WILDING SHIELD

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 909, 28 February 1930, Page 7

WILDING SHIELD

ABSENCE OF SEAY WAS STRANGE ANGAS’S “FATHERLY ADVICE” Special to THE SUE WELLINGTON. Today. The match between Wellington and Canterbury for the Anthony Wilding Memorial Shield has been won and lost, and any post mortems that may be held will not alter the position. It seems strange to Wellington. however, that I. A. Seay was not a member of the Canterbury team.

Had he been included the result might easily have been different, or at least closer than it was. It is all the more strange that Seay was left out when it is known that he was in Wellington on the first day of the series and could easily have been included in the team. He even went to Miramar, and it was whispered that he had hoped to be included in the team, but apparently other instructions had been received from Christchurch, and he had to be content to watch the matches from the stand. The inclusion of Seay would, of i course, have altered the position of the players and would have meant the i dropping of Glanville altogether, but this would have given RhodesWilliams a c'hance of winning his matches against Wellington's third and fourth players, whereas he was a bit overweighted against 13. G. France and C. E. Malfroy. It is, in fact, quite on the cards that he would have beaten 3s. K. C. Wilson and A. E. Sandral, and he would certainly have strengthened Canterbury in the doubles. However, the manager of the Canterbury team decided not to make use of Seay, though he had motored specially in to Wellington in the hopes of representing his province, and the series went to Wellington by the decisive score of 10 matches to two, that province retaining the shield. DEFEAT OF ANGAS The defeat of C. Angas, holder of the New Zealand singles championship, in both his matches affords some food for thought and, so far as Wellington is concerned, is considered as something like retribution. It will be remembered that when he returned to Christchurch after winning the Dominion title he gave an interview to a newspaper man in Christchurch, during which he offered some “fatherly” advice to France and Mal- ; froy, two Wellington players whom he I had defeated in the final and semiI final respectively. In Wellington it 1 was thought that one of these two players had every chance of winning the title, but Angas turned the tables on them ancf went home with the prize. However, it is considered here that he spoke out of his turn, and that when France and Malfroy beat him in the Wilding Shield match they were but getting some of his own. advice back on to him a case cf "the biter bit." Just as Angas was undoubtedly the best man during the playing of the national singles, so France and Malfroy were better than he on the two days of the shield matches in Wellington. It is probable that Angas felt the responsibility of his position and was inclined to play a little too carefully, whereas the two Wellington players were on their toes and, on their particular day, would have beaten a better man than Angas. They showed speed, accuracy and enterprise which was entirely missing when they met the Canterbury man in the New Zealand singles and Angas was compelled to acknowledge his defeat to better men. It was exceedingly hard that the advice which he had given in all good faith in order to show France and Malfroy how to improve their game, when applied, should find him the first victim.