CRICKET

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22197, 14 September 1937, Page 12

CRICKET

ONE-DAY MATCH SCHEME OPPOSITION OF RICCARTON CLUB One-day cricket for all gradejs in inter-club matches, as suggested by the motion which will be put by Mr I. B. Cromb to the Canterbury Cricket Association to-night, met with some opposition at the annual meeting of the Riccarton Cricket Club last evening, and it was decided, on a vote of nine to eight, that delegates to the association's meeting should be instructed to oppose the principle of oneday matches. Whether the principle would be successful remained to be seen, said Mr E. R. Caygill, who presided. Personally, he thought it was an experiment and as such he was not averse to it. He did not think it would be suitable in Canterbury's weather, and while there were advantages, there were equal disadvantages. He did not wish to oppose the adoption of one-day matches if the majority of players desired it; but his concern was solely that some of the cricketers might not get good cricket. "It is going to cause dissatisfaction in some of the teams," Mr W. L. Whittington said. "I am sure that in the lower grades it will be farcical, because the players are never punctual. On the other hand, I think it is worth a trial." Mr J. Jacobs 6aid it would mean that every member of the team would know there was something for him to do. One-day cricket had been tried with success in Ashburton. He could not agree with the criticism that bowling would become more negative or that it would cause stone-walling. Mr S.Andrews: I don't agree with the idea at all. I think it is going to spoil all the colts and favour the older batsmen. If one side knocked up 200 fairly quickly, and the other side lost a few wickets, the latter would stone-wall, he added. Mr Caygill: Yes. I quite agree with you. Mr W. M. Strachan said that the success or failure of the system would depend on the captains and the team spirit shown. The younger boys coming on would suffer, Mr G. H. Stringer said. Opposing the suggestion that the public should be attracted by brighter cricket, he said that the clubs played first for the game, second for themselves, and third for the public, and if the public did not like it they could stay away. The financial question, too, was raised, he said. He paid say £6 a year at present, and he could not see himself getting value for the money on a one-day match system. After discussion, a motion that the delegates should vote in favour of the proposal was rejected. A second motion, by Mr Andrews, that delegates should oppose the principle of ooeday matches, was passed on a show of hands.