THE PLUNKET SHIELD.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14564, 15 January 1913, Page 12

THE PLUNKET SHIELD.

# TO TIIK EDITOR OF "TITE FRHSfI." Sir, —I have read with interest tho letters of Messrs Murray and McCoy, and must confess my disappointment at tho many mis-statements made, also wrong conclusions drawn. Mr Murray states that I censured tho Cricket Association for sending teams to Auckland in the past. That is not so, for their action had my heartiest support. Mr Murray is wrong in stating that the C.C..A. has approved of a scheme by which they propose to send a team to Auckland * every third season. The proposal is for the team to go North overv second year: that is to say that Auckland and Canterbury should play every* J" ear - Again, we are not committed to a match at Auckland next year. It is possible for a match to bo arranged in Chrurtchiirch next season on the same terms as tho one now arranged, also possible for the interprovincial teams in New Zealand to travel South next year instead of North as suggested. So far nothing has been definitely done with regard to the arrangements for next f-eason. I, accept Mr Murray's correction as to the credit balance being £130 instead of tI.W at the beginning of the season. Mr Murray, as secretary, must know the situation bpst, for it is a matter of comment ns to the reticence of tho committee generally on matters "Scandal. My statement that £_o was wrong, arid that it should be considerably more at the end of this season has not been answered. Ls it not a fair question to ask what credit balance Mr Murray expects to .have at the end of this season? A business man must anticipate the future in running his business, and so should the C.C.A. Wellington has played Canterbury -very year for the past two years, and are we now to suppose that the mnteh wfll not come off this season? If we ignoro future probabilities then the position is that the CCA. has £100 in hand, more than sufficient to finance ' tho Auckland mateh —an annual match tor tho past five years, the most important one of the season, which the Conference delegates and CCA. committee agree should be an annual match. 1 repeat again that lam willing that Canterbury should go North twice running if necessary, rather than miss ono season. The fnturo is uncertain in view of Wellington and Auckland's attitude, and the only alternative is return Auckland's visit of last season. Mr Murray must be sorry for his remarks about the C.C.A. and its low financial position in'tho past. Let me remind Mr Murray that the years 18S5 and 1897 were Canterbury's lean years as regards •Material prosperity—lean years which iffectod cricket considerably. Second?lass teams often sent to fulfil engagement*, tho Wank overdraft guaranteed by prominent cricketers, all because the CCA. recognised that it had a duty to perform- Players paid their own expenses or wero helped to do so, and also there were no paid Association officers. Good times have come: tho Association was never better off than at present, yet we still find members of tho committee dissenting from the decision to send a team because they Bad only £100 in hand. Mr McCoy is on tho right track for the most part, but he has also misrepresented my statement about the great influence tho Shield baa had on New Zealand ericki't. T have neither stated nor inferred that the Plunket Shield is tho all-in-all in Canterbury cricket. It has certainly been one of the factors in the incrensod interest, and in the improvement of our first-class cricket. It must bo distinctly pointed out" that tho visits of tho Canterbury teams to fulfil their engagements in no wis© affects local cricketers. Excepting on tiie last Saturday of tho year, all matches from first to fourth grade, are played during the. absonco of the team. Tho Association was not accused of lacking in progmsiveness in their decision to send a team North. My opening sentence eommonded them on their decision, but tho spirit of the discussion and opposition to ib necessitated my letter and this reply.—Yours, etc., T. W. REESE.