TO TITE EDITOR OF "THE TRESS."

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 12851, 9 July 1907, Page 8

TO TITE EDITOR OF "THE TRESS."

Sir, —Kindly* grant m© space to ropiy to' the criticisms levelled at the district scheme by th© members of the United Clii'> <it the meeting hold on Saturday night. I regiet very much that an attempt should be mado to upset district cricket after only two years' trial. it would take five years at least to judge of tho merits and demerits of the new depaiture. I entirely disagree with tho txild statement that thescheme has not been a success, and claim that it has fulfilled all the anticipation of the promoters. Mr Wigley says that the scheme was adopted under a misapprehension. How he arrives at that conclusion is herd to imagine. He must, surely know that th© Cricket Association had the question of district cricket under considoraion for so-mo years, and after considerable work by the sub-committee appointed to seouro the necessary 3 special meeting of tho Association was held on June 20th, 1905, and the motion to inaugurate a system of district cricket was carried by the dolegates by 15* votes to 5. . The reference to Unionism, and the statement that district cricket came twenty years too soon ar© too absurd to bo taken seriously. Another speaker said thnt tho practices wero not well attended. This was certainly the C3s© last year, but can you point to any branch of sport thot was not affected last year by th© Exhibition. It quite overshadowed all sports, and the only meeting held nt Lancaster Puk hst year which was a financicil success, was tho cycling 6ports and buck-jumping display, held on a d-iy on which the Exhibition was closed, viz., Good Friday, i fact that t?peaks for itself. No Thursday cricket was flayed last year, solely on account of the Exhibition, but the Thursday Asrociation is already steps with renewed vigour to resume their games during the coming season. 1 am quit© aware that for some time players in the various districts will be slightly reserved towards each other. h'.'.t this feeling will gradually wear away, and there is no reason why the social element should not be as great under the district scheme as it was •under club cricket. It is a question really for th© members themselves, and if ©lass distinction will only be set aeide there is no fear for the social element. Tiie statement that the Hagley Park Ground Committee is falling more into debt each year under th© district scheme is quit© erroneous, inasmuch as the revenue now derived is' LIUO a year, as against £150 under nlu.cricket. On© pcint about the meeting that struck mc was that the chief objectors to the sch rim© aro ex-players. It is a pity they did not follow the good exurn pi© set by Mr C. R. Clark and let the present-day players settle the question. 1 claim that the scheme is undoubtedly a rucm-.v*. There arc moic playax, in the competitions than under club cricket. Th© interest in the matches is as great, if net greater; and last season, ©specially, it was im-l'o.-sible to pick the winner of the d strict -bauipionship shield even on tiie la.st Saturday of th© season. Tho iSt. Albans, Went Christchurch, Riccarton. aim Sydenham duos were all in a *ositiou to win. and as a matter of fact tife shield was won by the Sydenham Club on th© last ball* cf th© day in tiio second-grade match against Voll©i©. Had th© Sydenham Club boon unable to obtain a straight-out win,

the Riccarton Club would have won the shield by half a point. " Th© attendances at Ilaglcy Pork on Saturdays ar© ©ousi<ierably mor© than what they wore three years ago. und th© number of young piajcrs who had an opportunity in first-grade cricket ia.st *j**ar is a very good reason tor th© continuance of district cricket. It is to these young players that Canterbury must look io uphold her position in the ciicket field in the future. Compare last years young placers ■with the number who were given a chance under the club system, and the balance will be greatly in favour ct district cricket. ~-,,, When I joined Lancaster Park Club I was- astonished to learn that not a trophy was offered for competition i>y tne «wlub s supporters; but when the district scheme was adopted th© Fast Christchurch Club had a batting and bowling tiophy tor each eleven, given by its oHiet-bearers, and 1 understand other district clubs* wore in tne mi mc position. \i v have only -to look at Auckland cricket to see what the district scheme has done. A few years ago Auckland was looked upon as n weak province. Now -die can hold her own, os evidenced by Her display agaiiiat lh© Alaryit*hone- C.C. last year.

.Sydney and Adelaide both pronounce district ciicket to be a great sue*.«.-.-», and suielv ii is worth a fair tiialhue.

ft alter, say. tiv© years' trial, tho scheme fias not been a miccc-ss. tl.en let ns go back to club cricket, oy all means; but I have no misgiving as to th© ultimate sno- ;;©.-» of district cricket, wspecicilly it the objectors would only assist the scheme by putting some of their club entliu»ias.n into it instead of doing all they can to up*©t it.— lours, etc.,

D. H. THOMSON'