DISTRICT CRICKET.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 12860, 19 July 1907, Page 8

DISTRICT CRICKET.

• : TO THE EDITOR OF "THE rKESS.*' Sir,—Tlie Midland Club has now had its meeting and we may take it for granted that the opposition to the present system has had its say. But one must remember that all players are not ex-members of cither tho United or Midland Clubs. There are very many players who take a much broader v.ew <;f tne question than is taken Wythe _o whose- great desire appears to bo to play together because tlicy "know oi;>* aiKti.cr. you know. T These are tne.e>. who <:o not object to nib ehoulCeri with the honest arii>an and whofe belied in tne eleniucracy of cricket is very real. Whether district cricket has been a sui.ct._i or not _.-> not a matter to L» settled by clubs which aro now piacticaliy deiutict, but rather by tlio d.elrict clue, tiicui^elve.^—thai i.*> tho players now taking part in the game. In my hi.: loiter 1 claimed that the district .sywtf-m had been particularly suo-ce.-wtul in on young players. .Since writing, 1 have looked up last year's pe-Normaiices anel find that of tho nine leviding k-it»_ut_i of the year no hr.s than five ol tiiem can cla.ui to have, been brought out by the district -scheme*. Amongst the bowler.; 1 notice that one ot tho principal club performers has risen from the tiiird grade during the two last season... .Numerous other young players huce performed with credit, and soivo to bear out the contention that, given tho opportunity, they will justify the hopes oi those who are locking forward to a great advance in tbe qualify of^ our club and representutivo cricket. Then ngaih, there has been the widening ol tho membership during t.'io lust two years. My own club (Riccarton) has sixty-six active member... Of these no fewer than thirtv-oight wero not playing cup cricket In the season prior to tho introduction of tho district scheme. If other clubs, have bad a like experience, then let us see. v few moro such failures as district cricket. 'Io go back to the club system would necessarily reduce tho number of first grade teams, for it is not likely that anyone would advocate a repetition of two of the clubs entering an eleven and a thirteen. This, then, would mean that twenty-two players (mostly young ones) would be thrown back from first to second grade, forty-four from second to third, etc., and that thoso who are looking forward to early promotion would probably have to wait for some years. I havo no desire to allow any personal remarks to enter into this controversy, but I wish to take this opportunity of repudiating Mr Barrett's statement that I "had the misfortune to bo associated with a club with which I was not in perfect sympathy." lA thirty years' membership and an active part in the management of the club during almost the wholo of that time in a proof that my relations with the other members, and my sympathy with tho club, were of tho most cordial nature. Ono coulel not wish to play with cr v,otk tilth 'bertfter comrades than those I was fortunate enough to have. Mr Barrett's suggestion has no value as an argument either for or against district cricket, unless one looks upon it as an innuendo that my advocacy of district cricket is not altogether disinterested. If that is so, I am quite willing for my motives to be misunderstood, so long as we do not make a backward movement and return to a state of things which, though useful in bygono days, has now served its purpose. Mr Barrett's letter is quite an enjoyable little cssey on the subject of hero worship, but appears to mo to have very little connection with the question of club cricket versus district cricket.—Yours, etc., 0. CAYQILL.