A COMPLAINT.
[To the Editor.] Sir, —Oi> seeing the result of the Hawke’s Bay v. Wellington match, I may say it was only what I thought it would be. If Napier had studied their sub-association I am certain they would not have suffered such a defeat, as there are several players iu the sub-association who fully deserved a place, if it were only for bowling alone. It costs, the subassociation £2 2s a year to join Napier, but they are simply ignored Hawke’s Bay’s second 11 play here on Wednesday. Why could not this match have been arranged before the Wellington match, so as to have given the subassociation men a chance? If the sub association are to be treated like this, 1 suggest that they give the two guineas to a charitable institution and cut the painter from the Napier association. Surely there are men in Hastings, Waipukurau, Ormondville, Norsewood, and Bannevirke worthy a place in the Hawke’s Bay reps if their play against Wellington can be taken as a guide —I am, etc., .Fair Play.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WPRESS19060313.2.7.2
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Waipukurau Press, Issue 27, 13 March 1906, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
177A COMPLAINT. Waipukurau Press, Issue 27, 13 March 1906, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
NZME is the copyright owner for the Waipukurau Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of NZME. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in