NEGLECTED JUNIOR CRICKETERS

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 92, 13 January 1920, Page 6

NEGLECTED JUNIOR CRICKETERS

(To the Editor.) Sir,—l feel that an injustice is being dono to the two hard-working members ol' the Junior Championship Committee by your correspondent, Bernard Carlton. ■Replying to lus lirst yuery as to what junior teams Messrs. Johnston and ifughes play for, might I inquire of him what bearing this has on the discussion? Does a man require to bo a player bel'oro lie can be a worker? As it happens, ono ol' these gentlemen, acting on medical advice, is not a player, but this does not, deter him tram working in tho interests of the game, as is instanced in one particular alone by tho strong position of the club with '\hich ha is associated. Mainly, 1 contend, through his energetic endeavours, this club lias grown from ono team last season to five this season, 'ilio fiamo remarks apply equally to tlio other gentleman. Can your correspondent point to a similar record in connection with his own particular club, as I presume lie is a player, or better still, a worker? Willi reference to the question of calling a meeting of junior delegates, Mr. Carlton has evaded the reason wny this request was put to him. Has he over tried to do anything for junior cricket.' Was ho even at the last annual general meeting of the association? If bo, did he observe tho number of junior delegates present? Why do not junior delegates take sullicieiit interest in affairs to roll up at the annual meeting in sufficient strength to ensure of a suitable number being elected to work m '.heir interests, and, not leave tho burden ol "carrying the baby" to a lew enthusiasts? Dealing with your correspondent s suggestion that the association should send a junior team on tour, ts this tho only way to foster cricket? To my mind, it certainly is not. One of the first essentials is suitable coaching. This, 1 have every, reason to believe, the association will deal with at an early date. Secondly conies practice wickets. Does Mr. Carlton know of any other association provides practico wickets for the' ridiculously low charge of 30s. per season? Does he know of any other association in New Zealand which provides wickets equal in condition to those prepared in Wellington for (id. a Saturday per player? Over these two propositions alone I venture to suggest that tho association is losing money as far as tho revenue from juniors is concerned. This is done, I presume, to foster junior cricket. Has your correspondent reflected for one moment on tlio question of the expense which would bo incurred by a touring team especially under present conditions? lint your correspondent says the seniors go on lour. '1 his- re- ' mark again displays his shortsightedness. If he will look a step further ho will find that their expenses arc covered, and in most cases more than covered, by tho "gates." Coul;l you, Sir, imagine for ono moment a junior representative match drawing a gate such as has been the case in the present fixture, Canterbury v. Wellington ? . In conclusion, please let nio make it quite clear that 1 am not throwing cold water on the question of fostering junior cricket, but there is a constitutional way of having grievances adjusted other than that of your correspondent, who lias endeavoured unsuccessfully to hold up to ridicule through your columns a body of men who aro earnestly trying to give of their best to the sport. Instead of talking "piffle" such as the forming uf an outside association, or in other words a home for malcontents, let lum pay heed to my final words. Tho junior delegates themselves have the authority in regard to electing members to the association, and tiiey cannot avoid the responsibility if they desire' their conditions improved. The work of individual members of the association, whoever they might be must always, in a measure, be stultified, unless behind it is the work of the other delegates.—l am, etc., tla rat.