CRICKET.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume 1, Issue 7, 13 February 1914, Page 3

CRICKET.

SOME STRAY NOTES. MATCH WITH NORTH CANTERBURY. A match ..between the North Canterbury Sub-Association's representatives and a team to be selected from the Senior players of the St.' !Albans and Linwood Clubs has been, arranged. It will be placed at Kaiapoi on February 27. SCORING IN A HURRY. Runs were made in a hurry in Sydney First Grade matches the other day. To win against Middle Harbour, the Central Cumberland team had to score 230 runs in 103 minutes. And it was done with a minute to spare and five wiclcets down. .Cranney slanimed the bowling to the extent of 113 runs, and the other batsmen played- their part nobly. Against Balmain, the University eleven made 362 runs in a little over two hours. F. M. Farrar rattled up 117, C. J. Tozer 98, and.E. P. Barbour 73. A TRIP TO CEYLON. The team which was taken to Ceylon by the Rev. E. F. Waddy, the wellknown New South Wales representative player, has returned to the Commonwealth. Twenty-five days, were spent in Ceylon, and it is reported to have been a very enjoyable trip. Speaking to an interviewer at Fremantle, Mr Waddy said: —■ '' We played nine matches in all, and won them with the exception of one. This latter was played against an all Cingalese team. Most of the teams we met in the hills were composed of Europeans. -Yes, there are a number of fine cricketers in Ceylon.. English county players there include Mr V. F. S. Crawford and Mr Greswell. We did not make any big scores> and I think that Minnett, with 37, had the highest batting average. Most of the wickets are .turf, excepting those away up in the ruins of the buried cities. Some of

the .turf wickets had only been laid • "... dbwn a few months, and they- did not ' always play true. Who was our most "successful bowler? Wel'J,-1 think Cam- • eron can claim that konour. . lie took 3$ wickets for an average of' five, and Hazlett, Who bowled right up to his ■; form, took 33 wickets for an average of seven.. Cameron -is a New South. Wales country cricketer, and the wick-' *" ets just suited him." ■ ' ■ AUSTRALIAN CONTROL. More trouble, for the Australian Board of Cricket Control! It is over - A. Diamond's proposal to take a! team - _ to America. The cables informed ,us 011 Thursday that Diamond is awaiting the Board's decision at its.meeting this :> month before issuing invitations to players to join his team. In view of this it is interesting to read the follow-, ing from the Sydney "Daily Telegraph" of a few days ago:— . ■ ->.-<?* "A member of the Board of Cricket Control yesterday declined to • discuss the question whether the fact that Mr Austin Diamond's proposed team ,to tour America will - not include men international calibre, and'the furfchor. announcement that the tour will be completed in time, to allow of air, r member of the team accompanying the Australian Eleven to South Africa in No} vember next, would affect the Board in its consideration of Mr Diamofid J s_J 1 promised application for permission to undertake the trip. But it was clear, from his attitude that he thought that ' possibly the Board 's judgineuft " would , . be influenced by those facts. Another member of the controlling body recently said flatly, 'They've got no chance at all of getting a permit.' "On the face of it, it, would appear that there is a difference of opinion amongst members of the Board. But it is generally recognised that, sooner or later, the Board will have to take a stand, come what may of it, in order that its authority may for all time be established. During the discussion of matters relating to the departure of the team for New Zealand, it was stated that the Board was contending for a principle—the principle being - ' that it was a bad thing that cricket should become a pawn in the pro- ; motor's game. Since the board took to itself tlie power of dealing with these matters one team has gone away. It was said that the departure of that team might not be taken as a precedent, and there certainly were circumstances surrqunding the business that made the problem a particularly ticklish one. It is argued, too, that the possession of a power does not necessarily mean tliat it should be: used without discrimination. There may be a lot to be said in favour of that. If, however, a principle is to be contended for and the rule was constructed to preserve that principle, the scope of 1 discrimination is narrowed. A power that is withheld too long is likely to be regarded as no power at all. And anything is a precedent that can be con-strued-to suit the purposes.,of a party ■ who wants a precedent to lean on."