CRICKET

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26560, 24 October 1951, Page 4

CRICKET

REPRESENTATIVE TEAMS

THREE SELECTORS APPOINTED Mesrs W. J. V. Hamilton, I. M. Willoughby, and I. B. Cromb were appointed selectors of Canterbury representative teams this season at a meeting last evening of the management committee of the Canterbury Cricket Association. Mr Hamilton was appointed convener of the selection committee. Mr W. M. Strachan reported on the meeting of the deputation from the grounds committee, the East Christchurch, Lancaster Park, and Marist clubs witn the Victory Park Board to discuss practice wickets at Lancaster Park. He said that after considerable discussion and an inspection of the practice areas, it had been decided to move the East Christchurch Club on to the Lancaster Park Club's block for about three weeks to allow time for the preparation of a block on the south-west side of the ground tor the Marist Club. If the Marist Club's block was unsatisfactory, the club would have to go . elsewhere, for the Victory Park Board had stated that the two clubs originally at the park would have preference. The coaching sub-committee was asked to consider the purchase of an English film, lasting about an hour, on the test series in Australia last summer, and to report back to the management .committee. When Show Day matches were being discussed, Mr W. J. V. Hamilton suggested that a match be played between last season’s Plunket Shield team and a team of players "knocking on the door” Of the representative team. The chairman, Mr C. Gi Crawford, said that a match was to be played with the Suburban Association, and Mr Hamilton’s suggestion would not leave much for that fixture. Mr W. J. A. Brittenden suggested that the team of jpromising players mentioned by Mr Hamilton could , play, against the Suburban Association. It would meet the need Mr Hamilton had mentioned of giving those player* a chance to show their quality. Mr R. L- B. Poore moved that a "good" Canterbury team be aelected to play against the Suburban Association. The Suburban Association's representative. Mr R. Smith, said that if too good a team was chosen it might ’dot be a good match. He thought a team ot promising players would suit. It was decided that the selectors pick a team with members’ comments in mind. It was aisq decided that a Csnterbilry third grade team play Ashburton juniors at Ashburton on Show Day, and that nominations for this team be called from the clubs.

CHRISTCHURCH SUBURBAN ASSOCIATION

The following is the draw for me third and fourth days' play in the Christchurch Suburban Cricket Association’s competitions. Unless otherwise stated, matches will be played on me wicket of me Club first mentioned:—

Senior A.—Mat v. Wai (Syd 8); Sum v. New B; WMC v. Bee (Bradford 1). Senior B Sun v. Alb; Ship v. Pap (St. Alb 3); Ric v. Wig. Junior A.—Bee v. Opa; Shirl v. Hills (Rich 1); Wai v. Tram. Junior B.—South v. WMC (Barr 8); Naw B v. Mat: Wai v. Ric. . Junior C.—St. Alb v. Man; St Mich v. Sum (Barr 2): Heath v. Hare. Third A.—Pap V. St Alb; Wig v. WMC; Lytt RSA v. Bur (Wool 3); Gros v. Bee (Sprey 4); Hals v. Mer. Fourth day; Pap v. Lytt RSA (Bee 2); Wig v. Gros: Hals v. Bee: WMC v. St Alb (Rich 2); Bur v. Mer.

Third B.—Mer v. Shirl (Elm 4); Ric v. Gros; Sun- v. Wai (Temp Farm); Tram v. New B (Lin 1); Heath, a bye. Fourth day; Ric V. Shirl; Mer v. Heath (Elm 4); Tram v. Sun (Lin 4); Gros v. Wai (Sprey 4); New B, a bye. x Third C.—Alb v. Bur (Wool 2); Hills v. South; New B v. Mat; Bee v. Cam T (Bee 2); Sprey v. Wai (Bee 3). Fourth day: Wai v. Bur (Polo 11); New B v. South; Sprey v Mat; Cam T v. Hills (Lin 4); Alb v. Bee (Wool 2). Mercantile A.—Hay v. Cit Cl, at Polo 11; Url v. At, at Lin 2; Greens v. Tel, at Brad 2. Fourth day: Hay v. Tel, at St. Alb 4; Greens v. Url, at Brad 2; Cit Cl v. At. at St Alb 2. Mercantile B.—Tay v. Rad, at St Alb 4; NAC v. B Shoes, at St Alb 2; Week v. Peer, at Un 4; KP V. Addn W. Rich 3. Fourth day: Rad v. KP. at Wool 3; Week v. NAC, Wool 1; B Shoes v. Addn W, at Lin 2; Peer v. Tay, at Bee 3. Under 15.—Sprey v. Aranui; Rice v. Russley; Alb A v. Alb B, at Wool. —Advt.