET SHIELD. Canterbury won by six wickets. (Sec illustration on page ltd.) Auckland, who had held the Plunket Shield for four years, appeared likely until the last morning to retain it by defeating Canterbury, for they gained a lead of 80 on the first innings and left their opponents with 280 to win—not a light task at the best of times. They opened in capital style, Anthony, who played a cautious game, staying with Hemus whilst 108 were made for the first wicket. Sale and Haddon continued the good work by helping to add 47 and 74 respectively, and then Hemus, who had made 142 out of 257 in three hours and a-half, played-on. His display, though not without fault, was a very meritorious one : he was missed just after completing 50 and twice afterwards before reaching 80, and occasionally was unnecessarily slow. The best inniDgs on the side was played by Haddon, who offered no chance in scoring 61. Reese obtained five wickets for 43 runs and deserved his success. He bowled with excellent length and judgment and got rid of Hemus and Brooke-Smith with successive balls. The Weekly Press (Christchurch) records that ‘ ^When Hayward, the last man, was batting to W . Carlton, in stepping back lo hit the ball, he trod on his wieket. He hit the ball to T. Carlton at short leg, hard and low, Carlton making a brilliant effort to effect the catch. It was momentarily thought that Carlton had held the ball, and the umpire, Mr. Sando, on an appeal by one of the other fieldsmen, sa id ‘ not out.’ Boxshall drew attention to the broken state of the wicket, and appealed to the other umpire, Mr. Garrard at square-leg. Mr. Garrard took up the position that as the umpire at the bowler’s end had said ‘ not out ’ he was not competent to give any decision, and though he stated subsequently that he knew Hayward had trodden on his wicket, he had to give a 1not out ’ decision if he gave one at all, because the decision of ‘ not out ’ given by the other umpire covered the whole question. As Law 47 of the ‘ Laws of Cricket’ gives the jurisdiction for hit-wicket to the square-leg umpire, it is somewhat difficult to follow Mr. Garrard’s reasoning.” * There was rain on the Sunday and when the visitors batted on the following day it was on a wicket which was somewhat tricky. The outfield, too, was slow, and runs were consequently harder to obtain than had been the case on the Saturday. By steady play Norman and Caygill made 54 for the opening partnership, but half the side were out for 84 and a small total seemed a distinct probability. Reese and Patrick, however, saved the side in splendid style by putting on 156 for the sixth wicket, and although the later players did little Canterbury got within 80 runs of the opposing total. By rather uneventful cricket Auckland, upon going in again, scored 199 in three hours and a-half, leaving Canterbury 280 to win. The feature of the innings was the stand of Pearson and Haddon, which realised 77 for the sixth wicket in 83 minutes. Sandman, who took five wickets for eleven runs each, kept a good length and got plenty of work on the ball. Of the large number of runs required for victory, Canterbury obtained 30 without loss by the time stumps were drawn on the third evening, Lusk and Caygill in. On the fourth morning the wicket rolled out well, and the partner- *Doubtless Mr. Garrard had in mind the wording of Law 43. “ . . . . All disputes shall be determined by them, and if they disagree the actual state of things shall continue.” But, in the above case, the umpires might have differed concerning the validity of the catch (though there is no evidence to suggest that they did) whilst agreeing that the batsman had trodden down his wicket in making a stroke. The official note on Law 47 states, “ When the umpire at the bowler’s wicket has given a batsman “ not out,” the other umpire may answer any appeal within his jurisdiction, subject to an observance of Law 50.” Mr. Garrard should, therefore, have answered the wicket-keeper’s appeal.—Ed., Cricket.