LORD HAWKE'S TEAM IN NEW ZEALAND.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11692, 19 September 1903, Page 3

LORD HAWKE'S TEAM IN NEW ZEALAND.

"THE CHRISTOHUJICH INCIDENT." The following letter from Mr A. Sims, in reply to Mr Warner's remarks on the Christchurch incident, appeared in the London "Sportsman" of August 9th : j^ir,—After Mr Warner's remarks in his Urn. speech in Christehurch, when he magnanimously said tliat, as far as he was concerned, the "incident" was forgotten, I am surprised to see it is he who lias opened up this matter again. Since he has done so however, I am sure he would like rno to' point out a few of the errors and misrepresentations appearing in his "only correct version"' that has yet appeared m print. The facts of the case can be put very briefly. Bosanquet (bowling round the wicket) threw up one of his slow leg-breaks to Pearee. A bail was dislodged, but, as Pearce's body completely hid the wicket, I was unaware how the hitter had been broken. On some of the fielding side exclaiming "Well bowled!" I appealed to the umpire, and, although he was in a better position to see than I was, "lie also could not tell what had happened. As the other umpire could not see his way to give a decision, the game should, of course, have been immediately proceeded with. The part that I objected to was the wav in which the wicketkeeper, Mr Whatman (after the end of the unseemly discussion which, ensued) proceeded to vent his annoyance on my unoffending self by repeatedly giving voice to a fire of remarks and by accusing me of wishing to win the game by hook or crook. I do not think that it is worth while taking Up your space, .-with-arguments as to whether I had the, right to appeal or whether my appeal or Spencer's refusal to decide in favour of the wicketkeeper were tantamount to charging him with unfair play, and the English team with acquiescing in such conduct, Mr Warner must have rated the intelligence of his readers at a very low level if he thought that such an argument could be regarded as nn excuse for the manner in which some of his team received an adverse decision. However, in the face of the sundry apologies from the English team that appeared at different times in the local papers, I fear that the average mind can hardly be expected to understand Mr Warner's air of injured innocence. As far as this curious argument is concerned, it has struck me that perhaps in Mr Warner's mind there is some abstruse connection between wicketkeepers and unfair play. Prior to the Canterbury match Warner stated that if our wicketkeeper gave any sign of "sharp practice" he would immediately march his men off the field. Is it not strange that, while he now is at such trouble to protect the honour of his own wicketkeeper, he was then so prodigal in casting insinuations on the •methods of the opposing one—a player he had never then seen? Again, Mr Warner's statement that I "rushed to the papers promptly" lacks the somewhat essential element of truth, and I may say that neither did I make anv efforts whatever to keep any of the facts out of print, as some members of the English team are supposed to have done. I suppose Mr Warner "forgot" the. fact that, later in the afternoon, at the end of the innings, his statement that it was "the most disgraceful decision" he had ever known was repeated by him in the hearing of a number of occupants of one of the stands. Messrs Whatman'and Turner did visit me late one night, and, I must say, that, in broaching the subject they came about, Mr Warner did not give any evidence of having that tact on the possession of which he afterwards, in a speech, prided himself, for, in the most unconcihatory manner possible, he asked me if I was prepared -to substantiate "all these serious charges on oath." Mr Whatman gave no sign of not understanding, and flatly denied mv statement. A local gentleman who accompanied them, immediately closed the interview with the pronouncement that there was a "variance of facts." Now, amongst other surprising statements that I see in this letter, published 14,000 miles away," is Mr Warner's remark that I was vague and incoherent. Mr Whatman must have understood me fairly well to reply, "I deny it," when I repeated the words that he used to me when batting. There are one or two other relevant points which I am astonished that a man of Mr Warner's acumen has passed over. He quoted part of a letter from the President of the local Association to the papers, but he forgot to finish it. The letter concludes with the words "that the President had seen the other members of the team against whom complaints were made, and they had expressed regret," etc. I may add that the President further informed "me personally that had Mr Whatman not had to catch an early train tlie morning this letter of the President's appeared, he would not have minded coming round and seeing me personally. Now, surely Mr Warner must see how inconsistent it is for .Mr Whatman to express regret one day (on the strength of "distorted versions" which appeared in that morning's papers) and then, when the latter finds that I do not care about accepting second-hand apologies, to turn round and say that he has done nothing. At least, this is what Mr Warner states he said; but to be just to Mr Whatman, who vras more diplomatic, the latter said in his published letter that if it could be proved that he had said anything to me, then he would apologise. As a matter of fact, it is not even a question of my word against his, as one of the umpires noticed Mr Whatman continually annoying me by a running fire of criticism, Of course, it is possible that Mr Warner

regards KU-'.u a unpiay te at: in me game. Here, in Mew Zealand, we look at it m a different light. and. if one’s opponents prefer to play in that spirit. 1 prefer to be an onlooker. I have felt compelled to say this much in defence of tin* stand that 1 took. 1 consider then, and 1 hold still, that 1 was treated in a most discourteous uud unsportsmanlike way by Mr Whatman, and, as Mr Whatman refused to apologise or express regret to rue. for what lie had said, I could not see how, with any respect for myself, or for the credit of the game, i

could take any part lit matches in which he was engaged. I need hardlv say that I would not haw troubled you with 'this tetter if Mr Warner had not," in spite of his assurance to us all that ihe matter was buried in oblivion. favoured you with an ex pane account of ilk' affair' I believe that 1 speak for a'l New Zealand cricketers when 1 say that we would all like to forget about it as soon »* we can—because, in spit*? of what has happened, we would prefer to retain the traditional respect for English sportsmen, in which we have been trained and bred. That we have ever had any doubt about the value of this tradition is due solely to the conduct of certain members of -Mr Warner's team, and that we have not yet succeeded in drawing a "veil" over the "incident" i» due to Mr Warner himself.— Yotiw. etc.. A. Sims. Chri*t j'.iurc-h. New Zealand, June 20th. 1903.