CRICKET.

Taranaki Daily News, 22 September 1921, Page 3

CRICKET.

ENGLAND’S TEST TEAMS,

the methods of selection, By Telegraph.—rresa Assn.—Copyrisht. Received Sept. 21, 8.10 p.m. London, Sept. 21. Douglas, interviewed by the Daily Express, said he disapproved of the present system of selecting the test teams. He was of opinidif that men not playing constantly wore not capable of accurately estimating a player’s abilities, and were likely to be unconsciously biassed by the position of the averages or a brilliant effort they witnessed. He added: “I think a committee comprising four county captains, one capable of captaining England, with a chairman who is an older player, but who has not retired from first-class cricket, would make the best selecting body. Unless the English captain is given a i voice in the selections lie might have : Ito lead, a team in which he had no conI fidence. I think George Gunn ought to ibe included in the tests. After the tour in Australia I came io the opinion that England ought to win at home, and the successes at Eastbourne and Scarborough proved I was right. We needed, players who were good fielders and not afraid of fast bowling, and above all big-hearted. We have plenty, but we did not use them.”—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn.-

THE ARMSTRONG INTERVIEW. A REPORTER’S DREAM. London, Sept. 20. Armstrong, interviewed, emphatically denied that he gave the interview which caused the protest, and which was republished in London papers from the Manchester Evening News. Armstrong adds: “I have 'been grouse shooting in Scotland for the past wee-: and have not seen any Press reporters. If the reporter claims that he interviewed me he must have had a dream.”

Armstrong expressed good-]) urn ored astonishment at the attack in the London Press, adding that he never read the newspapers, consequently he was unaware of the interview. He did not take the Press attack seriously.

The Hon. F. S. Jackson, interviewed, considered Armstrong’s views regarding professionals a gratuitous insult, not only to the professionals, but also to cricket itself. If there had been the slightest hint of such an attitude as Armstrong suggests, the English authorities would have quickly seen and dealt with it. The Yorkshire Observer states that a serious protest, will probably be made to the Australian authorities. Received Sept. 21, 5.5 p.m. London, Sept. 20. Lord Harris, interviewed, said: “I do not think Armstrong’s opinion of English cricket is worth listening to.”— Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn.

GREAT EXPECTATIONS.

PACIFIC COAST SCHEME. TO YIELD £10,000,000 PROFIT. Interesting disclosures were made in the London Court of Appeal during an application to stay the advertisement of’ a petition to wind up a company. This company has as one of its objects the foundation of a large city on the. Pacific Coast of Canada, whereby an immediate profit of £10.000.000 was assured. Mr. C. J. Matthews, K.C., explained that the company was formed in 1911 as i a private affair to engage in a most highly speculative transaction. The promoters were two men named Newman and Cooke. Newman died a few days . ago. The late Earl of Crawford found money to support the enterprise,' and the Marquis of Bute, Lord Joicey, and Lord Invcrforth, and one or two other prominent men, came in later, the Marquis of Bute and Lord Joicey each finding £flooo options. Short leases were

obtained, and dome mining claims pegged out when the war broke out. and stopped further developments. The first hint of trouble wa» in September, 1918, when Sir Basil ZaharofT took exception that he had been approached to come into the venture, and complained- of the way in which the names of the most prominent of the shareholders were being Uised. In fact, the only way in which they were used consisted in the statement that they were interested in the company. A requisition was signed for the holding of a general meeting to

consider the substitution of nominees. The promoters, under an agreement with I the company, entered into early in its | history, had shares allotted to them | which would give them the controlling i voice at the meeting. The group then I started an action claiming certain declarations, and though the action was still pending, presented a petition for winding up the company, alleging that it was a bubble company. It was true, as the petition alleged, that the company had no realisable assets. Its option leases had expired, but that was due to the war, and there was every reason to believe that the grantors would renew i them if the petition were not advertised, as they were perfectly friendly. The promoters were not afraid of any investigations. Without calling upon Mr. Luxmore, for ’ respondent, their lordships dismissed the application with costs, Lord Justice Warrington stating that no ground had been shown for staying the advertisement.