ARE DISTRICTS DOOMED?

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1354, 3 February 1912, Page 12

ARE DISTRICTS DOOMED?

THE DECLINING MEMBERSHIP. [Bf "Break-Back."] There are many who hold that the introduction of district cricket into Wellington m disfavour of club criokot has been far from achieving the .success anticipated, and there be others who go as far as to say that it has failed—failed inasmuch as ,it has not had any of the effects anticipated by its advocates. Before the district scheme . was adopted there were insufficient grounds for all ■ those who wish to play bat and ball, and to-day the number of people playin" is just as great, if not greater, than in "the daysiof club cricket. That, however, is hardly the point in debate. What I assert ; is that the district scheme has not done for cricket what was said it would do. For example, there are to-day/ some 400 fewer players under the Wellington Cricket Association's aegis thait was the case when club cricket was tho vogue. That, I minintain, is one argument against 'the present scheme. Again, it was said that tho district scheme was going to create immense rivalry between districts. Has it done so? I venture to say that it lias not—most emphatically not. If there is even the germ of intor-district rivalry the public knows not of it. It was even suggested that, in their wild enthusiasm for the' honour and glory of their districts, the good citizens might provide grounds for their clubs. Have they oven begun to think of such a splendid thing? Not they! What tho district schcmo has done is this: It has created a host of outside clubs administered by an outside association, and has given birth to numorous houso-clubs, also beyond the control of what should be the ruling erickqt lxxlv. As a further result some of these clubs have among their members players of a stamp who should bo playing association (i.e., district) cricket, two or three, perhaps, who would not disgrace a Wellington representative team. Tliev find that they can get pleasure out of the gamo by association with those whose company in the fiold they might and probably would have had. bad club cricket continued, but from which they have been cut off by the adoption of district cricket. They have rather reduced their cricket status by playing for clubs of lesser importance outside the association rather than be tied to those whom flie district restriction would impose upon them. Has tlie district scheme improved our prowess in representative cricket? Again, No. We have been soundly beaten on our own trround ,b.v Chrißtchurch and again in Christchurch. This is not much of an ai-giinient, I admit, against the present system, s'lill it points to the fact that district cricket, assisted by a professional reach, has not brought Wellington into the front rank. It was a heart-breaking wrench for many io soe l.lie old clubs—Wellington, Midland. Phoenix, mid others—offered up as a sacrifice to district cricket. Has if been worth while? Is it. too late to consider reforming the reform of a couple of years ago?