WHAT IS WRONG WITH NEW ZEALAND CRICKET

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 166, 9 April 1921, Page 7

WHAT IS WRONG WITH NEW ZEALAND CRICKET

(To the Editor.) Sir,—The triumphal tour through New Zealand of a team of cricketers from Australia, culminating in the disastrous defeat of this Dominion’s representative eleven, provides ample food for thought. The absolute inferiority of the New Zealand cricketer as compared with the Australian wielder of the willow is more accentuated by the fact that the victorious visitors were merely a third-class team of Australians, inasmuch as Australia s representative team is now on the water en route to England, and the .best team from either of the States of New South "Wales or Victoria would in all probability prove superior in a test of strength to the Australian team which has just toured New Zealand, It is futile to contend that New Zealand does not take cricket seriously; those who play—or attempt to play—and those who follow cricket take it seriously enough, and the teams which met their defeat, at the hands of the Australians did not do so from choice. They tried to win and-failed ignominious y. lhere was and is something essential to the qualifications of a cricketer-possessed by the Australian—which the New Zea tender lacks. Is it physiue, stamina, pluck:, moral courage in a crisis? Some " ciency there must be, and, unless the New Zealander is prepared to .complacently admit that he is inferior in some respects to the Australian, it behoves all lovers of cricket in this country tx> investigate and ascertain wherein that deficiency exists. ~ , . When Australia beat England s best, England’s cricket enthusiasts immediately set to work to ascertain the why and the wherefore with a view to a removal of the ignominy now staining their escutcheon. New Zealand’s cricket ent uSiasts should do the same or hide their heads in shame at being inexplicably inferior to their Australian brothers in the field of sport. It is not for me to act the part of a self-constituted critic and reconstructor of New Zealand's methods, but, as an old cricketer, practically born and bred in the cricket field. I may be make a few pertinent, comments apropos of the cricketing situation m th.s D I "in°the first place, the division into junior and senior grade cricket is purely arbitrary, the senior clubs . even be ing restricted to a number which is arbitrarily fixed, no provision being made for an citenston where merit would prompt such action. Mby not sixteen senior clubs if that number act: up to standard’ Again, many men play junior cricket long after their picketing abiVty justifies their promotion to senior rank while as many remain in senior ranks who ought to revert to junior rank or retire Such manifest anomalies kill cricket but the cricket powers here are conservative to the backbone and brook no interference with a custom which ha. subsisted from a time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary. There is material here, I admit, but it is in its crude.state; it wants pi, - verising. cutting, grinding, and Poking before it can claim co-ordinate rank with the finished product of either England or Australia. There exists no >"receivable reason why it. should lot go through the process and emerge with eclat One cannot learn anything -..0r.a knowing without steady . perseverance, and the noble game of cricket is no exception to the rule. One or two competent coaches wmud work wonders ,n a very short spa’.' of lime, and. if the sporting instinct in New Zealand is deep-seated, :w time would be lost in taking the nec’ssnry stens to remove New Zealand in<-k»t from the ruck and place it on a par with Hip trnme across the Tasman. Eleven of the best individual players in the world, placed together in the cricket field without a proper general, well ac-ai-minted with the technique and lhe finer points of the game, would he little better than a. mob. Generalship at a critical stage Ims won more games than fh» brilliant iilav of individuals. Therein New Zealand’signally fails. Why? Because the New Zealander’s mind decs net rise to the necessity of studying the gnnie scientifically and thereafter practising it from reveille to lights out. Th conclusion, let me add n comment anenf the umpires and umpiring conditions. The establishment of the Umpires’ Association was a step in the right direction—in iheorv: in practice it. was a failure. Practicaly two gentlemen held 'he reins in their hands throughout. the rank and file having no voice in the selection or allocation of umpires whatever. The netnnl selection was to all intents find purposes throughout the season invariably left in the hands of the president of the association. Competent umpires were frequently, foupd engaged in junior matches, while less capable mon wore allocated to matches of greater importance. This resulted in considerable dissatisfaction with some the extraordinary decisions, notah.y these relative to 1.b.w.. which practically spoilt more than one of the senior grade match-s last season. " The confidence which wns placed in the nrroidont of the Umpires’ Association I>v the president of the association himself wa« scarcely reflected hy the New Zealand Cricket Council,’which, on that gout lonian nominal ing himself (inter .oliosl for the position of an umpire for the first Test match, quietly turned him ('own in far.iur of another nominee. The situation is somewhat Gilbertinn. T submil the’, if 11 be desirable (which I seriously question) to have a selector, such selector should not be embowered to select himself: no asnirant'for the position of umpire should bo a selector. His judgment is naturally liable to Ixi influenced by his wishes. N-mn dehet esse judex in propria causa. —I am. etc., PERCIVAL R. WADDY. Wellington, April 6, 1921.