WHY N.Z. MISSED

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 441, 24 August 1928, Page 13

WHY N.Z. MISSED

STORY OF DAVIS CUP VENTURE DIFFICULTY OF EXPENSES (From Our Resident Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Thursday. The full story of New Zealand’s Davis Cup venture, which recently received considerable criticism, has been set out by the New Zealand Lawn Tennis Association in a circular just issued. ‘ The • decision tfo enter was arrived at when it became known that the conditions were favourable,” says the report. “On January 20 a cable was i received from Mr. Woodward, the association’s representative in Eng- I land, advising New Zealand’s entry. ! It was known that two young New ' Zealanders, E. D. Andrews and It. R. T. Young, were showing good form in their college matches, and Mr. Woodward mentioned Andrews as one of a New Zealand team. Then it became known that Mr. J. C. Peacock, an officer of the association and a man of recognised sound judgment, was to be in Europe during the time -of the competition and would be available to represent the association in selecting* a team and, with Mr. Woodward, to watch the association’s interests. GAME WITH PORTUGAL “Mr. Peacock did not know of New Zealand’s entry (made on January 30) until he reached Europe. By that time Mr. Woodward had been in communication with Portugal and had arranged for the match to be played on May 17, 18 and 19. To quote from one of Mr. Peacock’s reports: ‘On the eve of my departure for Biarritz I received a cable from Mr. Woodward stating that Portugal could .not play on the above dates and insisted on the 11th, 12th and 13th, and as they had the privilege of fixing the dates he was making arrangements accordingly. This was very awkward for us, but there seemed no option but to comply with Portugal’s wishes or cancel the match. Wo had four days’ practice in Lisbon.* ’’After defeating Portugal,. New Zealand was drawn against Czechoslovakia in the third round of the competition. The following extracts from a report received from Mr. Peacock cover the withdrawal from the competition: ‘I write to confirm the telegraphic advice which you will already have received from Mr. Woodward that we have forfeited the match against Czechoslovakia, which we did reluctantly in the following circumstances: The third round was to be complete by June 13. Young advised that he could not get away for a trip to Prague under any circumstances, and it was doubtful whether Andrews could obtain a second leave of absence in the same term, penses which concerned him. The report proceeds to state that the Czechs refused to play in England. Expenses of a trip of this nature, over and above the actual fares, are very considerable and cannot lightly be undertaken by many young players. The Czechs would not give any guarantee as to ' expenses and quite properly stood on the rules governing the “ ‘After consultation with Mr. .Woodward we very unwillingly felt that there was no option but to abandon the match/ ‘‘The committee requested Mr. Per*, cock to limit the expenses of the team to those allowed under Davis Cup regulations’* (concludes the circular). “But Mr. Peacock has been asked to let the association know the amount of the hotel and other expenses Incurred by members of the team, so that they can be granted reasonable' reimbursement. . . . The committee Is of the opinion that Mr. Peacock acted in the best interests of the association. The result of the entry will be of inestimable value to the association when considering subsequent events.”