FOUR SELECTORS.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19162, 19 November 1927, Page 15

FOUR SELECTORS.

NEW ZEALAND TEAM.

DECISION AT CRICKET CONFERENCE.

After every aspect of the question bad been gone into, the delegates at the Dominion cricket conference last evening voted in favour of four selectors for future New Zealand teams. Mr D. Reese said the number of selectors for the New Zealand team had been a great source of trouble. One man had not proved satisfactory, nor had three meu or five. He thought a satisfactory solution was four selectors, ono representing each major Association. The selectors could then appoint a chairman. Interests of minor Associations would be safeguarded by the solution he suggested. A proposal to have a fifth selector from the minor Associations was not practicable or satisfactory. He would not knowmuch about the standard of play in the major Associations. "A lot of heartburnings will be saved by the proposal," he said. He moved a resolution on the lines of his suggestion. Mr H. F. Arkwright (Rangitikei) seconded the motion.

Mr N. C. Sneddon (Auckland) gave it his support. It might not result, ho said, in the best representation, but the more would be in the best interests of the game. In answer to tho chairman (Mr E. Ileathcote Williams) Mr Reese said the chairman of tho Selection Committee would have a casting vote. Mr Reese said the difficulty in the past hail been that the selector from ono province had not a full knowledge of the playing ability under another Association. If tho minor Associations were given a representative it would lead to jealous}' among them. Mr D. McKenzie (Wellington) moved an amendment that a sole selector appointed. The four selectors proposal was just a sop, he contended. Tho Council did not want to court trouble from Wellington by leaving it out, as it had from Auckland in the past season. Tho best years of Canterbury cricket were when the province had one selector. The Dominion had several men who could act. Four selectors would be a cumbersome arrangement. The best men in the minor Associations were always playing in the Plunkot Shield matches.

A delegate: In Wellington. Mr B. R. Macdonald (South Canterbury) supported the motion. They could not do better than England, he said.

Mr Reese said „he could not accept Mr McKenzie's suggestion. The Council realised it had made more mistakes over the matter of selection than aver any other, and it was in deadly earnest. He agreed, with a sole selector for a town, hut not for New Zealand. Mr E; 0. Beale (Ashburton) disagreed with Mr McKenzie's view. Mr A. H. Greenwood (West Coast) said there could not be much improvement on the method practised in Australia and England. Mr Hi. E. Lawrence (North Otago) said one of the worst New Zealand teams was chosen by a sole selector. The chairman: Give Mr McKenzie a fair go. (Laughter.) He Baid he was certain the Council would act without fear or favour in appointing the selectors.

Mr Sneddon said it was felt that the proposal of the Council would remove interprovincial friction. Mr Williams said-he hoped provincialism would be dropped for good, and they.would work for the good of tho Dominion as a whole. The motion was carried with one dissentient.