NO FIFTH CRICKET DISTRICT

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Volume 81, Issue 36, 5 November 1937, Page 5

NO FIFTH CRICKET DISTRICT

-Prees Associatfon.)

Minor Associations and Plunket Shield COUNCIL REJECTS REMIT

(By Telegraph-

CHRISTCHURCH, Last Night. A proposal for a fitch Plunket Shield tjam, consisting of minor associations m the Wellington province, was rejected by the biennial conference of delegates to the New Zealand Crieket Council to-day. The matter was brought up in the form of a remit from the Manawata Crieket Association, which was read by the association delegate, Mr. A. M. Ongley. Though the conference voted on the remit and it was lost by 18 votes to nine, it will toe brought up at the annual meeting of the council tomorrow evening. Actually six delegates voted against the remit and nine for it, but among the six in opposition were the four delegates from major associations who were eaeh en(titled"to four votes. Thi? swayed' the voting, with the resiilt that the remit was lost. Mr. Ongley said there were four * tnain 'reaspns for the inclusion of a fifth team. These were: "(1) The population of the area; (2) the number of players; (3) the staiidard of playj (4> the number of crieket nurspries, such as secondary schools.' Mr. Ongley said that within a 75-miIe radius of Palmerston North- there was a poipulation oi 343,000, or equal to more than one-fifth of the total population of New Zealand. in. the" area there were 60 senior teams and at least 3000 cricketers. Two-thirds of the senior players were as good as senior competition players in the cities. Three of the members of the present New Zealand team were from the proposed new district, against two representatives from Wellington. There were seven first-class secondary schools in the area. Mr. M. MacLeod (Nelson) seconded the motion and pleaded that it should be given a trial for a year or two. Mr. D. A. Cameron (Rangitikei) and Mr. E. Elliot (Hawke's Bay) supported the remit. • The remit was opposed by Mri W. G. Miller (Auckland), who said that Hawke Cup games should be reorganised. A lot was being done for country players in Auckland. Mr. C. Wellfe (Wellington) also opposed the remit, saying that the selection of the. Wellington Plunket Shield team was made irrespective of the domicile of the players. Mr. I. B. Cromb (West Coast) said it might be possible for the winners of a reorganised Hawke Cup competition to be matched again the-winnets of the Plunket Shield. He urged that players from. minor associations should be given more chance to show their worth. Support for the remit came from Mr. L. F. Casey (South Auckland), who said that a young Hawke 's Bay f ast bowler was not given a fair trial. Had he been included in the touring team the loss might have been less than the £500. "Oh, £500, is it?" said Mr. A. T. Donnelly, ehairman of the management committee of the New Zealand council, amid laughter. Mr. W. Barratt (Marlborough) supported Mr. Ongley fs remarks, He spoke of the inclusion of . M. P. Donnelly and N. Gallichan, who owed their places to newspaper campaigns. "Would you like to leave the selection of the New Zealand team to the Press?" asked Mr, Quirk. "Well, . they . seem to be doing it now," Mr. Barrett replied. "This.js almos.t a.hardy annual," said Mr. 13. E. Caygill. He thought the proposal would break up the present home-and-away -fixtures. Mr. Donnelly said he was doubtful if inclusion of a fifth Plunket -Shield team would provide'a satisfactory solution. Eeferring to the present touring team, Mr. Donnelly said that the council wobld be very short 0# funds for some time as a result of the loss on the tour. "In fact, I think that the guarantors of the tour will have to be asked" to pay up some of their guarantee to allow the council to carry on," he continued. Selection, finance and co-ordination were among problems which would have to be solved. Mr. W. L. King (Cqnterbury) said his province did not favottr the idea. The remit was put atfer Mr. Ongley had Teplied, being lost by 18 votes to niu®,' ' ■ - ^ ,